Present: Tim Bailey (ODFW), Jon Brough (HBDIC), Craig Contour (CTUIR), Stuart Durfee (GFID), Michelle Eames (USFWS), Mark Grandstaff (WDFW), Gary James (CTUIR), Tom Johnson (OWRD), Tony Justus (OWRD), Dave Karl (WDFW), Brian Kilgore (ODFW), Victoria Leuba (DOE), Steve Martin (EES), Gina Massoni (WWBWC), Glen Mendel (WDFW), Bill Neve (DOE), Yancey Reser (landowner), Brent Stevenson (WWRID), Brian Wolcott (WWBWC), and Brian Zimmerman (CTUIR).

Agenda items: Management of the Little Walla Walla River, Ability to enumerate steelhead this season, Where to site flow gages, and Potential minimum in-stream flow targets.

Brian Wolcott handed out info from Yancey Reser about relevant Supreme Court cases. He summarized a special master’s report with detail about the history of the Tum-A-Lum section drying up back to the 1880s. Yancey has concerns about the Little WW and flows for fish, as the mainstem is re-watered. The conclusion of the report was: bull trout and steelhead have survived since 1881 even when there was no water in the mainstem. Either branch could dry up and there was a great deal of variation in flow in branches from year to year.

A tour of the Little WW River and spring branches was held on October 10. Tom Johnson guided the OR portion and Bill Neve the WA portion. The tour conclusion was that the habitat capacity and carrying potential of the Little WW is so much less than the mainstem that from the recovery perspective the mainstem should be the priority. IFIM or other habitat assessment at different flows is needed to determine if the mainstem can provide good enough temperatures. There was discussion of the need for habitat rather than just a rocky channel. There are fish in the mainstem already whether we want them or not so we still have to solve the flow/passage issue.

Brian W put a map on the overhead with the branches marked. The Lewis spring branch turns into Walsh Creek then dumps into Little WW. The natural braiding has been channelized for irrigation so this is no longer really a "natural" system. In the past, Tum-A-Lum may have dried up and water gone underground to feed the spring branches. Tom J has not regulated the past two years on Big spring branch – before that regulation was needed. Lewis spring branch has stayed high. Mainstem water seems to pop up in the East system. The West does not appear to be affected.

Yancey reported that Walsh Creek hasn’t made the return to the Little WW since June. It is going into the ground south of Burlingame Ditch. It provides habitat, plus the water used to be used several times as it resurfaced further down. The fish Yancey collected that died as the stream dried up did not include steelhead or chinook. Rainbow trout have been found before, though the incidence was low. Steelhead spawning has also occurred, also with a low incidence. Tim pointed out that this habitat is in agricultural fields so it’s not really that great. The strong flows and reasonable temps are what made it more desirable.

Dave Karl reported on steelhead surveys in the Little WW. They only looked at 1 to 2 miles of each stream. Found okay habitat. In 1998, a landowner had pictures of a spawning fish. In 1999, two fish were seen but no redd in East Little WW but a steelhead redd was seen in the West Little WW. In 2000 saw redd in the East Little WW. The report is available on the BPA website (WW Assessment Project 1998-99, 99-00). The same study was done this past year – found more fish in OR than WA.

On the tour it was mentioned that "exotic" fish have continued to be seen in the East Little WW system, most likely introduced illegally as ODFW has had no request for permits. Herb Merritt used to raise Kamloops rainbow trout that CTUIR bought (10 or more years ago) to stock a lake elsewhere. Some good sized trout were seen in the Lewis spring branch a few years ago, which could explain their entry into the west system.

Glen Mendel passed out data from 2000 and 2001 including graphs of flows and temps, and gave a brief summary of conditions. The East Little WW hit maximum temps in the 70s, while the West hit 80s. Minimums were below 65 even in hot weather. Fish condition was recorded in the study as well as other species observed. One rainbow trout was seen in West at river mile 4.1 (Bowers’ farm) along with sculpin, speckled dace, and redside shiners. At Frog Hollow Road (river mile 3) there were no salmonids, lots dace, and a few shiners. In East (river mile 1.7), 21 rainbow trout were seen along with sculpin, dace, and a few Western Brook Lamprey. At river mile 0.6, five trout were seen with sculpin and dace. Sculpin are usually found only where there is continuous flow. As in the past, more rainbows were found in East Little WW because there was more water than in the West.

Fish may have entered the system when the waste ways were opened after the new screens were installed during testing by Montgomery. Salvage happened after that. Craig Contour reported that there were some salmonids, but not a lot. Brent Stevenson said that historically in winter until 1998, the huge rotary diversion drums were pulled up out of the water, still leaving about 5cfs flowing through the Little WW system. During the construction of the new diversion structure, the system was dry for two winters in a row (at least 5 months). When Hudson Bay District Improvement Co. finishes irrigation (around Christmas), Jon Brough plans to screw the headgates closed. This will dry up the Little WW system. Several diversion structures on Ford and Crockett Branches could be passage barriers. The check boards are pulled during winter months to flush silt through.

Brent has flow measurements at the end of his system: 0.5cfs in early morning, 0.0cfs in afternoon.

Year round flow: East branch is good since it has more spring influence. West goes dry in WA. OR has dry pockets during late July through September.

Screening: WA has a voluntary screening program in place for individual pumps, but Little WW is not a priority for this year. Glen helped prioritize streams for impact on ESA fish: East Little WW higher than West. State law mandates screening so they will get to all of them eventually. Is screening happening for the whole system or for each individual? Concern over wasting money by doing individually. That’s one purpose for this meeting. Mark G indicated that nowhere else in the state has WDFW screened off an entire natural system. Screening Mill Creek is being considered but it would be expensive and is unfeasible with 35cfs of water. Winter use by fish is unknown.

Viki urged consideration of what criteria should be considered in deciding where to send bypass water. The following were suggested:

• Water quality
• Fish use – seasonal, spawning, rearing, refuge
• Barriers to fish passage
• Flow connectivity
• Long term potential
• Flows – flushing flows to eliminate sedimentation, minimum stream flow
• Habitat comparison – quantify fish habitats

Glen suggested not drying up a currently productive system, but instead planning for keeping both mainstem and Little WW watered in the long term. Dave pointed out that we do not have a natural system anymore. Little WW is already managed so there are no flow fluctuations because we have control over stream. Tim suggested that we could choose to manage it for fish as well as irrigation. Craig mentioned that the Umatilla has areas that dry up for three months of the year but provide good winter rearing habitat. There was discussion of what need there is for the fish ladder if the river is managed differently. Michelle suggested we could keep the manmade barriers already in place on the Little WW and let fish use only the lower end of system.

Brent pointed out that USFWS is asking for bypass water specifically for the mainstem. Irrigators are taking actions now that will affect the long term. Conserved water rights for on-farm irrigation projects are currently returning saved water to the mainstem. Tony indicated that it would be more difficult to protect water in the Little WW than in mainstem due to the number of diversions. Brian Z suggested managing separately what are really two different systems: down to Ford/Crockett could be a managed system; below that the spring branches create a more natural channel. We don’t really have enough information to know how this would work.

Dave feels that if we’re putting water into Tum-A-Lum and it’s enhancing the East branch, that’s the way we should continue to go. Craig reminded that the mainstem is still a migration corridor for a large number of fish. Tony pointed out that we are assuming that anything that does not percolate water into the ground in the gravelly section of East Little WW means less water in the spring branches. This effect has been observed this year already as farms become more efficient with less water. Brian W feels the water lost in the "hole" in the levee is benefiting the spring branches.

The following data gaps were identified:

• - Inventory of barriers & screens
• - Inventory of where it’s wet (measure the influence of irrigation systems)
• - Inventory of where it looks like fish habitat
• - Need to piece everything together
• - Water quality, habitat – substrate

Brent has daily flow readings at Appleton Road. He is currently managing for zero flow so any fluctuations are now going down mainstem. Tom J indicated that the drying up of the ditches in winter is partly due to liability issues. If the headgates freeze, they can’t be closed to prevent flooding in town. Brian W would like to see water put down the Little WW in winter to help recharge groundwater.

There was a lot of discussion of whether or not it’s a natural system. Many feel it is not natural because the flow is controlled by headgates at 9^th Street by the new fish ladder. It’s properly called the Little Walla Walla Diversion and is operated by Hudson Bay and WWRID. There used to be about 5cfs of leakage that went by the old drums. The Little WW has been dried up during the last two years for construction. Hudson Bay will dry it up again this year to do maintenance. There was concern that it might become a "take" issue and that landowners would be upset. Tom J feels the springs will help carry it through this time of year by maintaining some flows. Tim indicated that ODFW considers it a jurisdictional waterway and screens the Oregon portion. Brian W mentioned the case of a developer who moved a ditch into a pipe and got fined by the Division of State Lands. Brent and Jon B verified that a screen has been on the upper end of system for at least the past 40 years. Screens were built by a BPA project.

Brent suggested that with conserved water applications, perhaps the approval process should leave the option to later change where the saved water goes. Tony indicated that changes the injury review and where water goes should be decided as part of the application processing. There has traditionally been winter water kept on for watering stock. However, the year the water was off, OWRD had no calls for water for stock. A water right is only needed if water is diverted. Brian W has received calls from landowners concerned about reconnaissance flights over their stock fields who want cost share help to fence or pipe streams through their property. OWRD struggles with the issues of an alluvial plain area that is now managed by man. One of the six HCP management tasks was to come up with a Little WW management plan. Steve asked Brian for the TWG email distribution.

Yancey asked at what point is it considered that there is "enough" water in the mainstem? If fish are doing okay with the amount of water being bypassed now, why can’t we pass any extra water down the Little WW? WA has done some IFIM and the Watershed Council is looking for money to do the same in OR. We are working towards getting target flows set. Michelle & others walked the levee in September and found sculpin, which generally indicate a continuous flow. Glen indicated that we don’t know the answers yet. WDFW is analyzing the data from this year to know how the bypass experiment is working. Mark indicated that the flow achieved this summer is the minimum for rearing, not necessarily enough for production.

Craig noted that if marginally suitable temperatures were achieved at Stateline, there would be more miles where there are cold pockets. Dave reminded that we can’t forget the role of ground water in keeping temperatures cool. Brian W brought up that next year’s agreement with irrigators will require an additional 7cfs of bypass down the mainstem for a total of 25cfs spilled. The "hole" is eating around 10-12cfs, or about 50% of bypass water this year.

Glen asked if we could modify the channel in the levee to have a narrower low-flow channel by Tum-A-Lum Bridge. This is part of the Corps/CTUIR Feasibility Study, but Gary does not want the Corps to spend time figuring out how to re-engineer the channel because it won’t provide any additional water (which is the intention of the study). Michelle indicated the agencies are very nervous about having equipment in the river because it disrupts any natural healing. Tim thinks the last gravel mining was at least 3-4 years, maybe 5-6. Jon remembers the mining operators punching hole 20 ft deep to make the water go subsurface and get it out of the way. It will take time to heal those holes, if they will heal, which we don’t know.

Brian W brought up an idea talked about last year: would manually re-rocking the low flow channel at the time of fish salvage help consolidate the braids? Tim feels any temporary gain would be lost through disturbance of the bed. A permit would be needed and the instream work window is not compatible with the time when flows will help seal the effort. Glen mentioned the short-term fix during low flow on Mill Creek. But they have to pull sandbags at the end of season and salvage fish from the channels shut off. There could be liability issues for flood control. Jon suggested adding a fines berm. Viki indicated that would need a 404 permit from the Corps.

Brian W asked how we could address data gaps in the upcoming year. Tom reminded that any inventory of barriers and screens would have to be done during summer as many are pulled in winter. Mark said WDFW is working on screens and will have a new compliance officer, but will be assessing where people have volunteered, not doing comprehensive inventory. Tim suggested an inventory could accomplish this at the same time as habitat surveys (by stream walks) are done. ODFW would need extra funding and personnel to take this on. Brian W asked how many miles of IFIM need to be done. This needs to be done where it’s wet over a period of time. Dave said that the WW Assessment project is taking manual flows. Viki has funding secured for 8 telemetry and 6 staff gages on the WA side. She will give input on where locate to Chris Evans who will place them. Locations will include Touchet River and Mill Creek. Brian W reported that Mike Pelissier is working on funding for 2 gages for the Little WW. WWBWC will place gages to capture low flow. Tom reported that the gaging station just below Nursery Bridge is now operational with temp gage installed. They are working to get data the available on the Internet. The rating table may only measure low flows.

Tim indicated that a snapshot survey would help determine where to look for wet and dry sections and where to put in gages. Brent said the end of the irrigation district lines would be low points. Maybe we want to put a pressure transducer on one point to capture fluctuations? Do we need funding for ones in OR? Tim suggested looking for nitrates, pH, and D.O. Viki will check the River’s status on the 303(d) list (OR was suspected for temperature but not enough data for listing?) for suggestions of what to look for in water quality. Helena Rueda will be the EPA contact for the Walla Walla Basin. Could we get DEQ to do HydroLab surveying? WDFW could take some limited water quality measurements. Connectivity and turbidity were suggested. Brent urged coordinating between OR and WA so spot samples are within a reasonable time of each other, making the data more useful. Tim urged use of the Jones and Moore et al OR method to survey habitat. There were other suggestions for data collection and coordination that will be acted upon. Yancey suggested that we need to get a handle on the flows in the spring branches: are they increasing or diminishing? In response to the suggestion that flushing flows could be sent through the Little WW to help restore some natural characteristics, Jon indicated Hudson Bay would be negatively impacted since they have a permit for November water use. Viki suggested a landowner survey could be useful to collect anecdotal information about what they might have observed

There was discussion of whether or not to include Mud Creek and the other spring branches into the management decisions of the Little WW. There was discussion of gaining landowner permission to do surveys and getting an accurate map for survey crew (WW GIS flights may help).

Flow gage siting was discussed briefly. It is anticipated that there will be 14 + 6 gages in WA and 3 + 17 in OR. The people placing gages were encouraged to coordinate placements to maximize gage data, especially with regard to the Tum-A-Lum/Stateline gages.

Steelhead enumeration: Brian Zimmerman reported that at the new Nursery Bridge fish ladder, the video is being set up today with taping expected to start next week. No trapping is occurring right now due to lack of budget and staff. The passage rate through the ladder vs. over the dam is not known. Craig Contour needs to tag wild fish and may be able to provide manpower to run the trap. The fish biologists will meet next week (12/4) regarding the telemetry project and will discuss the issues then. Craig reported that tagging of juvenile chinook and steelhead at Little WW has put on 1200 pit tags so far.

Instream flow targets for the WA side were tabled as Steve Martin had to leave for another meeting.

The next meeting was suggested for February or March to see where we are with staff and funding.

Discussion of how the TWG fits with the HCP process. We aren’t yet getting reports from their subcommittees so agency folks don’t interact unless they are on subcommittees. OR only has a flow committee, habitat assessment work is being reviewed at Watershed Council meetings. WW County doesn’t have the HCP contract in hand yet. Once funding is in hand Steve Martin may take the lead role in HCP technical issues. It was felt that TWG should continue to meet, as there are many on-going resource management decisions that need coordinating, and that we need better interaction, not more meetings. People who are on the 2514 Planning Unit, HCP, TMDL, or other committee should help bring input to TWG. TWG information will be posted on the Watershed Council website at www.wwbwc.org

Adjourned