Warmwater Stream Committee
Southern Division, American Fisheries Society
Meeting Minutes - February 26, 2004
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

The meeting was called to order at 8:15 a.m. by Chairman, John Copeland (VA). Chairman, John Copeland (VA) distributed the meeting agenda and Secretary-Treasurer, Dennis Riecke (MS), distributed the minutes from the previous committee meeting on September 8-9, 2003 in Luray, Virginia.

A. Introduction of Committee Members & Guests

17 committee members were in attendance: Chairman, John Copeland (VA), Secretary-Treasurer, Dennis Riecke (MS), Paul Balkenbush (OK), Daniel Dauwalter, (Oklahoma State U.), Dr. Bill Fisher (USGS, Oklahoma Coop. Fish & Wildlife Research Unit), Frank Fiss (TN), Randy Hyler (OK), Dr. Tom Kwak (USGS, North Carolina Coop. Fish & Wildlife Research Unit), Leigh McDougal (USFS), Chris O’Bara (WV), Steve Rider (AL), David Sager (TX), Dr. Hal Schramm (USGS, Mississippi Coop. Fish & Wildlife Research Unit), Ed Scott, (TVA), Scott Smith (VA), James Vincent (OK), and Brian Wagner (AR). Also present were the following 10 guests: Doug Besler (NC), Darrel Bowman (AR), Dave Evans (AR), Steve Filipek (AR), Bill Layer (consultant), Mallory Martin (NC), Steve Reeser (VA), Jeff Ross (KY), Ellen Tejan (The Nature Conservancy) and Christian Waters (NC).

B1. Approval of Agenda

Motion was made to approve the meeting agenda as written by Chairman, John Copeland (VA). Motion was seconded and approved. It was determined that a quorum existed and a committee membership roster was circulated for those present to check and update or add their contact information.

B2. Secretary’s Report and Approval of Minutes

Secretary-Treasurer, Dennis Riecke (MS) read the WWSC meeting minutes from the committee meeting on September 8-9, 2003 in Luray, Virginia. A motion was made and passed to accept these minutes as read.

B3. Treasurer’s Report

Secretary-Treasurer, Dennis Riecke (MS) distributed and reviewed the February 11, 2003 - February 24, 2004 Financial Statement. Motion was made and passed to accept this Financial Statement as presented.

C. Old Business

C1. Membership Update
Secretary-Treasurer, Dennis Riecke (MS) reported that all three membership lists (address list, E-mail list, website list) contained contact information for the same individuals and were in agreement and complete.

C2. Jimmie Pigg Student Travel Award
There were five applicants that were evaluated by Secretary-Treasurer, Dennis Riecke (MS) and Chairman, John Copeland (VA). The 2004 recipient, Julian D. Olden (Colorado State University) will receive his award at the SDAFS Business Meeting. Currently there is $430.50 in this account and we will spend $238.50 for the 2004 award. We voted to contribute funds for silent auction items at this meeting and the Oklahoma Chapter indicated they will make a donation to this travel fund award account if the silent auction shows a profit.

C3. Committee History
Secretary-Treasurer, Dennis Riecke (MS) presented a one page sheet that lists the highlights of past committee activities and indicated that he intends to organize it by topic and product produced. He intends to post this to the SDAFS website and Chairman, John Copeland (VA) stated that he will assist since he has good committee records from past chairman.

C4. Safety in the Workplace
Secretary-Treasurer, Dennis Riecke, (MS) stated that several safety presentations were given at the 2003 Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agency meeting -----
Fisheries Safety Session-"A Safety Perspective for Biologists". Christian Waters (NC) reported that they were excellent presentations that were well attended. These presentations by Larry Olmstead (retired, Duke Energy), Roger Rulifson (East Carolina Univ.)and Chris O’Bara (WV) will be given during the plenary session at this meeting.

C5. Warmwater Streams Values Video Update
Chairman, John Copeland (VA) provided a history of this project. Secretary-Treasurer, Dennis Riecke (MS) passed out a handout which detailed past distribution and current commitments due to contributions from MICRA and various AFS sections. Funding in the video account will allow us to meet duplication and distribution of our current commitments. Ed Scott (TVA) developed a video synopsis, summary and outline and wants these posted to our website. Ed Scott (TVA) wants to have the video available on CD and index it. Ed Scott (TVA) also wants to have a video clip available on our website. We are negotiating with Virginia Tech Extension to have them duplicate and distribute the video. Ordering information will be on their website. Secretary-Treasurer, Dennis Riecke (MS) expressed the desire to get this video to Conservation Educators.

D. New Business

D1. Presentation on Instream Flow from Dams in the White River System in Arkansas – Darrell Bowman (Arkansas Game and Fish Commission)

Darrell Bowman (AR) began by asking if there was a mechanism to share his experiences with this issue to others facing similar situations. In Arkansas they are dealing with dams on rivers and there are three approaches:
1) Partnership — usually with the Corps, cost-sharing.
2) Political — Congress
3) Judicial

White River Minimum Flows– a world class trout fishery exists and the Corps of Engineers (COE) altered flows with techniques to increase dissolved oxygen to 4 ppm to prevent fish kills but the trout are stressed in the fall. Just angler expenditures for this fishery amount to 180 million dollars per year. Base flow is 350 cfs. Arkansas Game and Fish is seeking 800 cfs.

Congress directed the COE to reallocate storage to increase minimum flow to maintain the trout fishery. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission(AGFC) and Forest Wood got an Arkansas Senator to get a law passed in the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1999/2000. The COE is conducting a study to reallocate water from flood pool in 5 reservoirs with 3 scenarios to examine the economics and engineering aspects. The report concluded that it is technically feasible, environmentally sound, economically justified and that there is no reason not to reallocate flows. The worst case scenario is a 7:1 cost benefit ratio.

The Little Rock COE District sent this report to their headquarters in Dallas, where it was sent to their Washington DC office. Hydropower interests talked to the Washington DC office. The WRDA legislation did not specify who would pay for the reallocated water. Washington says the State of Arkansas should pay. Arkansas says it’s the state’s water and it was an 1135 (environmental restoration) cost-share project. The Washington DC office claims it is not an environmental restoration project but a recreation project since the trout are an exotic species in this system. Recreation projects have a higher cost-share requirement for the state (50:50) than restoration project cost-share projects. Hydropower interests are the only opponents to this project.

The AGFC sent personnel to Washington to provide information about this project. Legislation is needed to state that this project is an environmental restoration project and the state should not have to pay for it. On their website — agfc.com — there is a link to the minimum flow issue.

The cost to the consumer is $1.35/person/year. There are over 7 million end users and it would cost Hydropower 10 million dollars per year with the worst case scenario. The COE is redoing the economic analysis for a public comment period, please comment. Darrell Bowman (AR) will alert the WWSC membership and will distribute a notice via E-mail. Contact Mike Gibson (501)-223-6371 or Mike Armstrong, the minimum flow project leader.

Darrell Bowman (AR) asked if there was anyway we could warehouse this information if it is not published in fisheries journals?

D2. Group Discussion about this issue and similar issues in other states

Ed Scott (TVA) stated that at Norris Dam baffles — that damaged turbines — were replaced with self aerating turbines. These increased dissolved oxygen to over 5 ppm. TVA has been great about sharing.

Darrell Bowman (AR) asked “Who owns the water?” Dennis Riecke (MS), expressed the need to have this case history information posted somewhere. Frank Fiss (TN) has some information on similar situations in Tennessee. All COE districts operate differently. Dennis Riecke (MS) suggested that case history summary documents be posted to our website. Dr. Tom Kwak (USGS) stated the USFWS has initiated an environmental review of these dams — try contacting the Conway, AR office. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires their consultation. The Nature Conservancy is the outside reviewer. Steve Filipek (AR) suggested that the SDAFS send a letter to the COE about this issue. Dr. Hal Schramm (USGS) suggested to disseminate information via the Fisheries Management Section. Case history papers are published in Fisheries magazine.

Break from 9:40 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.

D3a. Joint meeting with SDAFS Instream Flow Ad-Hoc Committee by Conference Call – Chris Goudreau, Chairman SDAFS Instream Flow Ad-Hoc Committee.

Objective of call: Get a good direction and mission for the Ad Hoc Instream Flow Committee.

Committee History: It began in the late 1990's at Steve Filipek’s (AR) urging to help biologists in the Southern Division with instream flow issues. The committee has sponsored workshops and training. How can we work together? Their committee meetings usually conflict with the WWSC meetings at the SDAFS Midyear meeting. They reviewed the SDAFS report on technical committees and are initiating recommendations by E-mail.

There are two goals most committees have:
1) Information sharing
2) Products — videos, resolutions, workshops, publications.
It is hard to sponsor a workshop with a small committee. E-mail will solicit comments on what role the committee should have.

Proposed/Possible Products:
Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) library
Bibliography List
Educational Materials for the General Public
Training and Workshop Sponsorship– e.g. IHA software; Importance of Flood plain connectivity to riverine fishes. Perhaps this could be jointly sponsored by the WWSC at the Virginia Beach SDAFS Midyear meeting in Feb. 2005.

“Workshop” does that mean “short course” (how to do things), or “symposia” (information transfer)? Formulate a research document. Focus on mimicking the natural hydrograph. The Nature Conservancy is examining the geomorphology of different flows. A four hour workshop would not provide enough useful information on these topics. Would we get enough papers if we sponsored a symposium? Dr. Hal Schramm (USGS) stated that enough people are working in these areas to provide the papers. There is some really good information on large rivers. You need to invite people. Do you ask for invited or contributed papers? We agreed to have invited papers but ask water control folks, not ecologists and fisheries people. Dr. Tom Kwak (USGS) suggested inviting Robin Welcomme (UN, Food & Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy); Brian Richter (Natural Flow Paradigm); Rick Sparks; Dave Guollute, Dr. Hal Schramm.

Chris Goudreau (NC) indicated that he will try to summarize these comments and send them out. We should strive for either a workshop and/or symposium.

Chairman, John Copeland (VA) stated that he should solicit papers and get on the meeting program. Speakers should be selected by September 2004 with a paper submission deadline of December 2004. For a workshop, the time is now to negotiate with the Virginia Chapter, John Odenkirk is the contact for the meeting.

D3b. Joint Summer meeting with the SDAFS Instream Flow Ad-Hoc Committee
Perhaps at this meeting everyone could work on mission, goals and objectives for the SDAFS Instream Flow Ad-Hoc Committee . There is a need for more communication on Instream Flow issues. Secretary-Treasurer, Dennis Riecke (MS) indicated he is willing to post Instream Flow issues on the WWSC section of the SDAFS website.

D3c. Roundtable Discussion on Instream Flow Activities

Chris Goodreau (NC): finished hydropower relicensing in mountains. Successful in rewatering some bypass reaches, tried to incorporate varying base flows, high flow pulses. Pilot program to try to introduce small sediment into river and track them— power company is funding study. Reintroduction of fish and mussels in that reach. Beginning instream flow studies with hydropower relicensing in the Piedmont region. Chairman, John Copeland (VA) congratulated Chris Goodreau (NC) on his North Carolina Wildlife Resource magazine article on negotiating hydropower relicensing.

Doug ? (Entrix): Savannah River instream flow study is done. There are 4-5 active instream flow studies in North Carolina.

David Sager (TX): State legislature, Senate Bill #2 requires the Texas Water Development Board, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept. and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to develop methods for instream flow for priority segments of streams. They have joint methodology which is under review by the National Academy of Sciences (due in October 2005). The National Wildlife Federation and the Sierra Club are providing input. The state legislature established an Environmental Flow Study Commission and all stake holders will determine if the environmental flows are important and how they are to be implemented. Texas is a prior appropriation state. So, what flows are available for environmental flows? Trying to complete and instream flow study for the Guadalupe River. Aquifer issues. Trying to mimic the natural hydrograph.

Dr. Tom Kwak (USGS, North Carolina Coop. Unit): Cape Fear Shiner— endangered, 5 populations (smallest distribution of any endangered fish). Better to develop suitability criteria within system since transferability of microhabitat is poor. A lot of Coop Unit research involves habitat requirements which is useful to instream flow studies. FERC relicensing— Coop Units can’t bid competitively on Requests for Proposals (RFP’s) but Coop Units can do the studies cheaper.

Frank Fiss (TN): Corps project on the Cumberland system to secure more flow for trout. Acknowledgement from the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency that they will hire a person to coordinate instream flow in the state.

Scott Smith (VA): Corps project initiating 216 studies, does anyone have experience with this type of project? Scott needs information. FERC relicensing – a big issue is balancing reservoir levels with instream flow downstream. Reservoir levels will be approached from aesthetics standpoint due to the influence of well-organized, wealthy, powerful property owners. Need info dealing with similar circumstances. Chris Goodreau (NC) has this experience and will send Scott information.

Paul Balkenbush (OK): Oklahoma is beginning to examine instream flow issues, past work has been on regulated reaches using Coop Unit and consultants to do studies.

Steve Filipek (AR): on the lower part of the White River, we are experiencing agricultural overpumping of the alluvial aquifer, which has declined from 20 to 200 feet below the surface. Situation is know by state agencies, but no action is being taken to address the problem. The farmers lobbied the COE to propose a pump project.

Chris O’Bara (WV): Hydropower plant reallocation of water. Fish passage questions with instream flow. Biggest issue is the water rights allocation and use bill in the state legislature. West Virginia doesn’t have any water rights and the only other state like this is Rhode Island.

Ed Scott (TVA): TVA regulates water in the Tennessee Valley River System and is at the end of a 2 year project to reevaluate uses of water. Reservoir Operations Study ---- the final EIS is on the website.

Darrell Bowman (AR): briefly covered the previous discussion of the White River Tailwater Study.

Leigh McDougal (USFS): National Forests in the Southeast have instream flow teams.

James Vincent (OK): need to focus more on geomorphology aspects of instream flow.

Chris O’Bara (WV): has there been any effort among the states to write into WRDA 2005, standard language for flows downstream of dams?

The Southeast Aquatic Resource Partnership (SARP) has a Fisheries Mitigation element and the strategy is to provide fisheries habitat (quality and quantity of water).

Dennis Riecke (MS): The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality is still using 7Q10 as the default instream flow methodology even though it is not an instream flow method. It is a water quality method. The law was changed years ago to give MDEQ the authority to use any scientifically accepted instream flow methodology and for MDEQ to consult with the Miss. Dept. of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks (MDWFP) when establishing instream flows and to consider all water uses when establishing instream flows. The local USFWS office is not familiar with instream flow methodologies. In some cases excessive surface and groundwater use has led to severe declines in stream flows and since 1975 minimum flows have not been established for the rivers in the western part (Delta Region) of the state because the natural hydrograph has been altered and it is improper to compute 7Q10 on such a hydrograph.

The WWSC will reimburse the SDAFS Instream Flow Committee for some of the costs of this conference call.

Lunch Break from 12:00-1:30

D4. Resolution for the USFW to list 2 Tennessee Tailwaters as non-essential experimental populations (NEP)to facilitate reintroduction of historically occurring endangered species – Ed Scott (TVA)
Ed Scott (TVA) passed out copies of the resolution he drafted. He explained that what the resolution does is not give the same legal status to these populations as naturally occurring populations of endangered species. Why? Because the USFWS doesn’t want to encumber landowners with restrictions on use. NEP designations have been approved in other places in the Tennessee Valley. USFWS is very busy with more important issues. Hatcheries have the fish and mussels and need to stock them somewhere. These 2 tailwaters already support the presence of endangered species. No one opposes these introductions. NEP designation is needed to stock these species.

Motion by Dr. Bill Fisher (USGS, Oklahoma Coop. Unit) to adopt the resolution. Second by Scott Smith (VA). A quorum existed. Chairman John Copeland (VA) stated that he had received 6 E-mails in favor of adoption. Motion passed unanimously, resolution adopted.

D5. Nominees for Chairperson-Elect and Secretary-Treasurer – Chairman, John Copeland (VA)
Chairman, John Copeland (VA) called for nominations from committee members within the next 2 weeks for these 2 offices. He will talk to several committee members about serving.

D6. Future Projects
Bart Durham (Texas Tech. Univ.) sent a request to Chairman John Copeland (VA) by mail suggesting that the WWSC sponsor a symposium (at the 2006 Midyear meeting in San Antonio) on how people are using Jimmy Piggs long-term data set on Oklahoma streams. This was discussed and Dr. Bill Fisher (USGS, Oklahoma Coop. Unit) expressed concern about the data quality, specifically quality assurance and quality concern. Some people are concerned about the reliability of the data set. Idea was tabled.

D7. SDAFS State Stream Sampling Programs — Dennis Riecke (MS)
Secretary-Treasurer Dennis Riecke (MS) stated that now that the video project is finally nearing completion, he began considering what projects the committee should consider in meeting our goal to provide information exchange to stream biologists. In the last few years more southeastern states have begun sampling their streams. Various standard sampling protocols and methodologies have been developed and in some cases, published. A useful, worthwhile committee endeavor could be the collection of these sampling strategies and their posting to our website for consideration by all.

Scott Smith (VA) liked the idea. Suggested that it include comments on weaknesses and usefulness of techniques from the people who use them. They should also comment on what are appropriate uses of these data.

Leigh McDougal (USFS) asked if anyone in the Southeast had compared these collecting methods. Several members commented that Michael Meador (USGS, Washington DC) had published reports on this. Others commented that the EPA personnel in Cincinnati had done likewise. Scott Sranko in Maryland has some comparison papers as does the USGS in their NAQWA program.

Discussion ensued on providing a matrix of states by sampling type. Divisions could be high gradient streams vs. low gradient streams, coldwater vs. warmwater. Chairman John Copeland (VA) asked for volunteers to do this. Dr. Bill Fisher (Oklahoma Coop Unit) and Jim Burlson have some information. The Freshwater Mussel Conservation Society has protocols published in the AFS mussel sampling book.

This effort should incorporate:
habitat assessments
geomorphic assessments
invertebrate surveys
angler assessments

It would be useful to have a matrix and comments on how to use the data appropriately. The first year could concentrate on biological assessments.

The first step would be to poll the states and federal agencies and ask them to submit their stream sampling protocols. Paul Balkenbush (OK) commented that this information would have been useful to him 4 years ago. He found that most states have not written their protocol down but they can tell you how they do it.

Sampling design considerations – how do you select the streams to be sampled?

D8. Angler access to small warmwater streams in the SDAFS states — Kin Hodges (NC)
Kin Hodges (NC), stated that his agency works with the state Dept. of Transportation (DOT) to provide access at bridge sites. Virginia was not too successful at doing likewise since their DOT only does it at sites with existing access. Kentucky tried to work with their DOT but the adjacent landowners objected. In Texas, due to landowner rights Spanish land grants give landowners property rights to banks and bed of stream. Normally, Texas works with highway crossings and if people call in with problems, they determine whether the site is publicly owned. Texas MDOT does not want to do enhancements to sites due to maintenance costs ---- litter removal etc. Texas has a crew to build ramps and requires the local entity to agree to maintain site. Mississippi has a crew to build ramps, usually at bridge crossings and has a Memorandum of Agreement with MDOT. If the site is in private ownership and not on the highway right-of-way, Mississippi seeks to obtain a free 20-year lease with the landowner and seeks to get the county to maintain the site. Tennessee is similar to Mississippi but doesn’t have a lease program. Bill Layer (private consultant) stated that Arkansas has one ramp on 259 miles along Bayou Bartholemy. The AGRC put in 2 boat ramps and 3 landowners have built ramps. A ramp at a new bridge was also constructed. Until last year, West Virginia had an aggressive access program with most canoeable streams having access sites every 10 miles. There was a problem maintaining all these sites — litter removal. Recently the state has contracted with sheltered workers to have them maintain these sites. They used lottery income to fund this. The West Virginia Public Lands Corporation, a part of the WVDNR requires that a public access site be constructed by a permit holder. Permit holders are entities that do anything (highways, pipelines, electricity lines, private access points) that disrupts the stream. Texas passed legislation prohibiting 4-wheel drive vehicles in streams unless areas are developed for such with plans. Mississippi prohibits 4-wheel drive vehicles in streams. In Oklahoma, the streambed is owned by the adjacent landowners.

D9. National Sturgeon Meeting – Dennis Riecke (MS)
The Mississippi Cooperative Interstate Resource Association was asked to donate but declined to do so due to a perceived lack of focus, unclear purpose and unknown products. Perception of bias due to COE sponsorship. Tabled consideration of the issue.

D10. Summer 2004 Meeting
Various meeting locations were discussed. A meeting on the White River in Arkansas seemed to be the choice of everyone.

Adjourned at 2:30 p.m. to begin the roundtable discussion. See the roundtable minutes for details of what was presented and discussed.