Yakima Fisheries Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement Summary 

WECEJVED 

BONNEVILLE DOUEIS-0169 - SQ mM, POWER ADMINISTRATION 

January 1996 

In cooperation with: 

Washington Department of Fish &Wildlife and Yakama Indian Nation 

YAKIMA FISHERIES PROJECT 

FjraalEnvironmental Impact Statement 

I 

SUMMARY 

Proposal. The Bonneville Power Administration @PA) proposes to fund the Yakima , 

Fisheries Project (YFP) to undertake fishery research and 

Yakima River Basin. The State of Washington and the Yakama Indian Nation (YIN) 

would jointly direct the project. 

. 

activities in the * I 

In cooperation with BPA, the project managers propose to construct, operate and 

maintain anadromous (e.g. salmon) fish production facilities The goal is to conduct 

research activities designed to increase knowledge of supplementation techniques. These 

techniques would be applied to rebuild naturally spawning anadromous fish stocks 

historically present in the Yakima River Basin and, ultimately, those throughout the 

Columbia River Basin. 

Eventually, the YFP might involve the supplementation of all stocks of anadromous fish 

known' to have occurred in the Yakima Basin. However, at this time only two a 

alternatives have been proposed~: .. .. 

0 Alternative 1 would supplement depressed naturally spawning populations of 

upper Yakima spring chinook salmon; 

Alternative 2 (preferred) would include all actcons under Alternative 1; it 

would also add a study to determine the feasibility of re-establishing a naturally 

spawning population and a significant fall fishery for coho salmon in the 

Yakima Basin. (Coho smolts are currently being imported from another basin 

under the Columbia River Basin Fish Management'Plan; the stock is now 

virtually eliminated from theBasin.) 

0 

Purpose and Need. The project responds directly to a need for knowledge of viable 

means to rebuild and .mamiam * naturally spawning anadromous fish stocks in the 

Yakima River Basin. Many anadromous fish stocks are in serious decline in the Pacific 

Northwest. One response--conventional fish hatcheries--has traditionally produced large 

numbers of artificially propagated fish to increase harvest opportunities and, in some 

cases, to bolster natural production. However, important questions regarding hatchery 

production have arisen. ~ 

I 

The YFP is being designed (1) to provide resource managers with knowledge regarding 

these issues and (2) to identifl and apply improved methods fi~rs&.ggoutJg&& 

~~~~~~j~~~~~~~Supplementation aims to rebuild I . 

h'u 
.- 

I. 

naturally produced spawning runs by raising and releasing artifici'ally propagated fish into 

natural streams and by enhancing natural produ-ction of both naturally and artificially 

produced fish. Its goal (as distinct from conventional hatchery practices) is to increase the 

numbers of naturally spawning fish, while maintaining the long-term genetic fitness of the 

fish population being supplemented and keeping adverse genetic and ecological 

interactions with non-target species or stocks within acceptable limits. Its ultimate goal is 

to produce enough naturally spawning fish with a high enough survival rate that artificial 

propagation can be phased out. 

The concept of supplementation is well supported by fishery agencies and Tribes; 

kby the 

Northwest Power Planning Council (Council); and by the Proposed Snake River Salmon 

Recovery Plan (a recovery plan for the Snake River Salmon as required by the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA)). 

Nevertheless, there is no adequately detailed understanding of optimal techniques for all 

situations where supplementation may be applied, None of the existing supplementation 

projects in the Columbia Ri-ver Basin have adequate facilities for testing the various 

rearing strategies being proposed for the YFP. Given these uncertainties, and the potential 

importance of supplementation, it is imperative that this approach be thoroughly evaluated 

using a systematic, experimental program. 

I- .. .. . .. 

- These objectives shape the purposes ofthe W, as they are listed.below: 

~- 1) To test the assumption that new supplementation techniques can be used 

in the Yakima River Bashto increase natural production and to improve 

harvest opportunities, while maintaining the long-term genetic fitness of 

the native salmonid pop-ulations and keeping adverse ecological 

interactions within acceptable limits; . ,. ~ 

2) To provide knowledge about the use of supplementation, so that it may be 

used to ~~~~~~~~~,~~anadromous, fisheries throughout the Columbia I .. River Basin; ,. 

- . 3) To.implement and be consistent with the-Council's Fish and Wildlife 

Program; and 

4) To implement the project in a prudent and environmentally sound manner. 

Background. The Council selected the supplementation of Yakima River I 

Basin fisheries ,as an important part of its Fish and Wildlife Program for IWQ reasons: 

fisheries resources in that Basin are severely reduced from historic levels, and there is a 

significant potential for ~~~~~~~~~~~~~t~~resources. 'Historically, numbers of 

anadromous fish inthe Yakima River were estimated to have~ranged from 600,000 to as 

many as 960,000. Current salmonid runs in the Yakima River have been-reduced to fewer 

than 7,000 adults (about 1 percent of the historical run size). Declines in anadromous fish 

runs in the Yakima River have been attributed to activities related to irrigation, mining, - 

harvest, forestry, and hydroelecti-ic power generation. 

> 

I ' 

- 

summary/ 2 
. 

I 

Similar declines in anadromous fish runs have occurred’ throughout the Columbia River 

Basin. The Yakima River system is a promising location & mitigats for stock losses from 

development and operation of hydroelectric projects elsewhere in the Columbia Basin. . 

The YlT would help determine the role that supplementation might play in increasing 

natural production of anadromous salmonids throughout the Columbia Basin. 

I 

I The Council has encouraged BPA fbnding of hatchery projects to address these problems 

since 1982. Development of a master plan for the Y&,.i~~&&.t.i&ttg&~e~~ (m), was-recommended in 1984, and supplementation reseiirch later added. In 1990, 

the Preliminary Design Report was completed. .Study results indicated that-production 

facilities could be built in the Yakima River Basin to supplement natural production, 

provide harvest benefits, and gain knowledge about supplementation techniques of benefit 

to the entire region. .. , 

fishery and water resources in the I ~ 

.. Other projects are also underway to 

Yakima River Basin. Supplementation would not eliminate the need for these measures. 

Passage improvements (fish screening and adult ladders) -have been authorized at 

numerous irrigation facilities. Measures--such as improvements to irrigation water 

delivery systems, improvements to habitat, and a-bash-wide water conservation program-- 

to enhance Yakima River Basin water resources also are expected to .benefit anadromous 

fish production. - 

Some fishery . 

under the auspices of the Columbia River Fish Management Plan (CRFMP), which aims to 

rebuild upper Columbia River chinook, sockeye, coho, and steelhead runs, while assuring 

an equitable sharing of harvestable €ish between treaty and non-treaty fisheries. Current 

CRFMP-sponsored activities in the Yakima River basin include programs for both fall 

chino0 k and coho salmon.~~-~a~~c~i~~~~~*~

’ 

I. 

.. . activities are currently taking place in the Yakima River Basin I 

j~~~.~~~~~~.~’ 

Environmental Documentation. h.EA was prepared on the siting and construction 

of central, satellite and trapping facilities for supplementing anadromous -fish populations 

in the Yakima and Klickitat River’Basins @PA, 1990a). Although the EA found that no 

significant environmental impacts’would result from this portion of the proposed action, 

BPA identified the need for additional environmental documentation to cover other 

aspects of the project, including operation of the‘planned production fac.ilities, genetic 

impacts, species interactions, and potential impacts from the siting and construction of 

acclimation facilities. A Draft YFP EIS (DEIS) was issued in October 1992. Extensive 

. 

r!+.a 

, public comments led to a Revised DraR EIS, which; S .. 
-. 

0 -i.!miB 

0 ~,~-~~~~~~,~,~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~Wp~~,

,; 

; S 

p?QkSL* 

.. 0 1 1 

. 

This FEIS focuses on two action alternatives. If either were selected, the project 

managers and BPA would continue to evaluate the possibility of supplementing additional 

stocks in the Yakima River Basin. Any such proposals would be addressed in separate ' 

environmental studies. So would any program changes that might occur through feedback 

- fiom the adaptive management process. (The adaptive management philosophy for the 

project anticipates resolution of uncertainties unforeseen at the inception.) During the , 

yearly planning process, a Science/Technical Advisoj Committee (STAC) would identify 

possible unforeseen changes. Actions with impacts not addressed in the YFP EIS would 

be deferred pending additional National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance 

activities. 

Other ongoing studies address related issues. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and BPA are currently preparing a 

programmatic EIS (-dnaturally spawning salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River. The YFP will be 

evaluated as-part of that study. The NMFS Proposed Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan 

and the recently issued NMFS Biological Opinion on operation of the Federal Columbia 

River Power System in 1995 and fbture years are also now available. 2,heir effects on the 

YFF '1 1 h 

dl to address the cumulative effects of the 

, interaction between anadromous fish produced under current fish hatchery programs and 

l?Ri!XL 

Decisions and Requirements. Preparation of this document is intended to fidfill the 

NEPA requirements for BPA. The document also has been prepared for purposes of 

compliance by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) with 

Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Although neither law applies to 

YIN activities, the YIN have chosen to participate as a cooperating entity. The 

requirements of NEPA and SEPA are nearly identical. The WDFW will WJA 

~~~~~'cr;pa~j~~~p~~~

J 

summary/ 4 -. 
I 

BPA must decluz whether to find il,e project, anc -. , if so, which alternative to select. '- I 

Factors considered .I in making these decisions are as follows: . 

0 The ability of the alternative to: 

- 

- 

evaluate the effectiveness of supplementation techniques; 

increase natural production of anadromous fish in the Yakima River Basin 

while maintaining the long-term genetic fitness of anadromous fish in the 

Yakima River Basin and improving harvest opportunities; 

, 

0 The alternative's consistency with the Council's Fish .and Wildlife Program; 

0 The economic factors relative to the alternative; and 

0 The environmental impacts of the alternative. 

Public Involvement. A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS for the YF.P was 

issued in January 1991. Scoping meetings were held in February 1991 in Yakima, 

Goldendale, Richland, Ellensburg, and Bellevue, Washington, as well as in Portland, 

Oregon. Over 200 people attended these meetings, and 95 comment letters were received 

from the general public. Public comments were considered and used to determine the 

scope of the EIS. 

The following issues weredidentified during the scoping process: genetic risks to existing 

wild fish populations, potential negafive impacts on the resident trout fishery above Roza 

Dam, EIS scope, economic issues, project decisionmaicing, defirhion of supplementation 

and how it differs from conventional hatchey programs, review and evaluation of 

previous supplementation work, how proposed supplementation efforts would differ from 

or complement existing efforts, concern about effects of the project on water rights and 

claims, how straying fish could affect endangered or petitioned stocks in other basins, 

-concern that they might stray and ultimately affect water rights, long-term effects on the 

ecosystem, impacts on wildlife and resident fish, and other suggested alternatives--no 

action, hatchery outplantings for extinct runs and habitat improvement for other runs, 

additional steelhead production above Roza Dam, smaller-scale supplementation 

alternative, non-hatchery alternatives, fill production. 

- 

The DEIS for the YFP was released in October 1992. More than 300 people attended the 

six area meetings. BPA also received a total of 107 letters and telephone calls from 

individuals, groups, and agencies during the comment period. Eour issues received the 

most extensive comment: project purpose and need; potential impacts on water hghts 

and claims; the genetic risks to the existing wild fish populations; and potential impacts on 

the resident trout fishery above Roza Dam. 

I 
e 

is not feasible. 'The experiments must be carefully designed to obtain valid @e., 

statistically reliable) results in a specified period of time. The experimentoxt conducted 

and carefully monitored to allow statistical evaluation of the results. The process includes 

-which may cause the objectives to 

be modified, in turn restarting the process. 

'I 

, 

Adaptive 

3~

Management. A critical feature of this proposed project is its well-defined 

policy of adaptive-m,anagement, which specifies an ongoing, iterative approach to planning 

for the project in order to protect the basin's fishery resodrces fiom unforeseen, adverse 

project impacts. Adaptive management emphasizes experimental intervention. The effects 

of management actions are monitored and evaluated, and programs, procedures, and 

facilities may all be modified in.response to these findings. Full detailed plans for 

supplementing the stocks are continuously developed and revised, using the scientific . 

method and inforqation gained from the previous yeafs activities. 

Products designed to help carry out adaptive management for the YFPhclude annual 

Planning Status Reuorts (already prepared by the STAC for 1992-1995) that document ' 

, 
the objectives, I ra :gies and operational assumptions; these reports includ ongoing .and 

new proposals to implement- the objectives and strategies- for supplementation in the 

upcoming year. If revised actions are required; they are checked against existing NEPA I 

documentation and new analysis prepared, as necessary. An Uncertaintv Resolution Plan 

identifies and prioritizes strategies to resolve uncertainties about project operational 

assumptions. At the end of each year, a Proiect Annual Review is completed to present 

results of the uncertainty resolution process. ,After review, information is provided 

~~~~e~~~,~~~~~next year’s plans and for- proposed amendments 

for the Planning Status Report. Thus, risk is managed and reduced over time through 

implementation of (1) the Uncertainty Resolution Plan (i.e., phor mitigation of 

uncertainties) and (2) the monitoring and evaluation plan. The risk of strategy failure 

(objectives not met and/or strategies incorrectly implemented) can be reduced through 

pre-implementation research irnd through risk monitoring and awillingness to change 

during implementation. Policy can be redefined, and the project can continue to make 

progress. 

~ 

Project Management. 

S~i&a$JA!&bghm. 

The YIN would manage the project as Lead Agency. 

The Policy Group, with members from the YIN and the WDFW, would provide 

policy guidance to the Lead Agency, and review and approve annual planning 

documents. 

The STAC, consisting of State and Tribal biologists and others as determined or 

needed, would advise the Policy Group. 

A Project Manager, appointed by the Policy Group, would report to the YIN. 

Department managers for each functional area of project operations would repos 

to the Project Manager. 

Several Federal Agencies, including BPA, the Bureau of Reclamation, NMFS, 

USFWS, USFS, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) would provide funding, 

technical assistance, NEPA review, and other participation as arranged.ac 

. p~~~

- 

I 

Alternatives: There are two action alternatives. Altemative 1 focuses on 

supplementation of a single stock (upper Yakima spring chinook). Alternative 2 also 

focuses on supplementation of that stock, but adds a feasibility study for the 

reintroduction of coho. No Action is also considered. 

Alternative 1 : Upper Yakima Sprinq Chinook Supplementation. Alternative 1 

would test supplementation on upper Yakima spring chinook only. One central facility 

would be built for several functions: holding upper Yakima spring chinook adults, 
spawning, incubating eggs, and early and extended rearing of the young fish. Three sites 

would be constiucted for acclimation and release of up to 8 10,000 smolts. 

Objectives. The objectives (statements of planned accomplishments for the basin) and 

strategies (statements of actions that the project managers believe will enable them to 

achieve these objectives) are intended to be precise and increasingly specific statements 

about- the YFP in four categories: genetics, natural production, experimentation, and 

harvest. New experimental insights modify both objectives and strategies. 

Jack Creek. Figure S-1 shows the locations of the proposed and alternative project facility 

The YFP supplementation project would compare two repeated tests or treatments: 

Treatment A is an Optimal Conventional Treatment (OCT) to incubate, rear, and 

acclimate salmonids using the currently accepted "Best Technology" used at state, 

Tribal, and Federal, hatcheries. 

Treatment B is a New Innovative Treatment (NIT) that creates a more natural 

enviro-nment (e.g., natural cover, substrate, and stnfcture) to incubate, rear, and 

acclimate fish. The intent of this treatment is to raise and release fish with 

characteristics and behavior similar to those of naturally produced fish in order to 

achieve'improved survival and productivity. 

. 

Monitoring. Effective monitoring is the key to a successll adaptive management 

program. The Planning Status Report lays out an integrated multi-level monitoring 

program for supplementing upper Yakima'spring chinook. It addresses several kinds of 

monito*ring: quality-control, product specification, research, risk containment, and stock 

status. Fish would be monitored for health, morphology (size and shape), behavior, and ., 

survival. The monitoring plan would be revised and expanded as part of the adaptive 

management process. Research monitoring would measure performance in post-release 

survival, reproductive success, long-term fitness, and ecological interactions (population 

abundance and distribution, growth rates, carrying capacity, survival rates, transfer of 

disease, and gene flow). Risk containment monitoring would focus on experimental, 

genetic, harvest, and natural productiodecological interaction areas. The risk analysis 

defines risk in terms of the probability of failure to meet the objectives of the projectTfor 

these four categories. Stock status would be monitored for-iun size and escapement. 

Such monitoring would also provide information essential to track the long-term 

, performance and fitness of the fish populations. All monitoring results would be fed back 

into the adaptive management process. 

- Facilifies. Either alternative would include the,construction of a central hakhery facility . at Cle Elum for holding upper Yakima spring chinook adults, spawning, incubating eggs, 

and early and extended rearing of young fish, as well as construction of three sites with six 

raceways each for acclimation and release of spi-ing chinook smolts. (Cle Elum was 

identified as the preferred hjshgv-site due to more abundant groundwater supplies,,) 

Proposed -sites include Clark Flat, Easton (-siting option), and 

I 

\ -. 

Summary/ 8 , I 
Alternate 

A . Juvenile Trapping Sites 

0 Adult Trapping Sites 

Figure S-1 . . . . 

Upper Yakima River and 

Tributaries Project Facilities 

- .. Miles 

-! 

.. I 

._ - 

I 

I 

.. 

-, 

z 

u) 

Qz In 

3 

a 

- r 

P \ 

. Isummary /.9 
Hatchew.’ About 6 hectares (ha) or.15 acres (ac..) of land would be developed at the 

200-ha (500-ac.) hatchery site. The facilities would consist of adult holding ponds, egg 

incubation facilities, raceways, groundwater wells, a pump station on the river, a settling 

pond for waste treatment, access roads, a storage building, offices, research facilities, 

interpretive facilities, parking, and. residences. Construction would include 20 raceways 

(with potential expansion to 45) and 2 adult holding ponds. Siting has been carried out to 

minimize wetlands impacts. A new pump station would be built on the Yakima River 

(rather than using the oxbow lakes), and. both surface water from the river and , - groundwater from nearby wells are nqw proposed to’kupply water for the facility. 

Potential interpretive facilities might be constrixted in phases. The fbll complement of 

facilities might include a visitor center, parking lot, overlook, informational kiosks, and 

interpretive trails. Depending on-fbnding and public use, additional facilities (an outdoor - amphitheater, observation blinds, aquarium,’and expanded day use ‘and visitor ce&r 

facilities) might be added in. the future. ‘ 

- 

-. 

,~ 

,I - 

’ The undeveloped land around the hatchery-would be imng,yed and protected for wildlife 

habitat. I BPA and the project managers’ would develop a management plan for the site to 

mitigate impacts on wildlife for the YFP-arid for possible inclusion under the Columbia 

1 .J 

River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program-. .I .. .. 

Traminn Facilhies. Monitoring and evaluation of outmigrating molts would occur at . I 

~~&ingjuvenile facilities at Roza and Chandler. Monitoring and evaluation of returning 

upper Yakima spring chinook adults would occur at fish trapping facilities already present 

at Prasser and Roza Dams. Selective broodstock collection would -occur at Roza Dam, 

Small-scale temporary traps and/or weirs might also be used to meeta variety of 

monitoring and evaluation needs. ’ , 

Acclimation Sites. Acclimation raceways provide an environment for final.rearing and 

acclimation of juvenile fish; they reduce stress associated with transportation, and allow 

fish to acclimate and imprint on the.water in.which they would be released. . Substantial 

numbers of acclimated smolts--are expected to return as adult spawners to the general 

vicinity ofthe acclimation sites. -The three proposedsites (out of the original 15 

previously considered plus the new North Fork.Teanaway site) were determined to best . 

meet project goals and have the least effect on the environment. - Six raceways (with 

standardized design) would be constructed at each’ of the sites: three for each of the two 

-experimental treatments (NIT and OCT). 

I 

Each acclimation site would require development of less than 0.8 ha (2 ac.) of land. They 

would allow innovative features needed,to study experimental variables such as feeding 

-tech&ques, stream cover design and predator conditioning. During operation, the 

raceways would be protected by security, fencing, alarm systems, and devices (such as 

‘ 

- overheadwires or netting) that would protect the fish Erom’predators. ,, 

summary/ u 
The raceways would be supplied, where possible, through gravity flow fiom a 

combination of surface water from adjacent tributaries and rivers and groundwater fiom 

nearby wells. Where gradient is inadequate, water would be pumped to the raceways. 

Currently, the project managers are considering a,plan to deliver fish to the acclimation 

sites during winter months, which would most likely result in water being pumped to the 

sites for purposes of reliable operation. Water would be diverted from streams during the 

winter and spring, when flows in the affected creeks. or rivers are usually greatest. 

Groundwater would be used to supplement surface water -supplies as necessary. S%&a 

~~~,~~~~~~,~,,~~~~~~~water used would be returned to the nearby river or 

tributary. 

-Projecf Operations. Broodstock would be collected at Roza Dam, transported to the\ 

central facility, and held there for spawning. The number ofnaturally produced adults 

used for- broodstock would be large enough to be representative of the donor stock, but 

not so large that broodstock collection would-impair the natural reproductive capacity of 

the stock. Eggs would be incubated and fry reared at the central facility. Rearing would 

include methods'to encourage adaptation 'of released. fish to the natural environment (e.g., 

teaching juvenile salmonids to avoid predators and to forage for food). When ready, 

juvenile upper Yakima spring-chinook would be transferred to the acclimation sites next to 

the spawning grounds to which they would be expected to return as adults. When 

sufficiently mature, the young smolts would leave the acclimation facilities for 

outmigration to the ocean. Adult fish would be expected to return J. to 4 years later to. -- spawn. ~ k 

~~~~~~~in ..i xl_2aOo*,..~arr~,nfthca~~~tc~~~~~~Pfj~~~...~~~~~~

xsam,!2y,2QQ3A 

. 

.. 

Smolts and returning adults would be monitored for each experimental treatment. Fish 

culture practices would follow guidelines established to 'minimize genetic change caused 

by hatchery rearing and to encourage adaptation of released fish to the natural 

environment. Genetic hatchery guidelines for the YEP have been drafted. 

Alternative 2: Upper Yakima Spring Chinook Supplementation and Coho 

Study (preferred). Alternative 2 would test supplementation of upper Yakima spring 

chinook and study the feasibility of re-establishing a naturally spawning population of 

coho to the Yakima River Basin. Under Alternative 2, project managers would seek to 

determine the feasibility of re-establishing a naturally spawning coho population and a 

significant fall fishery for coho within the Yakima River Basin, while keeping adverse 

ecological impacts within acceptqble limits. All actions and approaches relating to upper 

Yakima spring chinook would be identical to those described for Alternative 1. The 

discussion below covers additional information relevant to the coho study only. 

I 

The few naturally spawning coho salmon presently in the Yakima River Basin are likely 

the result of hatchery outplantings. The YIN isnow managing a program of annually 

acclimating and releasing 700,000 coho pre-'smolts transferred into the Basin under 
CRFlLIIp, to supply d terminal fishery for xribal and -other fishers. The program has, to 

date, produced very few adult returns, although results are expected to improve- .. . While the acclimation and release program is not being funded by 

The 700,000 smolts would be used in a feasibility study to detirmine the benefits and risks 

of re-establishing coho in the Yakima River Basin. Smolts are acclimated at low-tech 

facilities‘already developed for the Tribal coho program (Granger pond, Roza Wasteway 

#3 near Wapato, and the Wapato Canal net pens). 

Objecfives. Objectives for the coho feasibility studies are limited to one category: 

experimentation. There would be no change fiom the current releases of coho in the 

basii. The planned research effort is necessary before natural production, genetic, or 

harvest objectives are developed. These objectives and strategies are reviewed, revised, 

and published annually in the Planning Status Report. They would be modified and 

refined tGough the adaptive management process. Assumptions and the process for 

uncertainty resolution’would be similar to that described for upper Yakima spring 

chinook. 

WP coho would be monitored for their survival through various life stages and for the 

rates of predation on iwedgdu-, The survival of smolts (tagged with codedwire markers) fiom release to passage at Prosser would be evaluated by counting smolts at 

the Chandler Juvenile evaluation facility below Prosser Dam. The smolts would also be 

monitored to study the interactions of the coho with other fish species in the Yakima 

River. Stomach contents would be sampled at Chandler and at selected river sites, to 

determine smolt food habits and to evaluate the potential risk of coho smolt predation on 

juvenile fall chinook salmon. Returning adults would be video-monitored at Prosser Dam 

fish ladders to determine the smolt-to-adult survival rates. The’information obtained 

through this monitoring would be tracked through the STAC and reports prepared for the 

Tribal coho program. The STAC would consult with the Policy Group to determine 

whether and how a coho reintroduction program would be developed using the adaptive 

management process.1 

I 

. 

-- I 

Facilifies. No new major facilities would be needed for the coho feasibility study, 

beyond the low-tech acclimation facilities being used for the existing Tribal coho program, 

and existing trapping and monitoring facilities at Prosser Dam. Small-scale, portable traps 

and/or weirs might be needed to meet a variety of monitoring and evaluation needs. I 

- 

Operafions. The 700,000 coho smolts would continue to be imported into the Yakima 

River Basin under the Tribal Program. They are acclimated at the three low-tech facilities. 

< 

, 

4 

summary/ J.2 I 
When ready, the juvenile coho leave the acclimation .facilities for outmigration to the 

ocean. Adult fish return to the basin the next year to spawn. Under Alternative 2 for the 

Y$P, smolts and returning adults would be monitored for survival rates; smolts would be 

monitored for food habits. 

No Action Alternative. BPA would not find testing-of supplementation in the Yakima 

River Basin. Passage improvemehs, water enhancements, and the coho ,m.LfijJ]-d&~~.k 

programs under CWMP would continue. ' . 

Some salmon and steelhead populations might increase because of the ongoing ws,age 

~~~~~~~~,~~~~~i

1' 

tarvest opportunities within the Yakima River 

Basin would remain low or depressed, and might be eliminated ifruns continued to 

decline. They most likely would not increase as rapidly in the short term as they would 

under the action alternatives. The No Action Alternative would indefinitely delay 

implementation of measure 7.4K.1 of the Council's December 1994 Fish and Wildlife 

Program, which ~~~g~~ge~ BPA to fbnd construction of an anadromous fish hatchery in 

the Yakima River B asin-~~~~~~

.. 

Alternatives Eliminated From Detailed Study. A'number of alternatives to the 

YFP were proposed by the public and agencies. Most of these alternatives were 

eliminated from firther analysis in this EIS for one or more of the following four reasons: 

1) they would not meet the need for knowledge about how the strategy of 

supplementation can be applied to the protection and ~t.~g&&A~~es,Q-Qn 

stocks of anadromous fish in the Yakima River Bas6 

2) they were addressed in other environmental documents; 

3) they could result in an unacceptably high impact on the environment; or . 

4) they were not considered feasible. 

These eliminated alternatives included the following: 

0 Passage improvements, habitat improvement, improvement of instream flows, 

water quality improvement, and predation control. 

Supplementation of more stocks. 

0 Alternative sites and configurations for the facilities. 

Research at existing non-Yakima River Basin sites. 

Other research outside the Yakima River Basin. 
', .- 

~~~~"9~~~,~~~~~~~

1 .. . .. 

Comparison of the Alternatives and Summary of Impacts. The environmental 

consequences of ttie alternatives for each of the major resources affected were rated' as. 

high, moderate,. or low; they take into .~ consideration proposed mitigation. . 

There are only 'minor differences in environmental consequences between 

Alternative 1 and 2. There is no change in environmental impact attributable to 

incorporation'of the coho fewibility study into the YFP because the coho release program 

. is ongoing and will continue whether or not the feasibility s~dy is included in this project. 

' Potentially high impacts on native, wild, and nontarget fish populations under both 

' 

. alternatives would be mitigated through . careful adherence to the adaptive management 

. While the No Acti0n:alternative would not affect resources through the construction of 

facilities, it could result in a moderate impact on anadromous fisheries in the.Yakima River 

basin. This is because the anadromous fisheries are rapidly declining at present, and the 

No Action alternative would m-a&gj,g to reversbg the decline. ' . '- 

-. , .- . 

.~ 

process. - ~ 

. 

& .- . . ., -1 V 

Table S-1 Environmental Consequences of the Yakima Fisheries Project 

Alternatives 

Biological Resources 

Socioeconomics 

Recreation and-visual . 

Cultural Resources. . , I 

' - H = High impact M = Moderate impact L = Low impact . 

,- 

.. 

Summary/ &l 
Surface Water. Surface water quanti& impacts for Alternatives 1 and 2 would be low. 

All surface water use for the projcct would-be nonconsvmptive; ,water would be returned 

to the source stream or river immediately downstream of the-point of diversion after it is 

cycled through the facility. There are potential problems with water availability at the 

Keechelus site when reservoir releases are stopped or slowed to allow refill. Low flows at 

the mouth oftheTeanaway River in late summer and fall might affect upstream migration 

and spawning of spring chinook salmon returning to the vicinity of the Jack Creek and 

North Fork Teanaway sites. 

Consistent with the Northwest Power Act of 1980 and the Council’s 1994 Fish and. 

Wildlife Program, existing water rights would not be affected by the proposed project, nor 

I 

’ would the ongoing water adjudication process in the Yakima River Basin be affected by . .. the project.1 r 1 

~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~~~~~~~~-Wateravailabilitvisaffectedbvma

j~~~~~j~~~e,~~

10 th) 

Surface water quality could be moderately affected by the project in the short term, during 

construction of the facilities. Erosion control measures would be implemented to 

minimize this impact. Effluent from the facilities would not significantly affect water 

quality, as nutrient levels would be raised only slightly and would remain within acceptable 

limits identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Due mainly to the potential for erosion during the construction period, the overall impacts ’ 

of Alternatives 1 and 2 on surface water were judged to be moderate. No impacts on 

surface water quality or quantity would occur as a result of the No Action Alternative. - 

Groundwater. Impacts on groundwater from either action alternative were judged to be 

moderate, base$ on the moderate amount of groundwater to be used (0.5 cubic meters per 

second (m3/s) or 18 cubic feet per second (cfs) for the Cle Elurn hatcheryssa2L.Qym3,, and 

0,06 m3/s or 2 cfs for each of the three acclimation sites-) and the 

inability to return the water directly to the aquifer. The water would, however, be 

discharged to a nearby stream or river after cycling through the facilities. Groundwater 

pumping is not expected to adversely affect other wells in the vicinity of the Cle Elum 

hatchery or the acclimation sites 1 * e be e . Noimpacts I 

on groundwater would occur as a result of the No Action Alternative. 

Floodplains and Wetlands. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in moderate impacts on 

floodplains and wetlands, ~lg~,.-~,m&~.U,as these areas sould not be totally 

avoided in siting the facilities. P~-~~~~fl~*

.. 

sthe 

3 

sites 

t 1 

would be designed to minimize these impacts, and wetland losses would be mitigated by 

constructing replacement wetlands in accordance with local, state, and Federal policies. 

.. . ve 

I 
,~ 

- _I 

-. .- 

. . Wetland impacts at the Cle Elum. hatchery site would total 0.1 ha (0.24 ac.); potential. 

impacts at the Jack Creekadimj&iQ~lgLThe .No Action Alternative would not affect- floodplains or wetlands.' 

Aquatic Bioloaical Resources. The highest potential impact, both positive and 

negative, of the proposed project under the action alternatives is on the aquatic biological 

- resources of the Yakima River Basin. ' The project:has a good potential for increasing 

knowledge about the use of supplementation and the adapiive management process, while 

increasing the number of upper Yakima spring chinook returning to the basin. It also has 

the potential to- Sect existing resident fish populations adversely through genetic and 

ecological bteractions. ,Overall 'impacts on aquatic biological resources were judged to be 

moderate, based on the commitment of the project managers to use the adaptive -- 

management process to learn from-and'continually adapttheir actions to prevent or - 

correct problems. The impact of the No Action Alternative was also judged to be 

moderate, .givenihe potential to continue the declining anadromous fish population trends 

in the Yakima and Columbia River basins wifhout the knowledge and results'that could be 

and Clark Flat acclimation sites would 

: be even less. ' 33 - 

.. -. _. 

; I 

. 

. 

gained from implementhg Alternatives 1 or.2. - .I 

., 

Veaetation. Impacts on vegetation from Alternatives 1 and 2 are expected to be low. A 

total of approximately S ha (20 ac.)- of vegetation would be cleared for project facilities. 

None of the sites is located in rare or unique vegetative communities, and most have been' 

previously disturbed. The No Action Alternative would not result in impacts on 

vegetation. C 

Wildlife. Impacts on wildlife from the action alternatives were judged as moderate. 

facilities. Wildlife would be temporarily displaced during construction, and might be 

. permanently displaced. A wildlife mitigation plan for both the YFF (and for possible 

inclusion in the C-)is being developed for the Cle Elum site in consultation with 

. the WDW and the YIN. No impacts on wildlife would result from implementing the No 

Action Alternative. 

Special Status Species. Few impacts are expected on the listed threatened or 

endangered species in the vicinity of the project site. It is unlikely that listed Snake River 

anadromous fish stocks would be found in the Yakima Basin or that Yakima fish would 

stray into the Snake River Basin. None of the sites contain suitable Northern spotted owl, 

grizzly bear, Peregrine falcon nesting, or marbled murrelef habitat. The project would . 

increase prey available for bald eagles. However, bald eagles wintering at the Clark Flat 

site could be disturbed by increased human activity. Gray wolves have been reported in 

the vicinity of the Jack Creek~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a

Keechelus acclimation sites. 

For these reasons, the impact was judged as 

moderate. Consultation with the USFWS on ways to minimize these impacts would be 

completed before construction. Impacts on candidate and state-listed species are not 

, 

apmAm&glsS ha or 20 ac.-o.f&&jfifgkaMat would be permanently affected by the I 

I 

r 

If 

- I 

Summary/ fi I 
anticipated. The status of petitioned species now under review by,NMFS and USFWS 

(e.g. bull trout, steelhead) would be monitored and consultation would be initiated if they 

were listed. No impacts would result from the No Action Alternative. - 

Air Resources and Noise. Impacts on air resourcesA and noise would be minor, and 

would be limited &&x&fiwithin the State guidelines. Most of the impact would occur 

during construction from vehicle exhaust emissions, noise, and dust generation. No 

impacts would result from the No Action Alternative. 

I 

Socioeconomics. Impacts on socioeconomics would be beneficial but low. 

Employment and income would be expected to increase in the areas surrounding the 

project from expenditures of funas for construction, operation, and maintenance; 

monitoring and evaluation; and harvest. A portion of the employment and income would 

economically benefit the Yakama Indian Nation. Secondary 

effects from additional rounds’of economic activity were included. The No Action’ 

Alternative would not result in these positive impacts on the economy. 

I . .. 

Recreation and Visual. Alternatives 1 and 2 could potentially affect the resident trout 

fishery. .Negative impacts could result from adverse ecological and genetic interactions, 

while positive impacts could result fiom the increased prey base that would be provided by 

juvenile chinook smolts. Visual resources would be altered by the construction of the 

facilities. ~~~~~~~~~~~~

k~

s

Other recreational resources are not expected to be negatively affected, and the addition 

of interpretive facilities played at the Cle Elum site would provide additional recreational 

resources. The overall impact was judged to be moderate, given visual iinpacts and 

potential impacts on the resident trout fishery. The No Action Alternative would-result in 

neither positive nor negative impacts 

Cultural Resources. Little to no impacts on cultural resources would result from the 

implementation of Alternative 1,2, or the No Action Alternative. &.GQ&.~~Qx,.~.~xQ~&....~ -ai& 

S~eys at the pmz?..c??dfacil.ity sites revealed no 

cultural resources that would be affected by .construction. 

~~~~~~-~~~.~~~~~~~~~~ah,eculturalresou*rceimaal;

; C 

these resources. 

~~~~~~p.~~~~Q~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~TftEpri,Pr

!*cultural resources were 

discovered during construction, s,imjh-consultation would be iriitiated,, 

Resources Management. &?g&S ha (20 ac.) &Iag.-would be’affected by the 

construction of facilities under Alternatives 1 and 2, but the facilities would be consistent 

with local and state land use policies in most cases. Most of the impact would result fiom 

the unavoidable siting of pumps and intake and outlet facilities in riparian and. protected 

. .. .. 

-r 
shoreline areas. Potential Pr@e farmland soils are found at the Clark Flat and Easton 

Dam sites, but the sites are not irrigated or currently used for farming, other than grazing 

at the Clark Flat site. The project staff is consulting with Kittitas County agencies to 

ensure project consistency with County and State land use policies and regulations. A 

moderate amount of solid waste and small amounts of hazardous wastes would be.. 

generated at the facilities. No land use or waste generation impacts would result from the 

- No Action Alternative. 

Mitigation. The biological and ecological effects of the YFF) or any other 

supplementation program are a fbnction not only of the^ direct hazard (e.g., straying, 

~ disease transmission, competition), but also of the entire risk management structure- of the 

project:, Key elements of the risk management structureare a,monitoring program and an 

adaptive management process for responding to results from the monitoring. we an

effective i-isk management struct%e cannot promise to fblly contain all possible risks 

posed by a project, it would significantly'reduce the intensity and duration of impacts. 

The YFP has awell-developed risk'management structure, described in Section 2.2 of the 

mIS. The risk analyses presented in.Section 4.1.2.1 describe the potential risks-arising 

~ * from .operation of the project according to.the objectives developed for the prdject. The 

monitor& plans for the project will .provide feedback -for the adaptive management 

process. 

Additional mitigation measures have been identified by the various resource specialists 

working on this =IS; the impact analyses are based on implementation of these measures. I 

project managers would work with the regulating agencies and affected parties to deyelop 

detailed plans for implementing these or similar measures: 

I ., 

., 

I 1 

I 

- - 

i . If an action alternative should be selected foi the YFP, BPA would detail in theRecord. of 

Decision which of the measures listed in Section 4.2 would be implemented. BPA and the 

, 

~ 

1 

. . 

. .

,. 

/- 

'Summary/ 

- 
DISCLAIMER 

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the 

United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency 

thereof, nor any of their employes, makes any warranty, express or implied, or 

assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents 

that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. 

The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not nectssarily state or 

reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.