1

BONNEVILLE POWER ADMINISTRATION

YAKIMA FISHERIES PROJECT (YFP)

RECORD OF DECISION

Summary. As Administrator of the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), I have

decided to implement Alternative 2 of the proposed Yakima Fisheries Project (YFP) to

undertake fishery research and mitigation activities in the Yakima River Basin in southcentral Washington. The project responds directly to a need for knowledge of viable

means to rebuild and maintain naturally spawning anadromous fish stocks in the Yakima

Basin. Alternative 2 would experimentally supplement depressed populations of upper

Yakima spring chinook salmon that spawn naturally, as well as undertake a study to

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

significant fall fishery for coho salmon (now eliminated in the Basin).

Background. Populations of anadromous fish in the Pacific Northwest have become

severely depleted. Current salmonid runs in the Yakima River have been reduced to

about 1 percent of the estimated historical run size. The Northwest Power Planning

Council (Council) believes it is important to proceed with the YFP as soon as possible

because of the importance of the added production to be provided by the project and the

potential learning benefits of the project.

In addition to being consistent with the Council’s Columbia River Basin Fish and

Wildlife Program (CRBFWP), the project aims (1) to test the assumption that new

supplemen- tation techniques can be used in the Basin to increase natural production and

to improve harvest opportunities, while maintaining long-term fitness and controlling

adverse ecological interactions; and (2) to provide knowledge about the use of

supplementation, so that it may be used to mitigate effects on anadromous fisheries

throughout the Yakima River Basin. There is currently no adequately detailed
2

understanding of optimal techniques for situations where supplementation might be

applied in the Yakima Basin or elsewhere. The project would provide that knowledge.

As part of Alternative 2, supplementation has been selected for evaluation as an

alternative approach to conventional hatchery development and release of fish.

Supplementation aims to rebuild naturally produced spawning runs by raising and

releasing artificially propagated fish into natural streams and by enhancing natural

production of both naturally and artificially produced fish. Its goal 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. See section 1.2 of the environmental impact statement

(EIS) for more information on supplemen- tation.

The second part of Alternative 2, the coho study, would seek 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 Fish Management Plan (CRFMP), a non-BPA-funded

action that would most likely continue with or without Alternative 2. The YFP would

monitor (1) the survival of these fish through various life stages, and (2) the rate of

predation by the coho smolts on juvenile fall chinook, in order to determine whether it is

feasible to re-establish a naturally spawning population of coho in the Yakima River

Basin. See section 2.4 of the EIS for more information on the coho study.

Authority. BPA has prepared the YFP EIS and Record of Decision (ROD) pursuant to

the process specified in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), regulations of

the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR Part 1505), Implementing Procedures of

the Department of Energy (57 FR15122; April 24, 1992), and under the authorities of the

Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (Northwest Power Act;
3

P.L. 96-501; December 5, 1980).

The Final EIS was also prepared for purposes of compliance by the Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) with the Washington State Environmental

Policy Act (SEPA). The WDFW is the lead agency for SEPA compliance for the project.

The Yakama Indian Nation (YIN) has also chosen to participate in this process as a

cooperating entity. BPA is the lead agency for the Federal decisions on this project. All

three entities favor the implementation of Alternative 2.

History. After preparation of an environmental assessment on the siting and

construction of central, satellite, and trapping facilities for supplementing anadromous

fish populations in the Yakima and Klickitat River basins (Yakima-Klickitat Production

Project Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, DOE/EA0392), BPA proceeded to issue a draft YFP EIS (DEIS) in October 1992 (DOE/EIS0169). In May 1995, BPA issued a Revised DEIS that responded to comments on the

DEIS through an expanded impacts analysis, improved information on species

interactions, and a narrowed range of alternatives, among other changes. BPA issued the

Final EIS in January 1996, adding an alternative acclimation site (section 2.3.4),

clarifying water rights issues and discussion of irrigation water availability (section

4.1.1.1), adding more information on recreation impacts (section 4.1.9.1), and clarifying

agency roles and responsibilities (section 2.2.3.5). Appendix A of the Final EIS also

contained all comments made on the Revised DEIS, and responses to them. Additional

comments were received on the Final EIS. These have been reviewed and the comments

and responses to them are attached to this Record of Decision. As the Administrator of

BPA, I have relied upon this information to make my decision.

Concurrent related actions that could have a bearing on the implementation of this

decision include the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Proposed Recovery Plan

for Snake River Salmon (and the final version of the Recovery Plan), results of BPA’s

Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation with NMFS regarding proposed operation
4

of Cle Elum Hatchery, any amendments to the NMFS Biological Opinion for 1995 to

1998 Hatchery Operations in the Columbia River Basin related to the operation of the Cle

Elum Hatchery, and the March 1995 NMFS Biological Opinion on the operation of the

Federal Columbia River Power System. Any of these could affect the funding or timing

of this project, or could impose additional conditions on its operation.

Alternatives Considered. In addition to Alternative 2, the following alternatives were

considered in reaching this decision. Each alternative is evaluated in detail in the EIS.

• No Action - BPA would not fund testing of supplementation in the Yakima

River Basin. Passage improvements, water enhancements, and the coho and

fall chinook programs under CRFMP would continue.

• Alternative 1 would be identical to Alternative 2, except that the coho

feasibility study would not be undertaken. Alternative 1 would consequently

cost approximately $500,000 less per year than Alternative 2.

Chapter 2 of the EIS describes each alternative in detail, as well as alternatives eliminated

from further consideration.

Decision Factors

The factors I considered in making the decisions on whether to fund the project, and, if

so, which alternative to select, are as follows:

• 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;

• The alternative's consistency with the Council’s CRBFWP;

• The economic factors relative to the alternative; and

• The environmental impacts of the alternative on the following resources: water

quality and quantity; fisheries, vegetation, and wildlife (including threatened and

endangered species); socioeconomics; recreation resources; cultural resources;
5

and resource management. Chapter 4 of the Final EIS discusses the impacts of the

alternatives on these resources.

Decisions. I have decided to proceed with Alternative 2, because it best meets the need

and purposes stated in the Final EIS.

1. Decision to Construct Facilities - The following facilities would be built: a central

hatchery facility at Cle Elum for holding upper Yakima spring chinook adults,

spawning, incubating eggs, and early and extended rearing of young fish; three sites

with six raceways each for acclimation and release of spring chinook smolts. The

acclimation sites would be located at Clark Flat, Easton (Gravel Pond siting option),

and Jack Creek. Figure 1 shows the locations of the project facility sites.

2. Decision to Implement Spring Chinook Supplementation by Adaptive Management -

A critical feature of this proposed project is its policy of adaptive management, which

specifies an ongoing, iterative approach to planning for the project in order to protect

the basin’s fishery resources from unforeseen, adverse project impacts. The effects of

management actions would be monitored and evaluated; programs, procedures, and

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

supplementing the stocks would be continuously developed and revised, using the

scientific method and information gained from the previous year’s activities. The

details of the spring chinook supplementation program are described in section 2.3 of

the Final EIS.

3. Decision to Implement Monitoring and Evaluation - The Planning Status Report lays

out an integrated multi-level monitoring program for supplementing upper Yakima

spring chinook. It addresses several kinds of monitoring: 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. A more

detailed description of the monitoring and evaluation program can be found in section

2.3.3 of the Final EIS.

4. Coho Study - Project managers would seek to determine the feasibility of reestablishing a naturally spawning coho population and a significant fall fishery for

coho within the Yakima River Basin, while keeping adverse ecological impacts

within acceptable limits. The few naturally spawning coho salmon presently in the

Yakima River Basin are likely the result of hatchery outplantings. The YIN is now

managing a program of annually acclimating and releasing 700,000 coho pre-smolts

transferred into the Basin under the CRFMP, to supply a terminal fishery for Tribal

and other fishers. The fish being acclimated and released under this program would

be monitored for their survival through various life stages and for the rates of

predation on juvenile fall chinook. This information would be used by the Policy

Group to determine whether and how a coho reintroduction program could be

developed using the adaptive management process. No new 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
6

facilities at Prosser Dam. A description of the coho study can be found in section 2.4

of the Final EIS.

Rationale for Decisions. I have selected Alternative 2 because this alternative has a

good potential for increasing knowledge about supplementation, while increasing the

number of upper Yakima spring chinook returning to the Basin. Under Alternative 2,

anadromous fish populations should also increase more quickly, and harvest opportunities

should be increased. The alternative is consistent with the Council’s CRBFWP. While it

is the most costly of the three alternatives evaluated in the EIS, it would provide

potentially invaluable information regarding the use of supplementation in the Yakima

River Basin.

Having considered the environmental impacts described in detail in Chapter 4 of the Final

EIS and the Response to Comments Appendix, I find the benefits of Alternative 2

outweigh the potential adverse environmental impacts on fisheries, surface and ground

water, endangered species, and other resources.

• The highest potential impact (positive and negative) from Alternative 1 would be on

the Yakima Basin’s fishery resources. However, it could negatively affect existing

resident fish populations through genetic and ecological interactions. Project

managers will use the adaptive management process to learn from and continually

adapt their actions to prevent or correct problems.

• Surface water quality could be moderately affected by erosion during construction of

the facilities, but this will be a short-term impact. Water quantity impacts would be

low, as water used for the project would be returned to the source immediately after

use. BPA has applied for water rights through the Washington Department of

Ecology (WDOE), and will use water rights granted according to the permits issued.

BPA will not use eminent domain to acquire water rights for this project. A potential

for conflict over future water availability exists if more fish return to the Basin as a

result of this project and/or other fish mitigation efforts. BPA has little or no control

over the resolution of water availability issues. Those are the jurisdiction of other

state and federal entities.

• Groundwater would be used for the Cle Elum hatchery year-round, and at the three

acclimation sites from January to May. Such water would be discharged, not back to

groundwater, but to nearby streams or rivers. Groundwater pumping is not expected

to affect other nearby wells adversely. Floodplains and wetlands that could not be
7

totally avoided may be filled. However, sites would be designed to minimize

impacts, and wetland losses mitigated by replacement wetlands.

• About 8 hectares (20 acres) of wildlife habitat would be permanently affected,

temporarily or possibly permanently displacing wildlife. A wildlife mitigation plan is

being developed. Few impacts are expected on the listed threatened or endangered

species in the vicinity of the project site: bald eagles wintering at the Clark Flat site

could be disturbed by increased human activity, and spotted owls rearing near the

Jack Creek site could be disturbed by construction noise. Consultation with the

USFWS has been completed on ways to minimize impacts on these species, and

USFWS concurred with BPA’s determination that there would be no adverse effects

on these species.

In the course of BPA consultations with the NMFS under section 7 of the Endangered

Species Act, NMFS sent BPA a draft letter indicating that it agrees that the YFP is not

likely to adversely affect listed Snake River salmon. The draft letter is part of the

administrative record, and BPA is proceeding with preliminary work on the YFP in

the absence of NMFS's final decision. BPA will not issue construction contracts until

after NMFS issues its final letter. Should the final letter vary substantively from the

draft, BPA will review its decision to proceed with the YFP and issue an amended

Record of Decision, if necessary.

• Impacts on recreation and visual resources would be moderate. The resident trout

fishery could be affected either positively (increased prey base) or negatively

(increased inter-species competition). Near the Jack Creek site, part of a

snowmobiling trail would be eliminated through regular plowing; alternative trails are

planned. Interpretive facilities planned at the Cle Elum site would provide additional

recreational resources. Little to no impacts would occur for cultural resources.

Resources found at Jack Creek would be mitigated through avoidance, if possible; or

otherwise treated under consultation in accordance with the National Historic

Preservation Act.

• Construction would affect resources management in riparian and protected shoreline

areas that cannot be avoided. BPA would consult with the managing agencies

regarding ways to minimize this impact. Prime farmland would not be adversely

affected. Finally, vegetation, air resources, noise, and socioeconomic impacts are

anticipated to be low to negligible.

Alternative 1 would undertake the same actions as Alternative 2, except for the coho

feasibility study. Environmental impacts would differ only slightly between the two

alternatives, and the existing coho release program would likely continue whether the

feasibility study were included in the YFP Project or not. While it would be less costly,
8

Alternative 1 would offer no opportunities to study the feasibility of future coho

supplementation.

The No Action alternative is the environmentally preferred action. It would have the

fewest environmental impacts because (with no construction) it would not disturb soils,

vegetation, wildlife, or cultural resources, nor would it use the materials required for

construction under the action alternatives. I have not selected this alternative because it

would not contribute toward evaluating the effectiveness of supplementation techniques,

and it would not be consistent with the Council’s CRBFWP. It does not address the

immediate concern regarding the continuing and increasing decline in anadromous fish

populations. I have selected Alternative 2 because, while it has greater environmental

risks and would cost more than the No Action alternative, it also has the potential for

much greater environmental benefits.

Mitigation. Mitigation actions are an integral part of Alternative 2, and must be funded

and carried out along with supplementation actions. All practicable means to avoid or

minimize harm from implementation of Alternative 2 have been adopted and are

summarized below. Monitoring and evaluation of the spring chinook supplementation

actions are essential to increase knowledge of supplementation, allow continuous

feedback to project management, and minimize any actions that may have negative

consequences for the existing stocks. Environmental impacts predicted from

implementation of these decisions have the potential to be significant if not adequately

mitigated. In the event that funding is unavailable for spring chinook monitoring and

evaluation under alternative 2, further environmental review would be required.

A Mitigation Action Plan is being prepared; it will contain all mitigation measures

addressed in the FEIS for Alternative 2. These include the following:

• Water withdrawals from the Yakima River for the Cle Elum hatchery will be

reduced during periods of river flow less than 9.8 cubic meters per second

(350 cubic feet per second).
9

• Surface water withdrawals will generally be nonconsumptive; water will be

returned to the source after use.

• Project managers will treat runoff from access roads and other impervious

surfaces to protect surface or groundwater quality.

• New construction will not alter floodplain or floodway characteristics or channel

flow capacity.

• The loss of riparian wetlands at all sites will be avoided if possible. If this is not

possible, replacement riparian wetlands will be established.

• To avoid impacts on wetlands at acclimation sites, delineations will be completed

before final facility design, siting, construction, and operation.

• Disturbance of wetlands and buffers from construction activities will be avoided

whenever possible. If disturbance can not be avoided, the area of disturbance will

be minimized to the extent practicable. Disturbed wetlands will be restored to

their previous condition wherever practicable.

• The project managers will define or identify objectives for management of the key

non-target species of fish before the project is implemented, so that an effective

monitoring plan can be developed and implemented.

• The possible introduction of non-indigenous strains of pathogenic organisms will

be minimized by stringent inspection and quarantine procedures.

All phases of artificial propagation, fish transfers, and supplementation procedures will follow the fish health policy documented in Policies and Procedures

for Columbia Basin Anadromous Salmonid Hatcheries (Integrated Hatchery

Operations Team, 1994). Minimal use of surface water, rigorous sanitation, and

use of disinfection procedures combined with optimum husbandry, isolation and

quarantine practices, and a diagnostic and therapeutic program will be

incorporated into the project operations.

• Wildlife mitigation for the net loss of riparian and other wildlife habitat at the

acclimation sites will be developed and implemented in consultation with WDFW

and YIN personnel.

• BPA will complete consultation with the NMFS and USFWS under Section 7 of

the ESA before making irretrievable commitments of resources to the project.

• In the spring, before construction at the Jack Creek site, surveys for nesting

spotted owls will be conducted. If owls are nesting within 0.8 km (0.5 mi.) of the

sites, formal consultation with USFWS will be initiated.

• As necessary, the acclimation sites will be resurveyed for special status species

before construction and/or a biologist will be on site to monitor construction of

the facilities.

• Site clearing will be minimized to reduce the potential for air quality impacts

during construction due to dust and vehicle exhaust.
10

• The visual impacts from the sites will be mitigated by minimizing ground and

plant disturbance during construction, and providing vegetative screening around

the facilities.

• Plans for minimizing impacts on recreational resources at the Jack Creek site will

be developed with the landowners.

• Prehistoric lithic materials will be avoided in siting the acclimation facilities. If

avoidance is not possible, the Tribe and State Historic Preservation Officer will be

consulted under the National Historic Preservation Act.

• The project managers will develop and implement a recycling policy.

• Chemicals applied in project facilities will be handled, applied, and disposed of in

accordance with Federal Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency,

and WDOE regulations.

• Where possible, an attempt will be made to locate facilities out of the 60-meter

(200-foot) State shoreline area of the Yakima and North Fork Teanaway Rivers.

If locations within the shoreline area can not be avoided, BPA will consult with

the appropriate state and local agencies to determine the best placement of the

structure. In shoreline areas, disturbed land will be restored as closely as possible

to pre-project contours and replanted with native and local species. Erosion

control measures will be implemented within the 60-m (200 ft.) shoreline area.

• Construction equipment exhausts will meet applicable regulatory requirements.

Any fugitive dust caused by construction will be mitigated by water sprinkling, as

necessary.

• The new snow park will be plowed near Jack Creek to provide access for

snowmobiling along the North Fork Teanaway Road in winter. The project will

also arrange for the road to be plowed from Lick Creek to Jack Creek.

The Mitigation Action Plan will be distributed to those requesting a copy, by calling

BPA’s toll-free request line (see below). It will be available along with this Record of

Decision. To the extent applicable, the Mitigation Action Plan will include a monitoring

and enforcement program.

Public Availability. Copies of the YFP FEIS and the YFP EIS Summary, as well as

additional copies of this ROD, are available to all interested and affected persons and

agencies from BPA’s Public Involvement Office, P.O. Box 12999, Portland, OR 97212.

Copies of these documents may also be obtained by using BPA’s nationwide toll-free

request line, 1-800-622-4520.
11

Conclusion. Alternative 2 is the best course of action to meet the need and purposes of

this project. While I have selected Alternative 2, other entities influence the speed,

timing, and funding levels of both the spring chinook supplementation action and the

coho feasibility study. As individual proposals needed to implement these actions are

defined, they must be submitted to the Council’s project prioritization process, which

may affect funding. With Council concurrence on funding levels, construction of

facilities for the supplementation action is expected to begin in May 1996, and to be

completed in 1997.

Issued in Portland, Oregon on March 13, 1996.

/s/ Randall W. Hardy

Administrator and Chief

 Executive Officer