Draft Planning Report/Environmental Impact Statement 

Yakima River Basin 

Water Storage Feasibility Study 

Yakima Project 

Washington 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Pacific Northwest Region 

Upper Columbia Area Office 

Yakima, Washington 

State of Washington 

Department of Ecology 

Central Regional Office 

Yakima, Washington 

Ecology Publication No. 07-11-044 January 2008 
Mission Statements 

The Mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect 

and provide access to our Nation's natural and cultural 

heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian 

Tribes and our commitments to island communities. 

The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, 

develop, and protect water and related resources in an 

environmentally and economically sound manner in the 

interest of the American public. 

The mission of the Department of Ecology is to protect, 

preserve and enhance Washington’s environment, and 

promote the wise management of our air, land and water 

for the benefit of current and future generations. 
Draft Planning Report/Environmental Impact Statement 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage Feasibility Study 

Benton, Yakima, and Kittitas Counties, Washington 

Co-Lead Agencies:	 For further information contact: 

U.S. Department of the Interior Mr. David Kaumheimer 

Bureau of Reclamation Environmental Programs Manager 

 Upper Columbia Area Office 

 1917 Marsh Road 

 Yakima, Washington 98901-2058 

 509-575-5848 ext. 612 

State of Washington	 Mr. Derek I. Sandison 

Department of Ecology Central Regional Director 

 15 W. Yakima Ave., Ste. 200 

Yakima, Washington 98902-3401 

 509-454-7673 

Cooperating Agencies: 

Yakima County Public Services 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Seattle District 

U.S. Department of the Army – Yakima Training Center 

U.S. Department of Energy – Hanford Site, Office of River Protection 

This draft planning report/environmental impact statement (Draft PR/EIS) examines the 

feasibility, acceptability, and environmental consequences of alternatives to create 

additional water storage for the Yakima River basin for the benefit of anadromous fish, 

irrigated agriculture, and future municipal water supply. A No Action Alternative, three 

alternatives proposed jointly by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of 

Ecology (Joint Alternatives), and three State of Washington alternatives (State 

Alternatives) were evaluated. The Joint Alternatives consider water storage options as 

directed under feasibility study authority (Public Law 108-7) while the State Alternatives 

consider both storage and nonstorage options. A preferred alternative has not been 

identified. 

This Draft PR/EIS was prepared in compliance with the Economic and Environmental 

Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies 

(P&Gs), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the State of Washington 

Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). It also provides the public review required under 

Executive Orders 11988 (Floodplain Management) and 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) 

and the National Historic Preservation Act. Results of compliance with the Fish and 

Wildlife Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and the 

Clean Water Act are included in the evaluations contained in this Draft PR/EIS. 

This Draft PR/EIS is available for a 60-day public review period. Comments are due to 

the above Bureau of Reclamation address by March 31, 2008. 
 

SEPA FACT SHEET
 

Brief Description of Proposal: 

The Bureau of Reclamation and Washington State Department of Ecology are 

studying potential storage options to benefit fish, irrigation, and future municipal 

water supply in the Yakima River Basin. This document is a combined Draft 

Planning Report and Environmental Impact Statement (Draft PR/EIS). It 

examines three Joint Alternatives and three State Alternatives, as well as the No 

Action Alternative. The Joint Alternatives are storage alternatives being proposed 

by both Reclamation and Ecology. They include Black Rock, Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir, and Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternatives. 

The three State Alternatives are being evaluated by Ecology under its broader 

authority to study both storage and nonstorage options. The three alternatives are 

Enhanced Water Conservation, Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources, 

and Groundwater Storage. 

Proponents: 

Washington State U.S. Department of the Interior 

Department of Ecology Bureau of Reclamation 

P.O. Box 47600 Upper Columbia Area Office 

Olympia, Washington 98504-7600 1917 Marsh Road 

Yakima, Washington 98901-2058 

Agency Contacts: 

Derek I. Sandison, Regional Director David Kaumheimer 

SEPA Responsible Official Environmental Programs Manager 

Washington State Department of Ecology Bureau of Reclamation 

Central Regional Office Upper Columbia Area Office 

15 West Yakima Avenue, Suite 200 1917 Marsh Road 

Yakima, Washington 98902-3401 Yakima, Washington 98901-2058 

509-454-7673 509-575-5848 ext. 612 

Permits, Licenses, and Approvals Required for Proposal: 

It is not possible to present a complete list of permits, licenses, and approvals that 

may be required for the alternatives considered for the Yakima River Basin Water 

Storage Feasibility Study because additional studies will be undertaken to define 

the specific nature of the projects identified in the State Alternatives. It is 

possible, however, to identify a number of the most common types of permits, 

licenses, and approvals associated with water resources and habitat that would 

generally be required for the proposed alternatives. These permits, licenses, and 

approvals are listed below by the jurisdictional agency: 

Federal Permits, Licenses, and Approvals 

• Section 401 Permit, Clean Water Act 

• Section 402 Permit, Clean Water Act 

• Section 404 Permit, Clean Water Act 
• Additional Points of Diversion Authorization 

• National Environmental Policy Act 

• Endangered Species Act 

• Secretary’s Native American Trust Responsibilities 

• National Historic Preservation Act 

• Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management 

• Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands 

• Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice 

• Executive Order 13007: Indian Sacred Sites 

State Permits, Licenses, and Approvals 

• Water use permit/certificate of water right – Department of Ecology 

• Reservoir permit/aquifer storage and recovery – Department of Ecology 

• Dam safety permit – Department of Ecology 

•	 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit(s) – Department 

of Ecology 

• Section 401 water quality certification – Department of Ecology 

• Shoreline conditional use permit, or variance – Department of Ecology 

• Water system plan approval – Department of Health 

• Hydraulic project approval – Department of Fish and Wildlife 

• Forest practices approval – Department of Natural Resources 

Local Permits, Licenses, and Approvals 

• Critical areas permit or approval – Appropriate local jurisdictional agency 

• Floodplain development permit – Appropriate local jurisdictional agency 

•	 Shoreline substantial development permit, conditional use permit, 

 or variance – Appropriate local jurisdictional agency 

• Building permit – Appropriate local jurisdictional agency 

• Clearing and grading permit – Appropriate local jurisdictional agency 

Authors and Contributors: 

A list of authors and contributors is provided following chapter 6. 

Date of Issue: 

January 29, 2008 

Public Comment Period: 

In accordance with WAC 197-11-455 and the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), Ecology and Reclamation will conduct a 60-day public comment period 

from January 29 to March 31, 2008. 
Submitting Comments: 

Comments on the Draft PR/EIS should be submitted to: 

David Kaumheimer 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Upper Columbia Area Office 

1917 Marsh Road 

Yakima, Washington 98901-2058 

509-575-5848 ext. 612 

Timing of Additional Environmental Review: 

This Draft PR/EIS has been prepared to generally address probable significant 

adverse impacts associated with alternatives proposed for the Yakima River Basin 

Water Storage Feasibility Study. This Draft PR/EIS is being prepared in 

accordance with NEPA and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). 

Individual projects undertaken as part of the State Alternatives may require 

additional environmental review when they are proposed; these projects may 

require SEPA compliance, NEPA compliance, or both, depending upon the 

implementing agency, source of funding, and/or types of permits required. 

Projects will be evaluated as they are developed and ready for environmental 

review. This could occur within the next few years for some of the early action 

items, or as long as several years in the future for other projects. 

Public Hearings: 

Reclamation and Ecology will conduct public hearings to receive public 

comments on the Draft PR/EIS. Meetings will be held on two days in two 

locations: 

Wednesday, February 27, 2008, in Yakima, Washington. An informational 

open house will occur from 1:00 to 2:00 p.m., followed by a public hearing to 

receive oral comments from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. A second informational open 

house will be held from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m., with a public hearing occurring from 

7:00 to 9:00 p.m. The location is the Yakima Convention Center, 

10 North 8th Street. 

Thursday, February 28, 2008, in Kennewick, Washington. An informational 

open house will occur from 1:00 to 2:00 p.m., followed by a public hearing to 

receive oral comments from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. A second informational open 

house will be held from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m., with a public hearing occurring from 

7:00 to 9:00 p.m. The location is the Three Rivers Convention Center, 

7016 West Grandridge Boulevard. 

Document Availability: 

The Draft PR/EIS can be viewed on-line at: 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/cwp/crbwmp_yak_storage.html. The 

document can be obtained in hard copy or CD by written request to the SEPA 

Responsible Official listed above, or by calling 509-454-7679. If you need this 
publication in an alternate format, please call the Department of Ecology, 

Columbia River Unit, at 509-575-2490. Persons with hearing loss can call 711 

for Washington Relay Service. Persons with a speech disability can call 

877-833-6341. 

Location of Background Materials: 

Background materials used in the preparation of this Draft PR/EIS are available 

online at the following links. 

Columbia River Basin Storage Options – Yakima Basin Water Storage 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/cwp/crbwmp_yak_storage.html 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage Feasibility Study, Upper Columbia Area 

Office 

http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/storage_study/index.html 
Yakima River Basin Water 

--

IMin Mop logon"

...... _D_.."""'_C...

""" 

--­,",,*,C""'. oI< . 

.......... ...... --.,_. ........... C_ 

*'_ ~t.IMoC_ .... _ ..... L..~ 

~­

r":::Jc-y­ n. ___a--:t 

-.---. 

[.J................

Y--""'" ....-

Thfs referenc" ~raphlC fs Inte nd lor info"nalional purpoS<!'S only. 1\ is _ant to nr;i$lm 

feature locatIOn ,,,Iawe to other landmarks Geog,a~ ic IeaWles have been intentionally 

$I"",.,>ed ., an a~to prov;de a r1"Ore reada"" product. No r&j><esentatlOn i$ made 

as to accuracy of thIS docu'"""t Current as of January 2008 

REFERENCE GRAPHIC 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
 
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
 

°C degrees Celsius 

°F degrees Fahrenheit 

μg/L micrograms per liter 

1-D one-dimensional 

2-D two-dimensional 

AACE Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Acquavella State of Washington Department of Ecology v. James J. 

Acquavella et al. 

AHA All H: Habitat, Hatcheries, Harvest, and the Hydroelectric 

Analyzer 

ALE Arid Lands Ecology 

APE area of potential effect 

ASR Aquifer Storage and Recovery 

ATV all-terrain vehicle 

BCA benefit-cost analysis 

BCAA Benton County Air Authority 

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Biology TWG Biology Technical Work Group 

BIOP Biological Opinion 

Black Rock Summary Summary Report, Appraisal Assessment of the Black Rock 

Report Alternative 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BMP Best Management Practice 

BOD biochemical oxygen demand 

BPA Bonneville Power Administration 

CBP Columbia Basin Project 

CCD County Census Division 

CDC Centers for Disease Control 

CDP Census Designated Place 

CFO Conditional Final Order 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs cubic feet per second 

CID Columbia Irrigation District 

cm centimeters 

CO carbon monoxide 

CPOM coarse-particulate-organic-matter 

CR contingent ranking/conjoint analysis 

CRBG Columbia River Basalt Group 

CRBWMP Columbia River Basin Water Management Program 

ix 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

CRMP Cultural Resources Management Plan 

CV contingent valuation 

DAHP Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic 

Preservation 

dB decibels 

dBA A-weighted decibel 

DDT dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane 

DM Departmental Manual 

DO dissolved oxygen 

DOC dissolved organic carbon 

DOE Department of Energy 

Draft PR/EIS Draft Planning Report/Environmental Impact Statement, 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage Feasibility Study 

DSS decision support system 

Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology 

EDT Ecosystem Diagnostics and Treatment 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

EO Executive Order 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPT Ephemeroptera Plecoptera and Trichoptera 

EQ Environmental Quality 

ESA Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 

ESU evolutionarily significant unit 

ET evapotranspiration 

FAR Fourth Assessment Report 

FCRPS Federal Columbia River Power System 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

g acceleration of gravity 

gpm gallons per minute 

Hanford Site Hanford Nuclear Reservation 

HEC-RAS Hydraulic Engineering Center – River Analysis System 

HEP Habitat Evaluation Procedures 

HSI Habitat Suitability Index 

HU Habitat Units 

HUD Housing and Urban Development 

I Interstate 

ICC Indian Claims Commission 

IDC interest during construction 

IMPLAN IMpact Analysis for PLANning 

x 
 

 

Abbreviations and Acronyms 

IOP Interim Comprehensive Basin Operating Plan for the Yakima

 Project 

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

ITA Indian trust asset 

KID Kennewick Irrigation District 

kV kilovolt 

kWh kilowatthour 

LWD large woody debris 

maf million acre-feet 

MCL Maximum Concentration Level 

mg/L milligrams per liter 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MP mile post 

mph miles per hour 

MW megawatts 

MWh megawatthour 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

N nitrogen 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service 

National Register National Register of Historic Places 

NED National Economic Development 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act, as amended 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOAA Fisheries National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National 

Marine Fisheries Service 

NOx nitrogen oxide 

NPPC Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Council 

NRC National Research Council 

NTU nephelometric turbidity unit 

NWI National Wetlands Inventory 

NWR National Wildlife Refuge 

OHV off-highway vehicle 

OM&R operations, maintenance, and replacement 

Omnibus Act Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2003 

OMR&E operations, maintenance, replacement, and energy 

OSE Other Social Effects 

P precipitation 

P phosphorus 

xi 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

P&Gs Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for 

 Water and Related Land Resources Implementation 

Studies 

P.L. Public Law 

PCB polychlorinated bi-phenols 

PCE primary constituent elements 

PEM palustrine emergent wetlands 

PFO palustrine forested wetlands 

PHA Peak Horizontal Acceleration 

PIA Practicably Irrigable Acreage 

PM10 particulate matter nominally 10 microns or less 

PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 

PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

PSHA Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment 

PSS palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands 

PUD Public Utility District 

RCW Revised Code of Washington 

Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation 

RED Regional Economic Development 

RM river mile 

ROW right-of-way 

RV recreational vehicle 

SCS Soil Conservation Service 

SEPA State Environmental Policy Act 

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SMA Washington State Shoreline Management Act of 1972 

SOAC System Operation Advisory Committee 

SPCC Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures 

SR State Route 

SRH-SIAM Sediment Impact Analysis Methods 

SSTWG Storage Study Technical Work Group 

Storage Study Yakima River Basin Water Storage Feasibility Study 

SWE snow water equivalent 

T temperature 

TCP traditional cultural property 

TDG total dissolved gas concentrations 

TDS total dissolved solids 

the Authorization Public Law 108-7 

TMDL total maximum daily load 

xii 
Abbreviations and Acronyms 

TP total phosphorus 

TPN total persulfate nitrogen 

TSS total suspended solids 

TVA Tennessee Valley Authority 

TWG Technical Work Group 

TWRP Trust Water Rights Program 

TWSA total water supply available 

UCAO Upper Columbia Area Office 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

VOC volatile organic compounds 

VRA voluntary regional agreements 

WAC Washington Administrative Code 

Watershed Council Yakima River Watershed Council 

WCRP World Climate Research Programme 

WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

WDOT Washington Department of Transportation 

WHO World Health Organization 

WIP Wapato Irrigation Project 

WNF Wenatchee National Forest 

WSAI water supply available for irrigation 

WSU Washington State University 

WTWG Water Transfer Working Group 

YAI Yakima Agricultural Impact 

Yakima Appraisal Yakima River Basin Storage Alternatives Appraisal 

Assessment Assessment 

Yak-RW Yakima Project RiverWare 

YBSA Yakima Basin Storage Alliance 

YRBWEP Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Program 

YSFWRB Yakima Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Recovery Board 

YTC U.S. Department of the Army, Yakima Training Center 

xiii 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Introduction 

The Yakima River Basin Water Storage Feasibility Study (Storage Study), as 

authorized by the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2003 (Omnibus Act), Public 

Law 108-7, examines the feasibility and acceptability of storage augmentation 

for the benefit of fish, irrigation, and future municipal water supply for the 

Yakima River basin. The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the State 

of Washington, represented by the Department of Ecology (Ecology), are the 

co-lead agencies of the Storage Study. 

The purpose of the Storage Study is to evaluate plans that would create additional 

water storage for the Yakima River basin, and assess each plan’s potential to 

supply the water needed for fish and the aquatic resources that support them, 

basinwide irrigation, and future municipal demands. 

The need for the study is based on the existing finite water supply and limited 

storage capability of the Yakima River basin. This finite supply and limited 

storage capability does not meet the water supply demands in all years and results 

in significant adverse impacts to the Yakima River basin’s economy, which is 

agriculture-based, and to the basin’s aquatic resources—specifically those 

resources supporting anadromous fish. 

Through a process of meeting with stakeholders, Tribal, Federal, State, and local 

agencies, and utilizing previous investigations, Reclamation developed the goals 

for the Storage Study. Storage Study goals include: 

•	 Improve anadromous fish habitat by restoring the flow regimes of 

the Yakima and Naches Rivers to more closely resemble the natural 

(unregulated) hydrograph. Through a collaborative process with the 

Storage Study Technical Work Group (SSTWG),1

 Reclamation developed 

nonbinding flow objectives to assist in measuring goal achievement 

(table ES.1). 

•	 Improve the water supply for proratable (junior) irrigation entities by 

providing a not less than 70-percent irrigation water supply for irrigation 

districts during dry years relying on diversions subject to proration. This 

70-percent goal equates to 896,000 acre-feet of proratable entitlements. 

•	 Meet future municipal water supply needs by maintaining a full municipal 

water supply for existing users and providing additional surface water 

supply of 82,000 acre-feet for population growth to the year 2050. 

 1

 A biologist work group formed to assist on technical matters related to the Yakima River 

basin aquatic habitat aspects. 

xv 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table ES.1 Monthly flow objectives (cubic feet per second [cfs]) for an average water year for the 

Easton, Cle Elum River, Ellensburg, Wapato, and lower Naches River reaches 

Reach 

Spring Summer Winter 

Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb 

Easton 722 1,166 1,400 787 450 375 375 375 425 450 450 450 

Cle Elum 

River 

511 954 1,500 1,301 589 400 400 400 425 425 425 425 

Ellensburg 1,982 2,424 3,700 2,586 2,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 980 1,016 1,257 1,459 

Wapato 3,109 2794 3,500 2655 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,758 1,854 2,163 2,460 

Lower 

Naches 

River 

1,265 1,802 2,297 2,291 988 550 550 550 500 576 691 720 

This Draft Planning Report/Environmental Impact Statement (Draft PR/EIS) 

combines a planning report and an environmental impact statement into one 

document. Because Ecology is a co-lead of the Storage Study, the storage 

augmentation alternatives are referred to in this document as “Joint Alternatives.” 

The following Joint Alternatives are considered: 

• Black Rock Alternative 

• Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

• Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

In addition to Reclamation’s authorization and focus on storage augmentation, 

Ecology, to meet the intent of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), 

evaluated a broader range of potential actions—encompassing both structural and 

nonstructural options both within the Yakima River basin and elsewhere in the 

Columbia River Basin—that may improve water availability for fish, irrigation, 

and municipal demands. Consequently Ecology evaluated alternatives that were 

not limited to storage options or storage facilities located within the Yakima River 

basin. These alternatives are referred to as “State Alternatives.” 

• Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative 

• Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative 

• Groundwater Storage Alternative 

All alternatives have been compared to the No Action Alternative, and the results 

are presented in this Draft PR/EIS. 

Background 

The Yakima Project’s surface water supply comes from the natural unregulated 

runoff of the Yakima River and its tributaries, irrigation return flows, and releases 

xvi 
 

Executive Summary 

of stored water from the five main reservoirs in the basin.2 Only 30 percent of the 

average annual natural runoff can be stored in the storage system. The Yakima 

Project depends heavily on the timing of unregulated spring and summer runoff 

from snowmelt and rainfall. The spring and early summer natural runoff flows 

supply most river basin demands through June in an average year. The majority 

of spring and summer runoff is from snowmelt; as a result, the snowpack is often 

considered a “sixth reservoir.” In most years, the five major reservoirs are 

operated to maximize storage in June, which typically coincides with the end of 

the major natural runoff. The reservoirs have a combined storage capacity of 

about 1.07 million acre-feet (maf). 

Demand for water from the Yakima River cannot always be met in years with 

below-average runoff. Currently, Reclamation storage contracts total 1.74 maf, 

but the average yearly runoff passing through the storage reservoir system is only 

1.71 maf. Though all of the entitlement holders do not call on their full 

entitlement volume every year, the existing surface water supply does not 

presently meet all water needs in dry years. A poor water year results in 

prorationing during the irrigation season. Prorationing refers to the process of 

equally reducing the amount of water delivered to junior, i.e., “proratable” water 

right holders in water-deficient years. In addition, reduced summer and early fall 

streamflows inhibit migrating, spawning, and rearing conditions for anadromous 

fish. 

Currently, only the cities of Cle Elum and Yakima obtain their municipal and 

domestic water from the surface waters of the Yakima River basin. Groundwater 

supplies the remainder of the municipal and domestic needs (83 percent) and is 

the preferred source for meeting future needs. 

Alternatives 

Analytical Process 

Operation studies were conducted and resource indicators were used to assess the 

effects of the No Action, Black Rock, Wymer Dam and Reservoir, Wymer Dam 

Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange, Groundwater Storage, and Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternatives on water resources. Water resources include flows in 

the Yakima and Columbia Rivers, reservoir operations in the Yakima River basin, 

and water supply. The operation studies and resource indicators also were used to 

assess the environmental consequences of the alternatives on many of the Yakima 

River basin’s aquatic and terrestrial resources. 

The operation studies include the use of several analytical models including 

RiverWare, Sediment Impacts Analysis Methods (SIAM), Decision Support 

2 The five major reservoirs (and their acre-foot active capacities) are: Keechelus (157,800); 

Kachess (239,000); Cle Elum (436,900), Bumping (33,700), and Rimrock/Tieton Dam (198,000). 

xvii 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

System (DSS), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) temperature, and Ecosystem 

Diagnostic and Treatment (EDT) models. RiverWare is a river flow model used 

to estimate daily average streamflow at several locations throughout the Yakima 

River basin, plus estimate daily irrigation diversions and daily reservoir storage 

volume by reservoir for each alternative. The RiverWare model uses a 25-year 

hydrologic period of historical water years of 1981-2005 (November 1, 1981-

October 31, 2005). The SIAM model estimates bedload movement and bed scour 

for key stream reaches. The DSS model for the Easton, Ellensburg, Union Gap, 

Wapato, and lower Naches River reaches was used to estimate the amount (acres) 

and difference in summer rearing habitat for the spring Chinook and steelhead fry 

and yearling life stages under each Joint Alternative compared to the No Action 

Alternative. The USGS temperature model focuses on the Parker-to-Prosser 

Diversion Dam reach, comparing the relative change in water temperature 

between alternatives. The EDT model estimates the difference in salmon and 

steelhead abundance based on habitat quantity and quality. 

Seepage modeling for the Black Rock Alternative indicates that an increase in 

groundwater flow (estimated up to 30 cfs) into the Hanford Site would be 

expected. The seepage would change groundwater conditions on the Hanford Site 

so that flow direction, contaminant concentrations, and rate of contaminant 

movement toward the Columbia River could be affected. Mitigation measures are 

being considered to reduce the seepage into the Hanford Site. 

Joint Alternatives 

The Joint Alternatives addressed in this document were developed via processes 

that conform to the Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for 

Water and Related Land Resource Implementation Studies (P&Gs). The 

alternatives are then compared using the four accounts—National Economic 

Development (NED), Regional Economic Development (RED), Environmental 

Quality (EQ), and Other Social Effects (OSE)—to facilitate evaluation and to 

display effects of the alternatives. 

Federal feasibility studies conducted by Reclamation, such as the Storage 

Study, are detailed investigations specifically authorized by Congress to 

determine the desirability of seeking congressional authorization for 

implementation of a preferred alternative, normally the NED Alternative, 

which reasonably maximizes net national economic development benefits. 

However, none of the alternatives developed in this feasibility study meet 

the requirements to be identified as the NED Alternative. The alternatives 

do, however, result in positive changes in regional income and regional 

employment, anadromous fish habitat improvements, and improved urban 

and community attributes as shown in the RED, EQ, and OSE accounts, 

respectively. Because of these positive changes, the alternatives are presented 

in this Draft PR/EIS, although no alternative has been identified as a 

xviii 
Executive Summary 

“preferred alternative.” A preferred alternative may be identified in the Final 

PR/EIS based on factors other than the economic standard. The reason for the 

selection will be explained in the Final PR/EIS. 

No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative is intended to represent the most likely future 

expected in the absence of constructing additional storage, against which all 

action alternatives are measured. The No Action Alternative includes future 

implementation of water conservation measures and water acquisitions as 

proposed under Title XII of the Act of October 31, 1994, which established the 

Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Program. The water conservation 

measures included in the No Action Alternative are those plans submitted by 

irrigation entities under the Basin Conservation Program that are currently 

being constructed or considered for future implementation with funding from 

the Basin Conservation Program or from other sources. 

The No Action Alternative will include construction of new facilities such as 

reregulation reservoirs, pumping plants, pipelines, etc., along the alignment of the 

existing facilities. The costs of the No Action Alternative would be the same 

under all alternatives; therefore, the costs of implementing the No Action 

Alternative do not impact the economic analysis. 

Accomplishments 

Instream Flows Provided.—Instream flow objectives were established by the 

SSTWG for wet, average, and dry water years. For the sake of simplicity, the 

monthly flow objectives were grouped by season—spring (March-June); summer 

(July-October); and winter (November-February)—and were expressed in terms 

of total acre-feet of water required to meet the combined monthly flow objective 

for each season. The seasons are based on the general life history pattern of 

steelhead and salmon in the Yakima River basin. These seasonal flow volume 

objectives (acre-feet) for the Ellensburg reach (Umtanum gage) and Wapato reach 

(Parker gage) are shown in table ES.2 for an average water year. The Ellensburg 

and Wapato reaches represent the general flow conditions in the upper and 

middle-to-lower Yakima River, which are the reach areas most influenced by the 

Storage Study alternatives. 

In addition, a natural (unregulated) flow regime for the Yakima, Naches, Cle 

Elum, Bumping, and Tieton Rivers was developed by modeling the 25-year 

period of record (1981-2005) for the river system without the existing Yakima 

Project storage reservoirs and diversions and associated return flows. This flow 

regime was also used in developing instream flow water supply goals. 

xix 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table ES.2 Seasonal flow objectives and model results for the Umtanum and Parker gages 

for an average water year (acre-feet) 

Flows 

Umtanum gage Parker gage 

Spring Summer Winter Spring Summer Winter 

Flow objective 741,915 304,920 380,010 780,410 316,602 898,766 

No Action 

Alternative 

685,946 614,456 380,010 725,734 190,155 698,766 

Black Rock 

Alternative 

751,152 476,734 434,527 1,007,651 313,234 758,113 

Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir 

Alternative 

701,927 550,763 418,356 700,894 187,865 689,855 

Wymer Dam Plus 

Yakima River Pump 

Exchange 

Alternative 

702,532 549,792 418,433 863,031 375,893 690,108 

Enhanced water 

conservation 

695,326 604,366 379,163 765,463 194,416 694,414 

Dry Year Proratable Irrigation Supply Provided.—Under the current operation, 

there are 6 years in the 25-year period of record (1981-2005) when the proration 

level is less than 70 percent. In 5 of these years, the proration level is better under 

the No Action Alternative than under the current operation; however, in the third 

year (1994) of the 3-year dry cycle of 1992-94, it is not. Table ES.3 presents the 

proration level for the 6 dry years for the No Action Alternative as compared to 

the current operation. 

Table ES.3 Irrigation proration level for the No Action Alternative compared to the current 

operation for the 25-year period of record (1981-2005)1 

Water year 

Proration level (percent) 

Current operation 

No Action 

Alternative 

Difference under No 

Action Alternative 

1987 64 69 +5 

1992 68 70 +2 

1993 56 57 +1 

1994 28 27 -1 

2001 40 44 +4 

2005 38 45 +7 

1

The irrigation water supply benefits of the conservation actions are realized in 1992 and 1993, as shown 

by the improved irrigation proration levels of the No Action Alternative. By 1994, the third year of the dry cycle, 

the difference in the proration level of the No Action Alternative and the current operation is negligible and is 

due to rounding of the Yak-RW model results. 

xx 
Executive Summary 

Municipal Supply Provided.—The municipal water supply need would be 

satisfied by the communities’ acquiring water rights from existing water right 

holders. 

Black Rock Alternative 

The Black Rock Alternative involves a diversion and partial exchange of 

Columbia River water for Yakima Project water currently diverted by Roza and 

Sunnyside Divisions for irrigation. Roza and Sunnyside have been identified as 

potential willing water exchange participants. Both Sunnyside and Tieton 

Divisions’ management have indicated they do not desire an additional dry year 

proratable supply; however, Sunnyside is willing to participate in an exchange. 

Water from the Columbia River would be pumped from the Priest Rapids 

Lake any time Columbia River water is available in excess of current instream 

target flows and storage space is available in a Black Rock reservoir, with the 

exception of July and August, when no Columbia River withdrawals would 

occur. In addition, the State of Washington, as a part of its Columbia River 

Basin Water Management Program, has indicated that withdrawal of water from 

the Columbia River for out-of-stream uses in July and August is prohibited 

(unless appropriately mitigated). The operation objective is to maintain Black 

Rock reservoir at full capacity to assure the water exchange can be affected. 

Stored water would be conveyed to the lower Yakima Valley and delivered to 

Roza and Sunnyside’s existing canals. Yakima Project water currently diverted 

from the Yakima River by these two water exchange participants would not be 

diverted, and the freed-up water would instead be used to meet the Storage Study 

goals. 

Reclamation has concluded that the Black Rock Alternative is technically viable, 

including the ability to withstand expected seismic activity. The dam design has 

been selected to absorb any anticipated ground shaking and maintain the ability to 

contain the reservoir behind it. Reclamation has also determined that the water 

exchange would meet the goals of the Storage Study. Reclamation has made 

estimates of the total seepage from the Black Rock reservoir and the seepage that 

travels toward the Hanford Site to the east. The impacts of that seepage will be 

identified through an analysis being conducted by the U.S. Department of Energy. 

That analysis will be concluded in 2008 and will be included in the Final PR/EIS. 

Reclamation is preparing an analysis of reducing that seepage flowing toward the 

Hanford Site that will also be included in the final PR/EIS. 

The total project cost for the Black Rock Alternative was estimated at $4.5 billion 

(April 2007 prices). The total project cost is the estimate to construct the features 

of the Black Rock Alternative. The annual operation, maintenance, replacement 

and energy costs are estimated at $60.2 million, including energy, or pumping, 

costs of $50 million. 

xxi 
 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Accomplishments 

Instream Flows Provided.—Table ES.2 presents instream flows provided under 

the Black Rock Alternative. 

Dry Year Proratable Irrigation Water Provided.—Table ES.4 presents the 

irrigation proration level for the 6 dry years for the 25-year period of record 

(1981-2005). The Black Rock Alternative meets the irrigation water supply goal 

in all years, including the third year (1994) of the 3-year dry cycle. 

Table ES.4 Irrigation proration level for the Black Rock Alternative compared to the 

No Action Alternative for the 25-year period of record (1981-2005) 

Water year 

Irrigation proration level (percent) 

No Action 

Alternative 

Black Rock 

Alternative 

Difference under 

Black Rock 

Alternative 

1987 69 82 +13 

1992 70 80 +10 

1993 57 73 +16 

1994 27 70 +43 

2001 44 70 +26 

2005 45 70 +25 

Municipal Supply Provided.—The average annual municipal water supply 

provided under the Black Rock Alternative for the 25-year period of record 

(1981-2005) is 81,100 acre-feet. The municipal water supply available for Black 

Rock in 1994, the third year of a 3-year drought cycle, is 79,000 acre-feet. 

Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

The Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative involves construction of an offchannel storage facility on Lmuma Creek, approximately 8 miles upstream of 

Roza Diversion Dam. Wymer reservoir would have an 162,500-acre-foot active 

capacity filled by pumping water from the Yakima River and would release water 

back to the Yakima River by gravity. For operational purposes, Wymer reservoir 

storage space is divided into two components: 

(1) 82,500 acre-feet to be used annually to provide portions of the stored 

water for downstream irrigation demands and for instream flows each year 

during July and August (withdrawn from the Yakima River from 

October 1–May 31 from Cle Elum Lake releases) and 

(2) 80,000 acre-feet to improve the proratable irrigation water supply in dryyears when the proration level is determined to be less than 70 percent 

(withdrawn during January 1–March 31), when Yakima River flows at the 

pumping plant are in excess of 1,475 cfs. 

xxii 
Executive Summary 

The irrigation, instream flow, and municipal water supply goals are the same as 

for the Black Rock Alternative description. 

Total project cost for the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative was estimated at 

$1.1 billion (April 2007 prices). The total project cost is the estimate to construct 

the features of the Wymer Dam Alternative. The annual operation, maintenance, 

replacement and energy costs are estimated at $3.0 million, including energy or 

pumping, costs of $1.9 million. 

Accomplishments 

Instream Flows Provided.—Table ES.2 presents instream flows provided under 

the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative. 

Dry Year Proratable Irrigation Supply Provided.—Table ES.5 presents the 

proration level for the 6 years for the 25-year period of record (1981-2005). The 

Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative proration level is better than under the 

No Action Alternative in all years, including the third year (1994) of the 3-year 

dry cycle. The primary reasons for this are that, while moving 185-200 cfs from 

Cle Elum Lake during October 1-May 31 (for aquatic habitat improvements) to 

Wymer reservoir is primarily a shift in reservoir contents, it does (1) provide the 

opportunity for subsequent refill of some of the vacated Cle Elum Lake storage 

space and (2) create specific carryover storage in Wymer reservoir to improve the 

proratable water supply in dry years. 

Table ES.5 Irrigation proration level for the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

compared to the No Action Alternative for the 25-year period of record (1981-2005) 

Water year 

Proration level (percent) 

No Action Alternative 

Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir Alternative 

Difference under 

Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir Alternative 

1987 69 73 +4 

1992 70 76 +6 

1993 57 68 +11 

1994 27 29 +2 

2001 44 59 +15 

2005 45 49 +4 

Municipal Supply Provided.—The average annual municipal water supply 

provided under the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative over the 25-year 

period of record (1981-2005) is 79,800 acre-feet. The municipal water supply 

available for the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative in 1994, the third year of 

a 3-year drought cycle, is 68,000 acre-feet. 

xxiii 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

The Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative couples the 

Wymer Dam and Reservoir with a pump exchange component. The pump 

exchange aspect of this alternative involves a “bucket-for-bucket” exchange of up 

to 1,050 cfs that would not be diverted by the Roza and Sunnyside Divisions of 

the Yakima Project, but would remain in the river to enhance instream flows. In 

return, water would be pumped from the mouth of the Yakima River upstream for 

delivery to these two divisions, beginning in mid-to-late March and continuing 

through the irrigation season of April through October. The water supply for the 

Wymer dam component of this alternative would be obtained from the Yakima 

River in the same manner and quantities described for the Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir Alternative. 

Total project cost for the pump exchange was estimated at $4 billion (April 2007 

prices). The total project cost is the estimate to construct the features of the 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima Pump Exchange Alternative. The annual operation, 

maintenance, replacement and energy costs are estimated at $38.0 million, 

including energy, or pumping, costs of $20 million. 

Accomplishments 

Instream Flows Provided.—Table ES.2 presents instream flows provided under 

the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative. 

Dry Year Proratable Irrigation Supply Provided.—Same as for Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir Alternative. 

Municipal Supply Provided.—Same as for Wymer Dam and Reservoir 

Alternative. 

State Alternatives 

Ecology evaluated the impacts of the State Alternatives according to SEPA 

requirements. SEPA is intended to ensure that environmental values are 

considered during decisionmaking by State and local governments. Although not 

required to do so under SEPA, Ecology included costs information on the State 

Alternatives in Chapter 5, “Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: State Alternatives.” In addition, Ecology used Reclamation’s 

study goals described above as one benchmark for evaluating the effectiveness of 

the State Alternatives. 

Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative 

The Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative represents a more 

aggressive program of conservation than is currently being implemented 

in the Yakima River basin. The Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative 

xxiv 
Executive Summary 

would change the allocation of conserved water and the funding for conservation 

programs to provide more incentives to implement agricultural conservation 

measures identified in existing Conservation Plans. It would also include 

conservation programs for onfarm, municipal, commercial, and industrial 

water. Implementation of the alternative would require construction, including 

canal lining or piping, reregulation reservoirs, installing pump-back stations, 

constructing onfarm irrigation improvements, and improvements to municipal 

water supply infrastructure. Table ES.2 presents instream flow objectives. 

Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative 

The Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative would utilize 

market incentives to reallocate water. The proposal includes options for 

water marketing and water banking. Three options are proposed for each. 

One option would work within existing water laws, while a second option 

would require legislative changes to implement marketing and banking. A 

third option would establish water marketing and banking within and between 

irrigation districts. For all alternatives, it is assumed that water would be 

reallocated from low-value uses to higher value uses. This alternative is 

primarily a change in the administration of water rights and would not require 

any construction. The exception would be new irrigation infrastructure required 

if water rights are permanently transferred to irrigate different areas. 

Groundwater Storage Alternative 

The Groundwater Storage Alternative would use surface water to recharge 

aquifers for later recovery and use to enhance streamflows, meet out-of-stream 

needs, and replenish aquifers. Aquifers could be recharged through direct 

injection by wells or through surface infiltration. Direct injection would utilize 

wells to pump water into the aquifer and would require treatment facilities. 

Surface infiltration would require a series of large infiltration basins. Water could 

be recovered from aquifers either actively by pumping or passively by allowing 

the groundwater to flow to surface discharge points. This alternative would 

require the construction of facilities to recharge and recover water, including 

injection wells, treatment facilities, infiltration basins, pump stations and 

conveyance lines. 

Resource Analysis 

Following is a narrative summary of the effects of the Joint and State Alternatives 

on key resources that would likely be affected by the alternatives. Tables ES.6 

and ES.7 at the end of the Executive Summary present summaries of impacts on 

all resources evaluated in the Draft PR/EIS. 

xxv 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Water Resources 

No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, the hydrograph is little changed from the 

existing condition. Winter and spring flows throughout the systems are 

essentially unchanged as a result of water conservation. Summer flows 

increase slightly, in some reaches, mostly downstream from the Parker gage, 

as water that currently is released from storage and diverted downstream for 

irrigation remains instream to meet the higher flow targets. 

Because the conservation is achieved by improving efficiency which reduces 

return flow, the effects are limited to the reaches where conservation occurs. 

Downstream of those reaches, there is no effect. 

Black Rock Alternative 

Modeling results show an improvement in the Yakima Project water supply 

over the 25-year period of record (1981-2005) under the Black Rock Alternative 

when compared to the No Action Alternative and meets the dry-year proratable 

irrigation water supply goal of 70 percent in all years. In general, the Black Rock 

Alternative also provides the greatest increase in spring flows at the Parker gage 

and the greatest reduction in summer flows in the upper Yakima River compared 

to the two Wymer alternatives. Winter flows are generally higher for the Black 

Rock Alternative than for all the other alternatives. 

Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

The addition of the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative would increase the 

Yakima Project total active storage capacity from 1,070,700 acre-feet to 

1,233,200 acre-feet. In general, the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

provides spring flows at Parker gage similar to the No Action Alternative, while 

summer flows there are somewhat higher than under the No Action Alternative. 

Summer flows in the upper Yakima River (Umtanum gage) are similar between 

the two Wymer Alternatives, with a reduction in summer flows that falls between 

the Black Rock and No Action Alternatives. Modeling results show an 

improvement in the Yakima Project water supply over the 25-year period of 

record (1981-2005) when compared to the No Action Alternative and meets the 

dry-year proratable irrigation and municipal water supply goals of 70 percent in 2 

of the 6 years. 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

This operation would improve the aquatic habitat of the Yakima River by leaving 

some of the water in the river that otherwise would have been diverted by Roza 

and Sunnyside. There would be an improvement in the Yakima Project water 

supply over the 25-year period of record (1981-2005) under this alternative. In 

general, the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

xxvi 
Executive Summary 

provides higher spring flows than No Action at the Parker gage, but with the same 

stream runoff pattern as the No Action Alternative and the highest summer flows 

of all the alternatives. Summer flows in the upper Yakima River (Umtanum gage) 

are identical to those under the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative, with a 

flow reduction that falls between that of the Black Rock and No Action 

Alternatives. Modeling results show an improvement in the Yakima Project water 

supply over the 25-year period of record (1981-2005) when compared to the No 

Action Alternative and meets the dry-year proratable irrigation and municipal 

water supply goals of 70 percent in 2 of the 6 years. 

Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative 

Under the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative, the hydrograph is little 

changed from the existing condition and the No Action Alternative. Winter and 

spring flows throughout the systems are changed slightly as a result of an 

intensive program of water conservation. Summer flows increase downstream 

from the Parker gage because this alternative includes the conservation measures 

included in the No Action Alternative, along with increased flow targets set by 

Title XII. Total water supply available for irrigation and instream flows is up to 

63,000 acre-feet greater during drought years compared to the No Action 

Alternative, except in the last year of a series of drought years such as that 

occurred from 1992 to 1994. The predicted increase in 1994 conditions is 12,000 

acre-feet. The increase improves irrigation reliability over the No Action 

Alternative. 

Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative 

This alternative would facilitate the transfer of existing water rights to help 

alleviate shortfalls in water supply for irrigation and municipal uses. Water 

supply conditions would improve for individual farmers, irrigation districts, or 

municipal users, but this alternative would not result in increases in the overall 

water supply for the Yakima River basin. 

Groundwater Storage Alternative 

One of the purposes of the Groundwater Storage Alternative is to increase 

streamflows in the Yakima River and its tributaries. Streamflows would be 

increased through return flow to a stream from surface infiltration and direct 

injection with passive recovery. Initial analysis of potential return flows to 

the Yakima River indicates that the Groundwater Storage Alternative could 

increase streamflows by an average of 22,800 to 25,800 acre-feet during the 

April to September period and 14,900 to 15,900 acre-feet during the July to 

September period. This represents an increase in the average daily discharge 

from the current 470 cfs to approximately 533 to 541 cfs. Because it is assumed 

that no water would be available to recharge aquifers during drought years, the 

Groundwater Storage Alternative would not affect irrigation deliveries or 

xxvii 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

proration levels. Streamflows at the Parker gage could be approximately 

60 to 70 cfs greater, but during drought years, streamflows would only be 

approximately 4 cfs greater. 

Water Quality 

No Action Alternative 

Water quality in Yakima River reaches under the No Action Alternative would be 

the same as under the current condition. 

Black Rock Alternative 

Analysis shows no effect, either adverse or beneficial, on water quality in the 

Columbia River resulting from the withdrawal of water for pumping. 

Seepage from Black Rock reservoir has the potential to raise the water table level 

beneath the Hanford Site. Raising the water table would have the potential to 

mobilize contaminants currently in the soil as well as shorten the travel time. 

In the Yakima River, higher flows in the lower river during the summer should 

provide improved water quality conditions relative to nutrients, dissolved oxygen, 

and DDT. 

Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

In the Yakima River in wet and average years, there is likely beneficial cooling 

downstream from the Wymer reservoir discharge point during summer and 

autumn. In dry years, there may be some slight warming of Yakima River 

temperatures during August. Mitigation measures are proposed to monitor water 

quality parameters to prevent releases of warm or otherwise low-quality water 

into the Yakima River from the Wymer reservoir. 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

Effects on water quality under the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

Exchange Alternative would be the same as under the Wymer Dam and Reservoir 

Alternative. In the mid- to lower Yakima River, higher summer flows at the 

Parker gage would provide water quality improvements as a result of dilution. 

Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative 

The greater flow in the Yakima River would provide some water quality benefit 

as a result of dilution, but no substantial benefit to temperature would result. 

Sediment could wash into water bodies during construction, causing short-term 

impacts to water quality. Long-term impacts may include increased dissolved 

oxygen, reduced stream temperatures, and increased pollutant concentrations in 

xxviii 
Executive Summary 

runoff. Onfarm conservation measures may reduce surface water and 

groundwater pollutant loadings because of improved irrigation practices. 

Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative 

Transfers may improve or degrade water quality, including water temperature, 

depending on volume and location of water transferred. However, the volume of 

water that would likely be transferred is not likely to result in substantial changes 

in temperature. Changes in use may also improve or degrade water quality 

depending on the change of use. 

Groundwater Storage Alternative 

The Groundwater Storage Alternative could alter surface and groundwater 

quality. Water infiltrated or injected to aquifers could change water quality, 

including temperature within aquifers, depending on the water quality of the 

surface water used for the recharge. Water used for direct injection would be 

treated prior to recharge. The recharged water that discharges to streams may 

create areas of cooler water within the streams. 

Vegetation and Wildlife 

No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative would have no effect on shrub-steppe habitat, 

movement corridors, and black cottonwoods when compared to the current 

condition. 

Black Rock Alternative 

The Black Rock Alternative would impact, both directly and indirectly, 

approximately 3,850 acres of shrub-steppe habitat, which would impact the sagegrouse population by reducing available shrub-steppe habitat, and would disturb 

more than one-third of animal movement corridors. This alternative would 

increase black cottonwood regeneration. 

Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

The Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative would generally have a negligible or 

slight effect on shrub-steppe habitat, movement corridors, and black cottonwoods 

when compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

Effects on vegetation and wildlife under the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River 

Pump Exchange Alternative would be the same as under the Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir Alternative. 

xxix 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Enhanced Conservation Alternative 

The Enhanced Conservation Alternative would not have substantial impacts on 

vegetation or wildlife. Some vegetation along canals may be removed to improve 

canal efficiency. No impacts to shrub-steppe habitat or movement corridors are 

anticipated since conservation projects would be located on land already in 

agricultural use. The alternative may benefit black cottonwood regeneration if 

higher streamflows result from conservation measures. 

Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative 

This alternative is not expected to affect vegetation or wildlife. Water transfers 

may allow the expansion of irrigated agriculture, but this is expected to occur in 

areas already used for agriculture. No impacts to shrub-steppe habitat or 

movement corridors are anticipated. Water transferred to instream flows may 

benefit black cottonwood regeneration. 

Groundwater Storage Alternative 

The Groundwater Storage Alternative is not expected to have major impacts to 

vegetation or wildlife. The alternative may result in increased flows in the 

Yakima River and its tributaries which could benefit fish, depending on the 

timing and location of the increased flows. Construction of the facilities for 

groundwater storage would require the permanent removal of vegetation, but this 

is not expected to affect shrub-steppe habitat or movement corridors because the 

facilities would be located in previously disturbed areas. Because the infiltration 

basins would be approximately 20 acres in size, substantial amounts of vegetated 

area would be replaced by ponds. Because the basins would be located in 

disturbed areas, they are not expected to decrease habitat. 

Anadromous Fish 

No Action Alternative 

For the No Action Alternative, the average rate of change in daily flow and the 

summer rearing habitat in the upper Yakima River basin are essentially 

unchanged from the current condition. Therefore, no effect is expected in the 

biological consequence to anadromous salmonids under the No Action 

Alternative compared to the current condition. However, the greater spring flows 

downstream from the Parker gage are considered beneficial to improve 

anadromous salmon smolt outmigration survival through the middle and lower 

Yakima River. The greater channel velocity during summer in the lower Yakima 

River would result in habitat losses in the main channel. 

Black Rock Alternative 

Differences in flow in the Yakima River under the Black Rock Alternative 

(compared to the No Action Alternative) are the greatest of any action 

xxx 
Executive Summary 

alternative. Spring flows are greater throughout the system, while summer flows 

in the mid- and lower Yakima River are substantially greater as a result of being 

able to meet higher target flows at the Parker gage because of a greater available 

water supply for instream flow augmentation. These differences would generally 

benefit anadromous fish. 

Of the Joint Alternatives, the Black Rock Alternative would provide the greatest 

increase in steelhead and spring Chinook summer rearing habitat in the Easton 

reach that would potentially equate to an increase in juvenile survival and the 

ability to accommodate more summer rearing fish. For similar reasons, the Black 

Rock Alternative appears most beneficial to steelhead yearlings in the Ellensburg 

reach of the Joint Alternatives. 

For the lower Yakima River, the stream runoff pattern is better than under the 

No Action Alternative, as the high flows continue into April, May, and June 

when most smolt migration is occurring. These greater flows should increase 

overall smolt outmigration survival. However, the summer flows downstream 

from the Parker gage would not result in a significant change in the amount of 

coho summer yearling habitat compared to the No Action Alternative. 

The fishery models estimated approximate increases of 20 to 60 percent in 

anadromous fish populations for the Black Rock Alternative compared to the 

No Action Alternative, which, of all the Joint Alternatives, afforded the greatest 

modification of the current flow regime in the Yakima River basin. These 

population increases do not approach the numbers of fish that are estimated to 

have historically inhabited the basin. Possible reasons for this are as follows: 

•	 The Joint Alternatives do not improve the habitat itself; they only change 

the amount of access to it; 

•	 The Joint Alternatives only affect the stream reaches downstream from the 

five major storage reservoirs, not habitat conditions in the tributaries; 

•	 Fisheries habitat conditions have significantly changed through decades of 

development, both within the Yakima River basin and downstream; and 

•	 Changes in habitat conditions (e.g., hydropower development and loss of 

estuary habitat) along the mainstem Columbia River have reduced smolt 

and adult migration survival. 

Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Winter flows from Cle Elum Lake to the Wymer site are greater under this 

alternative, resulting in more than doubling of flows in the Cle Elum River. 

During the summer months, flows in the upper Yakima River are lower, as some 

of the irrigation needs in the middle basin are met by releases from Wymer 

reservoir. Because the percent change in habitat values are all less than 

xxxi 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

10 percent compared to the No Action Alternative, no effect on the biological 

response of steelhead or spring Chinook upper Yakima River population is 

expected, compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Also, there is virtually no difference, in the flow volumes or in the spring 

runoff pattern, and no significant change in summer habitat downstream from 

the Parker gage. Therefore, no effect in the survival or rearing capacity for 

anadromous fish in the Wapato reach is expected compared to the No Action 

Alternative. 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

There are no significant differences (i.e., greater than 10 percent) between 

this alternative and No Action Alternative for either of the species and life 

stages for the Easton or Ellensburg reaches. As under the Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir Alternative, habitat would generally be better for steelhead and 

spring Chinook in the Easton reach, while results are mixed in the 

Ellensburg reach. 

Spring flows downstream from the Parker gage are substantially greater 

(79 percent) than under the No Action Alternative, which should increase 

overall smolt outmigration survival. In addition, a small potential exists to 

improve the survival or rearing capacity for anadromous fish in the Wapato 

reach compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Enhanced Conservation Alternative 

For the Enhanced Conservation Alternative, the average rate of change in daily 

flow and the summer rearing habitat in the upper Yakima River basin is 

essentially unchanged from the current condition and the No Action Alternative. 

Therefore, no effect is expected in the biological consequence to anadromous 

salmonids under this alternative compared to the current condition. However, the 

increased spring flow downstream from the Parker gage is considered beneficial 

to improve anadromous salmon smolt outmigration survival through the middle 

and lower Yakima River. The channel velocity increases during summer in the 

Wapato Reach of the lower Yakima River result in a reduction of habitat in the 

main channel, primarily because of lack of access to side channels at mid-range 

flows between 300 cfs and approximately 1,000 cfs. 

Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative 

The impacts of this alternative would likely be similar to the No Action 

Alternative. Transfers to instream flows may benefit anadromous fish, especially 

in tributaries. No other impacts to anadromous fish are anticipated from this 

alternative. 

xxxii 
Executive Summary 

Groundwater Storage Alternative 

Groundwater storage may benefit anadromous fish by increasing the recharge 

of cold water to streams. Groundwater storage may also supplement 

streamflows and potentially benefit anadromous fish, depending on the timing and 

location of returned flows. 

Land and Shoreline Use 

No Action Alternative 

The No Action alternative includes conservation-oriented system improvements, 

including pump stations and pipelines, at various locations in the Yakima Valley 

region. These improvements are associated with existing approved programs 

and orient predominantly to existing facilities; none are being or will be 

constructed under the auspices of the Storage Study. To the extent that NEPA 

or SEPA analysis is required for these actions, appropriate documentation of 

the directly affected land/shoreline use environment would be prepared 

separately, apart from the Storage Study process. 

Black Rock Alternative 

Land acquisition requirements and associated land use impacts associated with 

Black Rock dam and reservoir would be long-term and unavoidable. Mitigation 

would focus exclusively on (1) compensating impacted landowners at fair market 

value according to established Federal regulations, guidelines, and procedures, 

and (2) relocating/rerouting existing utility and transportation infrastructure. In 

the latter regard, State Route 24 is proposed to be rerouted along the south side of 

the reservoir. The impacted transmission lines and fiber optic cable would be 

relocated/reconstructed along the new State Route 24 alignment. 

Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Land use impacts associated with Wymer dam and reservoir would be long-term 

and unavoidable. Mitigation would focus exclusively on compensating impacted 

landowners at fair market value according to established Federal regulations, 

standards, and procedures. 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

Land and easement/right-of-way acquisition and associated short- and long-term 

land use impacts from pipeline, pumping plant and transmission line facilities of 

the Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative would be largely unavoidable. 

However, more detailed studies of pipeline and transmission line routing options 

should explore opportunities for avoiding direct, dislocation impacts on existing 

residences and business to the maximum extent feasible. For example, in the 

rural/agricultural lands of Benton and Yakima Counties, routing of the pipeline 

on/near property lines or on quarter- or half-section lines (rather than immediately 

xxxiii 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

along roads) in some areas may offer the opportunity to avoid dislocation impacts 

to residences and minimize construction-phase access disruptions. Such detailed 

routing studies should also seek opportunities to minimize long-term impacts on 

existing developed uses in the urban environments of Richland, Kennewick, and 

West Richland. 

Beyond such site/alignment adjustments during detailed planning, mitigation 

would focus primarily on compensating impacted landowners at fair market value 

according to established Federal guidelines, standards, and procedures. 

Enhanced Conservation Alternative 

Agricultural conservation would be confined to lands already designated for 

agriculture and is not expected to affect land use. Conservation measures may 

improve the viability of existing agricultural operations and reduce the potential 

conversion from agriculture to other uses. Some new facilities or construction 

activities may take place in shoreline areas, but are not expected to affect 

shoreline use. 

Market-Based Reallocation of Resources Water Alternative 

Water rights transfers may affect land uses in both the area of origin and the 

recipient area. Transfers from agricultural lands may increase fallow lands that 

would otherwise be used for agriculture. On the other hand, transfers to 

agricultural lands may improve the reliability of the water supply and keep some 

properties in agricultural use. Transferred water rights may be used to irrigate 

different lands. This is expected to occur in areas already designated for 

agriculture. Water rights could be transferred from agricultural uses to municipal 

uses, allowing the expansion of municipal or residential areas. This expansion is 

also expected to occur in areas already designated for these uses. Transfers from 

out-of-stream uses to instream uses may reduce the water available for future 

agricultural or municipal development. 

Groundwater Storage Alternative 

Groundwater storage projects would require land for the facilities. The land 

would be purchased from willing sellers or would be obtained through acquisition 

following applicable State and Federal regulations. The infiltration basins would 

require the purchase or acquisition of substantial areas of land. Siting of the 

facilities would comply with local comprehensive plans and zoning designations 

where possible, but may require changes in zoning in some cases. Some 

groundwater storage facilities may be located in shoreline areas, but impacts to 

those areas are not expected to be substantial. 

xxxiv 
Executive Summary 

National Economic Development (NED) 

The NED benefit-cost analysis compares the present value of a proposed 

project’s benefits to the present value of its costs. If benefits exceed costs, 

the project is considered economically justified. Since both benefits and costs 

can occur at various points throughout the study period, it is important to convert 

them to a common point in time. For this analysis, the costs and benefits were 

measured as of the start of the benefits period (which is equivalent to the end 

of the construction period). The study period or period of analysis for the 

benefits period was assumed to be 100 years, as suggested by the P&Gs for 

this type of dam construction project. The interest rate used to convert costs 

and benefits to a common year was Reclamation’s fiscal year 2007 planning 

rate of 4.875 percent. See table ES.8 at the end of this Executive Summary for 

results of the NED analysis. 

Regional Economic Development (RED) 

The RED analysis focuses on economic impacts to the local region, whereas the 

NED analysis focuses on economic benefits to the entire Nation. Economic 

impacts measure total economic activity within a given region using such 

indicators as output (sales or gross receipts), income, and employment. Economic 

impacts stem from changes in expenditures within the region. The RED 

evaluation recognizes the NED benefits accruing to the local region plus the 

transfers of income into the region. However, since the RED analysis focuses 

purely on the local region, it does not take into account potential offsetting effects 

occurring outside the region as does the NED analysis. In addition to the 

geographic differences between the analyses, the RED analysis includes not only 

the initial or direct impact on the primary affected industries (as does the 

NED analysis), but also the secondary or indirect effects on those industries 

providing inputs to the directly affected industries (referred to as the multiplier 

effect). This multiplier effect is not included in the NED analysis. See table ES.8 

at the end of this Executive Summary for results of the RED analysis. 

Consultation and Coordination 

Concurrent with preparation of this document, agency coordination and 

consultation have been conducted in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act, Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and National 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Additionally, consultation with the Yakama 

Nation has occurred. 

xxxv 
Table ES.6 Comparative analysis of Joint Alternatives by indicator: Yakima River Basin 

Water Storage Study Draft PR/EIS 

Resource 

indicator 

measurement 

Alternative 

No Action Black Rock 

Wymer Dam 

and Reservoir 

Wymer Dam 

Plus Yakima 

River Pump 

Exchange 

WATER RESOURCES 

Average for water years 1981-2005 million acre-feet 

Actual difference from No Action Alternative
 

Percentage difference from No Action Alternative
 

Water supply 

April 1 TWSA 2.84 2.90 

0.06 

2% 

2.94 

0.10 

4% 

2.94 

0.10 

4% 

Water distribution 

April-September Parker flow 

volume 

0.62 0.98 

0.36 

58% 

0.59 

-0.03 

-5% 

0.90 

0.36 

58% 

April-September diversion 1.91 1.47 

-0.44 

-23% 

1.95 

0.04 

2% 

1.64 

-0.27 

-14% 

September 30 reservoir 

contents 

0.30 0.43 

0.13 

45% 

0.40 

0.10 

33% 

0.40 

0.10 

33% 

April-September flow 

volume at mouth of Yakima 

River 

0.86 1.22 

0.36 

42% 

0.83 

-0.03 

-4% 

0.83 

-0.03 

-3% 

Irrigation delivery volume 

shortage 

-0.05 0.02 

-0.03 

-60% 

0.05 

0.00 

0% 

0.05 

0.0 

0% 

1994 dry year million acre-feet 

Actual difference from No Action Alternative
 

Percentage difference from No Action Alternative
 

Water supply 

April 1 TWSA 1.75 1.94 

0.19 

11% 

1.76 

0.01 

1% 

1.77 

0.02 

1% 

Water distribution 

April-September Parker flow 

volume 

0.25 .58 

0.33 

132% 

0.25 

0.00 

0% 

0.57 

0.32 

128% 

April-September diversion 1.42 1.32 

-0.10 

-7% 

1.44 

0.02 

1% 

1.13 

-0.29 

-20% 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Summary of Impacts 

Tables ES.6 presents a summary of the impacts of the Joint Alternatives 

on resources. Table ES.7 presents a summary of the impacts of the State 

Alternatives. Table ES.8 presents the results of the NED and RED analyses. 

xxxvi 
Table ES.6 Comparative analysis of Joint Alternatives by indicator: Yakima River Basin 

Water Storage Study Draft PR/EIS (continued) 

Resource 

indicator 

measurement 

Alternative 

No Action Black Rock 

Wymer Dam 

and Reservoir 

Wymer Dam 

Plus Yakima 

River Pump 

Exchange 

WATER RESOURCES (continued) 

1994 dry year million acre-feet 

Actual difference from No Action Alternative
 

Percentage difference from No Action Alternative (continued) 

Sept 30 reservoir contents 0.07 0.04 

-0.03 

-43% 

0.06 

-0.01 

-14% 

0.06 

-0.01 

-14% 

April-September flow volume 

at mouth of Yakima River 

0.31 0.65 

0.34 

110% 

0.31 

0.00 

0% 

0.31 

0.00 

0% 

Irrigation delivery volume 

shortage 

0.38 0.12 

-0.26 

-68% 

0.38 

0.00 

0% 

0.38 

0.00 

0% 

Irrigation proration level 27% 70% 

43% 

29% 

2% 

29% 

2% 

NON-FEDERAL AND FEDERAL COLUMBIA RIVER HYDROPOWER 

Generation loss 

(average annual MW) 

None - 9.2 MW Not applicable Not applicable 

Value of generation loss 

(average annual $ millions) 

- $4 million 

Additional generation capacity (average annual MW) None 52.5 MW Not applicable Not applicable 

Pumping power requirement 

(average annual MW) 

None 132 MW 4.8 MW 61.7 MW 

Cost of pumping 

(average annual $ millions) 

None $50 million $1.9 million $19.8 million 

GROUNDWATER 

Volume and direction of 

seepage, continuous annual 

flow (cfs) 

No change 57 cfs – toward 

Columbia River 

Unknown – 

toward Yakima 

River 

Unknown – 

toward Yakima 

River 

SEDIMENT 

Sand transport No change Increased No change Increased 

Bed scour No change No change No change No change 

WATER QUALITY 

Temperature No change No change No change No change 

Nutrients No change Decreased 

concentrations 

No change Decreased 

concentrations 

Pollutants – Yakima River No change Decreased 

concentrations 

No change Decreased 

concentrations 

Pollutants – Hanford reach No change Potential 

increase 

No change No change 

Executive Summary 

xxxvii 
Table ES.6 Comparative analysis of Joint Alternatives by indicator: Yakima River Basin 

Water Storage Study Draft PR/EIS (continued) 

Resource 

indicator 

measurement 

Alternative 

No Action Black Rock 

Wymer Dam 

and Reservoir 

Wymer Dam 

Plus Yakima 

River Pump 

Exchange 

VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE 

Shrub-steppe 

Disturbance 

number of acres 

None 3,850 1,055 1,055 

Movement corridors 

Disturbance number of 

places animal corridors are 

disturbed 

None Impedes 

passage over 1/3 

of corridor 

Negligible Negligible 

Black cottonwood 

Regeneration None Increase No change Slight increase 

Wetland abundance and distribution 

Number of acres disturbed None 9 83 83 

ANADROMOUS FISH 

High summer flows in the upper Yakima and Cle Elum Rivers 

(acres of available habitat) 

Easton reach 

Steelhead fry habitat 4.1 4.4 

7.3% 

4.4 

7.3% 

4.3 

5.5% 

Steelhead yearling habitat 57.9 63.9 

10.4% 

58.6 

1.7% 

58.7 

1.3% 

Spring Chinook fry habitat 2.5 2.4 

-4.0% 

2.5 

0.0% 

2.5 

0.0% 

Spring Chinook yearling 

habitat 

47.9 52.6 

9.8% 

49.3 

2.9% 

49.0 

2.3% 

Ellensburg reach 

Steelhead fry habitat 2.2 2.1 

-4.5% 

2.1 

-4.5% 

2.1 

-4.5% 

Steelhead yearling habitat 20.2 26.1 

29.2% 

20.5 

1.5 

20.6 

2.3% 

Spring Chinook fry habitat 1.7 1.8 

5.9% 

1.8 

5.9% 

1.8 

4.5% 

Spring Chinook yearling 

habitat 14.9 14.6 

-2.0% 

13.8 

-7.4% 

14.5 

-2.4% 

Rate of change flip-flop 

(average cfs per day August 15 to September 14) 

Easton reach -8 cfs -4 cfs -7 cfs -6 cfs 

Ellensburg reach -78 cfs -51 cfs -58 cfs -57 cfs 

Lower Naches River 

reach 

34 cfs 20 cfs 37 cfs 36 cfs 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

xxxviii 
Table ES.6 Comparative analysis of Joint Alternatives by indicator: Yakima River Basin 

Water Storage Study Draft PR/EIS (continued) 

Resource 

indicator 

measurement 

Alternative 

No Action Black Rock 

Wymer Dam 

and Reservoir 

Wymer Dam 

Plus Yakima 

River Pump 

Exchange 

ANADROMOUS FISH (continued) 

Reduced spring freshets downstream from the Parker gage 

(percentage difference in spring season flow between the alternative and flow
 

objective; if >=0 then target flow reached) 

Stream runoff timing -7% 

Not applicable 

29% 

Improved 

-10% 

No change 

-11% 

No change 

Summer flows downstream from the Parker gage 

(acres of available habitat) 

Coho yearling habitat 

Total 63.7 64.7 

1.5% 

63.7 

-0.1% 

66.4 

4.1% 

Mainstem 56.7 44.2 

-22.0% 

56.7 

-0.2% 

41.8 

-26.2% 

Side channel 7.0 19.8 

184.9% 

7.0 

0.6% 

23.6 

239.7% 

Average annual fish escapement (includes harvest) numbers (natural + hatchery) 

Spring Chinook 7,189 9,066 7,294 8,428 

Fall Chinook 6,893 11,128 7,112 9,321 

Coho 8,475 10,242 8,591 9,392 

Steelhead 2,700 4,067 2,724 3,338 

RESIDENT FISH 

Summer flows in the upper Yakima and lower Naches Rivers 

(acres of available habitat and difference from No Action Alternative) 
 

Easton reach 

Rainbow trout fry habitat 5.2 5.5 

5.8% 

5.4 

3.8% 

5.5 

5.8% 

Rainbow trout yearling 

habitat 

57.2 63.2 

10.5% 

57.9 

-3.8% 

54.6 

-4.5% 

Bull trout yearling habitat 61.9 66.1 

6.8% 

62.9 

1.6% 

62.8 

1.5% 

Ellensburg reach 

Rainbow trout fry habitat 2.5 2.4 

-4.0% 

2.4 

-4.0% 

2.4 

-4.0% 

Rainbow trout yearling 

habitat 

19.9 25.7 

28.9% 

20.3 

-20.1% 

17.0 

-9.5% 

Bull trout yearling habitat 20.5 20.3 

-1.0% 

20.3 

-1.0% 

2.3 

-1.0% 

Lower Naches River reach 

Rainbow trout fry habitat 4.3 4.2 

-0.8% 

4.3 

0.0% 

4.3 

0.0% 

Rainbow trout yearling 

habitat 

45.9 47.2 

2.9% 

48.1 

0.2% 

46.0 

0.1% 

Bull trout yearling habitat 64.8 65.0 

0.3% 

64.8 

0.0% 

64.6 

-0.3% 

Executive Summary 

xxxix 
Table ES.6 Comparative analysis of Joint Alternatives by indicator: Yakima River Basin 

Water Storage Study Draft PR/EIS (continued) 

Resource 

indicator 

measurement 

Alternative 

No Action Black Rock 

Wymer Dam 

and Reservoir 

Wymer Dam 

Plus Yakima 

River Pump 

Exchange 

RESIDENT FISH (continued) 

Bull trout spawner upmigration at reservoirs 

(inseason days impeded) 

Kachess Lake 18 15 

-16.7% 

18 

0.0% 

17 

-5.5% 

Keechelus Lake 37 38 

2.7% 

37 

0.0% 

37 

2.7% 

Rimrock Lake 3 3 

0.0% 

1 

-66.6% 

1 

-66.6% 

Average minimum and maximum reservoir elevation during bull trout spawning 

migration: July 15 – September 15 (feet) 

Kachess Lake 2,248.4 

2,202.4 - 2,262.0 

2,253.1 

2,206.0 - 2,262.0 

2,249.3 

2,201.0 - 2,262.0 

2,249.7 

2,202.4 - 2,262.0 

Keechelus Lake 2,467.3 

2,427.5 - 2,513.3 

2,466.6 

2,427.6 - 2,514.4 

2,467.6 

2,427.5 - 2,514.9 

2,468.0 

2,427.5 - 2,514.9 

Rimrock Lake 2,909.9 

2,869.8 - 2,927.8 

2,906.2 

2,839.8 - 2,927.7 

2,912.3 

2,872.4 - 2,927.8 

2,911.7 

2,868.0 - 2,927.8 

AQUATIC INVERTEBRATES 

Community changes No change Positive No change Slight benefit 

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

Middle Columbia River 

steelhead – false attraction 

No effect No effect No effect No effect 

Bull trout – false attraction No effect No effect No effect No effect 

Bald eagle No effect No effect No effect No effect 

Greater sage-grouse No effect Moderate 

adverse effect 

Moderate 

adverse effect 

Moderate 

adverse effect 

Ferruginous hawk No effect Low effect No effect No effect 

Ute Ladies’-tresses No effect Low to moderate 

beneficial effects 

No effect No effect 

Umtanum wild buckwheat No effect Low effect No effect No effect 

RECREATIONAL RESOURCES 

Annual visitation for new 

facilities No effect 

400,000 -

700,000 70,000 - 200,000 70,000 - 200,000 

Additional annual visitation 

at existing facilities (average 

year) No effect 14,745 3,631 3,631

LAND USE AND SHORELINE RESOURCES 

Acquisition of private land 

(approximate acres) 

Not applicable 13,000 4,000 110 

Acquisition of public lands 

(approximate acres) 

Not applicable 0 0 0

Easement/right-of-way 

acquisition across private 

land (approximate miles) 

Not applicable 18 6 61

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

xl 
Table ES.6 Comparative analysis of Joint Alternatives by indicator: Yakima River Basin 

Water Storage Study Draft PR/EIS (continued) 

Resource 

indicator 

measurement 

Alternative 

No Action Black Rock 

Wymer Dam 

and Reservoir 

Wymer Dam 

Plus Yakima 

River Pump 

Exchange 

LAND USE AND SHORELINE RESOURCES (continued) 

Compatibility with existing 

uses 

Not applicable Local 

incompatibilities 

Local 

incompatibilities 

Local 

incompatibilities 

Consistency with relevant 

county land use plans and 

policies 

Not applicable Reservoir: 

consistency 

uncertain. 

Other facilities: 

likely consistent 

as conditional 

Reservoir: 

consistency 

uncertain. 

Other facilities: 

likely consistent 

as conditional 

Reservoir: 

consistency 

uncertain. 

Pump exchange: 

locally significant 

inconsistencies 

use use 

REGIONAL ECONOMY. See Regional Economic Development (RED) section of table ES.8 

PUBLIC SERVICE AND UTILITIES 

Exceedance of service or 

utility capacity (long-term 

impact) 

Not applicable None None None 

Disruption of services or 

utilities for existing residents 

and landowners (short-term, 

construction-phase impacts) 

Not applicable High potential but 

mitigable 

Minor potential; 

mitigable 

Highest potential 

but mitigable 

TRANSPORTATION 

Long term: Road/highway 

relocations (miles) 

Not applicable 15 0 0 

Short term: Road/ highway 

crossings (instances) 

Not applicable 1 1 9 

AIR QUALITY 

Emissions during construction Not applicable Slight, short-term 

effect 

Slight, short-term 

effect 

Slight, short-term 

effect 

Emissions during operation Not applicable No effect No effect No effect 

NOISE QUALITY 

Noise levels during 

construction 

Not applicable Slight, short-term 

effect 

Slight, short-term 

effect 

Slight, short-term 

effect 

Noise levels during operation Not applicable No effect No effect No effect 

VISUAL RESOURCES 

Large-scale changes in visual 

setting 

Not applicable Visible to the 

public (significant) 

Visible to the 

public (significant) 

Visible to the 

public (significant) 

Local-scale changes in visual 

setting 

Not applicable Yes – significant Yes – significant Yes – significant 

HISTORIC PROPERTIES 

Number of affected properties Not applicable Unknown Unknown Unknown 

INDIAN SACRED SITES 

Number of affected sites Not applicable Unknown Unknown Unknown 

INDIAN TRUST ASSETS 

No./type affected None None None None 

Executive Summary 

xli 
Table ES.6 Comparative analysis of Joint Alternatives by indicator: Yakima River Basin 

Water Storage Study Draft PR/EIS (continued) 

Resource 

indicator 

(measurement) 

Alternative 

No Action Black Rock 

Wymer Dam 

and Reservoir 

Wymer Dam 

Plus Yakima 

River Pump 

Exchange 

PUBLIC HEALTH 

Hazardous and toxic 

materials 

No change No change No change No change 

Mosquitoes No change No change No change No change 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Impact to minority and lowincome populations None Negligible None Unknown 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table ES.7 Comparative analysis of State Alternatives by indicator: Yakima River Basin 

Water Storage Study Draft PR/EIS 

Element of the 

environment 

Enhanced 

Conservation 

Market-Based 

Reallocation of Water 

Resources 

Groundwater 

Storage 

Surface water There is potential to Construction and long-term Construction impacts would 

Construction 

 Long-term

increase sediment loading 

to surface water bodies 

during construction. 

impacts and mitigation 

measures would be similar 

to that of Enhanced 

be similar to those 

described under Enhanced 

Conservation. 

 Mitigation Long-term impacts may 

include an increase in 

Conservation, but of a 

lesser magnitude. Changes in flow and 

temperature would occur 

streamflow in the stream when flow is diverted for 

being diverted from along recharge. Flows will 

with a reduction in return decrease when water is 

flow from reduced seepage diverted and increase when 

in other streams. The the stored water reaches 

reduction in return flow may the river. Increased 

reduce base flows in discharge to seeps, 

streams. Reservoir levels springs, and surface water 

may change from existing if would occur. 

conservation allows water 

to be stored in the reservoir 

for a longer period of time 

before being released. 

Construction and long-term 

mitigation measures would 

be similar to those 

described for Enhanced 

Mitigation of construction Conservation. 

impacts can be achieved 

through construction related 

BMPs. Long-term impacts 

can be mitigated by 

ensuring the net effect of 

the project is beneficial. 

Water rights

 Construction 

Long-term 

Mitigation 

No construction impacts to 

water rights would occur. 

In the long term, 

conservation may free up 

water under existing water 

rights for potential transfer 

and reallocation. Additional 

water may be available, 

which may reduce 

curtailment of junior water 

rights during water-short 

years. 

By law, all existing water 

rights, senior and junior, are 

protected from impairment 

by any proposed transfer. 

One of the impediments to 

an active market is the 

administrative approval of 

the transfer. Some of the 

water marketing and water 

banking alternatives 

propose changes to the 

review of transfers. To the 

Proposed projects must 

meet the same standards 

as described for the 

Enhanced Conservation 

Alternative. 

Construction and long-term 

impacts and mitigation 

measures would be similar 

to those described under 

Enhanced Conservation. 

xlii 
 

Executive Summary 

Table ES.7 Comparative analysis of State Alternatives by indicator: Yakima River Basin 

Water Storage Study Draft PR/EIS (continued) 

Element of the 

environment 

Enhanced 

Conservation 

Market-Based 

Reallocation of Water 

Resources 

Groundwater 

Storage 

Water rights Proposed projects must extent the law is changed to 

(continued) meet State standards for facilitate transfers through 

review and mitigation markets, there may be 

regarding specific issues additional impacts to water 

listed in RCW 90.03.370 rights. 

(2)(a) and defined further in 

Chapter 173-157 WAC. Proposed projects must 

meet the same standards 

as described for the 

Enhanced Conservation 

Alternative. 

Groundwater Construction impacts are Construction impacts are Limited construction 

Construction 

 Long-term

 Mitigation 

not anticipated. 

Long-term impacts may 

include changes in the 

level, gradient, recharge 

and discharge rates, and 

contaminant introduction. 

Impacts may be mitigated 

by conducting appropriate 

hydrogeological studies 

prior to project 

implementation. 

not anticipated. 

Long-term impacts and 

mitigation measures would 

be similar to those 

described under Enhanced 

Conservation. 

Mitigation measures would 

be similar to those 

described under Enhanced 

Conservation. 

impacts would be 

associated with the 

development of 

groundwater storage 

facilities including infiltration 

basins and treatment 

facilities; however 

construction is not expected 

to extend to the 

groundwater table and 

dewatering is not 

anticipated. 

Long-term impacts and 

mitigation measures would 

be similar, but possibly 

greater than, those 

described under Enhanced 

Conservation. 

Hydropower Construction impacts are Similar to the Enhanced No construction impacts are 

Construction 

 Long-term

 Mitigation 

not anticipated, because 

construction activities will 

not impact streamflows. 

Conservation may result in 

reduced power generation 

at the BIA plants during 

most years, but may be 

improved during drought 

years. 

Conservation Alternative, 

no construction impacts are 

anticipated. 

Long-term impacts would 

depend on the location of 

the transfers. If water is 

transferred to the WIP, 

some increase in 

hydropower may occur. 

No mitigation would be 

required. 

anticipated. 

There would be no longterm impacts to hydropower 

generation. 

No mitigation would be 

required. 

Sediment Construction could Impacts and mitigation Impacts and mitigation 

Construction 

 Long-term

 Mitigation 

temporarily increase rates 

of sediment erosion. 

There would be no longterm impacts to channel 

morphology. 

Mitigation measures would 

include the implementation 

of BMPs including the 

timing of construction, and 

measures that limit erosion 

and stabilize degraded 

conditions. 

would be similar to those 

described under the 

Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative. 

In the long-term, changed 

land uses could cause 

increased or decreased 

erosion depending on the 

new land use. 

No mitigation would be 

required. 

would be similar to those 

described under Enhanced 

Conservation. 

xliii 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table ES.7 Comparative analysis of State Alternatives by indicator: Yakima River Basin 

Water Storage Study Draft PR/EIS (continued) 

Element of the 

environment 

Enhanced 

Conservation 

Market-Based 

Reallocation of Water 

Resources 

Groundwater 

Storage 

Water quality There is potential to Construction impacts would Construction impacts 

Construction 

 Long-term

increase sediment loading 

to surface water bodies 

during construction. 

be similar to those described under the Enhanced 

Water Conservation Alternawould be similar to those 

described under Enhanced 

Conservation. 

 Mitigation Long-term impacts tive, but to a lesser degree. Changes in groundwater 

may include increased Long-term impacts from quality could occur, but 

dissolved oxygen, reduced water transfers are not these changes are not 

stream temperatures and known. Water quality para- expected to be significant. 

increased pollutant 

concentrations in runoff. 

Mitigation for construction 

impacts would be similar to 

the preventive measures 

described under Sediment. 

meters (including temperature) may improve or degrade depending on the type 

of land use the water is 

transferred to, and the 

volume and location of water 

transferred. 

Mitigation for construction 

impacts would be similar to 

the preventive measures 

described under Sediment. 

Mitigation for construction 

impacts would be similar to 

the preventive measures 

described under Sediment. 

Vegetation and Construction impacts from Construction impacts and Construction impacts would 

wildlife irrigation improvements may mitigation measures would be similar to those 

Construction 

 Long-term

 Mitigation 

alter existing vegetation 

structure and the distribution 

of habitat potentially disrupting wildlife. Construction 

impacts would also include 

noise and activities that 

would temporarily displace 

wildlife. 

be similar to those 

described under Enhanced 

Conservation, except to a 

lesser degree. 

In the long-term, water 

rights transfers may impact 

land use ultimately altering 

vegetation structure and 

described under Enhanced 

Conservation. 

Over the long-term, 

groundwater levels would 

rise, which may affect 

vegetation communities and 

wildlife habitat in some 

areas. This could have 

Over the long term, reduced wildlife habitat distribution both positive and negative 

seepage and water rights in some areas. impacts. 

transfers may alter the 

distribution of vegetation and 

wildlife. 

Mitigation measures for 

construction impacts would 

be similar to those 

Mitigation measures for 

construction impacts would 

be similar to those 

Mitigation measures for described under Enhanced described under Enhanced 

construction impacts would Conservation. Conservation. 

be alleviated by siting and 

designing facilities to minimize the need for vegetation removal. These measures would also include the 

application of construc-tion 

BMPs, and the restora-tion 

of disturbed areas. 

Anadromous fish There is potential to increase Construction and long-term Construction impacts and 

Construction 

 Long-term

sediment loading to surface 

water bodies during 

construction. 

impacts and mitigation 

measures would be similar 

to those described under 

mitigation measures would 

be similar to those 

described under Enhanced 

 Mitigation Long-term impacts associated with the potential 

increase in streamflow would 

be considered beneficial. 

Mitigation for construction 

impacts would be similar to 

the measures described for 

Sediment. 

the Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative, 

except to a lesser degree. 

Conservation. 

In the long-term, 

groundwater storage is 

expected to benefit 

anadromous fish and other 

aquatic organisms by 

potentially improving base 

flows and providing influxes 

of cold water. 

xliv 
Executive Summary 

Table ES.7 Comparative analysis of State Alternatives by indicator: Yakima River Basin 

Water Storage Study Draft PR/EIS (continued) 

Element of the 

environment 

Enhanced 

Conservation 

Market-Based 

Reallocation of Water 

Resources 

Groundwater 

Storage 

Resident fish Construction and long-term Construction and long-term Construction and long-term 

Construction 

 Long-term

impacts are similar to those 

described for anadromous 

fish. 

impacts and mitigation 

measures would be similar 

to those described under 

impacts and mitigation 

measures would be similar 

to those described under 

 Mitigation the Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative, 

except to a lesser degree. 

the Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative. 

Aquatic Construction impacts are Construction and long-term Construction and long-term 

invertebrates anticipated to be minor and impacts and mitigation impacts and mitigation 

Construction 

 Long-term

 Mitigation 

isolated to areas adjacent to 

instream disturbances. 

Long-term impacts may 

include changes to the 

would be similar to those 

described under Enhanced 

Water Conservation. 

would be similar to those 

described under Enhanced 

Water Conservation. 

community composition of 

aquatic invertebrates due to 

potential increases in 

streamflows, and site 

specific alterations created 

during the enhancement 

irrigation infrastructure. 

Project-specific studies 

would be required to 

determine potential impacts 

to aquatic invertebrates. 

Threatened and Construction and long-term Construction and long-term Construction and long-term 

endangered impacts would be similar to impacts and mitigation impacts and mitigation 

species those described for measures would be similar measures would be similar 

Construction 

 Long-term

 Mitigation 

Anadromous Fish and 

Vegetation and Wildlife. 

Mitigation measures would 

be similar to those described 

for Anadromous Fish and 

Vegetation and Wildlife. 

to those described under 

the Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative, 

except to a lesser degree. 

to those described under 

the Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative. 

Recreation Impacts to recreation from Construction and long-term Construction and long-term 

Construction 

 Long-term

 Mitigation 

construction are not 

expected. 

Conservation may increase 

streamflows in some 

reaches, but not to the 

extent that recreation would 

be impacted. 

No mitigation would be 

required. 

impacts and mitigation 

measures would be similar 

to those described under 

the Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative, 

except to a lesser degree. 

impacts and mitigation 

measures would be similar 

to those described under 

the Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative. 

Land use and Impacts to land use from Construction impacts would Construction impacts would 

shorelines construction are not be similar to those be similar to those 

Construction 

 Long-term

 Mitigation 

expected. 

Improvements to irrigation 

efficiency could reduce the 

potential conversion of 

agricultural lands to other 

uses. 

No mitigation would be 

required. 

described under the 

Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative, 

except to a lesser degree. 

Transfers of water rights 

may result in changes in 

land use intensity. Whether 

development intensity 

increases or decreases is 

dependent on currently 

unspecified transfers. 

described under the 

Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative. 

Acquisition and/or special 

management of lands in the 

vicinity of the infiltration or 

injection areas may be 

required. 

Property would be 

purchased from willing 

sellers or acquired 

xlv 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table ES.7 Comparative analysis of State Alternatives by indicator: Yakima River Basin 

Water Storage Study Draft PR/EIS (continued) 

Element of the 

environment 

Enhanced 

Conservation 

Market-Based 

Reallocation of Water 

Resources 

Groundwater 

Storage 

Land use and Impacts to land use would according to applicable 

shorelines be mitigated by compliance State and Federal 

(continued) with existing land use and 

zoning regulations. 

regulations. 

Socioeconomics The scope and design of Construction impacts and Construction impacts and 

Construction 

 Long-term

specific projects would 

determine their short-term 

costs and benefits on 

mitigation measures would 

be similar to those 

described under the 

mitigation measures would 

be similar to those 

described under the 

 Mitigation socioeconomic factors. Enhanced Water Enhanced Water 

In the long term, this Conservation Alternative. Conservation Alternative. 

alternative is intended to In the long-term, transfers In the long-term, increases 

yield net economic gains of water would likely in groundwater levels could 

sooner rather than later, by increase the economic well- alter the production of 

lowering legal, financial, being of those who goods and services near 

and/or institutional barriers participate in them because wetland, floodplain, and 

that otherwise would a transaction would occur riparian areas. 

impede the extent and only if both the buyer and 

speed of conservation the seller expected it to be 

efforts in the basin. beneficial. 

Mitigation, if any, would be 

determined by future 

socioeconomic conditions. 

Measures may include, but 

would not be limited to 

compensation and /or 

replacement of lost goods 

and services. 

Public services Construction along Construction impacts and Construction impacts and

and utilities roadways could cause mitigation measures would mitigation measures would 

Construction temporary disruption of be similar to those described be similar to those 

 Long-term

 Mitigation 

utilities and increased 

response time for police 

and fire emergencies. 

under the Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative. 

In the long-term, this 

described under the 

Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative. 

Over the long-term, alternative would incur costs In the long-term, 

conservation programs for implementation and groundwater storage 

would reduce overall administration; however, would require additional 

expenditures on public water rights transfers have costs for treatment and 

services and utilities. potential to improve the operation. 

reliability of irrigation 

supplies. 

Transportation Construction impacts could Construction and long-term Construction and longConstruction 

 Long-term

include temporary disruption of traffic depending 

on project site locations. 

impacts and mitigation 

measures would be similar 

to those described under the 

term impacts and 

mitigation measures would 

be similar to those 

 Mitigation No long-term impacts are 

anticipated. 

Mitigation would include 

maintaining access to 

properties, installing 

signage, and providing 

information to the public. 

Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative, 

except to a lesser degree. 

described under the 

Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative. 

Air quality

 Construction 

 Long-term

 Mitigation 

Construction impacts would 

include increases in fugitive 

dust from disturbed soils 

and increased emissions. 

Construction impacts and 

mitigation measures would 

be similar to those described 

under the Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative. 

Construction impacts and 

mitigation measures would 

be similar to those described 

under the Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative. 

xlvi 
Executive Summary 

Table ES.7 Comparative analysis of State Alternatives by indicator: Yakima River Basin 

Water Storage Study Draft PR/EIS (continued) 

Element of the 

environment 

Enhanced 

Conservation 

Market-Based Reallocation 

of Water Resources 

Groundwater 

Storage 

Air quality No long-term impacts are Long-term impacts would not Long-term impacts would 

(continued) anticipated. affect air quality unless not affect air quality unless 

water transfers create fallow infiltration basins go dry, 

field conditions increasing increasing the potential for 

the potential for fugitive dust. fugitive dust. 

Noise Noise sources would Construction and long-term Construction impacts and 

Construction 

 Long-term

 Mitigation 

temporarily increase during 

construction activities. 

No long-term impacts are 

anticipated. 

No mitigation measures are 

required. 

impacts and mitigation 

measures would be similar 

to those described under the 

Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative. 

mitigation measures would 

be similar to those 

described under the 

Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative. 

Pumps used at storage 

facilities would generate 

noise during operations, 

but the noise would be 

minimal and likely 

undetectable offsite. 

Visual Construction equipment Construction impacts and Construction impacts and 

Construction 

 Long-term

 Mitigation 

and activities would 

temporarily alter, but not 

obstruct, views. 

Conservation projects 

would alter to the long-term 

views of the landscape, but 

impacts are anticipated to 

be limited. 

No mitigation measures are 

required. 

mitigation measures would 

be similar to those described 

under the Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative. 

Long-term impacts to visual 

resources from land type 

conversion would depend on 

the type and amount 

converted land. 

mitigation measures would 

be similar to those 

described under the 

Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative. 

Long-term impacts to 

visual resources from the 

development of infiltration 

and well facilities would 

depend on location and 

size of the facilities. 

Cultural Any construction that Construction and long-term Construction impacts and 

Construction 

 Long-term

 Mitigation 

involves ground disturbing 

activities has the potential 

to impact cultural resources. 

In the long-term, human 

activity patterns may be 

impacts and mitigation 

measures would be similar 

to those described under the 

Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative. 

mitigation measures would 

be similar to those 

described under the 

Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative. 

altered by conservation Increasing groundwater 

projects resulting in relic levels may affect the precollecting and site servation of buried organic 

disturbance. materials or the soil 

Ecology would initiate 

additional cultural resource 

surveys when specific 

projects are identified. 

chemistry of buried cultural 

resources. Groundwater 

storage is not likely to 

otherwise adversely affect 

cultural resources during 

construction or over the 

long-term. 

Public health and 

safety

 Construction 

 Long-term

 Mitigation 

Construction activities are 

not anticipated to 

significantly impact public 

health and safety. 

No significant long-term 

impacts are anticipated. 

Construction and long-term 

impacts and mitigation 

measures would be similar 

to those described under the 

Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative. 

Construction and longterm impacts and mitigation measures would be 

similar to those described 

under the Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative. 

xlvii 
Table ES.8 Comparative display of the NED and RED accounts for the Draft PR/EIS 

No Action 1 Alternative

Black Rock 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam 

Plus Yakima 

River Pump 

Exchange 

Alternative 

NED account 

Beneficial effects – Present value of 100-year annual benefit stream in excess of No Action Alternative 

($ million) 

Agriculture Not applicable 84.6 26.5 26.5 

Municipal and industrial Not applicable 286.8 285.2 286.1 

Hydropower Not applicable 62.5 0 0 

Recreation Not applicable 602.4 102.7 111.1 

Fisheries Not applicable 8.7 0.5 5.1 

Total benefits Not applicable 1,045.1 414.8 428.7 

Adverse effects – OM&R and power costs reflect present value of 100-year annual cost stream ($ million) 

Construction costs Not applicable 4,419.9 1,053.0 4,023.0 

Interest during 

construction 

Not applicable 1,095.9 304.1 1,130.6 

OM&R costs (present 

value) 

Not applicable 206.8 22.0 370.1 

Power costs (present 

value) 

Not applicable 1,016.9 38.6 403.1 

Total costs Not applicable 6,739.5 1,417.7 5,926.8 

Net benefits (total 

benefits – total costs) 

Not applicable (5,694.4) (1,002.9) (5,498.1) 

Benefit-cost ratio (total 

benefits ÷ total costs) 

Not applicable 0.16 0.29 0.07 

RED account 

Construction period impacts 

Construction: Estimates reflect impacts summed over the entire 10-year construction period. 

Output/sales ($ million) Not applicable $2,100 $613 $1,732 

Income ($ million) Not applicable $710 $216 $589 

Employment (jobs) Not applicable 18,667 5,677 15,539 

Annual benefit period impacts 

Irrigated agriculture: Agricultural impacts only occur in years when the proration percentage falls below 70%. 

As a result, impacts occur periodically and not every year. Agricultural impacts occurred in 5 of the 25 years of 

the hydrologic record (i.e., 1987, 1993, 1994, 2001, and 2005). 

Output/sales ($ million) 

1987 Not applicable $53.9 $16.8 $3.4 

1993 Not applicable $66.4 $45.7 $38.0 

1994 Not applicable $234.1 $14.5 $12.1 

2001 Not applicable $126.9 $81.3 $70.8 

2005 Not applicable $121.2 $22.8 $19.9 

Labor income ($ million) 

1987 Not applicable $18.4 $5.7 $1.2 

1993 Not applicable $22.7 $15.6 $13.2 

1994 Not applicable $82.6 $5.3 $4.4 

2001 Not applicable $44.2 $28.6 $25.3 

2005 Not applicable $42.2 $8.0 $7.2 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

xlviii 
Table ES.8 Comparative display of the NED and RED accounts for the Draft PR/EIS 

(continued) 

No Action 1 Alternative

Black Rock 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam Plus 

Yakima River 

Pump Exchange 

Alternative 

Employment 

1987 Not applicable 580 179 37

1993 Not applicable 716 493 407

1994 Not applicable 2,608 169 140

2001 Not applicable 1,394 902 786

2005 Not applicable 1,330 254 222

Recreation (Recreation effects were converted to an average annual basis) 

Existing sites 

Output/sales 

($ millions) 

Not applicable $ 0.14 $ 0.05 $ 0.09 

Labor income 

($ million) 

Not applicable $ 0.07 $ 0.02 $ 0.04 

Employment Not applicable 2 1 1 

Black Rock reservoir 

Output/sales ($ million) Not applicable $ 23.6 Not applicable2

 Not applicable2 

Labor income 

($ million) 

Not applicable $ 9.2 Not applicable Not applicable 

Employment Not applicable 360 Not applicable Not applicable 

Ac

we

1

 All the economic effects were measured as a change from the No Action Alternative; as a result, No 

tion Alternative effects were not analyzed. 2

 Recreators at Wymer reservoir are assumed to be from the local area; therefore, no regional impacts 

re generated. 

Executive Summary 

xlix 
Contents 

Page 

Executive Summary 

CHAPTER 1 Purpose and Need ................................................................ 1-1 

1.1 Introduction ........................................................................... 1-1 

1.2 Purpose of and Need for Action................................................... 1-2 

 1.2.1 Study Authority.................................................................. 1-2 

 1.2.1.1 Federal Authority................................................... 1-2 

 1.2.1.2 State Authority....................................................... 1-3 

 1.2.2 Physical Constraints on the Water Supply......................... 1-5 

 1.2.2.1 Instream Flows/Habitat.......................................... 1-5 

 1.2.2.2 Dry Year Irrigation ................................................ 1-5 

 1.2.2.3 Municipal and Domestic Water Supply................. 1-6 

 1.2.3 Statutory Constraints on the Water Supply........................ 1-6 

1.3 Background – Yakima Storage Study.......................................... 1-7 

1.4 Related Permits, Actions, and Laws ............................................ 1-9 

1.5 Public Involvement ...................................................................... 1-10 

1.6 Yakima River Basin Background and History............................. 1-10 

 1.6.1 Location and Setting .......................................................... 1-10 

 1.6.2 Yakima Project Description............................................... 1-13 

 1.6.3 History of Water Management in the Yakima 

 River Basin............................................................................... 1-14 

 1.6.3.1 Water Appropriation From the Yakima River....... 1-15 

1.7 Prior Investigations and Activities in the Yakima

 River Basin............................................................................... 1-18 

 1.7.1 Bumping Lake Enlargement .............................................. 1-18 

 1.7.2 Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project............. 1-19 

 1.7.2.1 Yakima River Basin Water Conservation 

 Program........................................................................... 1-20 

 1.7.2.2 Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement 

 Project, Washington, Final Programmatic 

 Environmental Impact Statement.................................... 1-20 

 1.7.2.3 Report on Biologically Based Flows ..................... 1-21 

 1.7.2.4 The Reaches Project: Ecological and 

 Geomorphic Studies Supporting Normative Flows 

 in the Yakima River Basin.............................................. 1-21 

 1.7.2.5 Interim Comprehensive Basin Operating 

 Plan for the Yakima Project............................................ 1-22 

 1.7.3 Yakima River Watershed Council ..................................... 1-22 

 1.7.4 Watershed Assessment and Watershed Management 

 Plan .......................................................................................... 1-23 

 1.7.5 Yakima Subbasin Plan ....................................................... 1-23 

1.8 Relationship of Other Water Resource Activities to 

 this Study ................................................................................. 1-24 

li 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Page 

 1.8.1 Columbia River Basin Water Management Program ........ 1-24 

 1.8.1.1 Columbia River Basin Water Management 

 Program, Final Programmatic Environmental 

 Impact Statement ............................................................ 1-25 

1.8.1.2 Storage ................................................................... 1-25 

1.8.1.3 Conservation .......................................................... 1-25 

 1.8.1.4 Voluntary Regional Agreements............................ 1-26 

1.8.1.5 Instream Water....................................................... 1-26 

 1.8.1.6 Inventory and Demand Forecasting....................... 1-26 

 1.8.2 Priest Rapids Hydroelectric Project Relicensing ............... 1-26 

 1.8.3 Yakima Dams Fish Passage............................................... 1-27 

 1.8.4 Additional Projects............................................................. 1-27 

1.9 How to Read This Document....................................................... 1-28 

CHAPTER 2 Joint Alternatives................................................................. 2-1 

2.1 Introduction.................................................................................. 2-1 

2.2 Alternatives Formulation and Evaluation .................................... 2-1 

 2.2.1 Goal Setting ....................................................................... 2-3 

 2.2.1.1 Instream Water Supply .......................................... 2-3 

 2.2.1.2 Irrigation Water Supply ......................................... 2-5 

 2.2.1.3 Municipal Water Supply........................................ 2-5 

 2.2.2 Geology.............................................................................. 2-8 

 2.2.2.1 Black Rock Damsite Seismicity............................. 2-9 

 2.2.2.2 Wymer Damsite Seismicity ................................... 2-10 

 2.2.2.3 Wymer Dam Potential South Abutment 

 Landslide......................................................................... 2-11 

 2.2.3 Cost Estimates.................................................................... 2-11 

 2.2.4 Operations.......................................................................... 2-13 

 2.2.4.1 Water Supply and Water Distribution.................... 2-15 

 2.2.4.2 Proratable Irrigation Supply................................... 2-16 

 2.2.5 Water Rights and Water Contracts .................................... 2-16 

2.2.5.1 Introduction............................................................ 2-16 

 2.2.5.2 Current Status......................................................... 2-17 

 2.2.5.3 Water Appropriation from the Columbia River..... 2-18 

2.3 No Action Alternative.................................................................. 2-20 

 2.3.1 Description......................................................................... 2-20 

 2.3.1.1 Water Conservation Measures ............................... 2-20 

2.3.1.2 Water Acquisition .................................................. 2-24 

 2.3.1.3 Emergency Drought Relief .................................... 2-24 

 2.3.2 Current Yakima Project Operations................................... 2-25 

 2.3.3 No Action Alternative Operations ..................................... 2-27 

 2.3.3.1 Operation Criteria .................................................. 2-27 

lii 
Page 

2.3.3.2 Accomplishments................................................... 2-27 

 2.3.4 Economic and Financial Analysis...................................... 2-36 

 2.3.5 Actions and Permits ........................................................... 2-37 

2.4 Black Rock Alternative................................................................ 2-37 

 2.4.1 Description......................................................................... 2-37 

 2.4.1.1 Physical Features ................................................... 2-37 

 2.4.2 Operations.......................................................................... 2-41 

 2.4.2.1 Columbia River Water Supply for 

 Black Rock Reservoir ..................................................... 2-41 

 2.4.2.2 Yakima Project Modifications to Operations ........ 2-49 

 2.4.2.3 Municipal Operations............................................. 2-50 

2.4.2.4 Summary................................................................ 2-51 

 2.4.3 Accomplishments............................................................... 2-51 

 2.4.3.1 Water Provided by the Black Rock Alternative..... 2-51 

 2.4.3.2 Instream Flows Provided ....................................... 2-53 

 2.4.3.3 Dry Year Proratable Irrigation Supply 

 Provided .......................................................................... 2-53 

 2.4.3.4 Municipal Water Supply Provided......................... 2-54 

 2.4.4 Economic and Financial Analysis...................................... 2-54 

 2.4.5 Actions and Permits ........................................................... 2-54 

2.5 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative ...................................... 2-55 

 2.5.1 Description......................................................................... 2-55 

 2.5.1.1 Physical Features ................................................... 2-55 

 2.5.2 Operations.......................................................................... 2-59 

2.5.2.1 Wymer Reservoir................................................... 2-59 

 2.5.2.2 Yakima Project....................................................... 2-62 

 2.5.2.3 Municipal Operations............................................. 2-63 

2.5.2.4 Summary................................................................ 2-63 

 2.5.3 Accomplishments............................................................... 2-63 

 2.5.3.1 Water Provided by the Wymer Dam 

 and Reservoir Alternative ............................................... 2-63 

 2.5.3.2 Instream Flows Provided ....................................... 2-64 

 2.5.3.3 Dry Year Proratable Irrigation Supply 

 Provided .......................................................................... 2-65 

 2.5.3.4 Municipal Supply Provided ................................... 2-66 

 2.5.4 Economic and Financial Analysis...................................... 2-66 

 2.5.5 Actions and Permits ........................................................... 2-67 

2.6 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange 

 Alternative................................................................................ 2-67 

 2.6.1 Description......................................................................... 2-67 

 2.6.1.1 Physical Features ................................................... 2-67 

 2.6.2 Operations.......................................................................... 2-70 

 2.6.2.1 Wymer Reservoir Component ............................... 2-70 

 2.6.2.2 Yakima River Pump Exchange Component .......... 2-70 

Contents 

liii 
Page 

 2.6.2.3 Yakima Project....................................................... 2-73 

 2.6.2.4 Municipal Operations............................................. 2-73 

2.6.2.5 Summary................................................................ 2-73 

 2.6.3 Accomplishments............................................................... 2-73 

 2.6.3.1 Water Provided by the Wymer Dam Plus

 Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative.................... 2-73 

 2.6.3.2 Instream Flows Provided ....................................... 2-75 

 2.6.3.3 Dry Year Proratable Irrigation Supply 

 Provided .......................................................................... 2-75 

 2.6.3.4 Municipal Supply Provided ................................... 2-75 

 2.6.4 Economic and Financial Analysis...................................... 2-76 

 2.6.5 Actions and Permits ........................................................... 2-76 

2.7 Economic and Financial Analysis................................................ 2-76 

 2.7.1 NED Benefit-Cost Analysis............................................... 2-76 

 2.7.1.1 Cost Analysis ......................................................... 2-78 

 2.7.1.2 Benefits Analysis ................................................... 2-80 

 2.7.2 Financial Feasibility........................................................... 2-101 

 2.7.2.1 Cost Allocation ...................................................... 2-101 

 2.7.2.2 Project Repayment................................................. 2-102 

2.8 Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives...................................... 2-102 

 2.8.1 Preparing the EQ Evaluation ............................................. 2-105 

 2.8.2 Preparing the OSE Evaluation ........................................... 2-106 

 2.8.3 Displaying the EQ and OSE Impacts from 

 Alternatives ........................................................................... 2-107 

2.9 Other Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from 

 Further Study ........................................................................... 2-109 

 2.9.1 Bumping Lake Enlargement Alternative ........................... 2-109 

 2.9.2 Keechelus-to-Kachess to Pipeline Alternative................... 2-113 

 2.9.3 Rattlesnake Creek .............................................................. 2-113 

 2.9.4 Klickitat Diversion Project ................................................ 2-114 

2.10 Summary Comparison of Environmental Impacts 

 of Alternatives.......................................................................... 2-115 

CHAPTER 3 State Alternatives................................................................. 3-1 

3.1 Introduction.................................................................................. 3-1 

 3.1.1 Alternatives Development ................................................. 3-1 

 3.1.2 Summary of Alternative Results........................................ 3-2 

 3.1.3 Consumptive versus Nonconsumptive Use of Water ........ 3-3 

3.2 Alternative 1 - Enhanced Water Conservation ............................ 3-4 

 3.2.1 Description......................................................................... 3-4 

 3.2.2 Enhanced Water Conservation Projects............................. 3-5 

 3.2.3 Comparison to the No Action Alternative ......................... 3-8 

3.3 Alternative 2 - Market-Based Reallocation of Water 

 Resources ................................................................................. 3-9 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

liv 
Page 

 3.3.1 Description......................................................................... 3-9 

 3.3.2 Water Banks and Water Markets in Washington............... 3-10 

 3.3.3 Development of Options for the Market-Based 

 Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative.......................... 3-10 

 3.3.3.1 Administrative Structure of Water Markets 

 and Water Banks............................................................. 3-11 

 3.3.3.2 Issues and Concerns with Market-Based 

 Reallocation of Water Resources in 

 Washington ..................................................................... 3-11 

 3.3.4 Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources 

 Alternative Options......................................................... 3-13 

 3.3.4.1 Alternative 2A: Water Market Using 

 Existing Authority........................................................... 3-13 

 3.3.4.2 Alternative 2B: Open Water Market..................... 3-14 

 3.3.4.3 Alternative 2C: Water Banking Using 

 Existing Trust Water Rights Program............................. 3-15 

 3.3.4.4 Alternative 2D: Nonregulatory Water Bank......... 3-16 

 3.3.4.5 Alternative 2E: Drought Year Transfers 

 Outside of Irrigation Districts ......................................... 3-17 

 3.3.4.6 Alternative 2F: Irrigation District Bank................ 3-17 

3.4 Alternative 3 - Groundwater Storage........................................... 3-17 

 3.4.1 Description......................................................................... 3-17 

 3.4.1.1 Injection Recharge ................................................. 3-18 

3.5 Comparative Evaluation of State Alternatives............................. 3-23 

3.6 Other Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from 

 Further Study ........................................................................... 3-29 

CHAPTER 4 Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives .................................................... 4-1 

4.1 Introduction.................................................................................. 4-1 

4.2 Water Resources .......................................................................... 4-1 

 4.2.1 Affected Environment........................................................ 4-1 

 4.2.1.1 River Regulation .................................................... 4-2 

 4.2.1.2 Water Supply Available......................................... 4-3 

 4.2.2 Environmental Consequences............................................ 4-8 

 4.2.2.1 No Action Alternative............................................ 4-9 

 4.2.2.2 Black Rock Alternative.......................................... 4-11 

 4.2.2.3 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative ................ 4-12 

 4.2.2.4 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

 Exchange Alternative...................................................... 4-14 

4.2.2.5 Mitigation............................................................... 4-15 

4.2.2.6 Cumulative Impacts ............................................... 4-15 

4.3 Groundwater Resources............................................................... 4-29 

 4.3.1 Affected Environment........................................................ 4-29 

 4.3.1.1 Geology Overview................................................. 4-29 

Contents 

lv 
Page 

 4.3.1.2 Groundwater Occurrence....................................... 4-32 

 4.3.1.3 Aquifer Recharge and Discharge........................... 4-32 

 4.3.1.4 Hydraulic Properties .............................................. 4-33 

 4.3.2 Environmental Consequences............................................ 4-34 

 4.3.2.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................... 4-34 

 4.3.2.2 No Action Alternative............................................ 4-35 

 4.3.2.3 Black Rock Alternative.......................................... 4-35 

 4.3.2.4 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative ................ 4-38 

 4.3.2.5 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

 Exchange Alternative...................................................... 4-39 

4.3.2.6 Mitigation............................................................... 4-39 

4.3.2.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................... 4-40 

 4.4 Hydropower Resources....................................................... 4-41 

 4.4.1 Affected Environment............................................... 4-41 

 4.4.2 Environmental Consequences................................... 4-43 

 4.4.2.1 Methods and Assumptions......................... 4-43 

 4.4.2.2 No Action Alternative................................ 4-45 

 4.4.2.3 Black Rock Alternative.............................. 4-45 

 4.4.2.4 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative .... 4-48 

 4.4.2.5 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

 Exchange Alternative...................................................... 4-48 

4.4.2.6 Mitigation............................................................... 4-49 

4.4.2.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................... 4-50 

4.5 Sediment Resources..................................................................... 4-50 

 4.5.1 Affected Environment........................................................ 4-50 

 4.5.2 Environmental Consequences............................................ 4-52 

 4.5.2.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................... 4-52 

 4.5.2.2 No Action Alternative............................................ 4-54 

 4.5.2.3 Black Rock Alternative.......................................... 4-55 

 4.5.2.4 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative ................ 4-56 

 4.5.2.5 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

 Exchange Alternative...................................................... 4-57 

4.5.2.6 Mitigation............................................................... 4-57 

4.5.2.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................... 4-57 

4.6 Water Quality............................................................................... 4-58 

 4.6.1 Affected Environment........................................................ 4-58 

 4.6.1.1 Columbia River...................................................... 4-58 

 4.6.1.2 Yakima River......................................................... 4-63 

 4.6.2 Environmental Consequences............................................ 4-66 

 4.6.2.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................... 4-66 

 4.6.2.2 No Action Alternative............................................ 4-68 

 4.6.2.3 Black Rock Alternative.......................................... 4-69 

 4.6.2.4 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative ................ 4-71 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

lvi 
Contents 

Page 

 4.6.2.5 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

 Exchange Alternative...................................................... 4-72 

4.6.2.6 Mitigation............................................................... 4-73 

4.6.2.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................... 4-73 

4.7 Vegetation and Wildlife............................................................... 4-73 

 4.7.1 Affected Environment........................................................ 4-73 

4.7.1.1 Wildlife .................................................................. 4-75 

 4.7.1.2 Movement Corridors.............................................. 4-77 

 4.7.1.3 Black Cottonwoods................................................ 4-78 

4.7.1.4 Wetlands ................................................................ 4-81 

 4.7.2 Environmental Consequences............................................ 4-82 

 4.7.2.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................... 4-82 

 4.7.2.2 No Action Alternative............................................ 4-86 

 4.7.2.3 Black Rock Alternative.......................................... 4-87 

 4.7.2.4 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative ................ 4-89 

 4.7.2.5 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

 Exchange Alternative...................................................... 4-91 

4.7.2.6 Mitigation............................................................... 4-92 

4.7.2.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................... 4-92 

4.8 Anadromous Fish......................................................................... 4-94 

 4.8.1 Affected Environment........................................................ 4-94 

 4.8.1.1 Columbia River...................................................... 4-94 

 4.8.1.2 Yakima River......................................................... 4-96 

 4.8.1.3 Habitat Conditions for Anadromous Fish.............. 4-98 

 4.8.2 Environmental Consequences............................................ 4-102 

 4.8.2.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................... 4-103 

 4.8.2.2 Summary of Impacts.............................................. 4-109 

 4.8.2.3 No Action Alternative............................................ 4-110 

 4.8.2.4 Black Rock Alternative.......................................... 4-115 

 4.8.2.5 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative ................ 4-119 

 4.8.2.6 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

 Exchange Alternative...................................................... 4-121 

4.8.2.7 Mitigation............................................................... 4-124 

4.8.2.8 Cumulative Impacts ............................................... 4-124 

4.9 Resident Fish................................................................................ 4-125 

 4.9.1 Affected Environment........................................................ 4-125 

 4.9.1.1 Columbia River...................................................... 4-125 

 4.9.1.2 Yakima River......................................................... 4-127 

 4.9.2 Environmental Consequences............................................ 4-129 

 4.9.2.1 Methods and Assumption ...................................... 4-129 

 4.9.2.2 Summary of Impacts.............................................. 4-131 

 4.9.2.3 No Action Alternative............................................ 4-133 

 4.9.2.4 Black Rock Alternative.......................................... 4-133 

 4.9.2.5 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative ................ 4-134 

lvii 
Page 

 4.9.2.6 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

 Exchange Alternative.......................................................... 4-136 

4.9.2.7 Mitigation............................................................... 4-137 

4.9.2.8 Cumulative Impacts ............................................... 4-137 

4.10 Aquatic Invertebrates................................................................... 4-137 

 4.10.1 Affected Environment...................................................... 4-137 

 4.10.1.1 Flow Magnitude and Timing ............................... 4-138 

 4.10.1.2 Recovery from Regulation................................... 4-138 

 4.10.1.3 Lateral Connectivity/Backwater Effects.............. 4-139 

 4.10.1.4 Relationship to Discharge and 

 Project Facilities.............................................................. 4-139 

 4.10.2 Environmental Consequences.......................................... 4-140 

 4.10.2.1 Methods and Assumptions................................... 4-140 

 4.10.2.2 No Action Alternative.......................................... 4-141 

 4.10.2.3 Black Rock Alternative........................................ 4-143 

 4.10.2.4 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative .............. 4-144 

 4.10.2.5 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump

 Exchange Alternative...................................................... 4-145 

4.10.2.6 Mitigation............................................................. 4-145 

4.10.2.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................. 4-145 

4.11 Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................... 4-146 

 4.11.1 Affected Environment...................................................... 4-146 

 4.11.1.1 Columbia River.................................................... 4-146 

 4.11.1.2 Yakima River Basin............................................. 4-148 

 4.11.2 Environmental Consequences.......................................... 4-160 

 4.11.2.1 Methods and Assumptions................................... 4-160 

 4.11.2.2 No Action Alternative.......................................... 4-162 

 4.11.2.3 Black Rock Alternative........................................ 4-163 

 4.11.2.4 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative .............. 4-167 

 4.11.2.5 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

 Exchange Alternative...................................................... 4-169 

4.11.2.6 Mitigation............................................................. 4-172 

4.11.2.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................. 4-172 

4.12 Recreational Resources................................................................ 4-173 

 4.12.1 Affected Environment...................................................... 4-173 

 4.12.1.1 Recreation Setting................................................ 4-173 

 4.12.1.2 Current Recreation Visitation .............................. 4-175 

 4.12.2 Environmental Consequences.......................................... 4-175 

 4.12.2.1 Methods and Assumptions................................... 4-175 

 4.12.2.2 No Action Alternative.......................................... 4-176 

 4.12.2.3 Black Rock Alternative........................................ 4-176 

 4.12.2.4 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative .............. 4-179 

 4.12.2.5 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

 Exchange Alternative...................................................... 4-182 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

lviii 
Page 

4.12.2.6 Mitigation............................................................. 4-183 

4.12.2.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................. 4-183 

4.13 Land Use and Shoreline Resources.............................................. 4-183 

 4.13.1 Affected Environment...................................................... 4-183 

 4.13.1.1 No Action Alternative.......................................... 4-183 

 4.13.1.2 Black Rock Alternative........................................ 4-184 

 4.13.1.3 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative .............. 4-187 

 4.13.1.4 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

 Exchange Alternative...................................................... 4-188 

 4.13.2 Environmental Consequences.......................................... 4-190 

 4.13.2.1 Methods and Assumptions................................... 4-190 

 4.13.2.2 No Action Alternative.......................................... 4-191 

 4.13.2.3 Black Rock Alternative........................................ 4-191 

 4.13.2.4 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative .............. 4-195 

 4.13.2.5 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

 Exchange Alternative...................................................... 4-198 

4.13.2.6 Mitigation............................................................. 4-200 

4.13.2.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................. 4-202 

4.14 Socioeconomics (Regional Economy)......................................... 4-203 

 4.14.1 Affected Environment...................................................... 4-204 

4.14.1.1 Employment......................................................... 4-205 

4.14.1.2 Output .................................................................. 4-205 

 4.14.1.3 Labor Income....................................................... 4-205 

 4.14.1.4 Irrigated Agriculture ............................................ 4-205 

4.14.1.5 Recreation ............................................................ 4-206 

 4.14.2 Environmental Consequences.......................................... 4-207 

 4.14.2.1 Methods and Assumptions................................... 4-207 

 4.14.2.2 No Action Alternative.......................................... 4-210 

 4.14.2.3 Black Rock Alternative........................................ 4-210 

 4.14.2.4 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative .............. 4-213 

 4.14.2.5 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

 Exchange Alternative...................................................... 4-215 

4.14.2.6 Mitigation............................................................. 4-216 

4.14.2.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................. 4-216 

4.15 Public Services and Utilities ........................................................ 4-216 

 4.15.1 Affected Environment...................................................... 4-217 

 4.15.1.1 No Action Alternative.......................................... 4-217 

 4.15.1.2 Black Rock Alternative........................................ 4-217 

 4.15.1.3 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative .............. 4-217 

 4.15.1.4 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

 Exchange Alternative....................................................... 4-218 

 4.15.2 Environmental Consequences.......................................... 4-219 

 4.15.2.1 Methods and Assumptions................................... 4-219 

 4.15.2.2 No Action Alternative.......................................... 4-220 

 4.15.2.3 Black Rock Alternative........................................ 4-220 

Contents 

lix 
Page 

 4.15.2.4 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative .............. 4-222 

 4.15.2.5 Wymer Dam and Yakima River Pump 

 Exchange Alternative...................................................... 4-222 

4.15.2.6 Mitigation............................................................. 4-224 

4.15.2.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................. 4-224 

4.16 Transportation ........................................................................... 4-224 

 4.16.1 Affected Environment...................................................... 4-224 

 4.16.1.1 No Action Alternative.......................................... 4-224 

 4.16.1.2 Black Rock Alternative........................................ 4-225 

 4.16.1.3 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative .............. 4-226 

 4.16.1.4 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River 

 Pump Exchange Alternatives.......................................... 4-227 

 4.16.2 Environmental Consequences.......................................... 4-228 

 4.16.2.1 Methods and Assumptions................................... 4-228 

 4.16.2.2 No Action Alternative.......................................... 4-229 

 4.16.2.3 Black Rock Alternative........................................ 4-229 

 4.16.2.4 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative .............. 4-231 

 4.16.2.5 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

 Exchange Alternative...................................................... 4-232 

4.16.2.6 Mitigation............................................................. 4-233 

4.16.2.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................. 4-235 

4.17 Air Quality ................................................................................... 4-235 

 4.17.1 Affected Environment...................................................... 4-235 

 4.17.2 Environmental Consequences.......................................... 4-237 

 4.17.2.1 Methods and Assumptions................................... 4-237 

 4.17.2.2 No Action Alternative.......................................... 4-238 

 4.17.2.3 Joint Alternatives ................................................. 4-238 

4.17.2.4 Mitigation............................................................. 4-239 

4.17.2.5 Cumulative Impacts ............................................. 4-239 

4.18 Noise ............................................................................................ 4-239 

 4.18.1 Affected Environment...................................................... 4-239 

 4.18.1.1 Noise Measurement Scales .................................. 4-240 

 4.18.1.2 Current Noise Environment ................................. 4-241 

 4.18.1.3 Applicable Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, 

 and Standards.................................................................. 4-241 

 4.18.1.4 Ambient Noise Levels.......................................... 4-241 

 4.18.2 Environmental Consequences.......................................... 4-241 

 4.18.2.1 Methods and Assumptions................................... 4-242 

 4.18.2.2 No Action Alternative.......................................... 4-242 

 4.18.2.3 Black Rock Alternative........................................ 4-242 

 4.18.2.4 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative .............. 4-242 

 4.18.2.5 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

 Exchange Alternative...................................................... 4-243 

4.18.2.6 Mitigation............................................................. 4-243 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

lx 
Page 

4.18.2.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................. 4-243 

4.19 Visual Resources.......................................................................... 4-243 

 4.19.1 Affected Environment...................................................... 4-243 

 4.19.1.1 No Action Alternative.......................................... 4-243 

 4.19.1.2 Black Rock Alternative........................................ 4-243 

 4.19.1.3 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative .............. 4-245 

 4.19.1.4 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

 Exchange Alternative...................................................... 4-246 

 4.19.2 Environmental Consequences.......................................... 4-247 

 4.19.2.1 Methods and Assumptions................................... 4-247 

 4.19.2.2 No Action Alternative.......................................... 4-247 

 4.19.2.3 Black Rock Alternative........................................ 4-248 

 4.19.2.4 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative .............. 4-250 

 4.19.2.5 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

 Exchange Alternative...................................................... 4-251 

4.19.2.6 Mitigation............................................................. 4-252 

4.19.2.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................. 4-253 

4.20 Historic Properties ....................................................................... 4-253 

 4.20.1 Affected Environment...................................................... 4-254 

 4.20.1.1 Columbia River Reaches and Yakima 

 River Basin...................................................................... 4-254 

 4.20.2 Environmental Consequences.......................................... 4-256 

 4.20.2.1 Methods and Assumptions................................... 4-256 

 4.20.2.2 No Action Alternative.......................................... 4-257 

 4.20.2.3 Joint Alternatives ................................................. 4-257 

4.20.2.4 Mitigation............................................................. 4-257 

4.20.2.5 Cumulative Impacts ............................................. 4-258 

4.21 Indian Sacred Sites....................................................................... 4-259 

 4.21.1 Affected Environment...................................................... 4-259 

 4.21.2 Environmental Consequences.......................................... 4-259 

 4.21.2.1 Methods and Assumptions................................... 4-259 

 4.21.2.2 No Action Alternative.......................................... 4-260 

 4.21.2.3 Black Rock Alternative........................................ 4-260 

 4.21.2.4 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative .............. 4-260 

 4.21.2.5 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

 Exchange Alternative...................................................... 4-260 

4.21.2.6 Mitigation............................................................. 4-260 

4.21.2.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................. 4-260 

4.22 Indian Trust Assets ...................................................................... 4-261 

 4.22.1 Affected Environment...................................................... 4-261 

 4.22.2 Environmental Consequences.......................................... 4-262 

 4.22.2.1 Methods and Assumptions................................... 4-262 

 4.22.2.2 No Action Alternative.......................................... 4-262 

 4.22.2.3 Black Rock Alternative........................................ 4-262 

 4.22.2.4 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative .............. 4-262 

Contents 

lxi 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Page 

 4.22.2.5 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

 Exchange Alternative...................................................... 4-263 

4.22.2.6 Mitigation............................................................. 4-263 

4.22.2.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................. 4-263 

4.23 Public Health ........................................................................... 4-263 

 4.23.1 Affected Environment...................................................... 4-263 

 4.23.1.1 Hazardous and Toxic Materials ........................... 4-263 

 4.23.1.2 Public Health (West Nile Virus) and Mosquitoes 4-264 

 4.23.2 Environmental Consequences.......................................... 4-266 

 4.23.2.1 Methods and Assumptions................................... 4-266 

 4.23.2.2 No Action Alternative.......................................... 4-266 

 4.23.2.3 Black Rock Alternative........................................ 4-267 

 4.23.2.4 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative .............. 4-270 

 4.23.2.5 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

 Exchange Alternative...................................................... 4-271 

4.23.2.6 Mitigation............................................................. 4-271 

4.23.2.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................. 4-273 

4.24 Environmental Justice.................................................................. 4-273 

 4.24.1 Affected Environment...................................................... 4-273 

 4.24.1.1 Black Rock Alternative........................................ 4-273 

 4.24.1.2 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative .............. 4-275 

 4.24.1.3 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

 Exchange Alternative...................................................... 4-276 

 4.24.2 Environmental Consequences.......................................... 4-279 

 4.24.2.1 Methods and Assumptions................................... 4-279 

 4.24.2.2 No Action Alternative.......................................... 4-279 

 4.24.2.3 Black Rock Alternative........................................ 4-279 

 4.24.2.4 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative .............. 4-280 

 4.24.2.5 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

 Exchange Alternative...................................................... 4-280 

4.24.2.6 Mitigation............................................................. 4-281 

4.24.2.7 Cumulative Impacts ............................................. 4-281 

4.25 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ..................................................... 4-281 

4.26 Relationship Between Short-Term and Long-Term 

 Productivity.............................................................................. 4-283 

4.27 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources .......... 4-283 

4.28 Environmental Commitments ...................................................... 4-285 

 4.28.1 General ........................................................................... 4-285 

 4.28.2 Groundwater Resources................................................... 4-285 

 4.28.3 Water Quality................................................................... 4-286 

 4.28.4 Vegetation and Wildlife................................................... 4-286 

 4.28.4.1 Black Rock Alternative and Wymer Dam and 

 Reservoir Alternative...................................................... 4-286 

lxii 
Page 

 4.28.4.2 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River 

 Pump Exchange Alternative ........................................... 4-286 

 4.28.5 Anadromous and Resident Fish ....................................... 4-287 

 4.28.6 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................... 4-287 

 4.28.6.1 Black Rock Alternative........................................ 4-287 

 4.28.6.2 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative .............. 4-288 

 4.28.6.3 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River 

 Pump Exchange Alternative ........................................... 4-288 

 4.28.7 Land Use and Shoreline Resources.................................. 4-288 

 4.28.7.1 Black Rock Alternative........................................ 4-288 

 4.28.7.2 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative .............. 4-288 

 4.28.7.3 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

 Exchange Alternative...................................................... 4-288 

 4.28.8 Public Services................................................................. 4-289 

 4.28.9 Transportation.................................................................. 4-289 

 4.28.9.1 Black Rock Alternative........................................ 4-289 

 4.28.9.2 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative .............. 4-290 

 4.28.9.3 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

 Exchange Alternative...................................................... 4-290 

 4.28.10 Air Quality ..................................................................... 4-290 

 4.28.11 Visual Resources............................................................ 4-291 

 4.28.11.1 Black Rock Alternative...................................... 4-291 

 4.28.11.2 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative ............ 4-291 

 4.28.11.3 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

 Exchange Alternative...................................................... 4-291 

 4.28.12 Historic Properties ......................................................... 4-292 

 4.28.13 Indian Sacred Sites......................................................... 4-293 

 4.28.14 Public Health.................................................................. 4-293 

 4.28.14.1 Hazardous and Toxic Materials ......................... 4-293 

4.28.14.2 Mosquitoes......................................................... 4-293 

CHAPTER 5 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: 

State Alternatives.................................................................................... 5-1 

5.1 Introduction.................................................................................. 5-1 

5.2 Water Resources .......................................................................... 5-2 

 5.2.1 Affected Environment – Surface Water............................. 5-2 

 5.2.2 Affected Environment –Water Rights ............................... 5-2 

 5.2.3 Environmental Consequences – Surface Water................. 5-4 

 5.2.3.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative............ 5-5 

5.2.3.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water 

 Resources Alternative ..................................................... 5-13 

 5.2.3.3 Groundwater Storage Alternative .......................... 5-14 

 5.2.4 Mitigation........................................................................... 5-15 

 5.2.5 Environmental Consequences – Water Rights................... 5-15 

Contents 

lxiii 
Page 

 5.2.5.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative............ 5-15 

 5.2.5.2 Market-Based Reallocation of 

 Water Resources Alternative .......................................... 5-17 

 5.2.5.3 Groundwater Storage Alternative .......................... 5-17 

 5.2.6 Mitigation Measures .......................................................... 5-18 

5.3 Groundwater Resources............................................................... 5-19 

 5.3.1 Affected Environment........................................................ 5-19 

 5.3.2 Environmental Consequences............................................ 5-19 

 5.3.2.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative............ 5-19 

5.3.2.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water 

 Resources Alternative ..................................................... 5-19 

 5.3.2.3 Groundwater Storage Alternative .......................... 5-20 

 5.3.3 Mitigation........................................................................... 5-21 

5.4 Hydropower ................................................................................. 5-21 

 5.4.1 Affected Environment........................................................ 5-21 

 5.4.2 Environmental Consequences............................................ 5-22 

 5.4.2.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative............ 5-22 

5.4.2.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water 

 Resources Alternative ..................................................... 5-22 

 5.4.2.3 Groundwater Storage Alternative .......................... 5-22 

 5.4.3 Mitigation........................................................................... 5-23 

5.5 Sediment Resources..................................................................... 5-23 

 5.5.1 Affected Environment........................................................ 5-23 

 5.5.2 Environmental Consequences............................................ 5-23 

 5.5.2.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative............ 5-23 

5.5.2.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water 

 Resources Alternative ..................................................... 5-23 

 5.5.2.3 Groundwater Conservation Alternative ................. 5-24 

5.5.2.4 Mitigation............................................................... 5-24 

5.6 Water Quality............................................................................... 5-25 

 5.6.1 Affected Environment............................................... 5-25 

 5.6.1.1 Surface Water......................................................... 5-25 

5.6.1.2 Groundwater .......................................................... 5-25 

 5.6.2 Environmental Consequences............................................ 5-26 

 5.6.2.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative............ 5-26 

5.6.2.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water 

 Resources Alternative ..................................................... 5-28 

 5.6.2.3 Groundwater Storage Alternative .......................... 5-28 

 5.6.3 Mitigation........................................................................... 5-31 

5.7 Vegetation and Wildlife............................................................... 5-31 

 5.7.1 Affected Environment........................................................ 5-31 

5.7.1.1 Shrub-Steppe.......................................................... 5-31 

 5.7.1.2 Movement Corridors.............................................. 5-32 

 5.7.1.3 Riparian Areas (Cottonwood Recruitment) ........... 5-32 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

lxiv 
Page 

 5.7.1.4 Wetland Abundance and Distribution.................... 5-32 

 5.7.2 Environmental Consequences............................................ 5-32 

 5.7.2.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative............ 5-33 

5.7.2.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water 

 Resources Alternative ..................................................... 5-34 

 5.7.2.3 Groundwater Storage Alternative .......................... 5-34 

 5.7.3 Mitigation........................................................................... 5-36 

5.8 Anadromous Fish......................................................................... 5-36 

 5.8.1 Affected Environment........................................................ 5-36 

 5.8.1.1 Fish Spawning and Rearing Habitat, Passage........ 5-36 

 5.8.2 Environmental Consequences............................................ 5-37 

 5.8.2.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................... 5-37 

 5.8.2.2 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative............ 5-43 

5.8.2.3 Market-Based Reallocation of Water 

 Resources Alternative ..................................................... 5-44 

 5.8.2.4 Groundwater Storage Alternative .......................... 5-44 

 5.8.3 Mitigation........................................................................... 5-45 

5.9 Resident Fish................................................................................ 5-46 

 5.9.1 Affected Environment........................................................ 5-46 

 5.9.2 Environmental Consequences............................................ 5-46 

 5.9.2.1 Methods and Assumptions..................................... 5-46 

 5.9.2.2 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative............ 5-49 

 5.9.2.3 Market-Based Water Reallocation of Water 

 Resources Alternative ..................................................... 5-49 

 5.9.2.4 Groundwater Storage Alternative .......................... 5-49 

 5.9.3 Mitigation........................................................................... 5-49 

5.10 Aquatic Invertebrates................................................................... 5-49 

 5.10.1 Affected Environment...................................................... 5-49 

 5.10.2 Environmental Consequences.......................................... 5-49 

 5.10.2.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative.......... 5-49 

5.10.2.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water 

 Resources Alternative ..................................................... 5-50 

 5.10.2.3 Groundwater Storage Alternative ........................ 5-50 

 5.10.3 Mitigation......................................................................... 5-50 

5.11 Threatened and Endangered Species ........................................... 5-51 

 5.11.1 Affected Environment...................................................... 5-51 

 5.11.2 Environmental Consequences.......................................... 5-51 

 5.11.2.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative.......... 5-51 

5.11.2.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water 

 Resources Alternative ..................................................... 5-51 

 5.11.2.3 Groundwater Storage Alternative ........................ 5-51 

 5.11.3 Mitigation......................................................................... 5-52 

5.12 Recreational Resources................................................................ 5-52 

 5.12.1 Affected Environment...................................................... 5-52 

Contents 

lxv 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Page 

 5.12.2 Environmental Consequences.......................................... 5-52 

 5.12.2.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative.......... 5-52 

5.12.2.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water 

 Resources Alternative ..................................................... 5-53 

 5.12.2.3 Groundwater Storage Alternative ........................ 5-53 

 5.12.3 Mitigation......................................................................... 5-53 

5.13 Land and Shoreline Use............................................................... 5-53 

 5.13.1 Affected Environment...................................................... 5-53 

 5.13.1.1 Current Land Use................................................. 5-53 

 5.13.1.2 Shoreline Management Act, 1972........................ 5-55 

 5.13.1.3 Tribal and Federal Lands ..................................... 5-58 

 5.13.2 Environmental Consequences.......................................... 5-58 

 5.13.2.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative.......... 5-58 

5.13.2.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water 

 Resources Alternative ..................................................... 5-59 

 5.13.2.3 Groundwater Storage Alternative ........................ 5-60 

 5.13.3 Mitigation......................................................................... 5-60 

5.14 Socioeconomics ........................................................................... 5-60 

 5.14.1 Affected Environment...................................................... 5-61 

 5.14.1.1 Value of Goods and Services............................... 5-61 

 5.14.1.2 Jobs and Incomes ................................................. 5-63 

 5.14.1.3 Distribution of Costs and Benefits....................... 5-64 

 5.14.1.4 Socioeconomic Structure ..................................... 5-64 

 5.14.1.5 Uncertainty and Risk............................................ 5-67 

 5.14.2 Environmental Consequences.......................................... 5-67 

 5.14.2.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative.......... 5-67 

5.14.2.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water 

 Resources Alternative ..................................................... 5-69 

 5.14.2.3 Groundwater Storage Alternative ........................ 5-72 

 5.14.3 Mitigation Measures ........................................................ 5-73 

5.15 Public Services and Utilities ........................................................ 5-75 

 5.15.1 Affected Environment...................................................... 5-75 

 5.15.1.1 Water Supply and Regional Water Use ............... 5-75 

 5.15.1.2 Public Services..................................................... 5-75 

 5.15.1.3 Public Utilities ..................................................... 5-75 

 5.15.2 Environmental Consequences.......................................... 5-75 

 5.15.2.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative.......... 5-76 

5.15.2.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water 

 Resources Alternative ..................................................... 5-76 

 5.15.2.3 Groundwater Storage Alternative ........................ 5-77 

 5.15.3 Mitigation......................................................................... 5-77 

5.16 Transportation.............................................................................. 5-78 

 5.16.1 Affected Environment...................................................... 5-78 

 5.16.2 Environmental Consequences.......................................... 5-78 

lxvi 
Page 

 5.16.2.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative.......... 5-78 

5.16.2.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water 

 Resources Alternative ..................................................... 5-78 

 5.16.2.3 Groundwater Storage Alternative ........................ 5-80 

 5.16.3 Mitigation......................................................................... 5-80 

5.17 Air Quality ................................................................................... 5-81 

 5.17.1 Affected Environment...................................................... 5-81 

 5.17.2 Environmental Consequences.......................................... 5-81 

 5.17.2.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative.......... 5-81 

5.17.2.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water 

 Resources Alternative ..................................................... 5-81 

 5.17.2.3 Groundwater Storage Alternative ........................ 5-82 

 5.17.3 Mitigation......................................................................... 5-82 

5.18 Noise ............................................................................................ 5-83 

 5.18.1 Affected Environment...................................................... 5-83 

 5.18.2 Environmental Consequences.......................................... 5-83 

 5.18.2.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative.......... 5-83 

5.18.2.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water 

 Resources Alternative ..................................................... 5-83 

 5.18.2.3 Groundwater Storage Alternative ........................ 5-83 

 5.18.3 Mitigation......................................................................... 5-84 

5.19 Visual Resources.......................................................................... 5-84 

 5.19.1 Affected Environment...................................................... 5-84 

 5.19.2 Environmental Consequences.......................................... 5-85 

 5.19.2.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative.......... 5-85 

5.19.2.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water 

 Resources Alternative ..................................................... 5-85 

 5.19.2.3 Groundwater Storage Alternative ........................ 5-86 

 5.19.3 Mitigation Measures ........................................................ 5-86 

5.20 Cultural Resources....................................................................... 5-87 

 5.20.1 Affected Environment...................................................... 5-87 

 5.20.2 Environmental Consequences.......................................... 5-87 

 5.20.2.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative.......... 5-87 

5.20.2.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water 

 Resources ........................................................................ 5-88 

 5.20.2.3 Groundwater Storage ........................................... 5-89 

 5.20.3 Mitigation Measures ........................................................ 5-89 

5.21 Public Health and Safety.............................................................. 5-90 

 5.21.1 Affected Environment...................................................... 5-91 

 5.21.2 Environmental Consequences – Hazardous Materials..... 5-91 

 5.21.2.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative.......... 5-91 

5.21.2.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water 

 Resources Alternative ..................................................... 5-91 

 5.21.2.3 Groundwater Storage Alternative ........................ 5-92 

 5.21.3 Mitigation......................................................................... 5-92 

Contents 

lxvii 
Page 

 5.21.4 Environmental Consequences – Mosquitoes ................... 5-93 

 5.21.4.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative.......... 5-93 

5.21.4.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water 

 Resources Alternative ..................................................... 5-93 

 5.21.4.3 Groundwater Storage Alternative ........................ 5-93 

 5.21.5 Mitigation......................................................................... 5-94 

5.22 Cumulative Impacts ..................................................................... 5-94 

CHAPTER 6 Consultation and Coordination........................................... 6-1 

6.1 Public Involvement ...................................................................... 6-1 

 6.1.1 Scoping Process ................................................................. 6-1 

 6.1.1.1 Public Scoping Meetings ....................................... 6-2 

6.1.1.2 Comments and Other Information Received 

 from the Public................................................................ 6-2 

 6.1.2 Public Hearings and Review of Draft PR/EIS ................... 6-4 

 6.1.3 Other Meetings Held with Interested Parties..................... 6-4 

 6.1.3.1 Public Meetings ..................................................... 6-4 

 6.1.3.2 Meetings with the Yakama Nation ........................ 6-4 

 6.1.3.3 Stakeholder Meetings............................................. 6-5 

6.1.3.4 Roundtable Meetings ............................................. 6-6 

 6.1.3.5 Technical Working Group Meetings ..................... 6-7 

 6.1.3.6 Other Meetings/Presentations with 

 Interested Parties............................................................. 6-7 

6.2 Agency Coordination and Consultation....................................... 6-8 

 6.2.1 Cooperating Agencies........................................................ 6-8 

 6.2.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service .......................................... 6-9 

 6.2.2.1 Endangered Species Act ........................................ 6-9 

 6.2.2.2 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act....................... 6-9 

 6.2.3 NOAA Fisheries................................................................. 6-9 

 6.2.4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers .......................................... 6-10 

 6.2.5 State Historic Preservation Officer .................................... 6-10 

6.3 Tribal Consultation and Coordination ......................................... 6-10 

 6.3.1 Government-to-Government Consultation ........................ 6-10 

 6.3.2 National Historic Preservation Act .................................... 6-11 

 6.3.3 Executive Order 13007: Indian Sacred Sites ..................... 6-11 

 6.3.4 Indian Trust Assets ............................................................ 6-11 

6.4 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.......... 6-12 

6.5 Compliance with Other Federal Laws ......................................... 6-12 

 6.5.1 Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management............. 6-12 

 6.5.2 Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands ............... 6-12 

 6.5.3 Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice ................ 6-12 

LIST OF PREPARERS 

DISTRIBUTION LIST 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

lxviii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents 

REFERENCES 

GLOSSARY 

ATTACHMENT 

Section IV, “Recommendations,” of the Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report and 

Reclamation Responses 

Tables 

Table No Page 

Table 1.1 Monthly flow objectives (cfs) for an average water 

year for the Easton, Cle Elum River, Ellensburg, 

Wapato, and lower Naches River reaches........................... 1-3 

Table 1.2 Yakima Project irrigation divisions and stored 

 water source ........................................................................ 1-14 

Table 2.1 Title XII target flows .......................................................... 2-3 

Table 2.2 Monthly flow objectives and volumes for an average 

water year for the Easton reach, Cle Elum River, 

and Ellensburg, Wapato, and lower Naches River 

reaches................................................................................. 2-4 

Table 2.3 Yakima River basin annual water entitlements .................. 2-6 

Table 2.4 Municipal and domestic water needs for years 2000, 

2010, 2020, and 2050.......................................................... 2-7 

Table 2.5 Conserved water resulting from water conservation 

measures for the No Action Alternative ............................. 2-22 

Table 2.6 Middle Yakima River area instream flow associated 

with water conservation actions from river 

mile 127.9 to 103.7 ............................................................. 2-23 

Table 2.7 Changes in hydrologic indicators under the No Action 

 Alternative compared to the current operation for the 

25-year period of record...................................................... 2-28 

Table 2.8 Differences in Title XII target flows downstream from 

Sunnyside Diversion Dam—current Yakima Project 

operation compared to No Action Alternative.................... 2-28 

Table 2.9 Gages and stream reaches ................................................... 2-29 

Table 2.10 Seasonal flow volume objectives and model results 

for the Umtanum and Parker gages for an average 

water year............................................................................ 2-31 

Table 2.11 Differences between the No Action Alternative flows 

and flow volume objectives by season................................ 2-31 

Table 2.12 Differences in flow between Black Rock, Wymer 

Dam and Reservoir, and Wymer Dam Plus Yakima 

River Pump Exchange Alternatives and 

 No Action Alternative......................................................... 2-35 

lxix 
 Table No Page 

Table 2.13 Irrigation proration level for the No Action 

 Alternative compared to the current operation for 

 the 25-year period of record................................................ 2-36 

Table 2.14 Summary of major facilities for the Black Rock 

Alternative........................................................................... 2-42 

Table 2.15 Total project costs for Black Rock Alternative................... 2-43 

Table 2.16 Annual operation, maintenance, replacement, and 

 pumping energy costs ......................................................... 2-43 

Table 2.17 Seasonal flow targets and planning dates for the 

 mainstem Columbia River .................................................. 2-44 

Table 2.18 Columbia River volumes available for pumping 

 for the 25-year period of record.......................................... 2-45 

Table 2.19 Black Rock pumping volumes for the 25-year period 

 of record.............................................................................. 2-47 

Table 2.20 Sources of water supply of exchange participants 

 for the Black Rock Alternative for the 25-year 

 period of record................................................................... 2-48 

Table 2.21 Black Rock reservoir end-of-month contents for the 

 25-year period of record based on the water 

 delivery criteria ................................................................... 2-48 

Table 2.22 Columbia River water available, water pumped to 

 Black Rock reservoir, and Black Rock reservoir 

 end-of-month reservoir contents......................................... 2-49 

Table 2.23 Operation criteria for flow objectives at the Parker gage ... 2-50 

Table 2.24 Reaches and volume of future municipal water supply...... 2-51 

Table 2.25 Integrated Black Rock Alternative – Yakima Project 

 operation criteria ................................................................. 2-52 

Table 2.26 Changes in hydrologic indicators under the Black 

 Rock Alternative compared to the No Action 

 Alternative for the 25-year period of record....................... 2-52 

Table 2.27 Irrigation proration level for the Black Rock Alternative 

 compared to the No Action Alternative.............................. 2-53 

Table 2.28 Municipal proration level under the Black Rock 

Alternative........................................................................... 2-54 

Table 2.29 Black Rock Alternative benefit-cost ratio........................... 2-55 

Table 2.30 Summary of major facilities for the Wymer Dam 

 and Reservoir Alternative ................................................... 2-57 

Table 2.31 Total project costs—Wymer Dam and Reservoir 

Alternative........................................................................... 2-59 

Table 2.32 Annual operation, maintenance, replacement, and 

 pumping energy costs ......................................................... 2-59 

Table 2.33 Additional Cle Elum Lake releases pumped to the 

 82,500 acre-feet of Wymer reservoir active capacity 

 for the 25-year period of record.......................................... 2-60 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

lxx 
 Table No Page 

Table 2.34 Yakima River volume available in excess of 1,475 cfs 

 and volume pumped to the 80,000 acre-feet of 

Wymer reservoir active capacity for the 25-year 

period of record................................................................... 2-61 

Table 2.35 Wymer reservoir storage contents for the 25-year 

 period of record................................................................... 2-62 

Table 2.36 Integrated Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative – 

 Yakima Project operation criteria ....................................... 2-63 

Table 2.37 Changes in hydrologic indicators under the Wymer 

 Dam and Reservoir Alternative compared to the 

 No Action Alternative for the 25-year period of record ..... 2-64 

Table 2.38 Irrigation proration level for the Wymer Dam and 

 Reservoir Alternative compared to the 

 No Action Alternative......................................................... 2-65 

Table 2.39 Municipal water supply available during prorated 

 years with the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative...... 2-66 

Table 2.40 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

 benefit-cost ratio ................................................................. 2-66 

Table 2.41 Design components of the Yakima River pump 

exchange ............................................................................. 2-69 

Table 2.42 Total project costs for Wymer Dam Plus Yakima 

 River Pump Exchange Alternative...................................... 2-71 

Table 2.43 Annual operation, maintenance, replacement, and 

 pumping energy costs for Wymer Dam Plus Yakima 

 River Pump Exchange Alternative...................................... 2-71 

Table 2.44 Source of water supply for exchange participants .............. 2-72 

Table 2.45 Integrated Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

 Exchange Alternative – Yakima Project 

 operation criteria ................................................................. 2-74 

Table 2.46 Changes in hydrologic indicators under Wymer Dam 
 

 Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

 compared to the No Action Alternative for the 

 25-year period of record...................................................... 2-74 

Table 2.47 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange 

Alternative........................................................................... 2-76 

Table 2.48 Benefit-cost analysis summary ........................................... 2-77 

Table 2.49 Upfront construction costs and annual OMR&E costs 

 by alternative....................................................................... 2-79 

Table 2.50 Water entitlements by district ............................................. 2-81 

Table 2.51 Agricultural benefits analysis by alternative....................... 2-83 

Table 2.52 Black Rock reservoir visitation projections........................ 2-87 

Table 2.53 Wymer reservoir visitation projections............................... 2-89 

Table 2.54 Differences in recreation visitation and value at 

 existing sites under Black Rock Alternative....................... 2-91 

Contents 

lxxi 
 Table No Page 

Table 2.55 Changes in recreation visitation and value at existing 

 sites for Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative................ 2-91 

Table 2.56 Differences in recreation visitation and value at 

 existing sites under Wymer Dam Plus Yakima 

 River Pump Exchange Alternative...................................... 2-92 

Table 2.57 Hydropower benefits for the Black Rock Alternative ........ 2-94 

Table 2.58 Economic values per fish by species and 

 harvest category ................................................................. 2-97 

Table 2.59 Annual increment in fish harvest as compared to 

 No Action Alternative......................................................... 2-98 

Table 2.60 Discounted 100-year stream of fisheries use values 

 by alternative....................................................................... 2-98 

Table 2.61 Comparative display of the NED and RED accounts 

 for the Draft PR/EIS............................................................ 2-104 

Table 2.62 Environmental quality resource categories and weights..... 2-106 

Table 2.63 Comparative display of the EQ account for the 

 Draft PR/EIS ....................................................................... 2-106 

Table 2.64 OSE resource categories and weights................................. 2-107 

Table 2.65 Comparative display of the OSE account for the 

 Draft PR/EIS ....................................................................... 2-107 

Table 2.66 Comparative display of alternatives.................................... 2-108 

Table 2.67 Water available for an enlarged Bumping Lake and 

 exchanged with the upper Yakima River reservoirs 

 in an average water year ..................................................... 2-112 

Table 2-68 Number of days available for exchange between 

 Bumping Lake and the upper Yakima River basin............. 2-112 

Table 2.69 Comparative analysis of Joint Alternatives by 

 indicator: Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

 Study Draft PR/EIS............................................................. 2-115 

Table 3.1 Conserved water resulting from enhanced 

 water conservation measures – Yakima River 

 water users .......................................................................... 3-5 

Table 3.2 Conserved water resulting from enhanced water 

 conservation measures – Naches River water users ........... 3-7 

Table 3.3 Impacts summary................................................................ 3-23 

Table 4.1 Title XII target flows .......................................................... 4-3 

Table 4.2 Yakima River basin annual water entitlements .................. 4-7 

Table 4.3 Hydrologic indicators.......................................................... 4-8 

Table 4.4 Yakima Project total reservoir contents and 

 Cle Elum Lake contents...................................................... 4-9 

Table 4.5 Flow volume downstream from the Parker gage 

 for April-September and July-September ........................... 4-10 

Table 4.6 Pacific Northwest Region meteorological trends
 

 during 1916-2003 and 1947-2003....................................... 4-16 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

lxxii 
 Table No Page 

Table 4.7 Scenario changes in climate analyzed by Hamlet and 

 Lettenmaier, 1999 ............................................................... 4-18 

Table 4.8 Scenario changes in natural runoff at The Dalles, 

 simulated by Hamlet and Lettenmaier, 1999 ...................... 4-18 

Table 4.9 Change in April-August natural runoff at various 

 Yakima River basin locations based on a 3.6 oF (2 °C) 

 warming scenario................................................................ 4-19 

Table 4.10 Model-based estimates of total annual reservoir 

 seepage rates ....................................................................... 4-36 

Table 4.11 Summary of hydroelectric projects in the 

 mid-Columbia River system ............................................... 4-42 

Table 4.12 Black Rock Alternative monthly pumping power 

 requirements and costs........................................................ 4-45 

Table 4.13 Monthly difference in non-Federal, Federal, and 

 regional combined non-Federal and Federal 

 Columbia River hydropower generation related to 

 operation of the Black Rock Alternative ............................ 4-47 

Table 4.14 Average monthly pumping power requirements, 

 costs, and energy rates ........................................................ 4-48 

Table 4.15 Yakima River pump exchange component of Wymer Dam 

 Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative: 

 average monthly pumping energy requirements, costs, 

 and energy rates .................................................................. 4-49 

Table 4.16 Average annual pumping power requirements 

 and costs.............................................................................. 4-50 

Table 4.17 Percentage difference in average annual gravel load, 

 by Yakima River reach, between each Joint Alternative 

 and No Action Alternative.................................................. 4-54 

Table 4.18 Maximum annual bed scour in inches and centimeters 

during the egg incubation period for steelhead, salmon, 

and rainbow trout for the Easton, Ellensburg, Wapato, 

and lower Naches River reaches of the Yakima River ....... 4-55 

Table 4.19 Shrub-steppe habitat at major facility sites......................... 4-74 

Table 4.20 Known and potential wildlife species within affected 

 shrub-steppe habitats........................................................... 4-76 

Table 4.21 Significance of hydrograph components for 

 cottonwood reproduction for water year types ................... 4-85 

Table 4.22 10-year anadromous salmonid adult counts downstream

 from Priest Rapids Dam...................................................... 4-95 

Table 4.23 Summary of the upstream (adults) and downstream 
 

 (juveniles) migration timing for anadromous salmonids 

 in the Hanford reach and at Priest Rapids Dam.................. 4-95 

Table 4.24 Annual Yakima salmon and steelhead adult counts 

 at Prosser Diversion Dam (RM 47) .................................... 4-96 

Contents 

lxxiii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table No Page 

Table 4.25 Summary of impacts on the selected indicators 

for spring Chinook and steelhead ....................................... 4-111 

Table 4.26 Estimates of average annual spring Chinook, fall 

Chinook, coho, and steelhead total recruitment, 

harvest, escapement, and percent increase in total 

escapement under Joint Alternatives compared to 

No Action Alternative based on results from the 

All H Analyzer model......................................................... 4-114 

Table 4.27 Summary of spring Chinook and steelhead fry and 

summer rearing habitat area (acres) in the Ellensburg 

floodplain and the July and August median flow for the 

No Action and Black Rock Alternatives............................. 4-118 

Table 4.28 Percent of Black Rock reservoir water mixed with 

Yakima River water at the Kiona Benton gage 

(RM 29.9) by month during the irrigation season as 

a result of direct operational spill from Roza and 

 Sunnyside Canals................................................................ 4-119 

Table 4.29 Percent of Columbia River water mixed with Yakima 

River water at the Kiona Benton gage (RM 29.9) by 

month during the irrigation season as a result of direct 

operational spill from Roza and Sunnyside Canals ............ 4-124 

Table 4.30 Resident fishes sampled in the Priest Rapids Project 

area during multiple year surveys....................................... 4-126 

Table 4.31 Summary of impacts on the selected indicators 

for rainbow trout and bull trout........................................... 4-132 

Table 4.32 Annual redd counts since 1993 for eight local 

bull trout populations in the Yakima River basin ............... 4-154 

Table 4.33 State and federally listed endangered or threatened 

species that may occur within the Yakima River basin, 

and may be affected by the project ..................................... 4-161 

Table 4.34 Percent of Black Rock reservoir water mixed with 

Yakima River water at the Kiona-Benton gage 

(RM 29.9) by month during the irrigation season as a 

result of direct operational spill from Roza and 

 Sunnyside Canals................................................................ 4-165 

Table 4.35 Percent of Columbia River water mixed with Yakima 

River water at the Kiona Benton gage (RM 29.9) by 

month during the irrigation season as a result of direct 

operational spill from Roza and Sunnyside Canals ............ 4-171 

Table 4.36 Estimated 2006 annual visitation to key reservoirs and 

rivers in the Yakima River basin ........................................ 4-175 

Table 4.37 Recreation setting at Black Rock reservoir......................... 4-177 

Table 4.38 Recreation use at Black Rock reservoir.............................. 4-178 

Table 4.39 Recreation setting at Wymer reservoir ............................... 4-180 

lxxiv 
 Table No Page 

Table 4.40 Recreation use at Wymer reservoir..................................... 4-181 

Table 4.41 Pump exchange pipeline crossings of rivers, 

 waterways, highways, and roads......................................... 4-199 

Table 4.42 Regional employment, output, and labor income, 

 Kittitas, Yakima, Benton, and Franklin Counties............... 4-204 

Table 4.43 Gross on-farm income by crop ........................................... 4-206 

Table 4.44 Current in-region recreation expenditures by 

 nonlocal recreators by site .................................................. 4-207 

Table 4.45 Gross on-farm income (incremental to the No Action 

 Alternative) by IMPLAN sector ......................................... 4-209 

Table 4.46 Total regional economic impacts stemming 

 from construction activities................................................. 4-211 

Table 4.47 Annual regional economic impacts stemming from

 O&M activities.................................................................... 4-212 

Table 4.48 Regional economic inputs stemming from irrigated 

Agriculture .......................................................................... 4-213 

Table 4.49 Regional economic impacts stemming from

 recreation expenditures ....................................................... 4-214 

Table 4.50 Common noise levels and their effects on the 

 human ear............................................................................ 4-240 

Table 4.51 Recommended land use noise levels................................... 4-240 

Table 4.52 Race and ethnicity............................................................... 4-274 

Table 4.53 Income, poverty, unemployment, and housing................... 4-274 

Table 4.54 Race and ethnicity............................................................... 4-275 

Table 4.55 Income, poverty, unemployment, and housing................... 4-276 

Table 4.56 Race and ethnicity............................................................... 4-277 

Table 4.57 Income, poverty, unemployment, and housing................... 4-277 

Table 4.58 Irreversible commitments ................................................... 4-284 

Table 4.59 Irretrievable commitments.................................................. 4-284 

Table 5.1 Hydrologic indicators for the period of record 

1981-2005 ........................................................................... 5-6 

Table 5.2 April 1 TWSA for drought years within the period 

 of record.............................................................................. 5-6 

Table 5.3 Flow volume downstream from the Parker gage 

 for April-September and July-September average for 

 period of record................................................................... 5-7 

Table 5.4 Yakima Project reservoir system total contents 

 for the period of record 1981-2005..................................... 5-8 

Table 5.5 Irrigation delivery volume shortage and proration 

 level for drought years during period of record.................. 5-9 

Contents 

lxxv 
 Table No Page 

Table 5.6 Changes in Title XII target flows downstream from 

 Sunnyside Diversion Dam—current Yakima Project 

 operations to No Action Alternative and State 

Alternatives......................................................................... 5-10 

Table 5.7 Desired spring, summer, and winter flow objectives 

 and alternative-generated seasonal flow volumes 

 expressed in maf for the Umtanum reach 

 and Parker gage................................................................... 5-11 

Table 5.8 Comparison of the differences relative to the flow
 

 objective volume by season for the alternatives— 

 Umtanum and Parker stream gage stations......................... 5-12 

Table 5.9 Summary of need for construction associated with 

 three approaches to the Groundwater Storage 

Alternative........................................................................... 5-29 

Table 5.10 Summary of analyses for State Alternatives: 

 Yakima River Basin Water Storage Study PR/EIS............. 5-39 

Table 5.11 Median seasonal flow volume downstream from 
 

 the Parker gage, 1981-2005 ................................................ 5-41 

Table 5.12 Flow volume downstream from the Parker gage 

 for April-September and July-September, 

 average 1981-2005.............................................................. 5-42 

Table 5.13 Estimated average annual fish escapement (includes 

harvest) numbers (natural and hatchery) based on 

the EDT and AHA models for the No Action 

Alternative........................................................................... 5-43 

Table 5.14 Average elevation at existing Yakima basin reservoirs 

 from July 15 to September 15, 1981 – 2005....................... 5-47 

Table 5.15 Comparative analysis of State Alternatives: Yakima
 

 River Basin Water Storage Study PR/EIS .......................... 5-48 

Table 5.16 Rivers and streams protected under the SMA..................... 5-56 

Table 5.17 Lakes protected under the SMA 1972 ................................ 5-57 

Table 5.18 Farmers’ average economic returns for irrigated 

 crops in the Columbia River Basin, by crop....................... 5-62 

Table 5.19 Estimates of marginal value of selected 

 water-related variables........................................................ 5-63 

Table 5.20 Typical on-farm demand for water to irrigate 

 high- and low-value crops, by irrigation district................. 5-70 

Table 5.21 Representative water transfer prices (per acre-foot 

 per year) in Western Sates, 1987-2005, by sector .............. 5-71 

Table 5.22 Cost comparison of State Alternatives................................ 5-74 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

lxxvi 
Contents 

Figures 

Figure No Page 

Figure 2.1	 Reaches map. ...................................................................... 2-30 

Figure 2.2 Median daily flow hydrograph for the Umtanum 

 stream gage (RM 140) for the period of 

 record 1981-2005................................................................ 2-32 

Figure 2.3 Median daily flow hydrograph for the Parker stream 
 

 gage (RM 104) for the period of record 1981-2005 ........... 2-33 

Figure 2.4 Median daily flow hydrograph for the Easton stream 
 

 gage (RM 202) for the period of record 1981-2005 ........... 2-33 

Figure 2.5 Median daily flow hydrograph for the Cle Elum stream 
 

 gage on the Cle Elum River below dam (RM 7.9) for 

 the period of record 1981-2005........................................... 2-34 

Figure 2.6 Median daily flow hydrograph for the Lower Naches 

 stream gage near Yakima (RM 17) for the period 

 of record 1981-2005............................................................ 2-34 

Figure 2.7 Median daily flow hydrograph for the Kiona gage 

 (RM 29) for the period of record 1981-2005...................... 2-35 

Figure 2.8 Black Rock daily reservoir elevations for the typical 

 annual operation.................................................................. 2-41 

Figure 2.9 Flow targets on the Columbia River and water 

 availability above flow targets............................................ 2-44 

Figure 2.10 Wymer daily reservoir elevation for typical 

 annual operation.................................................................. 2-58 

Figure 2.11 Median daily flow (cfs) in the Bumping River for 

 unregulated and No Action Alternative flow 

 scenarios, 1981-2005 .......................................................... 2-111 

Figure 3.1 Injection recharge................................................................ 3-19 

Figure 3.2 Surface recharge.................................................................. 3-21 

Figure 4.1 Components and distribution of average TWSA— 

 (1) reservoir volumes and (2) flow volumes compared 

 to prorated and nonprorated diversion volumes.................. 4-6 

Figure 4.2 Projection survey area #1 near Cle Elum and 

 Kachess Lakes, Washington ............................................... 4-21 

Figure 4.3 Projection survey area #2 over the Upper Columbia 

 River Basin and surrounding region ................................... 4-21 

Figure 4.4 Variable-specific 21st century climate projections 

 over Cle Elum and Kachess Lakes, Washington ................ 4-22 

Figure 4.5 Paired 21st century climate projections over Cle Elum 
 

 and Kachess Lakes, Washington......................................... 4-23 

Figure 4.6 Early-21st century WCRP CMIP3 climate change 

 projections over the Upper Columbia Region .................... 4-25 

Figure 4.7 Mid-21st century WCRP CMIP3 climate change
 

 projections over the Upper Columbia Region .................... 4-26 

lxxvii 
Figure No Page 

Figure 4.8 Location of Yakima River basin and Columbia 

 Plateau Aquifer System....................................................... 4-30 

Figure 4.9 Important dams in the Federal Columbia River 

 Power System...................................................................... 4-42 

Figure 4.10 Streamflow and sediment transport attributes that 

 define the quality of salmon stream habitat ........................ 4-51 

Figure 4.11 Locations of Columbia River water sampling. ................... 4-60 

Figure 4.12 Modeled August absolute change in maximum 

 water temperatures for Wymer Dam and Reservoir, 

 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange, 

 and Black Rock Alternatives compared to the 

 No Action Alternative......................................................... 4-70 

Figure 4.13 Conceptual model of flows for successful black 

 cottonwood reproduction by seed ....................................... 4-80 

Figure 4.14 Relationship of coho summer yearling habitat 

 amount to flow for the Wapato reach ................................. 4-113 

Figure 4.15 Abundance of the Upper Yakima River stock and 

 total number of steelhead passing Roza Diversion 

 Dam between 1985 and 2007.............................................. 4-151 

Figure 4.16 Greater sage-grouse locations, dates, and movement 

 corridors within the Black Rock reservoir vicinity............. 4-156 

Figure 4.17 Greater sage-grouse locations, dates, and 

 movement corridors within the Wymer site 

vicinity ................................................................................ 4-156 

Figure 4.18 Yakima River basin recreation access points and 

 recreation areas ................................................................... 4-174 

Figure 4.19 Preliminary boundary of acquisition area for 

 the Black Rock Alternative................................................. 4-192 

Figure 4.20 Preliminary boundary of acquisition area for 

 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative ............................. 4-196 

Figure 5.1 Median of daily flows at the Parker gage for period 

 of record ........................................................................... 5-7 

Figure 5.2 Yakima River median of daily flows at Umtanum gage 

 for period of record ............................................................. 5-12 

Figure 5.3 Relationship of coho summer yearling habitat amount 

 to flow for the Wapato reach .............................................. 5-42 

Figure 5.4 General land use types and percent distribution within 

 the project area.................................................................... 5-54 

Figure 5.5 Major transportation routes................................................. 5-79 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

lxxviii 
Maps 

Page 

Frontispiece map 

Black Rock Alternative..........................................................follows page 2-38

Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative ................................follows page 2-56 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

Exchange Alternative.......................................................follows page 2-68 

Contents 

lxxix 
Chapter 1 

PURPOSE AND NEED 
CHAPTER 1 

PURPOSE AND NEED 

1.1 Introduction 

The Yakima River Basin Water Storage Feasibility Study (Storage Study), as 

authorized by the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2003 (Omnibus Act), Public 

Law (P.L.) 108-7, examines the feasibility and acceptability of storage 

augmentation for the benefit of fish, irrigation, and future municipal water supply 

for the Yakima River basin. 

Storage augmentation, as defined within the Storage Study, includes two 

concepts: 

•	 Diverting Columbia River water to a potential Black Rock reservoir for 

further water transfer to irrigation entities in the Yakima River basin as 

exchange supply, thereby reducing irrigation demand on Yakima River 

water and improving Yakima Project stored water supplies 

•	 Creating additional water storage for the Yakima River basin to provide 

increased management flexibility of the existing water supply. 

The Storage Study is generally confined to resources within the Yakima River 

basin currently served by Reclamation’s Yakima Project water storage and 

distribution features. However, because the feasibility of importing Columbia 

River water for delivery to the Yakima Project water users is a major component 

of the Storage Study, the effects of such an action on Columbia River water and 

on other resources are also evaluated. 

The State of Washington, represented by the Department of Ecology (Ecology), 

and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) are the co-leads in the Storage 

Study. Reclamation and Ecology have jointly prepared this Draft Planning 

Report/Environmental Impact Statement, Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study (Draft PR/EIS). This document combines a planning report and 

an environmental impact statement that complies with both National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) 

requirements. The document follows the Economic and Environmental Principles 

and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies 

(P&Gs) (U.S. Water Resources Council, 1983), for documenting benefits and 

costs of Joint Alternatives. 

This Draft PR/EIS presents information developed during the Storage Study, 

including analyses of alternatives designed for storage augmentation and 

1-1 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

beneficial use of water for fish, irrigation, and municipal needs as laid out in the 

Omnibus Act. In addition to Reclamation’s authorization and focus on storage 

augmentation, Ecology is required to evaluate a broad range of potential actions 

encompassing both structural and nonstructural options both within the Yakima 

River basin and at locations outside the basin that may improve water availability 

for fish, irrigation, and municipal demands. This Draft PR/EIS provides NEPA 

and SEPA coverage of the Joint Alternatives and the broader range of alternatives 

that Ecology has considered (State Alternatives). 

1.2 Purpose of and Need for Action 

The purpose of the Storage Study is to evaluate plans that would create additional 

water storage for the Yakima River basin, and assess each plan’s potential to 

supply the water needed for fish and the aquatic resources that support them, 

basinwide irrigation, and future municipal demands. 

The need for the study is based on the finite existing water supply and limited 

storage capability of the Yakima River basin. This finite supply and limited 

storage capability does not meet the water supply demands in all years and results 

in significant adverse impacts to the Yakima River basin’s economy, which is 

agriculture-based, and to the basin’s aquatic resources—specifically those 

resources supporting anadromous fish. Reclamation and Ecology seek to identify 

means of increasing water supplies available for purposes of improving 

anadromous fish habitat and meeting irrigation and future municipal needs. 

1.2.1 Study Authority 

Benton County and the Yakima Basin Storage Alliance, a grassroots organization 

promoting the Black Rock Alternative, went to Congress and the State of 

Washington to obtain the authorizations necessary for the Storage Study to be 

initiated and funded from Congress. 

1.2.1.1 Federal Authority 

Section 214 of the Act of February 20, 2003 (Public Law 108-7), states, 

The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of 

Reclamation, shall conduct a feasibility study of options for additional 

water storage in the Yakima River Basin, Washington, with emphasis on 

the feasibility of storage of Columbia River water in the potential Black 

Rock reservoir and the benefit of additional storage to endangered and 

threatened fish, irrigated agriculture, and municipal water supply. 

This Draft PR/EIS was prepared to address the technical viability of Yakima 

River basin storage alternatives, and the extent that additional stored water 

1-2 
 

 

 

Chapter 1 

Purpose and Need 

supply provided by these alternatives would assist in meeting the Storage 

Study goals. Storage Study goals include: 

•	 Improve anadromous fish habitat by restoring the flow regimes of the 

Yakima and Naches Rivers to more closely resemble the natural 

(unregulated) hydrograph. Through a collaborative process with the 

Storage Study Technical Work Group (SSTWG),1 Reclamation developed 

nonbinding flow objectives to assist in measuring goal achievement 

(table 1.1). 

•	 Improve the water supply for proratable (junior) irrigation entities by 

providing a not less than 70-percent irrigation water supply for irrigation 

districts during dry years relying on diversions subject to proration. This 

70-percent goal equates to 896,000 acre-feet of proratable entitlements. 

•	 Meet future municipal water supply needs by maintaining a full municipal 

water supply for existing users and providing additional surface water 

supply of 82,000 acre-feet for population growth to the year 2050. 

Table 1.1 Monthly flow objectives (cfs) for an average water year for the Easton, Cle Elum River, 

Ellensburg, Wapato, and lower Naches River reaches 

Spring Summer Winter 

Reach Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb 

Easton 722 1,166 1,400 787 450 375 375 375 425 450 450 450 

Cle Elum River 511 954 1,500 1,301 589 400 400 400 425 425 425 425 

Ellensburg 1,982 2,424 3,700 2,586 2,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 980 1,016 1,257 1,459 

Wapato 3,109 2794 3,500 2655 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,758 1,854 2,163 2,460 

Lower Naches 

River 

1,265 1,802 2,297 2,291 988 550 550 550 500 576 691 720 

1.2.1.2 State Authority 

Authority for the State of Washington is contained in the 2003-2005 Capitol 

Budget (Section 316 (1)(a) of Substitute Senate Bill 5401 as enacted June 26, 

2003, Water Supply Facilities Program (04-4-006): 

The appropriations in this section are subject to the following 

conditions and limitations: 

(1)(a) $1,000,000 of the state building construction account 

appropriation and $3,000,000 of the state and local improvements 

1

 A biologist work group formed to assist on technical matters related to the Yakima River 

basin aquatic habitat aspects. 

1-3 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

revolving account appropriation are provided solely for expenditure 

under a contract between the department of ecology and the United 

States bureau of reclamation for the development of plans, engineering, 

and financing reports and other preconstruction activities associated 

with the development of water storage projects in the Yakima river 

basin, consistent with the Yakima river basin water enhancement 

project, P.L. 103-434. The initial water storage feasibility study shall be 

for the Black Rock reservoir project. The department shall seek Federal 

funds to augment the funding provided by this appropriation. 

SEPA (Chapter 43.21C Revised Code of Washington [RCW]) is intended to 

ensure that environmental values are considered during decisionmaking by State 

and local governments. Because State and local permits, approvals, and funding 

would be required to implement a water supply project in the Yakima River basin, 

SEPA environmental review is required. Under SEPA and SEPA Rules (Chapter 

197-11 Washington Administrative Code [WAC]), an EIS is intended to provide 

an impartial discussion of significant environmental impacts and serve to inform 

decisionmakers and the public of reasonable alternatives, including mitigation 

measures, that would minimize adverse impacts or enhance environmental quality 

(WAC 197-11-400). 

Ecology, the SEPA lead agency, is required to identify reasonable alternatives to 

be evaluated in an environmental impact statement (WAC 197-11-408). 

Reasonable alternatives shall include actions that could feasibly attain or 

approximate a proposal’s objectives but at a lower environmental cost or 

decreased level of environmental degradation (WAC 197-11-440(5)). 

Ecology determined the objectives of the proposal are to provide additional water 

supplies for anadromous fish and irrigated agriculture as well as for future 

municipal growth. Consequently, for the purposes of SEPA, the alternatives were 

not limited to storage options or storage facilities located within the Yakima River 

basin. During the scoping process conducted for the Storage Study, a number of 

potential nonstorage alternatives were identified in public comments. Ecology 

has determined that a number of those potential alternatives should be analyzed to 

fulfill its responsibilities under SEPA. 

Under SEPA, one alternative may be used as a benchmark for comparing 

alternatives (WAC 197-11-440(5)). Ecology is using Reclamation’s study goals 

described above as a benchmark for evaluating the effectiveness of the State 

Alternatives. 

1-4 
 

 

 

Chapter 1 

Purpose and Need 

1.2.2 Physical Constraints on the Water Supply 

1.2.2.1 Instream Flows/Habitat 

Management of the current water supply in the Yakima River basin affects 

anadromous and resident salmonids in the following ways: 

In most years, spring flows in the middle and lower Yakima River are not 

sufficient to optimize smolt outmigrant survival. The inadequacy in flow is 

expressed in a decrease in the magnitude and frequency of peak flow events. 

In most years, summer flows in the Wapato reach and immediately downstream 

from Prosser Diversion Dam (river mile [RM] 48) to the Chandler Powerplant 

(RM 36) are less than ideal for salmonid habitat and for proper riparian function 

(e.g., cottonwood regeneration). 

Unnaturally high summer flows persist in the upper Yakima and Cle Elum Rivers 

that impact juvenile salmonid rearing habitat. 

The annual late summer “flip-flop”2 operation disrupts salmonid habitat spatially 

and has impacts to the aquatic insect populations. 

Winter flows in upper Yakima and Cle Elum Rivers are low and controlled for 

water storage that potentially impacts winter survival of over-wintering juvenile 

salmonids. 

1.2.2.2 Dry Year Irrigation 

The Yakima Project’s surface water supply comes from the Yakima River and its 

tributaries, irrigation return flows, and releases of stored water from the five 

major reservoirs in the basin.3

 Only 30 percent of the average annual runoff can 

be stored in the storage system. The Yakima Project depends heavily on the 

timing of spring and summer runoff from snowmelt and rainfall. The spring and 

early summer runoff flows supply most river basin demands through June in an 

average year. The majority of spring and summer runoff is from snowmelt; as a 

result, the snowpack is often considered a “sixth reservoir.” In most years, the 

five major reservoirs are operated to maximize storage in June, which typically 

coincides with the end of the major runoff. The reservoirs have a combined 

storage capacity of about 1.07 million acre-feet (maf). 

Demand for water from the Yakima River cannot always be met in years with 

below-average runoff. Currently, Reclamation storage contracts total 1.74 maf, 

2

 A detailed history and description of the flip-flop river operation, instituted in the early 

1980s, can be found in the Interim Comprehensive Basin Operating Plan (Reclamation, 2002a). 3

 The five major reservoirs (and their acre-foot active capacities) are: Keechelus (157,800); 

Kachess (239,000); Cle Elum (436,900), Bumping Lake (33,700), and Rimrock/Tieton Dam 

(198,000). 

1-5 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

but the average yearly runoff passing through the storage reservoir system is only 

1.71 maf. Though all of the entitlement holders do not call on their full 

entitlement volume every year, the existing surface water supply does not 

presently meet all water needs in dry years. A dry year results in prorationing 

during the irrigation season. Prorationing refers to the process in the Yakima 

River basin (discussed below) of equally reducing the amount of water delivered 

to junior, i.e., “proratable” water right holders in water-deficient years. In 

addition, reduced summer and early fall streamflows inhibit migrating, spawning, 

and rearing conditions for anadromous fish. 

1.2.2.3 Municipal and Domestic Water Supply 

Currently, only the cities of Cle Elum and Yakima obtain their municipal and 

domestic water from the surface waters of the Yakima River basin. Groundwater 

supplies the remainder of the municipal and domestic needs (83 percent) and is 

the preferred source by the cities for meeting future needs. 

In the Watershed Management Plan (2003), the Yakima River Basin Watershed 

Planning Unit and the Tri-County Water Resources Agency noted the importance 

of the relationship between surface water and groundwater in managing water 

resources in the Yakima River basin. They indicated pumping groundwater from 

some aquifers at some locations may reduce flows in surface waters, affecting fish 

and other aquatic resources, or may impair senior water rights. (This relationship 

is referred to as “connectivity.”) In other cases, pumping groundwater may have 

little effect on surface waters, or may have effects that are delayed in time or 

occur at distances far from the well. 

Because groundwater is the preferred source for municipal and domestic water 

supply, and the extent of connectivity of surface and groundwater is unknown at 

this time, in its analysis, the Watershed Management Plan took a conservative 

approach by assuming that surface water withdrawals would meet the future 

municipal and domestic water supply needs. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

is currently investigating the groundwater aquifers in the Yakima River basin to 

clarify the surface water and groundwater relationship. The study is currently in 

process. 

1.2.3 Statutory Constraints on the Water Supply 

Reclamation operates the Yakima Project to achieve specific purposes: irrigation 

water supply, flood control, power generation, and instream flows for fish, 

wildlife, and recreation. Irrigation operations and flood control management have 

been historical priorities for reservoir operations. The Yakima Project’s 

authorization and water rights, issued under Washington State water law, and the 

1945 Consent Decree (discussed later in this section) are statutory constraints for 

1-6 
Chapter 1 

Purpose and Need 

water resources. Reclamation must operate the Yakima River divisions and 

storage facilities in a manner that avoids injury to water users within this 

framework. 

Project operators use a number of control points to monitor the river system. The 

primary control point for operation of the upper Yakima Project is the Yakima 

River near the Parker stream gage. Legislation in 1994 provided that an 

additional purpose of the Yakima Project shall be for fish, wildlife, and 

recreation, but that this additional purpose “shall not impair the operation of the 

Yakima Project to provide water for irrigation purposes nor impact existing 

contracts.” Since April 1995, the Yakima Project has been operated as required 

by the 1994 legislation to maintain target streamflows downstream from 

Sunnyside Diversion Dam, as measured at the Yakima River near the Parker 

stream gage. These flows, based on the estimated water available, range from 

300 to 600 cubic feet per second (cfs) between April 1 and October 31. 

Reclamation’s Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project, Washington, 

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Reclamation, 1999) 

presents a more complete description of statutory constraints for managing water 

resources in the Yakima Project. 

1.3 Background – Yakima Storage Study 

In 2004, as part of the Storage Study, Reclamation requested that the Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) identify fish and wildlife issues that 

the Storage Study should address. WDFW prepared a list of 45 issues. 

Reclamation then asked area fish and wildlife experts to form a Biology Technical 

Work Group (Biology TWG), consisting of technical representatives from 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (Service), WDFW, Ecology, the Yakama Nation, Yakima 

Basin Joint Board, Yakima Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Planning Board, and 

Reclamation’s Upper Columbia Area Office (UCAO) and Technical Service 

Center. The Biology TWG refined the 45-item list down to 16 significant issues 

to serve as the foundation for fish and wildlife analyses and an environmental 

impact statement. A fish or wildlife issue was considered significant if the 

resource response was anticipated to be: (1) measurable (i.e., either a positive or 

negative change from existing conditions) and (2) linked to more or less water in 

the Columbia or Yakima River systems resulting from implementation of an 

alternative of the Storage Study. The Defining Fish and Wildlife Resource Issues 

for the Yakima River Basin Water Storage Feasibility Study (Biology Technical 

Work Group, 2004) describes the above Storage Study activities in more detail. 

In response to input received during stakeholder meetings and the Storage Study 

scoping meetings, Reclamation and Ecology formed a “Roundtable” group to 

1-7 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

participate in key aspects of the Storage Study. The Roundtable included 

representation from key interest groups/constituencies with a stake in the Storage 

Study and its outcome. It was intended to operate primarily at a policy/ 

management level, with support from technical specialists on an as-needed basis. 

While the Roundtable was not a formal advisory group or decisionmaking body, 

Reclamation and Ecology believed that it could play an important role in ensuring 

the completeness, effectiveness, efficiency, and acceptability of the Storage Study 

as the detailed phase of analysis and decisionmaking got underway. Chapter 6 

provides more information on the meetings. 

Reclamation initiated the Storage Study in May 2003. Funding has been provided 

to Reclamation for Storage Study activities under a Memorandum of Agreement 

for Cost Sharing entered into with the Washington State Department of Ecology 

on November 14, 2003, and by congressional appropriations. Initial Storage 

Study efforts were directed at the Black Rock Alternative to develop data 

comparable to the level of information existing for other potential alternatives 

(e.g., Bumping Lake Enlargement, Wymer Dam and Reservoir, and Keechelus-toKachess Pipeline). 

In February 2005, Reclamation released the Summary Report, Appraisal 

Assessment of the Black Rock Alternative (Black Rock Summary Report) 

(Reclamation, 2004e). The Black Rock Summary Report includes the information 

from six technical reports addressing water supply, geology, groundwater, and 

designs and cost estimates. Reclamation based its analysis on a reconnaissance 

study commissioned by Benton County and partially funded by the Washington 

Department of Agriculture: the Yakima Storage Enhancement Initiative—Black 

Rock Reservoir Study (Benton County Sustainable Development, 2002). Benton 

County hired Washington Infrastructure Services to study the potential for 

diverting water from the Columbia River and delivering it to Yakima River basin 

irrigators who would be willing to exchange it for their present (entire or partial) 

diversions from the Yakima River. As a result of analyses prepared for the Black 

Rock Summary Report, a water reservation was requested from the State of 

Washington for the Black Rock Alternative. This request informed the State that 

Reclamation was working on a project that would require water from the 

Columbia River and, if the project proved feasible, was authorized for 

construction, and required a water right, would preserve the date of December 29, 

2004, for the water right. 

In addition to the Black Rock Summary Report, Reclamation prepared a report on 

Yakima River basin water storage alternatives, the Yakima River Basin Storage 

Alternatives Appraisal Assessment (Yakima Appraisal Assessment) (Reclamation, 

2006b). This report displayed the extent a Bumping Lake Enlargement, a Wymer 

Dam and Reservoir, and a Keechelus-to-Kachess Pipeline Alternative would 

satisfy the goals of the Storage Study. The alternatives were investigated, and 

only the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative was selected to be carried 

forward to the feasibility phase of the Storage Study. 

1-8 
Chapter 1 

Purpose and Need 

Since the issuance of the Yakima Appraisal Assessment, Reclamation has been 

gathering and analyzing data and information to determine the effects and benefits 

of Storage Study alternatives. The benefits may come from protecting threatened 

and endangered steelhead, enhancing other fishery conditions, providing more 

recreation opportunities, power production, mitigating the impacts of droughts on 

Yakima River basin agriculture, and providing a firm future municipal water 

supply. Analysis of effects included an investigation of seepage toward the 

Hanford Nuclear Reservation (Hanford Site). See Modeling Groundwater 

Hydrologic Impacts of the Potential Black Rock Reservoir (Reclamation, 2007d). 

The Storage Study Team Technical Information and Hydrologic Analysis for Plan 

Formulation (Reclamation, 2006c) displayed the alternatives that would be 

carried forward into the PR/EIS phase of analysis. These alternatives were the 

Black Rock Alternative, the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative, and another 

alternative, the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative. 

The last alternative was developed at the request of State and local entities to 

determine the effectiveness of pumping water from the mouth of the Yakima 

River rather than divert at the current locations for the Roza and Sunnyside 

Irrigation Divisions. The plan formulation document also displayed a preliminary 

benefit-cost analysis. The analysis did not portray a positive benefit-cost ratio, 

but there were other positive parameters of the alternatives, so they were carried 

forward into the PR/EIS phase of analysis. 

1.4 Related Permits, Actions, and Laws 

To implement any alternative, Reclamation would need to apply for and receive 

various permits, take certain actions, and conform to various laws, regulations, 

and Executive orders. The following major permits, actions, and laws may apply 

to each alternative: 

• National Environmental Policy Act 

• Endangered Species Act 

• Secretary’s Native American Trust Responsibilities 

• National Historic Preservation Act 

• Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management 

• Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands 

• Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice 

• Executive Order 13007: Indian Sacred Sites 

• Section 401 Permit, Clean Water Act 

• Section 402 Permit, Clean Water Act 

1-9 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

•	 Section 404 Permit, Clean Water Act 

•	 State Environmental Policy Act 

•	 Washington Department of Natural Resources Permit 

•	 Additional Points of Diversion Authorization 

•	 State Trust Water Rights Program Participation 

•	 Water use permit/certificate of water right 

•	 Reservoir permit/aquifer storage and recovery 

•	 Dam safety permit 

•	 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit(s) 

•	 Section 401 water quality certification 

•	 Shoreline conditional use permit or variance 

•	 Water system plan approval 

•	 Hydraulic project approval 

•	 Critical areas permit or approval 

•	 Floodplain development permit 

•	 Shoreline substantial development permit, conditional use permit, or 

variance 

1.5 Public Involvement 

Formulating water storage alternatives that are responsive to the needs and desires 

of the American public requires planning expertise and direct public participation. 

Several agencies, entities, organizations, and groups participated in the Storage 

Study. The degree of participation ranged from providing viewpoints and general 

observations to direct contributions in plan formulation. Chapter 6 summarizes 

public outreach efforts and public input. 

1.6 Yakima River Basin Background and History 

1.6.1 Location and Setting 

The Yakima River basin is located in south-central Washington, bounded on the 

west by the Cascade Range, on the north by the Wenatchee Mountains, on the east 

by the Columbia River drainage, on the south by the Horse Heaven Hills. The 

Yakima River originates in the Cascade Mountains near Snoqualmie Pass and 

flows southeasterly for about 215 miles to its confluence with the Columbia River 

near Richland, Washington. The Yakima River basin encompasses about 

1-10 
Chapter 1 

Purpose and Need 

6,155 square miles, and includes portions of Kittitas, Yakima, Benton, and 

Klickitat Counties. (See the frontispiece map.) 

The basin varies considerably from the higher mountain altitudes (elevation 

8,184 feet in the Cascades) to the semiarid lower Yakima Valley (elevation 

340 feet at the Yakima River confluence with the Columbia River). The western 

and northern mountains annually receive about 140 inches of precipitation. The 

lower valley often receives less than 10 inches of precipitation per year. The 

higher elevation areas in the northern and western areas are mostly forested and 

used for timber harvest, cattle grazing, fish and wildlife habitat, and recreation. 

About one-fourth of this area is designated as wilderness. The middle elevations 

are primarily used for dry-land and irrigated agriculture, cattle grazing, wildlife, 

and military training. The lower elevations in the eastern and southern portions of 

the basin, including the study area, are primarily used for irrigated agriculture. 

Agriculture is the main economy of the basin. 

The Yakima River and its tributaries are the primary sources for surface water in 

the basin. Major tributaries include the Kachess, Cle Elum, Teanaway, and 

Naches Rivers. The Naches River, which joins the Yakima River at the city of 

Yakima, has several tributaries, including the American, Bumping, and Tieton 

Rivers. The Yakima River and its tributaries historically provided spawning and 

rearing habitat for anadromous fish. Natural streamflow conditions prevail only 

in the upper uncontrolled reaches of the Yakima River system because of storage 

development and use of water for irrigation. 

Portions of some of the potential alternatives would be constructed on, or may 

affect, properties outside the current footprint of the Yakima Project. One of 

these properties is the Yakima Training Center (YTC) owned and managed by the 

U.S. Department of the Army primarily as a tank, artillery, and infantry gunnery 

range. YTC is located northeast of the city of Yakima and is bounded on the west 

(approximately) by Interstate 82, on the north by Interstate 90, on the east by the 

Columbia River, and on the south by private lands north of State Route- (SR) 24. 

YTC encompasses more than 500 square miles (about 323,000 acres) of arid 

lands. 

YTC supports one of the largest contiguous blocks of shrub-steppe vegetation 

remaining in Washington and one of three remaining greater sage-grouse 

populations in the State. 

Other areas that could be affected by potential alternatives include certain sections 

of the Columbia River and adjacent lands. These sections include the Priest 

Rapids Dam and Lake, the river immediately downstream known as the Hanford 

reach of the Columbia River, and portions of the Hanford Site. The area is 

located in the center of Washington where the Columbia River forms partial 

boundaries for Franklin, Grant, Benton, Yakima, and Kittitas Counties. This area 

is east of the Cascade Mountain Range in a generally semiarid region, along the 

1-11 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

western edge of a vast basalt plateau that dominates the landscape of central 

Washington. Historic glaciation carved numerous canyons—known as coulees— 

in the area. Many of the coulees are dry. In Grant County, the heaviest 

precipitation usually falls between November and March and the driest period 

occurs from July through September. Native vegetation is sparse and restricted to 

low-lying shrubs and grasses known as shrub-steppe. The average maximum 

temperature (87 degrees Fahrenheit [oF]) occurs during July, and the coldest 

temperatures (average maximum of 33o to 35 oF) occur in December and January. 

Priest Rapids Dam is owned and operated by Grant County Public Utility District 

(PUD), which also owns and operates Wanapum Dam. Priest Rapids Dam is a 

hydroelectric facility located on the Columbia River at RM 397. The dam is 

located about 24 miles south of Vantage, Washington, and about 47 miles 

northeast of Richland, Washington, between YTC and the Hanford Site. The dam 

was completed in 1961. Priest Rapids Lake extends upstream 18 miles to the 

Wanapum Dam. 

The Hanford Site was established in 1943 during World War II as part of the 

Manhattan Project to provide the plutonium needed for nuclear weapons. 

Historically, the Hanford Site included some lands in Grant and Franklin Counties 

on the east side of the Columbia River, with the majority of the 586-square-mile 

site in Benton County, in south-central Washington. Portions of the original 

Hanford Site have been put to other uses over the years as the need for new 

nuclear weapons diminishes. For example, the Fitzner/Eberhardt Arid Lands 

Ecology Reserve was established in 1967. The unit occupies about 120 square 

miles (77,000 acres) southwest of the Columbia River and SR-240, between 

SRs-24 and 225. The unit contains Rattlesnake Mountain and portions of the 

Rattlesnake Hills. In 1971, the unit was designated a Research Natural Area, and 

in 1975 became part of the Department of Energy’s National Environmental 

Research Parks system. The Saddle Mountain Unit (about 50 square miles or 

32,000 acres) of the Saddle Mountain National Wildlife Refuge (NWR)—located 

in the northwest corner of the original Hanford Site in Grant County—came under 

management of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1971. The Wahluke Unit 

(about 89 square miles or 57,000 acres) is located adjacent to and northeast of the 

Saddle Mountain Unit. This unit was managed by the Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife from 1971 to 1999, and then became part of the Saddle 

Mountain NWR. The Arid Lands Ecology Reserve, Saddle Mountain Unit and 

Wahluke Unit, plus the McGee Ranch-Riverlands Unit (about 14 square miles or 

9,100 acres), the Hanford reach and other smaller land parcels became part of the 

305-square-mile (195,000 acres) Hanford Reach National Monument in 2000. 

Portions of the remaining historic core area of the Hanford Site are undergoing 

cleanup under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Superfund 

program. 

The Hanford reach of the Columbia River includes the river and shoreline lands 

from Priest Rapids Dam downstream 51 miles to near Richland, Washington. The 

1-12 
Chapter 1 

Purpose and Need 

reach is free-flowing and supports a diverse mix of backwaters, islands, and other 

features used by area fish and wildlife. For example, the reach supports the 

largest spawning population (an estimated 80-90 percent) of fall Chinook salmon 

using the mainstem Columbia River. In addition, two federally threatened or 

endangered salmonid populations—Upper Columbia River steelhead and Upper 

Columbia River spring Chinook—migrate through the reach. Other important 

fish species and/or salmon runs using the reach include coho, sockeye, summer 

Chinook, and white sturgeon. The Hanford reach qualified for, and was proposed 

for, protection under Wild and Scenic River legislation in the mid-1990s; 

however, no action occurred until the reach became part of the Hanford Reach 

National Monument by Executive order in 2000. 

1.6.2 Yakima Project Description 

The Yakima Project is composed of seven divisions: six irrigation divisions 

(Kittitas, Roza, Tieton, Wapato, Sunnyside, and Kennewick), and a storage 

division. The six irrigation divisions provide water to about 465,400 irrigated 

acres of the Yakima Project and represent about 70 percent of the total diversions 

of major entities in the Yakima River basin. The remaining 30 percent are made 

up of other irrigation entities which are mainly senior water right holders. The 

Storage Division is comprised of the five major reservoirs with a total capacity of 

about 1,065,400 acre-feet. A sixth reservoir, Clear Lake, has a capacity of 

5,300 acre-feet and is used primarily for recreational purposes. 

The five major reservoirs—Bumping, Kachess, Keechelus, Rimrock (Tieton 

Dam), and Cle Elum Lakes—store and release water to meet irrigation demands, 

flood control needs, and instream flow requirements. Other project features 

include 5 diversion dams, 420 miles of canals, 1,697 miles of laterals, 30 pumping 

plants, 144 miles of drains, 2 federally owned powerplants, plus fish passage and 

protection facilities constructed throughout the project (Reclamation, 2002a). In 

addition to providing water for irrigation, the Yakima Project also provides 

hydroelectric power generation, flood control, fish and wildlife benefits, and 

recreation. 

The Kittitas, Roza, Tieton, and Kennewick Divisions each contain a single 

irrigation district that is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the 

facilities within its division. The Wapato Division is located within the exterior 

boundary of the Yakama Nation Reservation and is operated by the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (BIA) in consultation with the Yakama Nation and the Wapato 

Irrigation District. The Sunnyside Division contains four irrigation districts in 

addition to two ditch companies and three cities. The Sunnyside Division Board 

of Control has responsibility for operating and maintaining the joint facilities of 

the Sunnyside Division (primarily the Sunnyside Main Canal), with Sunnyside 

Valley Irrigation District operating these facilities on behalf of the Board of 

Control. 

1-13 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Reclamation operates the six dams and reservoirs of the storage division as well 

as the Roza Powerplant (part of the Roza Division) and the Chandler Pumping 

and Generating Plant (part of the Kennewick Division). The five major reservoirs 

are operated as a pooled system with no reservoir or storage space designated for 

a specific area, division, or entity. Stored water that is not used is carried over to 

the next year to the benefit of all water users. 

Table 1.2 provides information on the six irrigation divisions and the physical 

source of the stored water supply. 

The following sections provide background information of the Yakima River 

basin and an overview of several important studies and activities related to water 

management that have transpired or are ongoing within the basin. 

Table 1.2 Yakima Project irrigation divisions and stored water source 

Division 

Location 

(subarea) 

Diversion 

river mile Stored water source Operating entity 

Kittitas Upper Yakima Yakima River 

RM 202.5 

Keechelus and 

Kachess Lakes 

Kittitas Reclamation 

District 

Roza Middle Yakima Yakima River 

RM 127.9 

Keechelus, Kachess, 

and Cle Elum Lake 

Roza Irrigation 

District 

Tieton Naches Naches River 

RM 14.2 

Rimrock Lake Yakima-Tieton 

Irrigation District 

Wapato Middle Yakima Yakima River 

RM 106.7 

All reservoirs BIA and Wapato 

Irrigation District 

Sunnyside Middle Yakima Yakima River 

RM 103.8 

All reservoirs Sunnyside Division 

Board of Control 

Kennewick Lower Yakima Yakima River 

RM 47.1 

Unregulated and 

return flows 

Kennewick Irrigation 

District 

1.6.3 History of Water Management in the Yakima River Basin 

Development of irrigation in the Yakima River basin began as early as the 1850s. 

By 1902, there were an estimated 122,000 irrigated acres served by natural flows 

in the rivers and tributaries. However, even at that time, the natural flow was 

inadequate to assure a dependable water supply. A petition dated January 28, 

1903, from citizens of Yakima County to the Secretary of the Interior requested 

United States involvement in irrigation. Further irrigation development was not 

possible unless two things occurred—first, existing water users had to agree to 

limit their water use during the low flow periods of late summer and early fall; 

and second, water storage was necessary to capture early season runoff for 

supplying irrigation water throughout the growing season. 

1-14 
 

Chapter 1 

Purpose and Need 

The limitation on water use was accomplished by “limiting agreements” with 

more than 50 appropriators on the Yakima and Naches Rivers.4 The development 

of storage was made possible by the Washington Legislature in March 4, 1905, by 

granting to the United States the right to exercise eminent domain in acquiring 

lands, water and property for reservoirs, and other irrigation works. Under this 

law, a withdrawal of the unappropriated waters of the Yakima River and its 

principal tributaries was filed by the United States on May 10, 1905. These 

actions led to the authorization of the Yakima Project on December 12, 1905. 

1.6.3.1 Water Appropriation From the Yakima River 

May 10, 1905, Withdrawal 

Using the provisions of Chapter 90.40 RCW, the Secretary of the Interior 

withdrew all the unappropriated waters of the Yakima River and tributaries for 

benefit of the proposed Yakima Reclamation Project. The withdrawal was 

effective from its May 10, 1905, initiation to its December 31, 1951, expiration. 

In that span of 45 years, water rights were established under Washington law for 

the developed project facilities. 

1945 Consent Decree 

Disputes over the use of water from the Yakima River during years of low runoff 

resulted in litigation in the Federal court. In 1945, the District Court of Eastern 

Washington issued a decree under Civil Action No. 21 called the 1945 Consent 

Decree. The 1945 Consent Decree is a legal document pertaining to water 

distribution and water rights in the basin. It established the rules under which 

Reclamation should operate the Yakima Project system to meet the water needs of 

the irrigation districts that predated the Yakima Project, as well as the rights of 

divisions formed in association with the Yakima Project. 

The 1945 Consent Decree determined water delivery entitlements for all major 

irrigation systems in the Yakima River basin, except for lower reaches of the 

Yakima River near the confluence with the Columbia River. The 1945 Consent 

Decree states the quantities of water to which all water users are entitled 

(maximum monthly and annual diversion limits) and defines a method of 

prioritization to be placed in effect during water-deficient years. The water 

entitlements are divided into two classes—nonproratable and proratable. 

Nonproratable entitlements are generally held by pre-project water users, and 

these entitlements are to be served first from the total water supply available 

(TWSA). The 1945 Consent Decree also spelled out the concept of TWSA, 

which is defined as, “That amount of water available in any year from natural 

flow of the Yakima River, and its tributaries, from storage in the various 

Government reservoirs on the Yakima watershed and from other sources, to 

4

 Not all appropriators signed “limiting agreements” and some appropriators’ water claims 

were modified as “heretofore recognized rights.” 

1-15 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

supply the contract obligations of the United States to the Yakima River and its 

tributaries, heretofore recognized by the United States.” The TWSA estimate has 

an important role in determining operations of the Yakima Project and is 

estimated using forecasted runoff, forecasted return flows, and storage contents. 

Additional discussion of the TWSA concept can be found in chapter 4, 

section 4.2. 

All other Yakima Project water rights are proratable, which means they are of 

equal priority. Any shortages that may occur are shared equally by the proratable 

water users. 

The Federal projects within the basin were basically constructed to manage water 

supplies to serve the proratable water users in the basin. The contractors for this 

water supply repay the Yakima Project storage construction costs and the annual 

operation and maintenance costs allocated to the irrigation purpose. However, 

nonproratable entitlements are met first from the TWSA which includes stored 

water. 

Water Right Adjudication 

The 1945 Consent Decree (described above) controlled distribution of Yakima 

Project water in the Yakima River basin between 1945 and 1977. In the spring of 

1977, with a drought imminent, Reclamation predicted the proratable water users 

would receive only 15 percent of their normal water supply. Some proratable 

water users brought action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of 

Washington to modify the 1945 Consent Decree and make all right holders 

proratable. The Yakama Nation sought to intervene and also filed a separate 

action in U.S. District Court to have its treaty-reserved water rights determined. 

In light of this dilemma, United States District Judge Marshall Neill suggested a 

State court general adjudication in order to finally determine water rights in the 

Yakima River basin. 

On October 12, 1977, the State of Washington Department of Ecology filed an 

adjudication of the Yakima River system in the Superior Court of Yakima County 

naming the United States and all persons claiming the right to use the surface 

waters of the Yakima River system as defendants. The purpose of this 

adjudication was to determine all existing surface water rights within the basin, 

and to correlate each right in terms of priority with all other rights. At about the 

same time, the Yakama Nation filed an action in U.S. District Court to determine 

the priority and water rights of the Yakama Nation under the treaty of 1855. The 

Federal case was remanded to the State case, and the filing by the Yakama Nation 

did not proceed. 

An order of the Superior Court was entered on July 17, 1990, regarding the rights 

of the Yakama Nation. This Partial Summary Judgment defined the treatyreserved rights of the Yakama Nation and the rights to flow in the mainstem 

1-16 
Chapter 1 

Purpose and Need 

Yakima River were unanimously affirmed by the Washington Supreme Court on 

appeal. The treaty rights were divided into separate rights for fish and agriculture. 

The Court determined that various acts of Congress, agencies, and decisions of 

various tribunals had defined and limited the treaty irrigation of the Yakama 

Nation. This right translated into existing nonproratable irrigation rights with 

1855 priority, and proratable irrigation rights with a priority date of 1905. 

The treaty right for fish had likewise been limited by various acts of Congress and 

agency actions, and had been compensated in the proceeding before the Indian 

Claims Commission (ICC), Docket No. 147. The flow right was held to be the 

“specific minimum instream flow necessary to maintain anadromous fish life in 

the river, according to the annual prevailing conditions as they occur and 

determined by the Yakima Field Office Manager in consultation with the Yakima 

River Basin System Operations Advisory Committee, Irrigation Districts and 

Company managers and others.” This decision was later extended to include all 

tributaries that support fish at the Yakama Nation’s usual and accustomed fishing 

locations. The priority date for the treaty fishing right is “time immemorial.” 

The relationship of the 1945 Consent Decree to the State’s adjudication 

proceeding was an issue addressed by the Superior Court in 1993 (Memorandum 

Opinion Re: Threshold Issues). The Court held that the 1945 Consent Decree, in 

and of itself standing alone, did not establish any water rights. However, it did 

“memorialize the appropriations thereto made” (pre-1945). Water right claimants 

had the burden of addressing changes in the appropriations after 1945. The Court 

further stated, “Once this case is concluded . . . the final judgment herein would 

supersede that (1945) Decree.” 

The Superior Court has issued most of the Conditional Final Orders (CFO) which 

confirm the surface water rights for the Yakima River basin. The Court is 

proceeding to prepare the Final Decree, which may be issued as early as 2008. 

The United States has been issued its CFO, including the water rights for the 

Yakima Project. These are the surface water rights upon which the exchange will 

be based. 

February 17, 1981, Withdrawal 

In a February 13, 1981, letter to the Washington Department of Ecology, 

referenced Withdrawal of Waters for Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement 

Study, Reclamation filed notice that it “. . . intends to make examinations and 

surveys for the utilization of the unappropriated waters of the Yakima River and 

its tributaries for multipurpose use under the Federal Reclamation laws.” 

Reclamation certified on January 16, 1982, that the project was feasible and that 

investigations would be made in detail. Pursuant to RCW 90.40.030, this 

certification of feasibility continued the withdrawal until January 18, 1985. 

Reclamation has continuously renewed this withdrawal and it remains active. 

1-17 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

The current withdrawal of Yakima River basin unappropriated surface water is for 

benefit of the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Program (YRBWEP) 

program. While the current YRBWEP Act does not authorize new storage 

reservoirs, it does authorize investigations into storage as a way to augment 

project supply.5 To build additional storage, Reclamation will require Federal 

authorization, either through a “Phase III” YRBWEP Act, or through another 

congressional authorization. 

1.7 Prior Investigations and Activities in the 

Yakima River Basin 

Since completion of the Yakima Project’s last storage facility (Cle Elum Dam and 

Lake in 1933), there have been numerous investigations and activities addressing 

the need for additional storage to meet water supply deficiencies. The current 

water resources infrastructure of the Yakima River basin has not been capable of 

consistently meeting aquatic resource demands for fish and wildlife habitat, dry 

year irrigation demands, and municipal water supply demands. 

This section highlights the more recent prior investigations and activities to 

develop additional water supplies in the Yakima River basin, beginning with the 

1966 Bumping Lake Enlargement Joint Feasibility Report (Reclamation and 

Service, 1966). 

1.7.1 Bumping Lake Enlargement 

The Bumping Lake Enlargement Joint Feasibility Report was prepared in 1966 by 

Reclamation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The purpose of this 

feasibility study, authorized by the Act of September 7, 1966 (P.L. 89-56) and the 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA), was to address the water-related 

problems and needs of the Yakima River basin. A preliminary feasibility report 

was completed in March 1968 on construction of a new dam about 1 mile 

downstream from the existing Bumping Lake Dam on the Bumping River, a 

tributary in the Naches River drainage.6 The report was forwarded to the 

Secretary of the Interior for consideration. During this process, recreation 

development in the recommended plan became a concern as to its compatibility 

with the Cougar Mountain (William O. Douglas) Wilderness Area then under 

consideration. It was determined that the recommended plan should be 

reevaluated and modified. 

5

 Title XII of the Act of October 31, 1994 (Public Law 103-434), authorized the Basin 

Conservation Plan and other measures. This Act is commonly referred to as Phase II of 

YRBWEP. 6

 The capacity of the enlarged Bumping Lake was about 458,000 acre-feet, including the 

existing 33,700 acre-feet of the existing reservoir, which would be inundated. 

1-18 
 

Chapter 1 

Purpose and Need 

Following appropriations for the reevaluation work in 1974, the revised feasibility 

report was resubmitted to the Commissioner of Reclamation and the Director, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in 1976. It was approved by the Secretary of the 

Interior in 1979. Reclamation filed the Proposed Bumping Lake Enlargement, 

Final Environmental Impact Statement with the Council of Environmental 

Quality August 23, 1979 (Reclamation, 1979). Bills were introduced in 

Congress in 1979, 1981, and 1985, to authorize construction of the Bumping 

Lake enlargement, but Congress did not take action. 

1.7.2 Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project 

The 1977 drought in the Yakima River basin prompted legislative action for 

additional water supply. In 1979, the Washington Legislature provided $500,000 

for “. . . preparation of feasibility studies related to a comprehensive water supply 

project designed to alleviate water shortage in the Yakima River basin.” Also in 

1979, Congress authorized, provided funds for, and directed the Department of 

the Interior to “. . . conduct a feasibility study of the Yakima River Basin Water 

Enhancement Project in cooperation with the State” (Act of December 28, 1979, 

Public Law 96-162). 

The Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project included study activities 

both off and on the Yakama Nation Reservation. Some 35 potential storage sites 

off the Yakama Reservation were identified and evaluated. Two sites, Bumping 

Lake enlargement and Wymer dam and reservoir, emerged as the preferable 

storage sites.7 Four alternative plans, including “core measures,” reservoir 

storage, and establishment of a “Trust Fund” for implementation of nonstorage 

elements, were developed.8 Three areas for potential new on-reservation 

irrigation development, including storage, were identified (Satus Creek, 

Toppenish-Simcoe Creeks, and Ahtanum Creek), and preliminary plans prepared 

for these potential developments. 

As planning was underway for YRBWEP, some early implementation actions 

were identified. These actions resulted in a cooperative Federal, State, Tribal, and 

local undertaking to construct “state-of-the-art” fish ladders and fish screens at 

water diversion points throughout the Yakima River basin. This is commonly 

referred to as Phase I of the YRBWEP and was initiated in the early 1980s. Fish 

ladders and fish screens have been completed at diversions on the Yakima and 

Naches Rivers and at tributary diversions. 

7

 The Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative is an off-channel site adjacent to the Yakima 

River, about 6 miles upstream of Roza Diversion Dam. 8

 Bumping Lake enlargement capacities considered were 250,000, 400,000, and 450,000 acrefeet (including the existing 33,700-acre-foot capacity); Wymer reservoir capacity was about 

142,000 acre-feet. 

1-19 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

In 1987 and 1988, considerable effort was made by the Washington congressional 

delegation to structure a comprehensive solution to the water needs of the Yakima 

River basin in lieu of continuing with the adjudication. The impetus for this effort 

was the desire to reach a mutual water right settlement by means of Federal-State 

comprehensive legislation providing for further development of water resource 

facilities and stipulating the Yakima River basin’s surface water rights among the 

parties. However, in the fall of 1988, this effort was abandoned with the decision 

of some of the off-reservation irrigators to pursue the adjudication process rather 

than a stipulated settlement. 

Subsequently, in the spring of 1990, there was renewed interest in proceeding 

with legislation authorizing nonstorage elements. As a result, Title XII of the Act 

of October 31, 1994, Public Law 103-434 (commonly referred to as Phase II of 

the YRBWEP) was enacted. The actions that evolved from Title XII are 

discussed below. 

1.7.2.1	 Yakima River Basin Water Conservation Program 

The Yakima River Basin Water Conservation Program (the centerpiece of the 

Title XII legislation), is a voluntary program structured to provide economic 

incentives with cooperative Federal, State, and local funding to stimulate the 

identification and implementation of structural and nonstructural water 

conservation measures in the Yakima River basin. Improvements in the 

efficiency of water delivery and use will result in improved, reach-specific 

streamflows for aquatic resources and improve the reliability of water supplies for 

irrigation. 

The Basin Conservation Plan, prepared by the Yakima River Basin Conservation 

Advisory Group (1998) which was charted under the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act and appointed by the Secretary of the Interior, was submitted to 

the Secretary of the Interior in 1998, and published and distributed in October 

1999. The Basin Conservation Plan sets forth the mechanism for implementing 

water conservation measures, including eligibility requirements for Federal- and 

State-sponsored grants, standards for the scope and content of water conservation 

plans, criteria for evaluating and prioritizing conservation measures for 

implementation, and administrative procedures. 

1.7.2.2	 Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project, Washington, 

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

In January 1999, Reclamation prepared the Yakima River Basin Water 

Enhancement Project, Washington, Final Programmatic Environmental Impact 

Statement (Reclamation, 1999). A Record of Decision was signed in 1999. As 

specific actions authorized by Title XII are pursued, NEPA compliance will be 

developed as appropriate and to a great extent will be “tiered” off this EIS. 

1-20 
 

 

 

Chapter 1 

Purpose and Need 

1.7.2.3	 Report on Biologically Based Flows 

The System Operation Advisory Committee (SOAC) consists of Yakima River 

basin biologists representing Federal, State, Tribal, and irrigation agencies and 

entities. SOAC provides information, advice, and assistance to Reclamation on 

aquatic-related issues concerning operation of the Yakima Project. Pursuant to 

Title XII, SOAC was directed to assess the target flows included therein “for the 

purpose of making a report with recommendations to the Secretary and the 

Congress evaluating what is necessary to have biologically based flows.” This 

report was provided to the Secretary of the Interior in May 1999. 

The purpose of the SOAC report was to review the factors affecting anadromous 

fish resources in the Yakima River basin and to recommend processes and 

procedures required to determine biologically-based flows for increasing the 

abundance of salmon and steelhead. SOAC suggested that river management 

should embrace the concept of a normative flow regime and that effects of flow 

management could be evaluated with such indicators as anadromous fish early life 

stage survival, smolt production, and habitat quality indices.9 SOAC provided 

nine recommendations as a part of a comprehensive program designed to recover 

the aquatic ecosystem and the anadromous salmonid populations which depend 

on it. 

1.7.2.4	 The Reaches Project: Ecological and Geomorphic Studies 

Supporting Normative Flows in the Yakima River Basin 

One of the items recommended in the SOAC report was to describe the health of 

the Yakima River basin aquatic ecosystem through a comprehensive review and 

synthesis of available data on Yakima River flow management, water quality, 

habitat condition, land use activities, and biological communities. The purpose of 

this activity was to identify areas in the watershed where changes in water 

management or Yakima Project operations offer the greatest potential to recover 

the aquatic ecosystem. This activity was undertaken by Jack Stanford et al. of the 

University of Montana’s Flathead Lake Biological Station in conjunction with 

Reclamation and the Yakama Nation. It is reported on in the October 2, 2002, 

document, The Reaches Project: Ecological and Geomorphic Studies Supporting 

Normative Flows in the Yakima River Basin, Washington (Stanford et al., 2002). 

The report concludes that the distribution and concentration of algae, macroinvertebrates, and fish on the five major floodplain reaches of the Yakima River 

basin system clearly demonstrate the importance of off-channel habitat and 

indicates these floodplains have significant potential for restoration. It also 

suggests the Yakima River system can be restored to a normative condition and 

that the floodplain reaches retain some ecological integrity, but are substantially 

9 SOAC defined a normative flow regime as one that represents historic flow conditions to the 

greatest extent possible given the cultural, legal, and operational constraints associated with river 

basin development. 

1-21 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

degraded and cannot sustain enhanced runs of salmon and steelhead without 

restoring more normative flows throughout the mainstem Yakima and Naches 

Rivers. 

1.7.2.5	 Interim Comprehensive Basin Operating Plan for the 

Yakima Project 

The Interim Comprehensive Basin Operating Plan for the Yakima Project (IOP) 

was completed by Reclamation in 2002. The preparation of the IOP was 

mandated by Title XII to provide a general framework within which the Yakima 

Project is operated. The IOP presents a historical context of the Yakima Project 

and its current operation. It describes the Yakima Project’s legal and institutional 

aspects, articulates the impacts of Yakima Project operation on the natural 

resources of the basin, analyzes various operational alternatives, and recommends 

strategies and operational changes that will address the goals of Title XII. 

1.7.3 Yakima River Watershed Council 

The Yakima River Watershed Council (Watershed Council) was formed in March 

1994 as a nonprofit organization. Its membership included more than 800 

individuals representing water-based interests in the Yakima River basin. A 

primary objective of the Watershed Council was to develop strategies and a 

plan(s) that could be implemented to provide consistent and adequate water to 

meet the economic, cultural, and natural environmental needs in the Yakima 

River basin. 

The first activity of the Watershed Council toward developing a plan was to issue 

a report in July 1996, called the State of the Water Resources of the Yakima River 

Basin. This was an assessment of problems and needs from the perspective of 

water supply, water quality, and water management. 

Following development of planning goals, the Watershed Council (1997) 

prepared the draft plan, A 20/20 Vision for a Viable Future of the Water Resource 

of the Yakima River Basin. A review and comment period followed, and the 

Water Council issued a revised plan dated June 9, 1998. This included a critique 

of the storage sites considered in the YRBWEP investigations. 

During this same timeframe, the Tri-County Water Resources Agency was 

formed (1995), the Washington Legislature enacted the State of Washington 

Watershed Management Act (1997), and the Tri-County Water Resources Agency 

subsequently received a Washington State planning grant for Yakima River basin 

watershed planning. Due to these actions, the Watershed Council terminated its 

activities in July 1998, and did not finalize the draft report. 

1-22 
Chapter 1 

Purpose and Need 

1.7.4 Watershed Assessment and Watershed Management Plan 

The Yakima River Basin Watershed Planning Unit was formed in 1998 for the 

purpose of developing a comprehensive watershed management plan for the 

Yakima River basin. The Yakima River Basin Watershed Planning Unit 

represented local governments, citizens and landowners, irrigation districts, 

conservation districts, State agencies, and others. With the assistance of the TriCounty Water Resources Agency (currently known as the Yakima Basin Water 

Resources Agency), a Watershed Assessment, Yakima River Basin (2001) and 

Watershed Management Plan, Yakima River Basin (2003) were completed. The 

Watershed Management Plan covers the entire Yakima River basin with the 

exception of the Yakama Nation Reservation. 

The Watershed Management Plan provides a “road map” for maintaining and 

improving the Yakima River basin’s economic base, planning responsibility for 

expected growth in population, managing water resources for the long-term, and 

protecting the basin’s natural resources and fish runs. Seven goals for a balanced 

management of water resources were addressed. The following four goals are 

directly related to the management of surface water: 

•	 Improve the reliability of surface water supply for irrigation use 

•	 Provide for growth in municipal, rural, domestic, and industrial demand 

•	 Improve instream flows for all uses with emphasis on improving fish 

habitat 

•	 Maintain economic prosperity by providing an adequate water supply for 

all uses. 

Extensive work was done with respect to water resource needs and supplies. 

Alternatives for improving water supplies for aquatic resources and future 

municipal needs and to meet dry year irrigation deficiencies were identified and 

evaluated. 

1.7.5 Yakima Subbasin Plan 

The Yakima Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Planning Board (currently renamed the 

Yakima Basin Fish and Wildlife Recovery Board [http://www.YBFWRB.org]) 

completed a draft Yakima Subbasin Plan in May 2004 as a part of the Northwest 

Power Planning and Conservation Council’s (NPPC) process to guide the 

selection of projects funded by the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) for 

the protection, restoration, and enhancement of fish and wildlife affected by the 

Federal hydropower system. Further clarification of the draft Yakima Subbasin 

Plan was requested by NPPC before consideration for adoption into its Fish and 

Wildlife Program. The Supplement, dated November 26, 2004, was then 

prepared. 

1-23 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

The Supplement identifies the key factors limiting the biological potential of 

representative (“focal”) species, the biological objectives to address each limiting 

factor, and management strategies to achieve success for each objective. The 

Yakima Subbasin Plan and Supplement was adopted by NPPC into its Fish and 

Wildlife Program. 

1.8 Relationship of Other Water Resource Activities 

to this Study 

Several Federal and State agencies, the Yakama Nation, local entities, and public 

interest organizations are involved in water resource activities within the Yakima 

River basin. It is often informative to view these in the context of regional 

planning as represented by ongoing activities within the Columbia River Basin. 

These activities are briefly discussed here because of the relevance to the Storage 

Study and this Draft PR/EIS. The presentation is not exhaustive, but rather 

attempts to highlight activities that have, or likely will, generate information 

relevant to this Draft PR/EIS. 

1.8.1 Columbia River Basin Water Management Program 

The Columbia River Basin Water Management Act was passed by the 

Washington Legislature in 2006. The Act directs Ecology to “. . . aggressively 

pursue the development of water supplies to benefit both instream and out-ofstream uses” (Ecology, 2007a). The major components of the Columbia River 

Basin Water Management Program (CRBWMP) include storage, conservation, 

voluntary regional agreements, and other measures intended to meet the above 

legislative mandate. The CRBWMP also includes administrative functions such 

as development of a project inventory, a water supply and demand forecast, and a 

data management system. Funding and management of a number of major 

projects—including the Yakima River Basin Water Storage Feasibility Study— 

are components of the CRBWMP. 

The CRBWMP directs Ecology to focus efforts to develop water supplies for the 

Columbia River Basin to meet the following needs: 

•	 Alternatives to groundwater for agricultural users in the Odessa Subarea 

aquifer 

•	 Sources of water supply for pending water rights applications 

•	 A new uninterruptible supply of water for the holders of interruptible 

(junior) water rights on the Columbia River mainstem that are subject to 

instream flows or other mitigation conditions to protect streamflows 

1-24 
Chapter 1 

Purpose and Need 

•	 New municipal, domestic, industrial, and irrigation water needs within the 

Columbia River Basin. 

1.8.1.1	 Columbia River Basin Water Management Program, Final 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 

The Columbia River Basin Water Management Program, Final Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (CRBWMP EIS) (Ecology, 2007a) was 

developed by Ecology under SEPA as part of the Columbia River Basin Water 

Management Program development process. The CRBWMP EIS was prepared to 

assist in evaluating conceptual approaches to developing the CRBWMP and to 

describing the potential impacts that could be associated with components of the 

CRBWMP. Components evaluated included storage, conservation, voluntary 

regional agreements, instream resources, and policy alternatives for implementing 

requirements of the Columbia River Basin Water Management Act. The 

document also evaluated potential impacts associated with implementation of 

three actions: drawdowns of Lake Roosevelt, a supplemental feed route to supply 

Potholes Reservoir, and the proposed Columbia-Snake River Irrigators 

Association Voluntary Regional Agreement. 

Components of the CRBWMP are briefly addressed below, with a more detailed 

treatment available in the EIS. 

1.8.1.2	 Storage 

Potential storage projects that may be approved for study and funding include new 

large storage facilities (more than 1 million acre-feet), new small storage facilities 

(less than 1 million acre-feet), modification of existing storage facilities, and 

groundwater storage. Examples of potential storage projects include: Black Rock 

reservoir (new large facility), Wymer reservoir (new small facility), reoperation of 

Banks Lake (modification of existing facilities), and the City of Kennewick 

Groundwater Storage. 

1.8.1.3	 Conservation 

Ecology has developed an inventory of more than 500 conservation projects and 

is currently developing, screening, and ranking criteria to determine which 

projects best meet the goals of the CRBWMP. Potential projects may address 

issues such as incentive payments to reduce water use and full or partial water 

banking, improvements to municipal water infrastructure, use of reclaimed water, 

improved water delivery efficiency at the irrigation district level and on-farm 

conservation, improved industrial infrastructure, and pump exchanges. Ecology 

would manage the use of conserved water. 

1-25 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

1.8.1.4 Voluntary Regional Agreements 

Under this component, groups would be able to enter voluntary regional 

agreements (VRA) with Ecology to exchange a package of water projects for 

new water rights. All existing legislation governing new water rights would 

remain in place, and VRAs must meet minimum requirements to be approved 

by Ecology. A request from the Columbia-Snake River Irrigators Association 

is an example of a VRA, and is evaluated in the CRBWMP EIS. 

1.8.1.5 Instream Water 

Ecology is pursuing a full range of options for augmenting instream resources. 

The Columbia River Basin Water Management Act provides that one-third of the 

active storage in any new storage facility made possible with the CRBWMP 

funding will be available for instream flows. Water for allocation to instream 

uses could be provided by a number of projects that Ecology is considering under 

the CRBWMP. 

1.8.1.6 Inventory and Demand Forecasting 

The Columbia River Basin Water Management Act directs Ecology to develop a 

water supply inventory and a long-term water supply and demand forecast that is 

updated every 5 years. The first inventory and long-term water supply and 

demand forecast was released in November 2006. The inventory and forecast 

include conservation and water storage projects, a water rights inventory, a water 

use inventory, a long-term water supply forecast, and a long-term demand 

forecast. 

1.8.2 Priest Rapids Hydroelectric Project Relicensing 

Grant County PUD owns and operates Priest Rapids and Wanapum Dams on the 

Columbia River as the Priest Rapids Project. The Priest Rapids Project has 

operated under a 50-year license that expired in October 2005, and has operated 

on an annual license since that date. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

(FERC) recently completed a Priest Rapids Hydroelectric Project, Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FERC, 2006) that outlines the requirements for 

relicensing. Requirements cover a range of resources, including aquatic resources 

such as resident and anadromous fish that inhabit Priest Rapids Lake or the 

Hanford reach, or pass through the dam. Many of the requirements deal with the 

timing and magnitude of flows designed to protect anadromous fish. 

Priest Rapids Dam and Lake, located about 30 miles east of Yakima, would be the 

site of a water intake structure under the Black Rock Alternative evaluated in this 

Draft PR/EIS. The potential effects of water withdrawal from Priest Rapids Lake 

require close coordination with Grant County PUD, FERC, BPA, and other 

agencies. 

1-26 
 

Chapter 1 

Purpose and Need 

1.8.3 Yakima Dams Fish Passage 

Reclamation is leading a cooperative investigation with the Yakama Nation, State 

and Federal agencies, and others, to study the feasibility of providing fish passage 

at the five large storage dams of the Yakima Project. These dams—Bumping 

Lake, Kachess, Keechelus, Cle Elum, and Tieton—were never equipped with fish 

passage facilities. Four of the five reservoirs were originally natural lakes and 

historically supported Native American fisheries for sockeye salmon and other 

anadromous and resident fish (Reclamation, 2003a). 

Implementation of passage features at the dams is an essential component of any 

potential plan to reintroduce sockeye salmon to the watershed. Passage at the 

dams would also likely benefit upper basin populations of steelhead, coho salmon, 

and Chinook salmon. Isolated populations of bull trout would potentially be 

reconnected by passage at the dams. Rainbow trout and other resident species 

would also be likely to benefit. 

The scope of the fish passage planning study is currently limited to study of 

passage features at Cle Elum and Bumping Lake Dams. Successful 

implementation of fish passage at Cle Elum and Bumping Lake Dams could 

eventually lead to future detailed study of the other three dams (Kachess, 

Keechelus, and Tieton). The “Cle Elum and Bumping Lake Dams Fish Passage 

Facilities Planning Report” is scheduled for completion in 2008. 

1.8.4 Additional Projects 

In addition to the projects mentioned above, the following projects are reasonably 

certain to occur: 

Tank Farm Closure and Waste Management Environmental Impact 

Statement. The U.S. Department of Energy is preparing a new EIS to evaluate 

options for managing and disposing of waste, selecting supplemental treatments, 

closing tanks, and closing the Fast Flux Test Facility at the Hanford Site. 

Bonneville Power Administration Fish and Wildlife Program Activities. BPA 

funds fisheries mitigation projects in the Columbia River Basin, including the 

Yakima River basin, to improve fish habitat. Projects in the Yakima River basin 

could act in concert with actions taken as part of the project to benefit 

anadromous fish. 

Planned Growth in Yakima, Benton, and Kittitas Counties. Planned growth 

will continue in these counties. This growth currently involves expansion into 

underdeveloped areas potentially affecting fish and wildlife resources. Similar 

growth patterns will continue and could affect resources potentially affected by 

actions taken as part of this project. For example, the expanded growth could 

generate a need for additional water supplies. 

1-27 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

1.9 How to Read This Document 

This Draft PR/EIS is organized into six chapters. Chapter 1 has provided a 

general overview of issues beginning with the purpose and need for action, 

followed by study authorities, a brief discussion of public involvement, and 

ending with relevant background information on the study area, history of water 

management within the basin, and prior studies and activities dealing with water 

local management issues. Chapter 2 presents a description of the Joint 

Alternatives and compares the Joint Alternatives via the P&Gs (U.S. Water 

Resources Council, 1983), while chapter 3 describes the State Alternatives 

formulated and evaluated by Ecology. Chapter 2 basically provides the “planning 

report” technical data component of the Draft PR/EIS. Chapters 4 and 5 address 

the affected environment and environmental consequences to resources and 

provide the NEPA/SEPA technical analyses component of the Draft PR/EIS. 

Finally, chapter 6 describes consultation and coordination necessary for 

developing this Draft PR/EIS. 

1-28 
Chapter 2 

JOINT ALTERNATIVES 
CHAPTER 2 

JOINT ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 Introduction 

As discussed in chapter 1, this document combines a planning report and an 

environmental impact statement. It complies with both NEPA and 

SEPA requirements and has alternatives generated under two separate authorities. 

Reclamation’s authorization to conduct a feasibility study of Black Rock reservoir 

and other storage options within the Yakima River basin results in a focused 

evaluation of potential storage solutions for the basin’s water deficiency 

problems. Any alternative selected for implementation would be operated as part 

of the Yakima Project. Because Ecology is a partner in this feasibility study, the 

alternatives developed under this authorization are referred to as “Joint 

Alternatives” and are discussed in this chapter. Because this is a combined 

planning report and EIS, this chapter also includes the planning study criteria and 

evaluation of those alternatives. The following Joint Alternatives are considered: 

• No Action Alternative 

• Black Rock Alternative 

• Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

• Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

Ecology’s authorization allows evaluation of both storage and nonstorage plans 

within the Yakima River basin and elsewhere in the Columbia Basin. These 

alternatives that fall outside Reclamation’s Storage Study authority are referred to 

as “State Alternatives,” and are described in chapter 3. Chapters 4 and 5 present 

discussions of the affected resources and environmental consequences of 

implementing each of the proposed Joint and State Alternatives, respectively. 

2.2 Alternatives Formulation and Evaluation 

The Joint Alternatives addressed in this chapter were developed via processes that 

conform to the Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water 

and Related Land Resource Implementation Studies. These criteria were 

addressed in the Summary Report, Appraisal Assessment of the Black Rock 

Alternative (Reclamation, 2004e) and the Storage Study Team Technical 

Information and Hydrologic Analysis for Plan Formulation (Reclamation, 2006c). 

The four criteria for evaluating a Federal water resource project are as follows: 

2-1 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Completeness – the extent to which the alternative provides and accounts for all 

necessary investments and actions to implement the plan. 

Effectiveness – the extent to which the alternative alleviates the problems and 

accomplishes the objectives. 

Efficiency – the extent to which the alternative is cost-effective in accomplishing 

the project objectives. 

Acceptability – the workability and viability of the plan in terms of acceptance 

by Federal, State, and local governments and the public and compatibility with 

existing laws, regulations, and public policies. 

The alternatives are then compared using four accounts to facilitate evaluation 

and to display effects of the alternatives. These accounts are as follows: 

National Economic Development (NED) – The Federal objective is to contribute 

to national economic development consistent with protecting the Nation’s 

environment. The NED account measures the beneficial and adverse monetary 

effects of each alternative in terms of changes in the value of the national output 

of goods and services. 

Regional Economic Development (RED) – This account evaluates the beneficial 

and adverse impacts of each alternative on the economy of the affected region, 

with particular emphasis on income and employment measures. The affected 

region reflects the geographic area where significant impacts are expected to 

occur. Impacts can be measured in both monetary and nonmonetary terms. 

Environmental Quality (EQ) – This account provides the mechanism for 

displaying information relative to the effects of proposed alternatives on 

significant resources. “Significant” in this context means resources that are likely 

to have bearing on the decisionmaking process. 

Other Social Effects (OSE) – This account serves as a repository for alternative 

effects that are not reflected in the other three accounts. Examples may include 

safety and health issues, long-term productivity, energy consumption issues, and 

others. 

Feasibility studies conducted by Reclamation are detailed investigations 

specifically authorized by law to determine the desirability of seeking 

congressional authorization for implementation of a preferred alternative, 

normally the NED Alternative, which reasonably maximizes net national 

economic development benefits. However, none of the alternatives developed 

in this feasibility study meet the requirements to be identified as the 

NED Alternative. The alternatives do, however, result in positive effects on 

regional income and regional employment, anadromous fish habitat, and urban 

2-2 
Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

and community attributes as shown in the RED, EQ, and OSE accounts, 

respectively. Because of these positive effects (presented in tables 2.58 and 2.60), 

the alternatives are presented in this Draft PR/EIS. 

2.2.1 Goal Setting 

This section describes how Reclamation and Ecology quantified the three Storage 

Study goals listed in chapter 1, namely, improving instream flows and dry year 

irrigation water supply, and meeting future municipal water supply needs. 

2.2.1.1 Instream Water Supply 

A variety of legal requirements exist related to providing and/or maintaining 

instream flows in the Yakima River basin. Generally, these are based on court 

orders and Federal legislation related to the Yakima Project. The State of 

Washington has not established minimum instream flows for the Yakima River 

basin. The State and Federal courts have mandated that Reclamation operate the 

Yakima Project to reduce impacts to the fisheries resource, treaty-reserved rights 

for fish, and instream flows to support treaty fishing rights at “usual and 

accustomed places.” The System Operation Advisory Committee advises 

Reclamation on an annual basis how to operate the project to meet these 

mandates. 

Instream flows included in Title XII of the Act of October 31, 1994 (Public 

Law 103-464), are quantified “target flows” at two points in the Yakima River 

basin (Sunnyside and Prosser Diversion Dams). The legislation provides that the 

Yakima Project Superintendent (currently, the Yakima Field Office Manager) 

shall estimate the water supply which is anticipated to be available to meet water 

rights, and provide instream flows in accordance with the Title XII criteria shown 

in table 2.1. This operational regime was initiated by the Yakima Project 

Superintendent in 1995. 

Table 2.1 Title XII target flows 

TWSA estimate for period of April-September 

(maf) 

Target flow from date of 

estimate through October 

downstream from: 

Scenario 

April 

through 

September 

May 

through 

September 

June 

through 

September 

July 

through 

September 

Sunnyside 

Diversion 

Dam 

(cfs) 

Prosser 

Diversion 

Dam 

(cfs) 

1 3.20 2.90 2.40 1.90 600 600 

2 2.90 2.65 2.20 1.70 500 500 

3 2.65 2.40 2.00 1.50 400 400 

Less than scenario 3 water supply 300 300 

2-3 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Title XII target flows do not necessarily provide for a natural (unregulated) 

ecosystem function. Title XII target flows at the two control points do not 

address fish habitat and food web needs at the basin level and thus, by themselves, 

cannot be expected to lead to restoration of anadromous fish runs (SOAC, 1999). 

Reclamation met with the Storage Study Technical Work Group to establish 

informal flow objectives for fish habitat analyses. The SSTWG developed a 

consensus on desired flows for five Yakima River reaches for each life-cycle 

season—spring, summer, and winter. The SSTWG considered many factors in 

developing the flow objectives. These included the needs for spawning and 

incubation, rearing and migration. They also looked at estimated unregulated 

flow to help inform their decisions. 

The 12 calendar months were grouped into spring, summer, and winter seasons 

consisting of four months, each based on the general life history pattern of 

steelhead and salmon in the Yakima River basin. The spring season is when 

juvenile steelhead and salmon migrate to the ocean as smolts. The summer 

season is the summer juvenile rearing period, and the juvenile over-winter rearing 

occurs during the winter. 

• Spring—March through June 

• Summer—July through October 

• Winter—November through February 

Table 2.2 presents the monthly flow objectives and volume for the Easton reach, 

the Cle Elum River, and the Ellensburg, Wapato, and lower Naches River reaches. 

Table 2.2 Monthly flow objectives and volumes for an average water year for the Easton reach, 

Cle Elum River, and Ellensburg, Wapato, and lower Naches River reaches 

Reach 

Spring Summer Winter 

Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb 

Easton Flow objective 

(cfs) 

722 1,166 1,400 787 450 375 375 375 425 450 450 450 

Volume 

(acre-feet) 

42,943 69,406 83,300 46,856 26,775 22,313 22,313 22,313 25,288 26,775 26,775 26,775 

Cle 

Elum 

River 

Flow objective 

(cfs) 

511 954 1,500 1,301 589 400 400 400 425 425 425 425 

Volume (acrefeet) 30,432 56,777 89,250 77,391 35,061 23,800 23,800 23,800 25,288 25,288 25,288 25,288 

Ellensburg Flow objective 

(cfs) 

1,982 2,424 3,700 2,586 2,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 980 1,016 1,257 1,459 

Volume (acrefeet) 117,938 144,238 220,150 153,849 119,000 59,500 59,500 59,500 58,311 60,446 74,807 86,821 

Wapato Flow objective 

(cfs) 

3,109 2794 3,500 2655 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,758 1,854 2,163 2,460 

Volume (acrefeet) 184,978 166,261 208,250 157,958 77,350 77,350 77,350 77,350 104,616 110,295 128,712 146,389 

Lower 

Naches 

River 

Flow objective 

(cfs) 

1,265 1,802 2,297 2,291 988 550 550 550 500 576 691 720 

Volume (acrefeet) 75,296 107,194 136,682 136,307 58,772 32,725 32,725 32,725 29,779 34,290 41,112 42,834 

2-4 
Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

2.2.1.2 Irrigation Water Supply 

The reliability of the surface-water supply for irrigation use is of concern because 

of droughts that periodically occur in the Yakima River basin. Current Yakima 

Project legal, contractual, and operational parameters provide that when there is a 

deficiency in the available water supply to meet recognized water rights, senior 

(nonproratable) water rights are served first, and shortages are assessed against 

junior (proratable) water rights. In recent years, the Yakima River basin has 

experienced water shortages in 1987, 1992, 1993, 1994, 2001, and 2005. The 

most severe years were 1994, 2001, and 2005, when proratable water entitlements 

received a 37-percent supply (1994 and 2001) and a 42-percent supply (2005). 

As a part of the work conducted for the Watershed Management Plan (Yakima 

River Basin Watershed Planning Unit and Tri-County Water Resources Agency, 

2003) during the early 2000s, the Yakima River Basin Watershed Planning Unit 

and the Tri-County Water Resources Agency examined criteria to evaluate water 

supply strategies and to estimate the volume of water needed to meet irrigation 

demands. This included work by Northwest Economic Associates conducted for 

the Tri-County Water Resources Agency in 1997 and by the Yakima River 

Watershed Council in 1998. Information from both was circulated to irrigation 

entities and conservation districts in the Yakima River basin to solicit comments 

about establishing irrigation water supply reliability criteria. It was the opinion of 

those responding that, if a supply of not less than 70 percent of the proratable 

water rights could be provided in dry years, major economic losses could be 

averted. 

Reclamation has adopted these criteria for the irrigation water supply goal for the 

Storage Study. Reclamation measured all alternatives by their ability to provide a 

dry year supply of not less than 70 percent of the proratable water entitlements. 

Table 2.3 presents the Yakima River basin annual water entitlements for the 

proratable water users upstream of the Parker gage (RM 103.7) for the period 

April through October (irrigation season). 

2.2.1.3 Municipal Water Supply 

Communities in the Yakima River basin presently rely primarily on groundwater 

(83 percent) and some surface water to meet current municipal and domestic 

water needs. These systems include large and small public water systems, 

individual household wells, and wells provided by self-supplied industrial users. 

The year 2000 estimated municipal and domestic water use in the Yakima River 

basin from surface-water and groundwater resources was about 104,000 acre-feet. 

The projected municipal and domestic water needs in year 2050 from Yakima 

River basin surface water and groundwater sources is about 186,000 acre-feet, an 

increase of 82,000 acre-feet from year 2000. 

2-5 
 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table 2.3 Yakima River basin annual water entitlements 

Irrigation entity 

Annual water entitlements 

(maf)1 

Proratable Nonproratable Total 

Kittitas Division .336 .336 

Roza Division .375 .375 

Wapato Irrigation Project .350 .306 .656 

Sunnyside Division .143 .316 .459 

Tieton Division .038 .076 .114 

Other .042 .519 .561 

Total basin 1.284 1.217 2.501 

1

 Entitlements used when prorationing of the water supply available for irrigation is required. 

Conditional Final Orders of the Adjudication Court and Water Right Settlement Agreements have in 

some cases established limitations on the volume that can be diverted in any year. 

In preparing the Watershed Management Plan, the Yakima River Basin 

Watershed Planning Unit and Tri-County Water Resources Agency assumed the 

increased need would be met by surface water withdrawals. This assumption was 

made because of a potential for a connection between surface water and 

groundwater in the basin. An ongoing study is evaluating if this connection exists 

and the impacts of this connection on either water source by withdrawals from the 

other source. It is possible that if the connection is proven, the State may require 

mitigation for any withdrawals of surface or groundwater. 

Assuming a 1-to-1 groundwater-to-surface-water mitigation, 82,000 acre-feet 

could be required for mitigation by the year 2050. On the other hand, assuming 

mitigation is not necessary, and only those presently using surface water as 

their municipal and domestic water supply (cities of Cle Elum and Yakima) 

would do so in the future, the additional surface-water needs are estimated 

at about 10,000 acre-feet. At the urging of the Roundtable participants, 

Reclamation agreed to use the assumption that mitigation for 82,000 acre-feet 

would be required and is using that volume as the future municipal demand. The 

82,000-acre-foot estimate for future domestic, municipal, and industrial demand is 

based upon future population estimates and past water use. The estimate may be 

conservative as it did not account for future conservation actions, increased 

pricing, and other demand changes that occur when water is scarce as is the case 

in the Yakima River basin. 

Table 2.4 presents municipal and domestic water needs for years 2000, 2010, 

2020, and 2050. 

2-6 
Table 2.4 Municipal and domestic water needs for years 2000, 2010, 2020, and 2050 

Number of 

services 

(in 1999) 

Needs (acre-feet) 

1

2000 12010 12020 2050 

Yakima River basin total 109,180 115,772 138,199 163,316 2

215,000 

Upper Yakima subarea 

Ellensburg 3,230 4,820 6,053 7,062 

Cle Elum 1,000 897 1,009 1,121 

Other community and Class B PWS 3,111 3,139 3,845 4,551 

Noncommunity 881 988 1,210 1,432

Yakima Training Center 4 90 90 90 

Households with own well 5,602 5,652 6,924 8,195 

 Total Upper Yakima 13,828 15,585 19,130 22,451 29,000 

Middle Yakima subarea 

City of Yakima (potable supply) 16,756 17,151 18,384 19,393 

City of Yakima (irrigation supply) Not available 2,242 2,242 

Nob Hill Water Association 7,595 3,811 4,708 5,717 

Selah 1,682 2,915 3,363 3,699

Union Gap 1,200 1,211 1,398 1,586 

Terrace Heights 1,104 673 1009 1,223 

Other community and Class B PWS 3,489 3,520 4,066 4,611 

Noncommunity 154 173 199 226

Yakima Training Center 109 90 90 90 

Households with own well 18,720 18,887 21,814 24,741 

 Total Middle Yakima 50,809 48,430 57,274 63,539 70,000 

Naches subarea 

Other community and Class B PWS 1,474 1,487 1,755 2,022 

Noncommunity 607 680 803 925

Households with own well 2,575 2,598 3,066 3,533 

 Total Naches 4,656 4,565 5,623 6,481 18,000 

Lower Yakima subarea 

Sunnyside 2,956 3,252 3,399 4,260 

Grandview 2,300 3,139 4,148 5,381

Toppenish 2,000 2,018 2,331 2,643

Wapato 1,104 1,345 2,803 3,139 

Benton City 729 224 785 1,345 

Prosser 1,600 3,139 3,587 3,924

Richland 5,451 9,192 9,753 15,358

West Richland 2,200 2,915 3,924 6,278 

Other community and Class B PWS 6,777 6,837 7,897 8,957 

Noncommunity 272 305 353 399

Households with own well 14,498 14,627 16,894 19,161 

Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

2-7 
Table

(conti

 2.4 Municipal and domestic water needs (years 2000, 2010, 2020, and 2050) 

nued) 

Number of 

Services 

(in 1999) 

Needs (acre-feet) 

1

2000 12010 12020 2050 

Lower Yakima subarea (continued) 

 Total Lower Yakima 39,887 46,992 56,172 70,844 498,000 

LESS: Richland and West Richland3 -7,561 -12,107 -13,677 -21,636 5

-29,000 

 Adjusted lower basin 32,326 34,885 42,495 49,208 69,000 

Yakima River basin groundwater and 101,619 103,465 124,522 141,679 186,000 

surface-water supply 

Increase from year 2000 20,000 38,000 82,000

1

 From table 6 of the Municipal, Domestic, and Industrial Water Needs and Supply Strategies, January 2002, 

Technical Memorandum prepared by Economics and Engineering Services. This is consistent with table 2-1 of 

the January 6, 2003, Watershed Management Plan. 

2

 From exhibit 2-2 of the Water Management Plan. 

3

 Water system plans provide for joint development of Columbia River surface supply. 

4

 Page 3-6 of the January 6, 2003, Water Management Plan provides information on the extent of increased 

needs in the upper Yakima, middle Yakima, and Naches subareas from year 2000 to year 2050. These 

increased needs were added to the respective subareas’ year 2000 use to provide a year 2050 total of 117,000 

acre-feet for the three subareas. The 117,000 acre-feet was subtracted from the Yakima River basin total need 

of 215,000 acre-feet, providing a figure of 98,000 acre-feet for the lower Yakima subarea. 

5

 The year 2020 need of the cities of Richland and West Richland is 30 percent of the lower Yakima subarea 

year 2020 estimated need. The 30-percent figure was applied to the lower Yakima subarea year 2050 need of 

98,000 acre-feet, resulting in a year 2050 estimated need of 29,000 acre-feet for these two cities. 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

2.2.2 Geology 

Several key geologic characteristics must be considered in the design of major 

embankment structures such as the Black Rock and Wymer dams. These 

characteristics are critical to the stability and feasibility of all embankment 

designs. The following briefly discusses these geologic characteristics of both the 

Black Rock and Wymer damsites and how these characteristics would be 

addressed in the final design process. 

Typical geologic characteristics of embankment damsites are liquefaction (a loss 

of material strength that can result in large areas of slope failure), slope failures, 

and fault displacements. Seismic evaluation and geologic characteristics at Black 

Rock and Wymer damsites are discussed below. 

In general, these geologic considerations are typical of many embankment 

damsites, and are not viewed as indicative of any “fatal flaws” that would 

indicate the site is not technically feasible. Rather, it is judged that safe 

embankments can be designed and constructed without any particularly 

unusual measures or features beyond what are typically considered for a 

major embankment dam (Reclamation, 2007a). 

2-8 
Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

2.2.2.1 Black Rock Damsite Seismicity 

Technical Memorandum No. D-8330-2004-14, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard 

Assessment for Appraisal Studies of the Proposed Black Rock Dam (Reclamation, 

2004f) documents the preliminary characterization of the earthquake potential at 

Black Rock damsite. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA) is a 

technique that provides an assessment of the annual levels of earthquake ground 

motions that the site might experience based on the rates of seismic activity and 

fault movements in the region surrounding the site. Peak Horizontal Acceleration 

(PHA), a measure of very high-frequency earthquake ground motions, can be 

estimated through PSHA and was used in the preliminary assessments of the 

potential Black Rock damsite. 

Seismic hazard information is used to guide engineering decisions on the design 

and placement of the dam and related structures. High levels of earthquake 

ground motion can potentially lead to liquefaction of saturated, lower density 

soils. Other potential concerns include the stability of natural and engineered 

slopes and the effects of potential fault displacements on the dam and related 

structures. To mitigate this concern, it is critical that all potentially liquefiable 

foundation soils are removed and that all embankment materials are compacted to 

high densities, which can be routinely accomplished through the use of large 

rollers. 

The initial assessment indicates that the Black Rock damsite lies in an area of 

relatively high earthquake potential. For example, at a return period of 

10,000 years, the estimated mean PHA is about 0.95g (acceleration of gravity), a 

level of ground shaking that might be associated with the occurrence of 

magnitude 6 to 7+ earthquakes relatively near the site. Faults that are associated 

with the Yakima Fold Belt near the Black Rock damsite are the main sources of 

potential ground motion. These include the large fold on Horsethief Mountain, 

which is related to a low-angle thrust fault (a part of the Black Rock Valley fault, 

also known as Horsethief Mountain fault) that surfaces in the lower portion of the 

south dam abutment and dips to the south beneath Horsethief Mountain. Because 

of its proximity to the site, the Black Rock Valley fault is the largest contributor 

to the initial estimates of PHA for the site. The Cascadia Subduction Zone (a 

deep fault zone along the coast of Washington and Oregon that is capable of 

producing very large magnitude earthquakes) is not a major contributor to the 

PHA at the damsite. 

While the Black Rock Valley fault has not been studied in sufficient detail to 

define its activity, it is assumed at this stage of study that the fault may be capable 

of a large-magnitude earthquake and that associated fault offsets within the dam 

footprint could range from a few centimeters to several meters. Given the 

orientation of the east-west folds comprising the Yakima Fold Belt, which 

includes Black Rock Valley, the orientation of the displacements would be in the 

north-south (cross-valley) direction reflecting compression of the folds. Several 

2-9 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

secondary faults, scarps, and lineaments that appear to be related to the fold atop 

Horsethief Mountain are also potential sites of secondary faulting, fissuring, and 

landslides (Reclamation, 2004f). Existing landslides and potential for reactivation 

of landslides exists along Horsethief Mountain, the south abutment of the dam. 

The earthquake shaking can be addressed by carefully analyzing the dam for 

potential deformations from the expected earthquake load and designing crest 

dimensions, zoning, and embankment slopes to ensure stability, as well as 

selecting appropriate materials and keeping the phreatic surface (water level) in 

the embankment as low as possible. Key features to include in an embankment 

would be filters and drains of sufficient dimension to ensure that cracking, offsets, 

or differential movements will not exceed the width of the filters. These filters 

and drains should be constructed of clean, cohesionless, and permeable sands and 

gravels, so that if the dam is cracked, these materials will collapse or rearrange so 

that a crack is not supported within these zones. 

2.2.2.2 Wymer Damsite Seismicity 

Although a site-specific seismotectonic evaluation has not been performed for the 

Wymer damsite, it is possible that the site may be subject to relatively high 

seismicity, or earthquake potential. Potential contributors to the seismic hazard 

are the Yakima Fold Belt, a prominent group of mostly east-west striking folds, 

and the deep zone of the Cascadia Subduction Zone, which is capable of 

producing very large magnitude earthquakes. Other local faults may be present in 

the vicinity which could have some contribution to the site seismicity. Given the 

lack of site-specific information, the Wymer damsite was assumed to have 

potentially high seismicity, with peak horizontal ground acceleration expected 

from a 10,000-year earthquake in the range of 1.0 acceleration of gravity (g). 

This assumed potentially high-level of shaking leads to the possibility that lower 

density embankment or foundation saturated soils may experience liquefaction, 

which is essentially a loss of strength that can result in large slope failures. To 

mitigate this concern, it is critical that all potentially liquefiable foundation soils 

are removed and that all embankment materials are compacted to high densities, 

which can be routinely accomplished through the use of large rollers. 

Another potential concern is earthquake shaking. If shaking is severe and of 

sufficiently long duration, it could induce slope failures in an embankment. This 

concern can be addressed by carefully analyzing the dam for potential 

deformations from the expected earthquake load and designing crest dimensions, 

zoning, and embankment slopes to ensure stability, as well as selecting strong 

materials and keeping the phreatic surface in the embankment as low as possible. 

One final concern in areas subject to earthquake loading is the possibility of fault 

displacements within the footprint of the embankments. Based on the limited 

preliminary geologic characterization of the site, there is no evidence to indicate 

that a potentially active fault exists within the dam, dike, or reservoir area. 

2-10 
Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

However, it is important to note that relatively little exploration has been 

conducted to date, and further investigations could conceivably find evidence of 

foundation faulting. Fortunately, because an embankment dam is generally 

viewed as less stiff or rigid than a concrete dam, an embankment alternative may 

be best able to accommodate potential fault displacements. Key features to 

include in an embankment would be filters and drains of sufficient dimension to 

ensure that cracking, offsets, or differential movements would not exceed the 

width of the filters. 

Another design feature frequently used when fault displacement is possible is the 

use of large rockfill shells. These rockfill shells, constructed of rock up to 3 feet 

in size, form an extremely stable downstream buttress for the earth core or 

concrete face. Of equal importance is the proven ability of rockfill to allow 

extensive reservoir leakage or flows to safely “flow through” the rockfill without 

causing dam failure. This is possible because of the high horizontal permeability 

of rockfill and the fact that extremely high seepage velocities are required to 

erode or move large-size rocks (boulders) (Reclamation, 2007a). 

2.2.2.3 Wymer Dam Potential South Abutment Landslide 

Previous studies of the Wymer damsite have indicated the possibility that part, 

and perhaps a large portion, of the south abutment for the main dam consists of an 

ancient landslide. However, the limited amount of geologic investigations at the 

appraisal stage found no evidence of a large landslide, although there are areas of 

minor slope instability and indications of poor rock quality in the south dam 

abutment. Should a slide exist, the impact to the dam (and appurtenant structure) 

stability would be carefully analyzed in future design studies. A proactive 

approach to the potential existence of a slide or presence of poor rock quality 

would be to assume additional excavation of the left dam abutment to remove 

unstable materials. 

2.2.3 Cost Estimates 

Reclamation Directives and Standards prescribe the following three general 

stages of project cost-estimate development during preparation of a planning 

report: 

1. Preliminary Cost Estimate: Preliminary cost estimates are prepared for 

studies at the very early stages of the planning process. They are 

developed to document a very preliminary analysis of a given problem, 

need, or opportunity, utilizing readily available data. 

2. Appraisal-Level Cost Estimate: Appraisal-level cost estimates are used in 

appraisal reports to determine whether more detailed investigations of a 

potential project are justified. These estimates may be prepared from cost 

graphs, simple sketches, or rough general designs using existing site2-11 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

specific data. These estimates are intended to be used as an aid in 

selecting the most economical plan by comparing alternative features such 

as dam types, damsites, canal or transmission line routes, and powerplant 

or pumping capacities. Appraisal-level cost estimates are not suitable for 

requesting project authorization or construction fund appropriations from 

Congress. 

3. Feasibility-Level Cost Estimate: Feasibility-level cost estimates are 

based on information and data obtained during investigations for 

preauthorization activity. These investigations provide sufficient 

information to permit the preparation of preliminary layouts and 

designs from which approximate quantities for each kind, type, or class 

of material, equipment, or labor may be obtained. These estimates are 

used to assist in the selection of a preferred alternative, to determine the 

economic feasibility of a project, and to support seeking congressional 

authorization from Congress. 

Once a project receives Congressional authorization, it generally enters the design 

phase. The first part of the design phase involves preparation of percent-design 

estimates. These estimates are used to refine the selected alternative or design, 

and to keep Congress apprised of the latest estimate for funding requirements 

prior to construction. Percent-design estimates are updated feasibility-level 

estimates. 

Cost estimates contained in this planning report were developed by sizing the 

major features of the alternatives to accomplish the goals of the Storage Study. 

Major features include dams, pumping plants, tunnels, pipelines, powerplants, and 

other pertinent items. The major features were distilled to pay items, with 

approximate quantities developed for materials and activities required to construct 

those features such as excavation, embankment, concrete, and steel. Unit prices, 

adjusted for location and current construction cost trends, were applied to the 

quantities and mobilization costs; an allowance for unlisted items was added to 

determine the construction contract cost estimate. Contingencies were then added 

to the construction contract costs to determine the field cost estimates. Field costs 

were then added to noncontract costs to determine the total project cost. To 

summarize: 

•	 Construction Contract Cost = Itemized Pay Items + Mobilization Costs + 

Unlisted Items 

•	 Field Cost = Construction Contract Cost + Contingencies 

•	 Total Project Cost = Field Cost + Noncontract Cost 

At the current level of design, mobilization costs, allowances for unlisted items 

and contingencies, and noncontract costs are typically estimated as a percentage 

2-12 
Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

They are rounded values based on Reclamation rounding criteria so the actual 

dollar value may deviate from the percentage shown below. 

•	 Mobilization costs (5+/- percent of pay items) identify funds for 

mobilizing contractor personnel and equipment to the project site during 

initial project startup. 

•	 Unlisted Items (10+/- percent of pay items plus mobilization) are a means 

to recognize the confidence level in the estimates and the level of detail 

and knowledge that was used to develop the estimated cost. This line item 

may be considered as a contingency for minor design changes and also as 

an allowance to cover minor pay items that have not been itemized. 

•	 Contingencies (25+/- percent of construction contract cost) are considered 

funds to be used after construction starts for overruns on quantities, 

changed site conditions, change orders, etc. Contingencies are not used 

for design changes during project planning. 

•	 Noncontract costs (35 +/- percent of field cost) include preparation of final 

engineering designs and specifications, regulatory compliance and 

permitting activities, environmental mitigation and monitoring, 

construction contract administration and management, land acquisition, 

relocation, and right-of-way costs. 

Reclamation considers the cost estimates provided for the Black Rock, Wymer 

Dam and Reservoir, and Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange 

Alternatives to be comparable to an Association for the Advancement of Cost 

Engineering (AACE) Class 4 cost estimate. While Reclamation has not run 

range-of-costs analyses for these cost estimates, AACE’s guidance state that the 

accuracy range for Class 4 estimates typically run from 15 percent on the low side 

(i.e., the Class 4 estimate may overestimate the actual cost by 15 percent) to 

30 percent on the high side (i.e., the Class 4 estimate may underestimate the 

actual costs by 30 percent). AACE recommends the use of a more refined 

(Class 3) estimate as the basis for project budget authorization. 

Due to the need to efficiently evaluate the several very large potential project 

configurations identified in this planning report in a reasonable time period and at 

a reasonable cost, additional design data and design analysis will be required to 

produce a Reclamation feasibility-level estimate. The final planning report will 

identify the additional design data collection and analyses that would be required 

if an alternative were authorized for construction. 

2.2.4 Operations 

Operation studies were conducted to assess the effects of the No Action, Black 

Rock, Wymer Dam and Reservoir, and Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

2-13 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Exchange Alternatives on water resources. Water resources include flows in the 

Yakima and Columbia Rivers, reservoir operations in the Yakima River basin, 

and water supply. The operation studies were also used to assess the economic 

justification and environmental consequences of the alternatives on many of the 

Yakima River basin’s aquatic and terrestrial resources, as discussed in detail in 

chapter 4. 

The No Action Alternative is comprised of water conservation measures that are 

being considered for implementation with funding from Title XII of the Act of 

October 31, 1994, and from other sources. Each Joint Alternative also 

incorporates these water conservation measures. 

In addition, a natural (unregulated) flow regime for the Yakima, Naches, Cle 

Elum, Bumping, and Tieton Rivers was developed by modeling the river system 

without the existing Yakima Project storage reservoirs and diversions and 

associated return flows. This flow regime was used in developing instream flow 

water supply goals. The results of the operations analyses are shown in a monthly 

time step. 

Results generated by the Yakima Project RiverWare (Yak-RW) model,1 a daily 

time-step reservoir and river simulation computer model, were used to assess the 

effects of the alternatives on selected indicators of water resources. The Yak-RW 

model uses a 25-year hydrologic period of historical water years of 1981-2005 

(November 1, 1981-October 31, 2005) and provides daily, monthly, and yearly 

output for this period. This 25-year hydrologic period includes 18 nonprorated 

water years (wet and average water supply conditions) and 7 proration water years 

(dry water supply conditions). It also includes the longest dry cycle of the 

Yakima River basin (1992-94). In the discussions of operations, 1994 is used as 

an illustration of dry year conditions, as it represents a water year when the 

proratable supply available was at its lowest. The proration levels generated by 

the Yak-RW model for the current operation are different than actually 

experienced in the prorated water years of the 25-year period of record (1981­

2005). This is because the most current operating procedures for “flip-flop” and 

“mini-flip-flop,” along with the “minimum” target flows immediately 

downstream from the dams and Title XII instream target flow, are included in the 

Yak-RW model for each of the 25 years. This provides consistency, even though 

some requirements such as the Title XII instream targets flows were not mandated 

until after water year 1994. 

1

 The RiverWare software is a river basin simulation tool developed at the Center for 

Advanced Decision Support for Water and Environmental Systems at the University of Colorado 

in cooperation with Reclamation and Tennessee Valley Authority. The center’s Web site, 

http://cadswes.colorado.edu/riverware, provides supporting documents on the RiverWare 

software. 

2-14 
Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

2.2.4.1 Water Supply and Water Distribution 

The indicators used to assess effects on the Yakima Project water supply consist 

of the 25-year average for the following: 

•	 April-September TWSA 

This estimate is an indicator of the water supply available to the Yakima 

Project upstream of the Parker gage to meet all water needs during the 

major demand season. (Note that during the months of November through 

March, all demands are a small portion of the unregulated supply available 

during these months.) The April-September TWSA is comprised of 

storage contents at the end of March plus runoff and return flows upstream 

of the Parker gage during this 6-month period. 

•	 TWSA Distribution 

While the volume of the TWSA may be greater under a given alternative, 

in reality, there is not much room for improving the TWSA by more than a 

few percentage points. What is really required is a change in the 

distribution of TWSA. 

TWSA distribution consists of: 

(1) April-September flow volume downstream from the Parker gage. This 

flow volume is comprised of Title XII target flows and undiverted 

unregulated runoff and operational spills. 

(2) April-September total irrigation and municipal diversions upstream of 

the Parker gage. The volume of the water supply available for 

irrigation, which is the irrigation and municipal diversion portion of 

the TWSA, determines the need for proration. The irrigation proration 

level is expressed as the percent of the proratable water supply 

provided as of the end of September in relation to the September 

proratable entitlement. When comparing alternatives, an increase in 

the proration level is moving toward a full (100-percent) water supply. 

(3) September 30 reservoir contents, or carryover of stored water at the 

end of the irrigation season. The only way to increase TWSA is to 

increase the storage contents by March 31. However, there is little 

room for improving the stored water supply with new or existing 

Yakima River basin storage because of winter flow objectives and the 

limited runoff above new storage sites. Runoff is fixed by nature. 

Return flows are a function of irrigation efficiency, and, while system 

efficiency improvements do decrease irrigation diversions, they also 

reduce return flows, a component of the TWSA. 

2-15 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

•	 April-September Flow Volume at the Mouth of the Yakima River 

The alternative with the greatest instream flow benefit would improve 

flows not only at the Parker gage but at the confluence. The flow volume 

at the Parker gage is a good indicator of the benefits to the Yakima River 

at the Parker gage, but does not fully reflect what is occurring at the 

Columbia River confluence. This criterion is best represented by 

differences in the flow volume at the mouth of the Yakima River. 

2.2.4.2 Proratable Irrigation Supply 

The indicators used to assess the proratable irrigation supply available in dry 

years are: 

•	 Irrigation proration level for dry years when the proratable water supply 

available is less than 70 percent. 

The proration level is an indication of the volume of water that can be 

diverted from the river. However, this does not account for the increase in 

the volume of the diversion actually getting to the farm turnout (the farm 

delivery) as the result of improvements in canal efficiencies. Farm 

delivery is a better representation of the volume of water available to meet 

irrigation demands. 

•	 Difference in the irrigation delivery shortage for water year 1994 

The delivery shortage represents the difference between a full water 

supply to the farm (represented by the median volume delivered for the 

period of record 1981-2005) and the volume delivered in a specific year. 

The difference in the delivery shortage is a better indication of the 

effectiveness of an alternative to ensure a full supply for irrigation. It also 

accounts for the new stored water supply from the Columbia River not 

captured by the TWSA, as the TWSA only accounts for Yakima River 

basin water supplies. 

2.2.5 Water Rights and Water Contracts 

2.2.5.1 Introduction 

Yakima Project water users divert natural flows, releases of stored water, 

and return flows. Their diversions are governed by Federal contracts, a Federal 

consent decree, treaty rights, and State water rights and court decisions. 

Reclamation must consider the effect on existing water rights and contracts if 

Columbia River water is diverted to serve Yakima River diverters. 

Reclamation currently delivers water to Yakima Project water users under the 

authority of Federal contracts, the 1945 Consent Decree Judgment in Kittitas 

2-16 
Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

Reclamation District v. Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District (Civil 21, Eastern 

District Washington, 1945), and Decisions and Orders of the Superior Court, State 

of Washington Department of Ecology v. James J. Acquavella et al. (Acquavella). 

The 1945 Consent Decree established a unique water allocation scheme for the 

Yakima River basin. Water rights perfected prior to the Yakima Project 

authorization (May 10, 1905) are delivered, in full, according to priority date. 

(Historically, these senior rights have never been curtailed.) Project water rights 

with a priority date of May 10, 1905, are susceptible to a reduction in delivery, 

pro rata, in times of drought. Water rights perfected after May 10, 1905, can, 

potentially, be fully curtailed in drought years. 

In 1977, Reclamation formalized operating procedures that had for many years 

tracked the parameters laid out in the 1945 Consent Decree Judgment. 

Reclamation estimates the TWSA for Yakima Project purposes in March of every 

year and forecasts the amount of proration, if any, which will apply for the 

coming irrigation season. TWSA is recalculated on a regular basis during the 

irrigation season and the proration percentage updated. In this way, Reclamation 

has institutionalized the equitable sharing of the available water supply among 

irrigators in the basin as the 1945 Consent Decree envisioned. Through a pending 

final decree, the Superior Court will confirm the surface water rights for the 

Yakima River basin. 

After the severe drought year of 2001, a year of 37-percent proration, all water 

right holders looked to tighter regulation of unauthorized and out-of-priority use 

and more careful management of existing water. In March 2005, the Superior 

Court in Acquavella entered a permanent order that certain identified post-1905 

water users are immediately curtailed when Reclamation imposes prorationing 

among May 10, 1905, rights. Mandatory water measurement, diversion reporting, 

and regulation also help stretch available supplies within the context of existing 

water rights. 

2.2.5.2 Current Status 

Participating Irrigation Entities 

Two divisions of the Yakima Project—Roza and Sunnyside—have expressed an 

interest in water exchange possibilities. 

Water Contracts 

In general, Reclamation has executed two types of contracts in the Yakima River 

basin: repayment contracts and water supply contracts. Repayment contracts 

make up the majority of the contract-based commitments in the basin. Water 

supply contracts are typically Warren Act contracts, which supplement the supply 

of water users who depend on pre-Yakima Project natural flow water rights. In 

other instances (e.g., the Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District contract of 1945), 

the contract applies to conditions of both repayment and water supply. 

2-17 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Reclamation and irrigation entities executed repayment contracts for the lower 

basin in the early years of the Yakima Project. These early contracts are perpetual 

and not fixed-term arrangements. The contracts have subsequently been modified 

and expanded, but have not been amended or renegotiated since 1951. Limiting 

agreements executed in the early 1900s as a condition for Federal commitment to 

the Yakima Project set limits on these pre-project water rights. 

Participation in the exchange would probably not require any modification to 

existing contracts. However, some form of new agreements will be necessary to 

implement the exchange of water from storage with Yakima River water in 

addition to contracts for any additional or supplementary water supply. 

Reclamation Authority for Withdrawal and Appropriation of State Water - 

Chapter 90.40 Revised Codes of Washington State.—Reclamation is directed to 

acquire water rights under prevailing State water law under Section 8 of the 

1902 Federal Reclamation Act. For projects proposed under the 1902 Act, the 

United States has a unique status under Washington State law. In 1905, the 

Washington Legislature enacted Chapter 90.40 RCW to facilitate construction of 

the Yakima Project and other Reclamation projects in Washington. The statute 

allows the withdrawal of public waters from appropriation upon request of the 

Secretary of the Interior. Upon notice to the State that the United States intends to 

make examinations or surveys for the use of certain specified waters, the State 

withdraws those waters from appropriation for a period of 1 year from the date of 

the notice. If the United States certifies in writing within the 1-year period that 

the project contemplated in the notice appears to be viable and investigations will 

be made in detail, the waters continue to be withdrawn from appropriation for 

3 years and such further time as the State may grant by extension. During a 

withdrawal, State law prevents adverse claims to that water except where formally 

released in writing by the United States. 

At such time as a construction contract is executed for storage of irrigation water, 

the United States may appropriate that volume of the withdrawn or reserved water 

as is necessary for the storage project “. . . in the same manner and to the same 

extent as though such appropriation had been made by a private person, 

corporation or association” (RCW 90.40.040). The priority date of such an 

appropriation relates back to the date of the withdrawal or reservation. 

2.2.5.3 Water Appropriation from the Columbia River 

Background 

The exchange features of the Black Rock Alternative are based on diversion of 

Columbia River water. Authorization for such a diversion must comply with 

Washington State law. Washington instituted a moratorium on new water rights 

from the Columbia River in 1991, shortly after Snake River sockeye salmon were 

listed under ESA. In 1997, Washington lifted the moratorium with revisions to 

Chapter 173-563 WAC. The revisions mandated an evaluation of impacts on fish 

2-18 
Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

and existing water rights in consultation with Federal agencies and Indian tribes. 

In 2006, Washington’s Legislature enacted Chapter 90.90 RCW, which directed 

Ecology to aggressively pursue the development of water supplies to benefit both 

instream and out-of-stream use. Appropriations from the Columbia River are still 

regulated by Chapter 173-563 WAC. 

Columbia Basin Project Withdrawal 

The Columbia Basin Project (CBP) and the water withdrawn for CBP purposes is 

not the withdrawn water to be used for the alternatives being studied in this Draft 

PR/EIS. Water from the Columbia River will be applied for from the December 

2004 withdrawal discussed below. Through a May 16, 1938, filing with the State 

pursuant to RCW 90.40.030, the United States gave notice of its intent to develop 

the CBP. Columbia River water sufficient for this purpose was withdrawn from 

appropriation. Water rights for existing power development and the first half of 

the irrigation project have been perfected. The withdrawal continues in effect for 

water to benefit the second half of the irrigation development. 

December 2004 Notice of Withdrawal 

On December 28, 2004, Reclamation filed the requisite notice under RCW 90.40 

with the Washington Department of Ecology and Department of Natural 

Resources. Reclamation filed the notice for an exchange alternative as a 

preliminary measure to secure a 2004 priority date for any new water rights that 

the alternative might require. The withdrawal is not an application to appropriate 

water. At some point in the alternative development, if construction is authorized, 

funded, and certain, the United States would file an application to appropriate 

public water under the RCW 90.03 water code process, “such appropriation to be 

made, maintained, and perfected in the same manner and to the same extent as 

though such appropriation had been made by a private person, corporation, or 

association . . .” RCW 90.40.030. If an application is filed, it will have a priority 

date of December 28, 2004. The withdrawal remains in force through 2008. 

Effect of Exchange on Yakima River Basin Water Rights 

The exchange alternatives present some issues regarding State water right 

processes that have not been well exercised; thus, the discussion here represents 

possible, but not certain, processes for water right acquisition related to storage 

and the exchange alternatives. 

Any storage alternative will require an application for storage pursuant to State 

procedures. The application for a storage permit will be based on the December 

2004 withdrawal. Once stored, the water could be delivered from storage by 

contract. 

The use of water to supplement Yakima River supplies when proration is declared 

is not an exchange of water and would be considered part of a new water right. 

That is, during drought, less water is present and available from the Yakima 

2-19 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Project supply and water originating for Columbia River diversion and storage 

would be considered a new supplemental supply, not an exchange. Therefore, 

that supplemental supply would have a priority date of December 28, 2004. 

Water from any new storage supply that is used instead of available and entitled 

Yakima River water supply would be an exchange. This use of new storage 

supply will probably require an additional Reclamation contract for delivery and 

an exchange agreement that will describe terms regarding the details of the 

exchange, including any further requirements for water right permits and water 

right permit elements. The exchange agreement would not disturb the project 

water rights confirmed in the United States’ 2007 CFO, but the agreement would 

be based on the exchange of a portion of those rights for rights from new storage. 

2.3 No Action Alternative 

2.3.1 Description 

The No Action Alternative is intended to represent the most likely future expected 

in the absence of constructing additional storage. All the Joint Alternative are 

measured against the No Action Alternative for accomplishments with respect 

to the Storage Study goals and for benefits and impacts. The analysis and 

operation studies performed for the No Action Alternative included future 

implementation of water conservation measures and water acquisitions 

authorized under YRBWEP; however, it did not include the emergency 

drought relief provisions allowed under State law, although they are considered 

to be part of the No Action Alternative. These provisions were not included in 

the studies because they can vary with each drought. 

2.3.1.1 Water Conservation Measures 

The No Action Alternative for the Storage Study includes implementation of 

water conservation measures proposed under Title XII of the Act of October 31, 

1994. Section 1203 of Title XII authorized Phase II (the Basin Conservation 

Program) of YRBWEP for the purpose of evaluating and implementing measures 

to improve the availability of water supplies for irrigation and the protection and 

enhancement of fish and wildlife resources, including wetlands. Section 1204 of 

Title XII provides for water conservation on the Yakama Reservation. 

Yakima River basin irrigation entities developed and submitted water 

conservation plans for evaluation and approval by Reclamation in the late 1990s 

to early 2000s. The water conservation measures included in the No Action 

Alternative are those currently being constructed or considered for future 

implementation with funding from the Basin Conservation Program or from other 

sources. It should be noted that implementation does not require additional 

congressional authorization but, rather, completion of the processes established 

for the Basin Conservation Program. The No Action Alternative includes 

2-20 
 

Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

construction of new facilities such as reregulation reservoirs, pumping plants, 

pipelines, etc., along the alignment of the existing facilities. Site-specific NEPA 

would be completed as projects are identified. 

Under section 1203 of Title XII, two-thirds of the conserved water resulting from 

a conservation measure is assigned to instream flows and is assumed to remain in 

the river downstream from the implementing entity’s point of diversion. The 

conservation measure improves delivery efficiencies by reducing return flows 

and, thus, the diversion requirements, but consumptive use is not reduced. 

Consequently, the conservation measure only improves streamflows for the river 

downstream from the entity’s point of diversion to the “last” point of operational 

discharge. One-third of the conserved water is retained by the implementing 

entity for irrigation use. 

Title XII also sets instream target flows over Sunnyside Diversion Dam in wet 

and average water years at 400 to 600 cfs, depending on the estimated water 

supply, and in dry years, at 300 cfs. Title XII also provides that these flows will 

be increased by the instream flow component of the conserved water realized 

through the Basin Conservation Program. 

Section 1203 of Title XII provides that two-thirds of the implementation cost of 

the conservation measure(s) will be federally funded (Reclamation) and one-third 

will be nonfederally funded equally by Washington State Department of Ecology 

and the implementing entity. A “cost ceiling” of $67.5 million (September 1990 

prices) was established for the Federal funds and is subject to increase by 

applicable cost indexes. The April 2007 indexed Federal cost ceiling is estimated 

at about $115 million. 

Table 2.5 presents a summary of the water conservation measures included in the 

No Action Alternative. The table displays the total conserved water, the twothirds instream flow component, and the one-third irrigation component. 

Table 2.6 presents a summary of the cumulative effects of water conservation 

measures from Roza Diversion Dam (RM 127.9) to Sunnyside Diversion Dam 

(RM 103.8). The table shows the accretions and depletions in this 24.1-mile 

reach and the additional river flow associated with conserved water assigned to 

instream flows and operational flow resulting from changes in the points of 

diversion. 

Table 2.6 also indicates Title XII instream target flows should be increased by 

136 cfs in wet and average water years. In dry years, the increased target flow 

would be adjusted according to the amount of proratable or nonproratable water 

rights of the implementing entities, which results in an increase in target flows of 

94 cfs in a repeat of a 1994 dry water supply year for the 25-year period of record 

(1981-2005). 

2-21 
Table 2.5 Conserved water resulting from water conservation measures for the No Action 1 Alternative

Entity Action 

Conserved water 

Volume 

(acre-feet) 

Flow 

(cfs) 

Total Instream Irrigation Total Instream Irrigation 

Upper Yakima River area 

Kittitas 

Reclamation 

District 

System 

improvements 

47,800 31,700 16,100 132 88 44 

Middle Yakima River area 

Roza Division System improvements under Basin 

Conservation 

Program 

13,700 9,200 4,500 37 26 11 

System improvements with “pay as 

you go approach” 

30,000 N/A 30,000 82 N/A2

 82 

Total 43,700 9,200 34,500 119 25 94 

Union Gap 

Irrigation District 

Change in 

diversion 

13,000 36 

System 

improvements 

5,600 3,700 1,900 15 10 5 

Wapato 

Irrigation 

Project3 

Change in 

diversion 

50 50 

Sunnyside 

Division 

System 

improvements (1) 

29,100 19,400 9,700 80 54 26 

System 

improvements (2) 

24,700 16,500 8,200 68 46 22 

Total 53,800 35,900 17,900 148 100 48 

Benton Irrigation 

District 

Change in 

diversion 

21,000 58 

System 

improvements 

6,300 4,200 2,100 17 11 6 

Naches River area 

Naches-Selah 

Irrigation 

District 

Change in 

diversion 

 100 

Total No Action Alternative 157,200 84,700 72,500 

1 The change in diversion represents the amount the current diversion is reduced. This amount becomes an 

operational flow in the river reach between the current and new diversion points. 

2

 Does not include diversion reduction. 

3

 Proposed for implementation under section 1204 of Title XII. 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

2-22 
 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

Table 2.6 Middle Yakima River area instream flow associated with water conservation actions 

from river mile 127.9 to 103.7 

Instream flow 

(cfs) 

Elements of 

instream flow 

(cumulative) 

(cfs) 

Entity Action 

River 

Mile 

Accretion Depletion Cumulative Title XII Operational 

Roza Division System 

improvements 

127.9 +26 26 26 

Union Gap 

Irrigation 

District 

Change in 

diversion 

114.7 +36 62 36 

Wapato 

Irrigation 

Project 

Change in 

diversion 

106.7 +50 112 86 

Union Gap 

Irrigation 

District 

New diversion 105.0 -36 76 50 

System 

improvements 

105.0 +10 86 36 

Sunnyside 

Division 

System 

improvements 

103.8 +100 186 136 

Benton 

Irrigation 

District 1 

Change in 

diversion 

103.8 +58 244 108 

Flow at 

Parker gage 

2

103.7 

Title XII 

increase 

+136 

Operational +108 

1 The Benton Irrigation District instream flow portion (11 cfs) of the conserved water increases streamflows in 

the Yakima River from the new point of diversion (RM 32.1) to the last point of return flows (RM 23.8). 

2 RM 103.7 is the Parker gage, a short distance downstream from Sunnyside Diversion Dam. 

In addition to the increased Title XII target flow, operational flows of 108 cfs 

from proposed changes in points of diversion by the Wapato Project and the 

Benton Irrigation District would pass over Sunnyside Diversion Dam in wet and 

average water years. Operational flows resulting from changes in points of 

diversion are not included in determining increased Title XII target flows. 

This operational flow would be reduced in dry years according to the entity’s 

water rights. 

For example, in table 2.6, the improvements in Roza increase the streamflow by 

26 cfs (accretion) beginning at the point of diversion (RM 127.9). This is the 

instream flow portion of the conserved water, so the cumulative flow increases by 

26 cfs. Another example is the Union Gap diversion—the current diversion is 

36 cfs at RM 114.7. That diversion would change to a new diversion 9.7 miles 

downstream (RM 105.0), resulting in an operational flow of 36 cfs in this reach. 

Without system improvements, the depletion at the new diversion would be 

36 cfs, as shown in table 2.6. However, Union Gap’s new pressure pipeline 

2-23 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

delivery system will result in conserved water of 15 cfs, of which 10 cfs is the 

instream flow portion and remains in the river, and 5 cfs is retained by the entity 

for dry year irrigation. The net depletion to the river is, thus, 26 cfs, and the 

cumulative flow downstream from mile post (MP) 105.0 is 86 cfs. 

2.3.1.2 Water Acquisition 

In 2003, Reclamation acquired the water rights associated with the Naches River 

hydroelectric powerplants of the Pacific Power and Light Company. This water 

right acquisition and the proposed Naches-Selah Irrigation District change in 

point of diversion for joint use with the Wapatox Ditch Company of the Wapatox 

Canal results in the following: 

•	 An operational flow of 100 cfs in the Naches River from RM 18.4 (the 

present Naches-Selah Irrigation District diversion) to RM 17.1 (the 

Wapatox Canal diversion). 

•	 An additional average flow of about 370 cfs in the Naches River from 

RM 17.1 to RM 9.7 (the point of prior discharge from the Wapatox 

powerplant). 

The Basin Conservation Program also provides for acquisition of land and water 

rights on a permanent and temporary basis. The acquisitions accomplished to 

date involve the purchase of more than 1,905 acres of lands and the associated 

water rights (263,370 acre-feet) in the tributaries and on the mainstem of the 

Yakima River (Isley, 2007). These actions secured senior water rights, increasing 

instream flows from (1) the point of diversion to the downstream return flow 

point by the amount previously diverted and (2) downstream from the return flow 

point throughout the river system by the amount of the retired consumptive use. 

This has resulted in an average cumulative instream target flow increase of about 

4 cfs below Sunnyside Diversion Dam. 

2.3.1.3 Emergency Drought Relief 

While this was not included in the modeling analysis, an emergency drought 

relief provision has been established by Ecology and is described in RCW 

Chapter 173-166 WAC. Ecology can determine that water supply conditions are 

expected to cause undue hardship to water users in a geographical area or a 

significant part of a geographical area when less than 75 percent of normal water 

supply conditions exist. Following approval by the Governor, a drought condition 

order can then be issued by Ecology. 

Issuance of a drought condition order allows water users to obtain water from 

alternate groundwater and surface water sources, allows temporary water transfers 

and transactions, and provides funding assistance to public bodies for projects and 

measures designed to help alleviate drought conditions relating to agriculture and 

fisheries. 

2-24 
 

Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

In the Yakima Project, the drought condition criteria of 75 percent of normal 

water supply for the Yakima River basin would roughly translate into less than a 

45- to 50-percent proration level for proratable water entitlements.2 A drought 

condition was declared in the Yakima River basin in 1994, 2001, and 2005. 

Dry Year Surface-Water Purchase 

A team of agencies and water users has been established in the Yakima River 

basin to provide technical review of proposed water right transfers. This team, 

known as the Water Transfer Working Group (WTWG), is most active during 

drought years and operates according to a predetermined set of rules tailored to 

the basin to protect other water rights of the Yakima River and tributary streams. 

The WTWG is not a permitting agency, as jurisdiction for surface water rights 

rests with the Yakima County Superior Court (for temporary changes and 

transfers) or with Ecology (for permanent changes and transfers). 

In the 2001 drought year, about 10,100 acres were taken out of agricultural 

production and fallowed; the water was transferred to irrigation, fishery, and other 

uses. The Roza Irrigation District (all proratable water entitlements) acquired and 

diverted about 16,000 acre-feet at a cost of about $125 per acre-foot. It is 

estimated this additional diversion is equivalent to an increase in the proration 

level of about 1.5 percent. 

Groundwater Pumping 

Groundwater wells permitted by Ecology can be used during drought conditions 

by individuals situated both within and outside the service area of irrigation 

entities. Use of wells permitted prior to 1994 (identified as permanent supplemental rights) are not dependent on a drought order and can be used anytime the 

permittee suffers a water supply shortfall. Existing drought wells permitted 

beginning in 1994 are identified as emergency drought wells, the use of which is 

contingent on a drought condition order and Ecology’s approval to use the well. 

Ecology may also approve development of new emergency drought wells. 

In the Yakima River basin, groundwater withdrawal of up to 24,000 acre-feet at a 

rate of 1 acre-foot per acre has been permitted. This volume includes both 

permanent supplemental right wells and emergency drought wells. 

2.3.2 Current Yakima Project Operations 

The objectives of the current Yakima Project operation are to: 

•	 Store as much as possible up to the reservoir system’s full active capacity 

of about 1 million acre-feet following the end of the irrigation season 

through early spring. 

2

 This is because of the intermix of senior and junior water rights and the amount of irrigated 

acres in the Yakima Project in relation to irrigation in all of the Yakima River basin. 

2-25 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

•	 Provide for target flows and diversion entitlements downstream from the 

dams, meeting Title XII flows at Sunnyside and Prosser Diversion Dams. 

•	 Provide reservoir space for flood control operations. 

The irrigation season starts about April 1. During the initial part of the irrigation 

season, unregulated runoff from tributaries downstream from the five reservoirs, 

incidental releases from the reservoirs (for target flows and flood control), and 

irrigation return flows are generally adequate to meet irrigation diversion 

demands and the Title XII target instream flows at Sunnyside Diversion Dam 

until about June 24. Once these flows fail to meet diversion demands and 

Title XII instream target flows, reservoir releases are made, resulting in depletions 

in the stored water supply (commonly referred to as the beginning of the storage 

control period). 

From the beginning of the storage control period until early September, releases 

from Cle Elum Lake are used in coordination with releases from Keechelus and 

Kachess Lakes to meet mainstem Yakima River water entitlements from the 

Cle Elum River confluence (RM 179.6) to Sunnyside Diversion Dam (RM 103.8). 

These water entitlements amount to about 1.46 million acre-feet to supply 

diversions, mostly from Roza Diversion Dam downstream, including Roza 

Division, Wapato Irrigation Project, and Sunnyside Division. A peak of about 

3,600 cfs for irrigation is moved through this area. 

About September 1, Cle Elum Lake releases are substantially reduced over a 

10-day period, and releases from Rimrock Lake are substantially increased to 

meet the September-through-October irrigation demands downstream from the 

confluence of the Naches and Yakima Rivers. This is referred to as the flip-flop 

operation. The flip-flop operation was instituted to encourage spring Chinook to 

spawn at a lower streamflow that requires less stored water to be released during 

the egg incubation period to protect spawning nests (redds). Affected spring 

Chinook spawning reaches are the Yakima River from Easton Dam to the city of 

Ellensburg and the Cle Elum River downstream from the dam. 

A similar operation, referred to as “mini flip-flop,” is performed between 

Keechelus and Kachess Lakes in years of sufficient water supply and is performed 

for similar reasons as discussed for the flip-flop operation that occurs downstream 

from Easton and Cle Elum Dams. Irrigation releases from Keechelus Lake are 

higher than from Kachess Lake from June through August. Then, in September 

and October, irrigation releases from Keechelus Lake are decreased and 

correspondingly increased from Kachess Lake. 

The “Yakima River Basin Schematic,” found in Reclamation’s System Operations 

Technical Document (Reclamation, 2008c) shows the Yakima River basin 

irrigation diversions and irrigation return flows. 

2-26 
Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

2.3.3 No Action Alternative Operations 

2.3.3.1 Operation Criteria 

The No Action Alternative operation criteria are the same as the current 

Yakima Project operation with the following exceptions: 

The irrigation diversions of entities included in the No Action Alternative 

water conservation measures are reduced in wet and average water years by 

the total volume of conserved water (157,200 acre-feet). In dry years, the 

diversion reduction reflects only the instream flow portion of the conserved 

water (84,700 acre-feet). The irrigation portion (72,500 acre-feet) is assumed 

to be diverted by the entity. 

During the first part of the irrigation season, when diversions are being met from 

unregulated flows (generally April through June), all conserved water remains in 

the river. However, once the storage control period begins, the irrigation portion 

provided from storage is not released from Yakima Project reservoirs in wet and 

average water years. This volume is carried over at the end of the irrigation 

season and improves the stored water supply for subsequent years. However, 

once carried over, it loses its identity to a specific entity and becomes a part of the 

total water supply available for the Yakima River basin. During dry years, that 

irrigation portion in storage would be released to the specific entity responsible 

for its conservation. 

2.3.3.2 Accomplishments 

Water Provided by the No Action Alternative 

Table 2.7 presents the differences in the hydrologic indicators between 

the No Action Alternative and the current operation. The differences 

outlined in the table show some improvement in the Yakima Project water 

supply over the 25-year period of record (1981-2005) with implementation 

of the No Action Alternative. These indicators are discussed in detail in 

section 2.2.4. 

Instream Flows Provided 

The Title XII target flows over Sunnyside Diversion Dam (at Parker gage) 

are 136 cfs greater as a result of conservation measures, resulting in the 

target flows shown in table 2.8. In addition, there are operational flows of 

108 cfs as the result of changes in points of diversion from upstream to 

downstream from Sunnyside Diversion Dam by some entities under the 

No Action Alternative. The 108 cfs is not an additional target flow, but 

does go over the Sunnyside Diversion Dam. 

2-27 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table 2.7 Changes in hydrologic indicators under the No Action Alternative compared to the 

current operation for the 25-year period of record (1981-2005) (changes shown in absolute 

value and percent of change) 

April 1 

TWSA 

TWSA distribution 

Apr-Sep 

Yakima 

flow 

volume at 

mouth 

Irrigation 

delivery 

volume 

shortage1 

Irrigation 

proration 

level 

Apr-Sep 

Yakima 

flow 

volume at 

Parker 

gage 

Apr-Sep 

diversion 

volume 

upstream 

of Parker 

gage 

Sep 30 

reservoir 

contents 

(maf) and % change 

Proration 

and 

% change 

Average year 1981-2005 (results from Yak-RW model) 

Current 

operation 

2.82 0.51 2.02 0.27 0.85 0.07 

No Action 

Alternative 

2.84 0.62 1.91 0.30 0.86 0.05 

Change 

from current 

operation 

0.02 0.11 -0.11 0.03 0.01 -0.02 

% change 1% 22% -5% 11% 1% -28% 

Dry year 1994 (results from Yak-RW model) 

Current 

operation 

1.75 0.19 1.49 0.07 0.32 0.40 28% 

No Action 

Alternative 

1.75 0.25 1.42 0.07 0.31 0.38 27% 

Change 

from current 

operation 

0.00 0.06 -0.07 0.00 -0.01 0.02 2

-1% 

% change 0% 31% -5% 0% -3% -5% 

1

 The irrigation delivery volume shortage is the difference between a full water supply to the farm (represented 

by the median volume delivered for the period of record 1981-2005) and the volume delivered in a specific year. 

2

 The irrigation water supply benefits of the conservation actions are realized in 1992 and 1993 as shown by the 

improved irrigation proration levels of the No Action Alternative. By 1994, the third year of the dry cycle, the 

difference in the proration level of the No Action Alternative and the current operation is negligible and is due to the 

rounding of the Yak-RW model results. 

Table 2.8 Differences in Title XII target flows downstream from Sunnyside Diversion Dam— 

current Yakima Project operation compared to No Action Alternative 

Total water supply available estimate 

(maf) 

Title XII target flow at Parker 

gage (cfs) 

April - 

September 

May -

September 

June - 

September 

July - 

September 

Current 

operation 

No Action 

Alternative 

3.2 2.9 2.4 1.9 600 736 

2.9 2.65 2.2 1.7 500 636 

2.65 2.4 2.0 1.5 400 536 

Less than above 300 300 varies1 

1

 In dry water years, the target flow is 300 cfs and the 136-cfs increase is adjusted according to the water 

rights of the entities participating in the Basin Conservation Program. In a dry year such as 1994, the target 

flow would be 394 cfs. 

2-28 
 

Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

Introduction to Hydrographs 

Monthly instream flow objectives were established by the SSTWG for the 

Easton, Cle Elum River, Ellensburg, Wapato and lower Naches River reaches. 

(See table 2.2 as a means of evaluating the performance of each alternative. See 

table 2.9 and figure 2.1 for reach locations and descriptions.) 

Table 2.9 Gages and stream reaches 

Gage/ 

hydrograph 

Reach 

name Stream reach 

Easton (RM 202.0) Easton Yakima River: Easton Diversion Dam (RM 202.5) 

to Cle Elum River confluence (RM 185.6) 

Cle Elum Dam outlet (RM 7.9) Cle Elum Cle Elum River downstream from Cle Elum Dam 

Umtanum (RM 140.4) Ellensburg Yakima River: Cle Elum River confluence 

(RM 185.6) to Roza Diversion Dam (RM 127.9) 

Bumping Dam outlet (RM 17.0) Bumping Bumping River: Bumping Dam (RM 17.0) to 

American River confluence (RM 0.0) 

Cliffdell (RM 37.9) Upper Naches Naches River: Little Naches confluence 

(RM 44.6) to Tieton River confluence (RM 17.5) 

Naches at Naches River (RM 16.8) Lower Naches Naches River: Tieton River confluence (RM 44.6) 

to the Naches River confluence (RM 0.0) 

Parker (RM 103.7) Wapato Yakima River: Sunnyside Diversion Dam 

(RM 103.8) to Granger (RM 83.0) 

Kiona (RM 29.9) Not applicable Not applicable 

Table 2.2 presents these values for an average water year. For many of the 

reaches, but not all, the relationship between flow and habitat quantity for key 

salmon and steelhead species and life stages and the unregulated flow pattern 

were used to assist in establishing the monthly flow objectives. Spring flow 

objectives for the Wapato reach were based on flow-to-smolt survival studies 

conducted by the Yakima Klickitat Fisheries Project. Flow objectives were 

established for wet, average, and dry water years. For the sake of simplicity, the 

monthly flow objectives were grouped by season—spring (March-June); summer 

(July-October); and winter (November-February). 

The seasonal flow objectives were expressed in terms of total acre-feet of water 

required to meet the combined monthly flow objective for each season and were 

calculated taking the average of the four median monthly flow objective volumes. 

Seasonal flow objectives were expressed in terms of volume, or acre-feet of 

water, instead of cubic feet per second of streamflow because of the need to 

account for a total basin water budget. These seasonal flow volume objectives 

(acre-feet) for the Ellensburg reach (Umtanum gage) and Wapato reach (Parker 

gage) are shown in table 2.10 for an average water year. The Ellensburg and 

Wapato reaches were selected to represent a general overview of how each 

alternative compared to the flow volume objectives. The Ellensburg and Wapato 

reaches represent the general flow conditions in the upper and middle-to-lower 

Yakima River, which are the reach areas most influenced by the Storage Study 

alternatives. 

2-29 
-

-

PoCentia' Black Rock 

Dam ond Re ... rwir 

-.••• 

Ya ama Nation 

o 

-

5 

-

Figure 2.1 Reaches map. 

2-30 
 

Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

Table 2.10 Seasonal flow volume objectives and model results for the Umtanum and Parker 

gages for an average water year (acre-feet) 

Flows 

Umtanum gage Parker gage 

Spring Summer Winter Spring Summer Winter 

Flow objective 

No Action Alternative 

Black Rock Alternative 

Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir Alternative 

Wymer Dam Plus 

Yakima River Pump 

Exchange Alternative 

Enhanced water 

conservation 

741,915 

685,946 

751,152 

701,927 

702,532 

695,326 

304,920 

614,456 

476,734 

550,763 

549,792 

604,366 

380,010 

380,010 

434,527 

418,356 

418,433 

379,163 

780,410 

725,734 

1,007,651 

700,894 

863,031 

765,463 

316,602 

190,155 

313,234 

187,865 

375,893 

195,416 

898,766 

698,766 

758,113 

689,855 

690,108 

694,414 

In addition, a natural (unregulated) flow regime for the Yakima, Naches, 

Cle Elum, Bumping, and Tieton Rivers was developed by modeling the river 

system without the existing Yakima Project storage reservoirs and diversions and 

associated return flows. This flow regime was used in developing instream flow 

objectives. 

Exceeding the spring and winter seasonal flow volume objectives is acceptable. 

However, for the summer seasonal flow objective, the closer the alternative is to 

the flow objective the better, but falling below the flow objective is considered 

detrimental. 

The No Action Alternative seasonal flow volumes for the Ellensburg (Umtanum 

gage) and Wapato (Parker gage) reaches were compared to the flow volume 

objectives for an average water year. Table 2.11 presents the differences in the 

volumes for the No Action Alternative compared to the flow objectives, with the 

difference reported as a percent of the flow objective. That is, if the No Action 

Alternative meets the flow objective, the percent difference is 0 percent; if it 

doubles the flow objective volume, the difference is 100 percent. Modeled flows 

in these two reaches are shown in figure 2.2 and figure 2.3. In both reaches, the 

No Action Alternative annual stream runoff pattern is essentially identical to 

current flow conditions for the spring, summer, and winter seasons. 

Table 2.11 Differences between the No Action Alternative flows and flow volume 

objectives by season 

Gage location 

No Action 

Alternative Spring 

No Action 

Alternative Summer 

No Action 

Alternative Winter 

Umtanum 

Parker 

-9% 

-7% 

+103% 

-40% 

0% 

0% 

2-31 
 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Relative to the flow volume objective, No Action Alternative flows essentially 

meet the flow objectives in the Ellensburg reach (Umtanum gage) in the spring 

and winter, but they are double the flow objective in the summer. In the Wapato 

reach (Parker gage), No Action Alternative flows are about 40 percent below the 

flow objectives in the summer and meet the flow objectives in the winter. In both 

reaches, the No Action Alternative annual stream runoff pattern is essentially 

identical to current flow conditions for all seasons (figure 2.2 and figure 2.3). 

(Hydrographs for four other key reaches are shown in figures 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, and 

2.7.) 

The three Joint Alternatives were compared to the No Action Alternative for the 

Ellensburg (Umtanum gage) and Wapato (Parker gage) reaches. The differences 

between the Joint Alternative and the No Action Alternative are presented in 

table 2.12. 

Figure 2.2 Median daily flow hydrograph for the Umtanum stream gage (RM 140) 

for the period of record 1981-2005. 

2-32 
 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

Figure 2.3 Median daily flow hydrograph for the Parker stream gage (RM 104) 

for the period of record 1981-2005. 

 Figure 2.4 Median daily flow hydrograph for the Easton stream gage (RM 202)

 for the period of record 1981-2005. 

2-33 
 

 

 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

 Figure 2.5. Median daily flow hydrograph for the Cle Elum stream gage on

 the Cle Elum River below dam (RM 7.9) for the period of record 1981-2005. 

 Figure 2.6. Median daily flow hydrograph for the Lower Naches stream gage 

 near Yakima (RM 17) for the period of record 1981-2005. 

2-34 
 

 

 

Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

 Figure 2.7 Median daily flow hydrograph for the Kiona gage (RM 29) for 

 the period of record 1981-2005. 

Table 2.12 Differences in flow between Black Rock, Wymer Dam and Reservoir, and Wymer Dam 

Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternatives and No Action Alternative 

Gage 

location 

Spring Summer Winter 

Black Rock Alternative 

Wymer Dam and Reservoir 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima 

River Pump Exchange

Alternative 

Black Rock Alternative 

Wymer Dam and Reservoir 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima 

River Pump Exchange

Alternative 

Black Rock Alternative 

Wymer Dam and Reservoir 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima 

River Pump Exchange

Alternative 

Umtanum 

Parker 

10% 

39% 

2% 

-3% 

2% 

19% 

-22% 

65% 

-10% 

-1% 

-11% 

98% 

14% 

8% 

10% 

-1% 

10% 

-1% 

2-35 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Dry Year Proratable Irrigation Supply Provided 

Under the current operation, there are 6 years in the 25-year period of record 

(1981-2005) when the proration level is less than 70 percent. In 5 of these years, 

the proration level is better under the No Action Alternative; however, in the third 

year (1994) of the 3-year dry cycle of 1992-94, it is not (table 2.13). Some 

improvement occurs in the irrigation delivery shortage indicating that, in a dry 

year, more water is delivered to the farm turnout as the result of the water 

conservation measures included in the No Action Alternative. 

Table 2.13 shows the proration level for the 6 dry years for the 25-year period of 

record (1981-2005) under the No Action Alternative compared to the current 

operation. 

Table 2.13 Irrigation proration level for the No Action Alternative compared to the current 

operation for the 25-year period of record (1981-2005) 

Water year 

Proration level (percent) 

Current operation No Action Alternative Difference 

1987 

1992 

1993 

1994 

2001 

2005 

64 

68 

56 

28 

40 

38 

69 

70 

57 

27 

44 

45 

+5 

+2 

+1 

1

-1 

+4 

+7 

1

 The irrigation water supply benefits of the conservation actions are realized in 1992 and 1993 as shown by 

the improved irrigation proration levels of the No Action Alternative. By 1994, the third year of the dry cycle, the 

difference in the proration level of the No Action Alternative and the current operation is negligible and is due to 

rounding of the Yak-RW model results. 

Municipal Supply Provided 

Under the No Action Alternative, the municipal water supply need would be 

satisfied by the communities’ acquisition of water rights from existing water right 

holders. 

2.3.4 Economic and Financial Analysis 

No economic and financial analysis was performed for the No Action Alternative 

because an incremental analysis was used. In an incremental analysis, economic 

effects of the proposed Joint Alternative are measured in terms of changes from 

the No Action Alternative. Any construction costs for water conservation 

measures included in the No Action Alternative would be provided by the 

YRBWEP program or other sources. 

2-36 
Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

2.3.5 Actions and Permits 

Reclamation would obtain all necessary permits to implement the No Action 

Alternative before any conservation plans are implemented, in accordance with 

local, State, Federal, and Tribal laws. See chapter 1, Section 1.4, “Related 

Permits, Actions, and Laws.” 

2.4 Black Rock Alternative 

2.4.1 Description 

2.4.1.1 Physical Features 

The Black Rock Alternative involves a diversion and partial exchange of 

Columbia River water for Yakima Project water currently diverted by the Roza 

and Sunnyside Divisions (Roza and Sunnyside) of the Yakima Project for 

irrigation. Roza and Sunnyside have been identified as potential willing water 

exchange participants. See foldout map. 

Columbia River water pumped from Priest Rapids Lake would be stored in a 

Black Rock reservoir to be constructed in the Black Rock Valley. Stored water 

would be conveyed by an outflow conveyance system extending from the 

reservoir to the lower Yakima Valley and delivered to Roza Canal at MP 22.6 for 

Roza’s downstream users and to Sunnyside Canal at MP 3.83 for Sunnyside 

upstream and downstream users. Most of the Yakima Project water currently 

diverted from the Yakima River by these two water exchange participants would 

not be diverted, and the freed-up water would instead be used to meet the Storage 

Study goals. 

A 2,400-foot intake channel on Priest Rapids Lake with fish screens that meet 

NOAA and Washington State criteria would carry water to the Priest Rapids 

pumping plant. The pumping plant would house three 500-cfs pump units and 

two 1,000-cfs pump units (total 3,500 cfs) that would withdraw water from Priest 

Rapids Lake at about elevation 488 feet and lift it to elevation 1,440 feet. 

Conveyance from the Priest Rapids pumping plant to the new Black Rock 

reservoir would be via a 6.5-mile, 17-foot-diameter tunnel with a capacity of 

3,500 cfs. A 22-foot vertical surge shaft would be located about 3⁄4-mile up the 

tunnel from the pumping plant. A 6-mile-long, 500-kV transmission line would 

be constructed from the Midway Substation to the Priest Rapids pumping plant. 

Black Rock reservoir would be impounded with a central core rockfill dam 

525 feet high above original ground (structural height, 755 feet) and 6,695 feet 

long. The reservoir would have an active storage of 1,300,000 acre-feet. It would 

be 10 miles long at full pool (1,775 feet elevation) and a mile across at its widest 

point. 

Pumping from Priest Rapids Lake would occur anytime Columbia River water is 

available in excess of current instream target flows and storage space is available 

2-37 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

in Black Rock reservoir, with the exception of July and August, when no 

Columbia River withdrawals would occur. State law prohibits withdrawals from 

the Columbia River in July and August unless the withdrawals can be replaced by 

other water. The operation objective is to annually fill Black Rock reservoir to 

full capacity to assure the water exchange can be effected. 

Throughout this document, the availability of water for pumping into Black Rock 

reservoir is characterized as a monthly average quantity because its measure is 

based on the BPA’s HYDSIM simulation of current monthly operations. Within 

this monthly modeling capability, the available water for pumping is limited by 

the smallest of the excess of flows at Bonneville Dam, McNary Dam, and Priest 

Rapids above their respective ESA seasonal flow targets. These ESA targets are 

presented in Section 2.4.2, “Operations.” However, in actual operations, the issue 

of availability of water for pumping is contemplated to be resolved on a daily or 

weekly basis with parties to ESA in-season forums. 

Stored water would be released through the reservoir’s single-level screen intake 

at elevation 1,500 feet to a 17-foot-diameter tunnel with a capacity of 2,500 cfs on 

the northern side of the reservoir. The tunnel would parallel Yakima Ridge for 

about 14 miles to a 40-foot-diameter surge shaft. At that point, the tunnel would 

turn to the southwest and extend about 3 miles to the north side of SR-24. From 

there, water would be conveyed in a 3,000-foot-long, 17-foot-diameter buried 

steel pipeline that would cross under SR-24 to MP 22.6 of the Roza Canal. At 

this point, the pipeline would split, with 885 cfs carried to the 23-MW Black Rock 

powerplant and into the Roza Canal and up to 1,200 cfs carried in a 12-footdiameter buried steel pipeline to the Sunnyside Canal. 

The Sunnyside pipeline would extend from the vicinity of MP 22.6 of the Roza 

Canal about 6.5 miles over Konnowac Pass to the Sunnyside Canal at MP 3.83. 

At this point, most of the water would be discharged through a new Sunnyside 

powerplant (29.5 megawatts) into the Sunnyside Canal for downstream delivery. 

However, a small number of Sunnyside water users upstream of this point would 

receive delivery of 17 to 20 cfs by a pumping plant and a buried PVC pipeline 

about 3.2 miles long, located on the right embankment of the Sunnyside Canal. 

Roza would continue to obtain its water supply from the Yakima River by 

diverting at the Roza Diversion Dam (RM 127.9.) to MP 22.6. This diversion 

would continue to provide flows (up to 1,075 cfs) for the operation of the existing 

Roza Powerplant and the approximately 180-200 cfs required for irrigation by 

Roza of lands upstream of MP 22.6. Sunnyside would continue to receive some 

water from the Yakima River in wet water years, as discussed in the operations 

criteria. In addition, both Roza and Sunnyside would continue to divert midMarch to late-March “flood flow waters” for “priming” their canal systems prior 

to the beginning of the irrigation season. 

2-38 
BliCk Rock 

Reservoir 

.•.. 

fence _ _ _ C. 

Tun .... ' 

Black Rock I Sunnyside 

Powerplant Schematic 

° 0 

~ aw 

~ 

"'6/;'b. - .­ 'Tlver 

Priest 

Rapids 

Pool 

·t ... 

Sunn side B 

Sunnyside 

Powerplant 

Black Rock B an 

Blac k Rock 

Powerplanl 

"­.

• • ,~ .....".-. 

Sunnyside (Downs tream) 

------. Sunnyslde (Upstl'f!am ) 

ROLl 

Canal ROLl (Downstream) 

-, 

..- ... ,. ... <10 

\ 

Priest Rapids Dam 

'-. .....,"' .." 

REFERENCE 

This reference lI'aphic is intended for informational pos.eson . It is meant to as..st in Black Rock Alternative feature location relative to other landmarks. GeographiC featulu have ~n intentiona lly

S< "V'ified ., an attempt to provide a rr¢re readable product No representation;$ m;lde 

as 10 accuracy of this dooJment CUII. m as of January 2()()8, 
Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

In addition, Reclamation would provide minimum basic recreation facilities at the 

reservoir (such as day-use only), resource protection and public safety, parking 

lots, boat ramps (existing SR-24), vehicular access of drawdown shoreline, and 

portable utilities. Additional recreation facilities could be provided by others. 

Features to Mitigate for Reservoir Seepage 

Modeling Groundwater Hydrologic Impacts of the Black Rock Reservoir 

(Reclamation, 2007d) indicated seepage could occur, so the following features are 

being considered to mitigate reservoir seepage. For a more detailed discussion of 

mitigation for reservoir seepage, see the “Water Quality” section in chapter 4. 

Features to mitigate seepage from the reservoir would likely include a vertical 

cutoff blanketing wall, drainage tunnel, and downstream well fields. 

Blanketing would be located upstream of the dam on the south reservoir rim and 

would consist of an impervious layer (such as impervious soils, shotcrete, or 

geomembrane). Upstream blankets lengthen the seepage path by forcing seepage 

to enter the underlying formations further upstream of the dam. 

The key portion of the cutoff wall/grout curtain would be located on the south 

abutment of the dam and would intercept seepage up to 400 feet deep. The 

structure would be underground. 

The drainage tunnel collects seepage through the south dam abutment with a 

series of tunnels and drain holes to transport seepage away from the area. 

Structures would be underground. 

The well fields would withdraw seepage water out of the ground. Numerous 

pumped wells would be installed in a grid in the downstream sediments, 

connected to a manifold system that would collect seepage and convey it from the 

site in a pipeline or lined canal. The wells would be several hundred feet deep. 

There would be a fenced area for the well field that could comprise several acres 

along downstream portions of the Dry Creek and Cold Creek drainages. 

Construction Activities 

A cellular cofferdam would be constructed on Priest Rapids Lake to allow for 

dewatering of the area around the gated intake structure. 

An access road would be constructed on the right bank of the Columbia River off 

SR-24 approximately 10 miles to the Priest Rapids pumping plant location. It 

would be located along an abandoned railroad track. 

Material from tunnel-boring operations would be hauled to the damsite to be used 

as necessary in the embankment. Other borrow and stockpile areas would be 

located in the reservoir area. 

2-39 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

SR-24 would be relocated approximately 12 miles south of the Black Rock 

reservoir (frontispiece map). Relocating two transmission lines and replacing a 

buried fiber optic line along SR-24 would also be necessary. 

Operation and Maintenance Activities 

Routine maintenance at the intake for Priest Rapids pumping plant would include 

daily cleaning of debris off the trashrack and fish screens. At the pumping plant, 

minor painting, facility cleaning, and lubrication would be required on a monthly 

and annual basis. Major maintenance and disassembly of pumps would take place 

on a 5-year cycle. Replacement of pumps and associated equipment would be on 

a 20-year cycle. 

The dam would require periodic maintenance, inspection, monitoring, and debris 

removal. 

Powerplants would need routine maintenance. Replacement or winding of 

generators and turbine overhauls would be on a 20-year cycle. 

Tunnels and surge shafts would require minor coating and concrete repair 

periodically. 

Typical Annual Operation Scenario 

Black Rock reservoir releases would begin in April with the start of the Yakima 

Project irrigation season and continue through late October. During the months of 

April through June, reservoir depletions could, to some extent, be replaced by 

pumping if Columbia River flows were available in excess of the instream target 

flows. As such, reservoir drawdown during this period would be relatively slow. 

However, during the peak demand months of July and August, when the release 

volume is generally about 110,000 acre-feet per month, pumping is not permitted 

from the Columbia River, and the reservoir contents would be depleted rapidly 

without subsequent refill. The maximum volume that can be pumped by the 

Priest Rapids pumping plant in any month is about 215,000 acre-feet, and 

maximum pumping would generally occur in September and October to refill this 

depleted storage space. Figure 2.8 shows daily reservoir elevations for the typical 

annual operation. 

In years when the maximum water exchange occurs, Black Rock reservoir would 

release a total of about 600,000 acre-feet annually.3 Reservoir contents would 

generally be at maximum pool prior to the beginning of the irrigation season and 

at minimum pool at the end of August. 

3

 These are the water years when the April 1 TWSA is less than 3.2 maf. 

2-40 
 

 

Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

Black Rock Daily Reservoir Elevation

 (Typical Annual Operation) 

1700 

1710 

1720 

1730 

1740 

1750 

1760 

1770 

1780 

1790 

1-Nov1-Dec

1-Jan

1-Feb1-Mar1-Apr

1-May

1-Jun

1-Jul

1-Aug

1-Sep

1-Oct 

Month 

Elevation (feet) 

 Figure 2.8 Black Rock daily reservoir elevations for the typical annual operation. 

Table 2.14 presents this configuration of the Black Rock Alternative. 

Reclamation’s geologic investigations concluded that, based on current 

information, a potential Black Rock Alternative appears to be technically viable 

and a potential water exchange could meet the goals of the Storage Study. 

The total project cost for the Black Rock Alternative (table 2.15) was estimated at 

$4.5 billion (April 2007 prices). 

Table 2.16 presents annual operation, maintenance, replacement, and pumping 

energy (OMR&E) costs. 

2.4.2 Operations 

2.4.2.1 Columbia River Water Supply for Black Rock Reservoir 

The Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) 2004 Biological Opinion 

(BIOP) prepared by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) establishes seasonal flow 

targets downstream from Priest Rapids, McNary, and Bonneville Dams.4 Target 

flows facilitate spawning and downstream passage of juveniles, and accommodate 

returning adult salmon and steelhead. Flow objectives to protect fall Chinook 

4

 These targets are identical to those contained in the December 2000 BIOP. 

2-41 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table 2.14 Summary of major facilities for the Black Rock Alternative 

Black Rock reservoir 

Facilities pump only 

Priest Rapids Lake intake and fish screen 

Design flow capacity 3,500 cfs 

Intake location On right bank of Priest Rapids Lake 

Priest Rapids pumping plant 

Design flow capacity 

500-cfs, two-stage spiral case pumps 

1,000-cfs, two-stage spiral case pumps 

Pump lift 

3,500 cfs – 172 MW (annual average) 

Three 

Two 

1,400 feet 

Inflow conveyance system 

Design flow capacity 3,500 cfs 

Conveyance type all tunnel (17-foot-diameter, 6.2 miles long) 

Black Rock dam 

Location 

Central core rockfill embankment dam 

 Crest elevation 

 Structural height 

 Crest width, length 

Spillway 

Low-level outlet works through dam 

Black Rock Valley (see foldout map) 

1,785 feet 

755 feet 

40 feet, 6,695 feet 

None – low-level outlet only 

Upstream steel-lined concrete conduit, 

downstream buried steel pipe, and two jet-flow 

gates in south dam abutment 

Black Rock reservoir 

Maximum water surface elevation 

 Active storage capacity

Elevation top of active storage, surface area 

Inactive storage capacity

Elevation top of inactive storage 

 Length 

SR-24 relocation 

1,778 feet 

 1,300,000 acre-feet 

1,775 feet, 8,640 acres 

 157,610 acre-feet 

1,500 feet 

10 miles long at 1,775 feet elevation 

12 miles south of Black Rock reservoir in 

Rattlesnake Hills 

Outflow conveyance system 

Design flow capacity 2,500 cfs 

Intake structure Single-level screened 

Conveyance type Tunnel/pipeline (17-foot-diameter) 

Black Rock outlet facility/powerplant and bypass 

Location Adjacent to Roza Canal MP 22.6 

Powerplant capacity 900-cfs Black Rock powerplant – 23 MW 

Sunnyside powerplant and bypass 

Location Adjacent to Sunnyside Canal MP 3.83 

Powerplant capacity 900 cfs – 15 to 29.5 MW 

2-42 
 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

Table 2.15 Total project costs for Black Rock Alternative 

Feature Costs 

 Priest Rapids fish screen and intake, pumping plant, and inflow conveyance 

(all tunnel) 

Black Rock dam—central core rockfill embankment 

Highway and utility relocations 

Black Rock reservoir outlet works, outlet structure, and outflow conveyance to 

Roza Canal 

Black Rock outlet facility—1,500-cfs powerplant 

Sunnyside powerplant 

Delivery systems to Roza, Sunnyside, and modification to existing facilities 

 Subtotal of pay items 

$504,865,800 

$890,935,200 

$71,881,100 

$463,042,600 

$120,704,500 

$37,100,000 

$164,880,000 

$2,253,409,200 

Total mobilization costs (5% +/-) $115,000,000 

 Subtotal with mobilization $2,368,409,200 

Total unlisted items (10% +/-) $231,590,800 

Construction contract cost $2,600,000,000 

Total contingencies (25% +/-) $700,000,000 

Total field cost $3,300,000,000 

Noncontract costs (35% +/-) $1,200,000,000 

Total project cost1

 $4,500,000,000 

1

Total project cost does not include interest during construction. 

Table 2.16 Annual operation, maintenance, replacement, and pumping 

energy costs 

Item 

Black Rock reservoir 

pump only 

Operation, maintenance, and replacement costs 

Energy costs for pumping 

$10,170,000 

$50,000,000 

Total $60,170,000 

spawning, incubation, and rearing downstream from Priest Rapids Dam at Vernita 

Bar are also in place. Table 2.17 and figure 2.9 show these seasonal targets. 

The water supply for Black Rock reservoir is obtained by pumping from the Priest 

Rapids Lake when mainstem Columbia River flows are greater than the seasonal 

instream target flows. In addition, the State of Washington, as a part of its 

Columbia River Basin Water Management Program, has indicated that 

withdrawal of water from the Columbia River for out-of-stream uses in July and 

August is prohibited (unless appropriately mitigated). 

Table 2.18 provides the average monthly volumes of water in the vicinity of 

Priest Rapids Dam after all the instream target flow assumptions have been 

met downstream. These volumes may be available for diversion to Black Rock 

reservoir under water supply conditions similar to those of water years 1981­

2005. 

2-43 
 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table 2.17 Seasonal flow targets and planning dates for the mainstem Columbia River 

Columbia River 

location 

Fall through spring targets Summer targets 

Dates 

Flow 

(cfs) Dates 

Flow 

(cfs) 

At Priest Rapids Dam - 

transport target1 

At Priest Rapids Dam - 

spawning target2 

At McNary Dam - 

transport target1 

At Bonneville Dam - 

spawning target1 

4/10 – 6/30 

10/10 – 6/30 

4/10 – 6/30 

11/1 – 4/30 

135,000 

55,000 

3

220,000 – 260,000 

4

125,000 – 160,000 

NA 

NA 

7/01 – 8/31 

NA 

NA 

NA 

200,000 

NA 

1

 As per NOAA – Fisheries, 2000 for listed species.
 

2

 Pertains to nonlisted species (Chinook salmon) as per Vernita Bar Agreement; would govern in October; 

after 4/10, the 135,000-cfs minimum governs. 

3

 Objective varies according to water volume forecasts. 

4

 Objective varies based on actual and forecasted water conditions. 

Figure 2.9 Flow targets on the Columbia River and water availability above flow targets. 

2-44 
1982 

1983 1984 

o 

o 

,1 43 ,000 

1985 2",000 ,000 914,000 1986 19(,000 1987 0 1,596,000 207,000 1988 0 0 0 0 

1989 0 0 227,000 0 1990 2,772,000 

r-== -'----'---0---"'-= 

o o o 

4,000 

399,000 

57<,000 

926,000 

o 

207,000 

o 

311,000 

52,5000 

371,500 

29(,500 

o o 

205,500 

749,000 

207,000 

o 

1,395,000 0 E 

: 666"': j 

o 0 E ! 

o 0 

15<,000 991.000 

o 

735,500 

1,865,990 

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 

2000 2001 

4 I 308:000 0 

SO,OOO 868,000 438,000 0 

131,000 

1,29(.000 

o o 

2005 o 

Min o o o o o o o o 

Max 2,336,000 6,778,000 7,138,000 7,962,000 6,077,000 1,583,500 10,186,990 11,865,990 

E 

j 

938,000 

332,000 330,000 

239,000 

442 ,000 

239,000 

3,492,000 

Table 2.18 Columbia River volumes available for pumping (acre-feet) for the 25-year period of record (1981-2005) 

2-45 
 

 

 

 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Pumping to Black Rock Reservoir 

Table 2.19 shows the monthly pumping of the portion of the available Columbia 

River water needed to replenish Black Rock reservoir contents as the result of 

annual depletions associated with deliveries to the water exchange participants 

and reservoir evaporation and seepage losses. The operation objective is to 

maintain Black Rock reservoir contents at full capacity (1.3 million acre-feet) as 

much as possible by pumping when Columbia River water is available and there 

is space available in Black Rock reservoir to store the water. 

Water Releases 

Water is released from Black Rock reservoir beginning with the irrigation season 

in April of each year. Water is transported by the Black Rock outflow 

conveyance system to a bifurcation at the Roza Canal MP 22.6 near the SR-24 

crossing where the following deliveries are made: 

•	 Up to 890 cfs to the Roza Canal primarily for delivery to downstream 

Roza lands5 

•	 Up to 1,260 cfs to a new buried steel pipeline extending to MP 3.83 of the 

Sunnyside Canal primarily for delivery to downstream Sunnyside lands6 

All of Roza’s irrigation needs upstream of Roza Canal MP 22.6 continue to be 

supplied by Yakima River diversions at the Roza Diversion Dam, except for those 

at pumping plant #3 (footnote 6). Yakima River diversions are also made for the 

operation of the Roza powerplant. 

In wet water years when the Yakima Project April 1 TWSA estimate is greater 

than 3.2 million acre-feet, Yakima River flows in excess of the Black Rock 

Alternative operation criteria for flow objectives at the Parker gage (see table 2.23 

shown later in this chapter) can be diverted from the Yakima River at Sunnyside 

Diversion Dam. In such years, any residual water supply necessary to meet 

Sunnyside’s irrigation demands is delivered from Black Rock reservoir. When 

the TWSA is less than 3.2 million acre-feet, all of Sunnyside’s irrigation needs 

would be provided from Black Rock reservoir.7 

Table 2.20 provides an example of the sources of water supply when the 

maximum and minimum Sunnyside water exchange occurs in nonprorated water 

years. 

5

 About 35 cfs would be used upstream at Roza Pumping Plant #3 (MP 22.5). 6

 About 20 cfs would be delivered upstream by a new pumping plant and a buried 

PVC pipeline. 7

 Of the 25-year period of hydrologic record, excess flows were available in 10 years. In 

9 years the excess flows were only adequate to meet some of the irrigation needs for one month or 

more. In 1997 when the April 1 TWSA was 4.5 million acre-feet these flows could fully meet 

Sunnyside’s April and May irrigation needs. 

2-46 
Table 2.19 Black Rock pumping volumes (acre-feet) for the 25-year period of record (1981-2005) (results from the Yak-RW Mod

2-47 
 

 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table 2.20 Sources of water supply of exchange participants for the Black Rock 

Alternative for the 25-year period of record (1981-2005) (results from the Yak-RW Model 

using nonprorated water years 1997 and 2004 as illustrations) 

Yakima 

River 

Black Rock 

reservoir Total 

(acre-feet rounded for illustration) 

Water year 1997 

Roza Division 65,000 235,000 300,000 

Sunnyside Division (with minimum from Black Rock) 222,000 138,000 360,000 

Total 287,000 373,000 660,000 

Water year 2004 

Roza Division 65,000 235,000 300,000 

Sunnyside Division (with maximum from Black Rock) 0 360,000 360,000 

Total 65,000 595,000 660,000 

Reservoir Contents 

Black Rock reservoir contents are at the maximum level not later than the end of 

March prior to the start of the Yakima Project irrigation season. Minimum 

reservoir contents occur at the end of August because of the restriction on July 

and August pumping from the Columbia River. Maximum pumping to refill 

Black Rock storage space generally occurs in September and October. 

End-of-month Black Rock reservoir contents (maximum, minimum, average, and 

average percent of full) for the 25-year period of record are shown in table 2.21. 

Table 2.21 Black Rock reservoir end-of-month contents (thousands acre-feet) for 

the 25-year period of record (1981-2005) based on the water delivery criteria 

(results from Yak-RW Model) 

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct 

Maximum 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,299 1,298 1,298 1,240 1,140 1,256 1,300 

Minimum 838 832 1,041 1,035 1,045 974 879 772 659 541 662 845 

Average 1,206 1,221 1,250 1,258 1,267 1,229 1,182 1,146 1,036 919 1,037 1,181 

Average % full 93 94 96 97 97 95 91 88 80 71 80 91 

Water years 1992-1994 are the lowest water supply years for both the Columbia 

River Basin and the Yakima River basin. Table 2.22 shows the monthly volumes 

of Columbia River water available for pumping, the volumes pumped, and the 

Black Rock reservoir end-of-month contents for the 3 dry years of 1992-1994, 

and the year preceding (1991) and following (1995) this period. 

2-48 
Table 2.22 Columbia River water available, water pumped to Black Rock reservoir, and Black 

Rock reservoir end-of-month reservoir contents (water years 1991-1995) 

Water 

year 

Monthly water volumes available for pumping from the Columbia River 

in the vicinity of Priest Rapids Dam (maf) 

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 

1991 1.266 2.326 6.649 5.141 1.477 0 1.737 .305 0 0 1.311 1.593 

1992 0 0 0 1.618 0.46 0 0 0 0 0 .481 1.649

1993 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .637 1.475

1994 0 0 .399 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .578 1.481

1995 0 0 .576 2.466 3.262 .156 .998 0 0 0 1.577 1.774 

Water 

year 

Monthly water volumes pumped to Black Rock reservoir from the Columbia River in the vicinity of 

Priest Rapids Dam (results from Yak-RW Model [maf]) 

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 

1991 .006 .006 .006 .006 .007 0 .167 .110 0 0 .208 .182 

1992 0 0 0 .025 .007 0 0 0 0 0 .208 .215

1993 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .208 .215

1994 0 0 .215 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .208 .215

1995 0 0 .215 .194 .062 .030 .136 0 0 0 .208 .215 

Water 

year 

End-of-month reservoir contents (results from Yak-RW Model [maf]) 

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 

1991 Full Full Full Full Full 1.228 1.297 1.296 1.175 1.055 1.171 Full 

1992 1.293 1.287 1.281 Full Full 1.228 1.131 1.022 .902 .785 .907 1.090 

1993 1.083 1.077 1.071 1.065 1.057 .986 .889 .781 .667 .554 .679 .862 

1994 .856 .850 1.059 1.053 1.045 .974 .879 .772 .661 .551 .677 .860 

1995 .854 .848 1.057 1.245 Full 1.259 1.297 1.187 1.066 .946 1.062 1.224 

Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

2.4.2.2 Yakima Project Modifications to Operations 

Under the Black Rock Alternative, filling of Yakima Project reservoirs is the 

same as under the current operation. However, in regard to reservoir releases, the 

changes discussed below would be made: 

•	 From September through May, additional releases of about 185-200 cfs 

would be made from Cle Elum Reservoir to increase Cle Elum River 

flows from the current 200 cfs to about 400 cfs. The objective is to 

improve the aquatic habitat of the Cle Elum River and downstream. These 

additional flows will continue downstream to exit the Yakima River basin 

at the Columbia River confluence. 

•	 To lessen the effect of the early September flip-flop operation, the 

transition period of decreasing Cle Elum Lake releases and increasing 

Rimrock Lake releases would be extended with the shift in releases from 

Cle Elum Lake to Rimrock Lake beginning on August 12 rather than 

2-49 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

August 31. The completion of the reservoir release transition would 

remain at mid-September. Storage releases prior to August 12 and in the 

fall would also be modified to shift some of the release from the upper 

Yakima River reservoirs to the Naches River reservoirs. 

•	 Enhanced instream flows at the Parker gage would occur. These enhanced 

flows are based on flow objectives suggested by the SSTWG shown in 

table 2.2. The criteria input into the Yak-RW model for operation of the 

Black Rock Alternative appears in table 2.23. The flow at the Parker gage 

when the April 1 TWSA estimate is 2.90 million acre-feet is similar to the 

flow objectives shown in table 2.2 for an average water supply year. 

These criteria require the release of stored water (or bypass of reservoir 

inflow that would have been stored) in the spring to considerably improve 

flows at the Parker gage beyond the unregulated flow of the No Action 

Alternative (figure 2.11 in section 2.9.1). This operation is made possible 

as the result of the summer exchange whereby a major portion of the 

stored water required is delivered to Roza and Sunnyside from Black Rock 

reservoir rather than from Yakima Project reservoirs. 

Table 2.23 Operation criteria for flow objectives at the Parker gage 

April 1 TWSA Instream flow objectives (cfs)1 

(maf) Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 

1.75 and less 300 all months 

1.80 1,500 2,000 1,000 700 300 300 300 

2.00 2,000 3,000 1,700 1,000 500 500 500 

2.65 2,400 3,000 1,900 1,200 1,100 1,100 1,100 

2.90 2,700 3,500 2,700 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 

3.20 4,200 4,200 4,100 1,400 1,300 1,300 1,300 

5.00 4,200 4,200 4,100 1,400 1,300 1,300 1,300 

1

 For the period of July through October, the flow at the Parker gage is the greater of the values shown or 

the Title XII target flow modified by the water conservation actions of the No Action Alternative. 

2.4.2.3 Municipal Operations 

Under all of the Joint Alternatives, the additional future municipal water supply of 

82,000 acre-feet required by the year 2050 is modeled as a continuous flow 

withdrawal at selected diversion points in various reaches of the Yakima River. 

These reaches and the volumes of water required for municipal demand were 

determined by the projected population growth for those parts of the Yakima 

River basin. These volumes were distributed evenly throughout the year. From 

November through June, the demand was assumed to be met by natural flows or 

return flows and did not require releases from storage. However, beginning with 

the storage control period (generally July 1) and continuing through October 31, 

the demand upstream of the Parker gage was provided from storage releases 

(table 2.24). 

2-50 
Table 2.24 Reaches and volume of future municipal water supply 

Subarea 

Future additional municipal 

needs (acre-feet) Water supply criteria 

Upstream of the Parker gage 

Upper Yakima River 13,000 Storage releases during 

storage control and 

unregulated flows during the 

residual period 

Middle Yakima and Naches 

Rivers 35,000 

Subtotal 48,000 

Downstream from the Parker gage 

Lower Yakima River 34,000 Unregulated flows 

Subtotal 34,000 

 Total 82,000 

Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

The additional future municipal water demand (year 2050) is estimated at 

82,000 acre-feet. Of this amount, 48,000 acre-feet is estimated to be required 

upstream of the Parker gage (RM 103.7) and 34,000 acre-feet downstream. The 

downstream volume of 34,000 acre-feet is provided from unregulated flows for 

the entire 12-month period. The upstream volume of 48,000 acre-feet is also 

provided from unregulated flows until such time as the Yakima Project operation 

is declared to be on storage control (generally about July 1). This means that, for 

approximately one-third of the year (July-October), about 16,000 acre-feet of 

stored water is being released to meet the future municipal demands. 

The municipal demand was treated as being proratable and was subject to 

proration in dry years in the same manner as the proratable irrigation supply. It is 

assumed that 50 percent of this municipal withdrawal returns as surface and 

subsurface flows during the winter and 50 percent during the summer. 

2.4.2.4 Summary 

Table 2.25 illustrates the primary criteria for the integrated Black Rock 

Alternative, Yakima Project. 

2.4.3 Accomplishments 

2.4.3.1 Water Provided by the Black Rock Alternative 

The changes in the hydrologic indicators which occur with the Black Rock 

Alternative are shown in table 2.26. The changes outlined in the table show an 

improvement in the Yakima Project water supply over the 25-year period of 

record with implementation of the Black Rock Alternative. This improvement is 

primarily the result of the redistribution of the TWSA achieved by delivering 

water to Roza and Sunnyside from Black Rock reservoir in lieu of their current 

Yakima River diversions. 

2-51 
Table 2.25 Integrated Black Rock Alternative - Yakima Project operation criteria 

End of prior calendar year Current calendar year 

Prior irrigation 

season Irrigation season 

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 

Filling Black 

Filling Black Rock reservoir Rock 

reservoir 

Additional Cle Elum Lake releases of 185-200 cfs 

 Yakima Project irrigation diversions 

 Black Rock reservoir exchange deliveries to Roza and 

Sunnyside 

 Enhanced Parker gage flows based on 

TWSA estimates 

Municipal water diversions 

Table 2.26 Changes in hydrologic indicators under the Black Rock Alternative compared to the No 

Action Alternative for the 25-year period of record (1981-2005) (Changes shown in absolute value and 

percent of change) 

April 1 

TWSA 

TWSA distribution Apr-Sep 

Yakima 

River flow 

volume at 

mouth 

Irrigation 

delivery 

volume 1 shortage

Irrigation 

proration 

level 

Apr-Sep 

Yakima flow 

volume at 

Parker gage 

Apr-Sep 

diversion volume 

upstream of the 

Parker gage 

Sep 30 

reservoir 

contents 

change 

(maf) and % change 

Proration 

and % 

change 

Average 1981-2005 (results from Yak-RW model) 

No Action Alternative 2.84 0.62 1.91 0.30 0.86 0.05 

Black Rock Alternative 2.90 0.98 1.47 0.43 1.22 0.02 

Change from No Action 

Alternative 

0.06 0.36 -.44 0.13 0.36 -0.03 

% change 2% 58% -23% 43% 42% -60% 

Dry year 1994 (results from Yak-RW model) 

No Action Alternative 1.75 0.25 1.42 0.07 0.31 0.38 27% 

Black Rock Alternative 1.94 0.58 1.32 0.04 0.65 0.12 70% 

Change from No Action 

Alternative 

0.19 0.33 -.10 -.03 0.34 -0.26 43% 

% change 11% 132% -7% -43% 110% -68% 

1

 The irrigation delivery volume shortage is the difference between a full delivery supply to the farm (represented by the 

median volume delivered for the period of record of 1981-2005) and the volume delivered in a specific year. 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

2-52 
Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

2.4.3.2 Instream Flows Provided 

In general, the Black Rock Alternative would provide the greatest increase in 

spring flows at the Parker gage and the most reduction in summer flows in the 

upper Yakima River compared to the two Wymer Alternatives. Winter flows are 

higher for the Black Rock Alternative than for the Wymer Dam and Reservoir and 

No Action Alternatives, and similar to the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

Exchange Alternative. (See hydrographs in section 2.3.3.) 

Ellensburg Reach (Umtanum gage) 

The seasonal flow volumes are spring, 10 percent above the No Action 

Alternative; summer, 22 percent below the No Action Alternative; and winter, 

14 percent above the flow objective (table 2.12). 

The spring season stream runoff pattern for the Black Rock Alternative is the best 

of all the alternatives. The Black Rock Alternative also provides the greatest 

reduction in summer flows in the upper Yakima River (figure 2.2). 

Wapato Reach (Parker gage) 

The seasonal flow volumes are spring, 39 percent above the No Action 

Alternative; summer, 65 percent above the No Action Alternative; and winter, 

8 percent above the objective, which is not considered detrimental (table 2.12). 

The spring season stream runoff pattern for the Black Rock Alternative is the best 

of all the alternatives. Summer flows are less than under the Wymer Dam Plus 

Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative. 

2.4.3.3 Dry Year Proratable Irrigation Supply Provided 

Table 2.27 presents the proration level of the 6 dry years for the 25-year period of 

record (1981-2005). The Black Rock Alternative meets the irrigation water 

supply goal in all years, including the third year (1994) of the 3-year dry cycle. 

Table 2.27 Irrigation proration level for the Black Rock Alternative 

compared to the No Action Alternative 

Water year 

Irrigation proration level (percent) 

No Action 

Alternative 

Black Rock 

Alternative Difference 

1987 

1992 

1993 

1994 

2001 

2005 

69 

70 

57 

27 

44 

45 

82 

80 

73 

70 

70 

70 

+13 

+10 

+16 

+43 

+26 

+25 

The irrigation delivery shortage in a dry year such as 1994 of 260,000 acre-feet is 

also better under the Black Rock Alternative, indicating more water is being 

2-53 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

delivered to the farm turnout. This is the result of the significant improvement in 

meeting the dry year proratable irrigation water supply goal of 70 percent. 

2.4.3.4 Municipal Water Supply Provided 

The additional future (year 2050) municipal water demand is 82,000 acre-feet. In 

6 years of the 25-year period of record, proration of the irrigation water supply of 

less than 70 percent occurs. The municipal water is prorated in the same manner 

as the irrigation water supply. This would result in the following municipal 

supply: 1987, 80,000 acre-feet; 1992, 80,000 acre-feet; 1993, 79,000 acre-feet; 

1994, 79,000 acre-feet; 2001, 78,000 acre-feet; and 2005, 78,000 acre-feet. The 

average annual municipal water supply provided under the Black Rock 

Alternative over the 25-year period is 81,100 acre-feet. 

The municipal water supply available for the Black Rock Alternative in the 

following 6 dry years when proration is necessary is presented in table 2.28. 

Table 2.28 Municipal proration level under the Black Rock 

Alternative 

Water year 

Municipal water 

available (acre-feet) 

Proration level 

(percent) 

1987 

1992 

1993 

1994 

2001 

2005 

80,000 

80,000 

79,000 

79,000 

78,000 

78,000 

82 

80 

73 

70 

70 

70 

2.4.4 Economic and Financial Analysis 

The NED analysis provides a benefit-cost ratio of 0.16 for the Black Rock 

Alternative, as presented in table 2.29. This benefit-cost ratio is based on a total 

project cost including interest during construction (IDC) of $6.7 billion and total 

benefits of $1.0 billion. This implies a negative net benefit or uncovered costs of 

$5.7 billion. Based on the results of this benefit-cost analysis (BCA), this 

alternative is not economically justified. The complete economic and financial 

analysis is in section 2.7. 

2.4.5 Actions and Permits 

Reclamation would obtain all necessary permits to implement the Black Rock 

Alternative before any construction is begun, in accordance with local, State, 

Federal, and Tribal laws. See chapter 1, Section 1.4, “Related Permits, Actions, 

and Laws.” 

2-54 
Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

Table 2.29 Black Rock Alternative benefit-cost ratio 

Construction period (nonc

Total costs ($ million) 

ontract cost percent) 

Present value 

Annual 

10 years (35%) 

6,739.5 

331.4 

Total benefits ($ million) Present value 

Annual 

1,045.1 

51.4 

Net benefits ($ million) Present value 

Annual 

-5,694.4 

-280.0 

Benefit-cost ratios Present value and annual 0.16 

2.5 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

2.5.1 Description 

2.5.1.1 Physical Features 

The Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative involves construction of an offchannel storage facility on Lmuma Creek (an intermittent stream), approximately 

8 miles upstream of Roza Diversion Dam. See foldout map. 

Wymer reservoir would be filled by a 400-cfs-capacity pumping plant to 

withdraw water from the Yakima River and would release water back to the 

Yakima River by gravity. The dam would back water onto the Yakima Training 

Center for about 2,500 feet, varying in depth from 0 to 50 feet. The elevation of 

the bottom girder of the eastbound Interstate 82 (I-82) bridge is 1,743 feet. The 

water surface elevation of Wymer reservoir at full pool would be 1,730 feet. 

A 200-foot-intake channel on the Yakima River with fish screens and a fish 

bypass system that meets NOAA and Washington State criteria would carry water 

to an intake manifold to the Wymer pumping plant. The pumping plant would 

house seven 60-cfs pump units (total 420 cfs [with wear factor]) that would 

withdraw water from the Yakima River at about elevation 1,275 feet and lift it to 

elevation 1,610 feet. Conveyance from the Wymer pumping plant to the new 

reservoir would be via a 4,700-foot-long, 96-inch-diameter steel pipeline with a 

46-foot-diameter air chamber for surge protection. The pumping plant and air 

chamber would be located partially underground to minimize visual impacts. A 

switchyard and 115 kilovolt (kV) transmission line (5 miles long) would be 

required to supply power to the pumping plant. The Wymer dam would be a 

concrete-faced rockfill embankment across Lmuma Creek approximately 450 feet 

high, creating a 162,500-acre-foot active capacity reservoir extending 5 miles 

from about 1⁄4 mile east of the Yakima River to I-82. A 180-foot-high central-core 

rockfill dike would also be constructed in a saddle on the north side of the 

reservoir. On the south abutment of Wymer dam, a reinforced concrete 

uncontrolled ogee crest spillway with slotted bucket stilling basin would be 

constructed to discharge water into Lmuma Creek. A two-level outlet works on 

2-55 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

the south dam abutment, sized for 1,200 cfs, would return water to Lmuma Creek 

and the Yakima River. The Lmuma Creek channel would be modified with seven 

drop structures and then realigned (straightened) from after the SR-821 bridge to 

the Yakima River. Drainage through the dam would be collected and redirected 

to Lmuma Creek. 

The addition of the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative would increase the 

Yakima Project total active storage capacity from 1,070,700 acre-feet to 

1,233,200 acre-feet. 

In addition, Reclamation would provide minimum basic recreation facilities at the 

reservoir (such as day-use only), resource protection and public safety, a small 

parking lot, boat ramp (human-powered boats only), shoreline access for 

nontrailered boats and portable utilities. Additional recreation facilities could be 

provided. 

Table 2.30 presents a summary of the characteristics of this alternative. 

Construction Activities 

Cofferdams on Yakima River would be installed and used to dewater the area 

around the intake structure and fish bypass outfall structure. Lmuma Creek 

bypass facilities would consist of a cofferdam located approximately 450 feet 

from the upstream toe of the dam. The cofferdam is to be a 57-foot-high 

embankment constructed of earth obtained from excavation from the dam 

foundation. A 60-inch pipe would convey floodflows impounded by the 

cofferdam downstream from the damsite and ultimately through the outlet works 

tunnel. 

Wells to dewater Wymer pumping plant would need to be drilled. 

Cut-and-cover construction for the discharge line across SR-821 would require 

building a detour and rehabilitation of SR-821. 

Embankment material would be excavated and hauled to the damsite and saddle 

dike site to be used as necessary in the embankment. Hauling embankment 

material from local sources may also be needed. Borrow and stockpile areas 

would be specified in the reservoir area. 

Embankments of the eastbound I-82 bridge abutments would need to be 

riprapped, and bridge columns would need to be waterproofed. 

Operation and Maintenance Activities 

Routine maintenance at the intake for Yakima River pumping plant would 

include daily cleaning of debris off the trashrack, fish screens, and fish 

bypass outfall. At the pumping plant, minor painting, facility cleaning, and 

2-56 
Wymer 

Pumping 

Plant 

Fisl\s.c(un 

A1 r Chilmbcf 

Pumping 

'"" 

Fish By""•• C(l(IIroi Bldg 

) I 

Thi$ referer>Ce graph>:; is intended lor .,Iorrmtional purpo,," onf-;. It is meant II:) n$i$t in 

featur e location relatr..e to other landmarks. Geograpoh>:; re..tures h3'Ve been .,tentionally 

si~ified in an attempt to provide a more readable product. No representation is made Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative itS to aceur:lCy 01 this <Iocument Current n 01 January 2006. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

Table 2.30 Summary of major facilities for the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Facilities Wymer Dam and Reservoir 

Yakima River intake and fish screen 

Design flow capacity 

Intake location 

480 cfs 

On left bank of Yakima River 

Wymer pumping plant 

Design flow capacity 420 cfs – 4.8 MW (annual average) 

60-cfs, horizontal centrifugal pumps seven 

Pump lift 475 feet 

Inflow conveyance system 

Design flow capacity 400 cfs 

Conveyance type Steel pipe (96-inch diameter, 4,700 feet) 

Wymer dam 

Location 

Concrete face rockfill embankment dam 

 Crest elevation 

 Structural height 

 Crest width, length 

Spillway 

Low-level outlet works through dam 

Across Lmuma Creek 

1,750 feet 

450 feet 

35 feet, 3,200 feet 

Reinforced concrete uncontrolled ogee crest 

Saddle dike 

Central core rockfill embankment 

 Crest elevation 1,750 feet 

 Structural height 180 feet 

 Crest width, length 30 feet, 2,700 feet 

Wymer reservoir 

Maximum water surface elevation 1,741.7 feet 

Active storage capacity 162,500 acre-feet 

Elevation top of active storage, surface area 1,730 feet, 1,325 acres 

Inactive storage capacity 7,115 acre-feet 

Elevation top of inactive storage 1,456 feet 

Length 5 miles long at 1,730 feet elevation 

Outflow conveyance system 

Design flow capacity 1,200 cfs 

Intake structure two-level intake sized for reservoir 

evacuation and releases at elevation 

1,375 feet and 1,456 feet 

Conveyance type pipeline (102-inch diameter), Lmuma Creek 

lubrication would be required on a monthly and annual basis. Major 

maintenance and disassembly of pumps would take place on a 5-year cycle. 

Replacement of pumps and associated equipment would be on a 20-year cycle. 

The dam would require periodic maintenance, inspection, monitoring, and debris 

removal. The concrete spillway would require routine inspection and 

maintenance of concrete. 

2-57 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Typical Annual Operation Scenario 

For operational purposes, Wymer reservoir storage space is divided into two 

components: 

•	 82,500 acre-feet to be used annually to provide portions of the stored 

water for downstream irrigation demands and for instream flows each year 

during July and August, and 

•	 80,000 acre-feet to improve the proratable irrigation water supply in dry 

years when the proration level is determined to be less than 70 percent. 

Releases from Cle Elum Lake of about 200 cfs from October through May would 

be used to fill the 82,500 acre-feet of storage space each year. January through 

March diversions would occur when Yakima River flows are in excess of 

1,475 cfs, to fill the 80,000 acre-feet of Wymer reservoir storage space. About 

3 years would be required to fill this storage space following depletion. 

Water would be released from the 82,500-acre-foot reservoir storage space in 

Wymer in July and August only (approximately 41,250 acre-feet each month). 

Figure 2.10 shows Wymer daily reservoir elevation for typical annual operation. 

Wymer Daily Reservoir Elevation

 (Typical Annual Operation) 

1540 

1560 

1580 

1600 

1620 

1640 

1660 

1680 

1700 

1720 

1740 

1-Nov

1-Dec

1-Jan

1-Feb1-Mar

1-Apr

1-May

1-Jun

1-Jul

1-Aug1-Sep

1-Oct 

Month 

Elevation (feet) 

Wymer Plus Wymer Only 

 Figure 2.10 Wymer daily reservoir elevation for typical annual operation. 

2-58 
 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

Total project cost for the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative was estimated at 

$1.1 billion (table 2.31). Table 2.32 shows annual operation, maintenance, 

replacement, and pumping energy costs. 

Table 2.31 Total project costs—Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Feature Costs 

Wymer dam structure, 400-cfs pumping plant, and outlet 

 Subtotal of pay items 

$538,659,713 

$538,659,713 

Total mobilization costs (5% +/-) $27,000,000 

 Subtotal with mobilization 565,659,713 

Total unlisted items (10% +/-) $54,340,287 

Construction contract cost $620,000,000 

Total contingencies (25% +/-) $160,000,000 

Total field cost $780,000,000 

Noncontract costs (35% +/-) $270,000,000 

Total project cost1

 $1,050,000,000 

1

Total project cost does not include interest during construction. 

Table 2.32 Annual operation, maintenance, replacement, and pumping 

energy costs 

Item 

Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir Alternative 

Operation maintenance and replacement costs 

Energy costs for pumping 

$1,080,000 

$1,900,000 

Total $2,980,000 

2.5.2 Operations 

2.5.2.1 Wymer Reservoir 

Yakima River Water Supply Available and Pumping to Wymer Dam 

The water supply for storage in the 162,500-acre-foot active capacity Wymer 

reservoir would be obtained by withdrawing Yakima River flows at the Wymer 

pumping plant (RM 135.0). The water available for pumping is comprised of the 

following: 

•	 October 1-May 31 releases from Cle Elum Lake to (1) improve the aquatic 

habitat of the Cle Elum River and downstream and (2) fill 82,500 acre-feet 

of the Wymer reservoir storage space. The instream flow objective from 

this operation is about 185-200 cfs in addition to the current instream flow 

release of about 200 cfs. Table 2.33 presents the monthly volume of water 

pumped to the 82,500 acre-feet of storage space. 

2-59 
Table 2.33 Additional Cle Elum Lake releases pumped to the 82,500 acre-feet of Wymer 

reservoir active capacity for the 25-year period of record (1981-2005) (results from YakRW Model)1 

Year 

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Oct Total 

(acre-feet) 

1981 

1982 

1983 

1984 

1985 

1986 

1987 

1988 

1989 

1990 

1991 

1992 

1993 

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

Maximum 

Minimum 

Average 

11,670 

10,190 

10,190 

10,140 

10,190 

10,190 

10,190 

0 

10,620 

8,600 

10,190 

10,190 

7,030 

0 

11,230 

10,140 

10,190 

10,190 

10,190 

5,620 

10,190 

11,350 

10,190 

10,140 

10,190 

11,670 

0 

9,158 

12,060 

10,520 

10,520 

10,480 

10,320 

10,520 

10,520 

1,710 

10,980 

11,400 

10,520 

10,480 

6,510 

0 

12,010 

10,480 

10,520 

10,520 

10,520 

5,810 

10,520 

11,910 

10,520 

10,480 

10,520 

12,060 

0 

9,622 

12,060 

10,520 

10,520 

10,480 

10,520 

10,520 

10,520 

20 

10,980 

11,400 

10,520 

10,480 

4,660 

3,280 

12,010 

10,480 

10,520 

10,520 

10,520 

5,810 

10,520 

11,910 

10,520 

10,480 

10,520 

12,080 

20 

9,612 

10,900 

9,510 

9,510 

9,510 

9,510 

9,510 

9,510 

3,150 

9,920 

10,300 

9,510 

9,810 

10,320 

4,910 

10,850 

9,810 

9,510 

9,510 

9,510 

5,430 

9,510 

9,810 

9,510 

9,810 

9,810 

10,900 

3,150 

9,196 

12,060 

10,520 

10,520 

10,480 

10,520 

10,520 

10,520 

17,030 

10,980 

11,400 

10,520 

10,480 

10,910 

19,320 

12,010 

10,480 

10,520 

10,520 

10,520 

5,810 

10,520 

11,910 

10,520 

10,480 

10,520 

19,320 

5,810 

11,184 

11,670 

10,190 

10,190 

10,140 

10,190 

10,190 

10,190 

24,990 

10,620 

11,040 

10,190 

10,140 

19,690 

24,990 

11,630 

10,140 

10,190 

10,190 

10,190 

5,620 

10,190 

11,530 

10,190 

10,140 

10,190 

24,990 

5,620 

11,785 

12,060 

10,520 

10,520 

10,480 

10,520 

10,520 

10,520 

25,820 

10,980 

11,400 

10,520 

10,480 

20,350 

25,820 

12,010 

10,480 

10,520 

10,520 

10,520 

5,810 

10,520 

11,910 

10,520 

10,480 

10,520 

25,820 

5,810 

12,173 

 10,520 

 10,520 

 10,480 

 10,520 

 10,520 

 10,520 

0 

7,420 

6,940 

 10,520 

 10,480 

3,040 

0 

740 

 10,480 

 10,520 

 10,520 

 10,520 

5,810 

 10,520 

1,200 

 10,520 

 10,480 

 10,520 

3,200 

 10,520 

0 

7,860 

93,000 

82,490 

82,450 

82,530 

82,490 

82,490 

71,970 

80,140 

82.020 

85.060 

82,400 

75,050 

79,470 

79,060 

92,230 

82,530 

82,490 

82,490 

77,780 

50,430 

73,170 

91,800 

82,450 

82,530 

75,170 

93,000 

50,430 

80,590 

1

 At times, due to unavailable inflow to Cle Elum Lake, the release of this additional instream flow may be 

delayed, resulting in shorter periods of higher releases not to exceed the 420-cfs pump capacity of Wymer 

pumping plant. An illustration of this is water year 1988 when higher releases occur in March, April, and May to 

make up for deficits in the prior months. 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

•	 The residual 80,000 acre-feet of Wymer reservoir storage space would be 

filled by “skimming” Yakima River flows during January 1-March 31 

when the flows at the Wymer pumping plant are in excess of 1,475 cfs. 

Wymer pumping plant has a maximum capacity of 420 cfs, of which 

200 cfs is used to “capture” the additional water released from Cle Elum 

Lake leaving a residual pumping capacity of 220 cfs to fill the 

80,000 acre-feet. Table 2.34 presents the monthly volume of Yakima 

River water available in excess of 1,475 cfs and the volume pumped 

during the 25-year period (1981-2005) of the operation study. 

2-60 
 

 

Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

Table 2.34 Yakima River volume available in excess of 1,475 cfs and volume pumped to the 

80,000 acre-feet of Wymer Reservoir active capacity for the 25-year period of record (1981-

2005) (results from Yak-RW Model) 

Year 

Volume available Volume pumped 

Jan Feb Mar Total Jan Feb Mar Total 

(acre-feet) 

1981 33,730 84,290 24,040 142,060 6,230 66,660 10,630 83,520 

1982 29,480 103,980 65,860 199,320 5,430 11,150 15,300 31,880 

1983 60,140 25,760 115,070 200,970 7,720 5,780 11,090 24,590 

1984 116,320 32,170 87,210 235,700 Full Full Full 0 

1985 0 0 1,300 1,300 0 0 0 0 

1986 0 39,290 127,670 166,960 0 0 0 0 

1987 0 0 36,520 36,520 0 0 0 0 

1988 0 900 3,140 4,040 0 0 0 0 

1989 2,700 3,550 7,830 14,080 0 0 0 0 

1990 13,400 19,630 33,310 66,340 0 0 0 0 

1991 97,320 82,660 56,600 236,580 0 0 0 0 

1992 8,600 15,470 34,180 58,250 0 0 0 0 

1993 0 0 12,610 12,610 0 0 0 0 

1994 0 0 2,150 2,150 Full Full Full 0 

1995 10,840 133,830 77,700 222,370 2,640 12,470 13,810 28,920 

1996 218,810 330,810 212,480 762,100 13,340 14,350 15,340 43,030 

1997 39,150 77,650 302,320 419,120 1,730 2,000 2,310 6,040 

1998 3,370 19,350 72,660 95,380 Full Full Full 0 

1999 52,470 5,260 57,330 115,060 0 0 0 0 

2000 2,920 0 21,520 24,440 0 0 0 0 

2001 0 0 810 810 Full Full Full 0 

2002 9,550 7,020 6,820 23,390 4,320 3,220 5,140 12,680 

2003 19.290 45,580 65,740 111,339 3,120 11,360 11,770 26,250 

2004 950 2,250 52,550 55,750 890 1,800 12,550 15,240 

2005 24,950 60 0 25,010 5,120 60 0 5,180 

Maximum 218,810 330,810 302,320 762,100 13,340 66,660 15,340 83,520 

Minimum 0 0 0 810 0 0 0 0 

Average 28,989 41,180 59,097 129,266 2,407 6,136 4,664 11,093 

Water Releases 

The 82,500 acre-feet of Wymer reservoir stored water would be released 

every year in July and August to meet downstream irrigation demands and 

Title XII target flows downstream from Sunnyside Diversion Dam.8 This 

operation would subsequently decrease summer demands on Cle Elum Lake 

releases, reducing flows in the Yakima River at the Umtanum gage by an 

average of about 600 cfs compared to the No Action Alternative. This 

operation also would diminish, to some extent, the flip-flop operation effects. 

8

 These are the Title XII flows downstream from Sunnyside Diversion Dam as increased by 

the water conservation measures of the No Action Alternative. 

2-61 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Releases from Wymer reservoir of up to 1,000 cfs can be made as may be 

necessary within the limit of stored water available. 

Water stored in the remaining 80,000 acre-feet of the active reservoir capacity 

would be released only in dry years when the irrigation proration level is less than 

70 percent. Wymer reservoir contents in the 80,000 acre-feet of active capacity 

are included in the TWSA. This 80,000-acre-foot pool of water is considered as 

carryover unless proration without this volume of water drops below 70 percent: 

then it is a considered part of the water supply available for irrigation. 

Reservoir Contents 

Operations for the 25-year period of record shows the average Wymer reservoir 

end-of-month contents are at their maximum by the end of May. At this time, the 

additional Cle Elum Lake releases above current releases and the subsequent 

pumping to refill the 82,500 acre-feet of Wymer reservoir active capacity are 

completed. In addition, the January 1-March 31 “skimming” operation to 

replenish, to the extent possible, any prior year releases from the 80,000 acre-feet 

of Wymer reservoir capacity is also completed. 

Table 2.35 provides Wymer reservoir end-of-month storage contents for the 

25-year period of record. 

Table 2.35 Wymer reservoir storage contents for the 25-year period of record (1981-2005) (results 

from Yak-RW Model) 

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 

(162,500 acre-feet active reservoir capacity—1,000 acre-feet) 

Maximum 128 143 140 145 151 157 163 163 162 117 117 123 

Minimum 0 0 3 8 28 52 78 78 39 0 0 0 

Average 75 85 96 108 123 134 145 144 107 60 58 66 

Average % full 46 52 59 66 76 82 89 89 66 37 36 40 

2.5.2.2 Yakima Project 

Modifications to Operations 

With the integration of the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative into the 

Yakima Project, modifications to the current Yakima Project operations would be 

as follows: 

•	 October 1-May 31 additional releases from Cle Elum Lake for improved 

aquatic habitat and for filling 82,500 acre-feet of Wymer reservoir storage 

capacity. These releases permit, to some extent, the subsequent 

“backfilling” of vacated Cle Elum Lake storage space. 

2-62 
 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

•	 The capability to meet some of the irrigation demands and Title XII flows 

downstream from Wymer dam and reservoir by releasing the stored water 

which is pumped to the 82,500 acre-feet of Wymer reservoir storage 

space. 

•	 The January 1-March 31 “skimming operation” of Yakima River flows in 

excess of 1,475 cfs for storage in the 80,000 acre-feet of Wymer reservoir 

storage space for use in dry years to improve the proratable irrigation 

water supply when it is less than 70 percent. 

•	 Flows downstream from Sunnyside Diversion Dam would be those 

associated with the Title XII target flows and conservation action flows of 

the No Action Alternative. 

2.5.2.3 Municipal Operations 

Municipal water supply operations would be the same as described for the Black 

Rock Alternative. 

2.5.2.4 Summary 

Table 2.36 illustrates the primary criteria of an integrated Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir Alternative-Yakima Project operation. 

Table 2.36 Integrated Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative – Yakima Project operation 

criteria 

End of prior calendar year Current calendar year 

Prior irrigation 

season Irrigation season 

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 

Additional Cle Elum Lake releases of 185-200 cfs 

Filling 82,500 acre-feet Wymer reservoir 

Filling 80,000 acre-feet 

Wymer reservoir 

(following dry years) 

Yakima Project irrigation diversions 

Title XII instream flows with water 

conservation measures 

Municipal water diversions 

2.5.3 Accomplishments 

2.5.3.1 Water Provided by the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Table 2.37 shows the hydrologic indicators comparing the Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir Alternative to the No Action Alternative. The changes in the table 

show some improvement in the Yakima Project water supply over the 25-year 

period of record with the integration of the Wymer Dam and Reservoir 

Alternative when compared to the No Action Alternative. 

2-63 
Table 2.37 Changes in hydrologic indicators under the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

compared to the No Action Alternative for the 25-year period of record (1981-2005) (Changes shown in 

absolute value and percent of change) 

April 1 

TWSA 

TWSA Distribution 

Apr-Sep 

Yakima 

River flow 

volume at 

mouth 

Irrigation 

delivery 

volume 1 shortage

Irrigation 

proration level 

Apr-Sep 

Yakima 

flow 

volume at 

Parker 

gage 

Apr-Sep 

diversion 

volume 

upstream 

of Parker 

gage 

Sep 30 

reservoir 

contents 

change 

(maf) and % change 

Proration and 

% change 

Average 1981-2005 (results from Yak-RW Model) 

No Action 

Alternative 

2.84 0.62 1.91 0.30 0.86 0.05 

Wymer Dam 

and Reservoir 

Alternative 

2.94 0.59 1.95 0.40 0.83 0.05 

Change from 

No Action 

Alternative 

0.10 -0.03 0.04 0.10 -0.03 0.00 

%change 4% -5% 2% 33% -4% 0% 

Dry year 1994 (results from Yak-RW Model) 

No Action 

Alternative 

1.75 0.25 1.42 0.07 0.31 0.38 27% 

Wymer Dam 

and Reservoir 

Alternative 

1.76 0.25 1.44 0.06 0.31 0.38 29% 

Change from 

No Action 

Alternative 

0.01 0.00 0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.00 2% 

% change 1% 0% 1% -14% 0% 0% 

 The irrigation delivery volume shortage is the difference between a full water supply to the farm (represented by the 

median volume delivered for the period of record of 1981-2005) and the volume delivered in a specific year. 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

2.5.3.2 Instream Flows Provided 

In general, spring flows at the Parker gage under the Wymer Dam and Reservoir 

Alternative are similar to those under the No Action Alternative, and summer 

flows are somewhat higher than the No Action Alternative (figure 2.11 in 

section 2.9.1). Summer flows in the upper Yakima River (Umtanum gage) are 

similar between the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative and the Wymer Dam 

Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative; summer flows are between those 

under the Black Rock and No Action Alternatives (figure 2.10). 

Ellensburg Reach (Umtanum gage) 

The seasonal flow volumes are spring, 2 percent above the No Action Alternative; 

summer, 10 percent below the No Action Alternative; and winter, 10 percent 

above the No Action Alternative, which is not considered detrimental (table 2.12). 

The spring flow objective is nearly satisfied; however, the spring season stream 

runoff pattern is the same as under No Action and the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima 

2-64 
 

Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

River Pump Exchange Alternatives. Compared to the No Action Alternative, the 

Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative reduces summer flows in the upper 

Yakima River, but not as much as under the Black Rock Alternative, and about 

the same as under the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange 

Alternative (figure 2.10). 

Wapato Reach (Parker gage) 

The seasonal flow volumes are spring, 3 percent below the No Action Alternative; 

summer, 1 percent below the No Action Alternative; and winter, 1 percent below 

the No Action Alternative, which is not considered detrimental (table 2.12). 

The spring season stream runoff pattern for the Wymer Dam and Reservoir 

Alternative is not better than under the No Action Alternative, and summer flows 

are the same as under the No Action Alternative, but better than under the current 

operation (figure 2.11 in section 2.9.1). 

2.5.3.3 Dry Year Proratable Irrigation Supply Provided 

Table 2.38 shows the proration level of the 6 dry years for the 25-year period of 

record (1981-2005). The Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative shows some 

improvement in the third year (1994) of the 3-year dry cycle. The primary 

reasons for this are that, while moving 185-200 cfs from Cle Elum Lake during 

October 1-May 31 (for aquatic habitat improvements) to Wymer reservoir is 

primarily a shift in reservoir contents, it does (1) provide the opportunity for 

subsequent refill of some of the vacated Cle Elum Lake storage space and 

(2) create specific carryover storage in Wymer reservoir to improve the proratable 

water supply in dry years. 

Table 2.38 Irrigation proration level for the Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir Alternative compared to the No Action Alternative
 

Water year 

Proration level (percent) 

No Action 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam 

and 

Reservoir 

Alternative Difference 

1987 

1992 

1993 

1994 

2001 

2005 

69 

70 

57 

27 

44 

45 

73 

76 

68 

29 

59 

49 

+4 

+6 

+11 

+2 

+15 

+4 

The irrigation delivery shortage is slightly better under the Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir Alternative than under the No Action Alternative. This minor 

improvement is a result of Wymer reservoir’s 80,000 acre-feet of irrigation 

storage, which increases the dry year irrigation proratable water supply in a dry 

year such as 1994 from a proration level of 27 percent under the No Action 

Alternative to 29 percent under the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative. 

2-65 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

2.5.3.4 Municipal Supply Provided 

The additional future (year 2050) municipal water demand is 82,000 acre-feet. In 

6 years of the 25-year period, proration of the irrigation water supply of less than 

70 percent occurs. The municipal water is prorated in the same manner the 

irrigation water supply. This would result in the following municipal supply: 

1987, 78,000 acre-feet; 1992, 78,000 acre-feet; 1993, 77,000 acre-feet; 1994, 

68,000 acre-feet; 2001, 75,000 acre-feet; and 2005, 71,000 acre-feet. The average 

annual municipal water supply provided from the Wymer Dam and Reservoir 

Alternative over the 25-year period is 79,800 acre-feet. 

The municipal water supply available for the Wymer Dam and Reservoir 

Alternative in the following 6 dry years when proration is necessary is presented 

in table 2.39. 

Table 2.39 Municipal water supply available during prorated years 

with the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Water year 

Municipal water 

available (acre-feet) 

Proration level 

(percent) 

1987 

1992 

1993 

1994 

2001 

2005 

78,000 

78,000 

77,000 

68,000 

75,000 

71,000 

73 

76 

68 

29 

59 

49 

2.5.4 Economic and Financial Analysis 

The total project costs were estimated using 35 percent noncontract cost 

component. For the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative, estimated benefits 

cover 29 percent of total project costs. This implies negative net benefits or 

uncovered costs of $1,002.9 million. Based on the results of this BCA, this 

alternative is not economically justified. See table 2.40. See section 2.7 for a 

complete economic and financial analysis. 

Table 2.40 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative benefit-cost ratio 

Construction period (nonc

Total costs ($ million) 

ontract cost percent) 

Present value 

Annual 

10 years (35%) 

1,417.7 

69.7 

Total benefits ($ million) Present value 

Annual 

414.8 

20.4 

Net benefits ($ million) Present value 

Annual 

-1,002.9 

-49.3 

Benefit-cost ratios Present value and annual 0.29 

2-66 
 

Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

2.5.5 Actions and Permits 

Reclamation would obtain all necessary permits to implement the Wymer Dam 

and Reservoir Alternative before any construction is begun, in accordance with 

local, State, Federal, and Tribal laws. See chapter 1, Section 1.4, “Related 

Permits, Actions, and Laws.” 

2.6 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

Exchange Alternative 

2.6.1 Description 

2.6.1.1 Physical Features 

The Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative couples the 

Wymer dam and reservoir with a pump exchange component. This alternative 

includes the same Wymer dam, reservoir, and pumping plant facilities described 

in section 2.5. The pump exchange option of this alternative involves a “bucketfor bucket” exchange of up to 1,050 cfs that would not be diverted by Roza and 

Sunnnyside, but would remain in the river to enhance instream flows. In return, 

water would be pumped from the mouth of the Yakima River upstream for 

delivery to these two divisions. See foldout map. 

The Yakima River pump exchange option involves a pump and pipeline system 

designed to have the capability to deliver up to 1,200 cfs from near the mouth of 

the Yakima River in Kennewick, Washington, to various points in the Sunnyside 

and Roza Irrigation Divisions southeast of Yakima, Washington.9 Water delivery 

from the pump and pipeline system would begin mid-to-late March when the 

irrigation systems are “primed” and continue through the irrigation season of 

April through October. 

Pumping plant #1 would be constructed on the Columbia River near Kennewick, 

Washington, for conveying water through two 132-inch buried steel pipelines 

extending northwest approximately 17 miles upstream to pumping plant #2 north 

of Benton City. Pumping plant #1 would be at elevation 350 feet, and pumping 

plant #2 would be at elevation 800 feet, both consisting of six pump units of 

200-cfs capacity each with six 40-foot-diameter spherical air chambers for surge 

suppression. The two 132-inch buried steel pipelines then would continue another 

31 miles to their terminus at pumping plant #3 northwest of the city of Sunnyside 

at an elevation of about 960 feet. About 50 cfs would be delivered to the 

Sunnyside Canal (MP 59.29) enroute. 

Pumping plant #3 would have three pump units of 183 cfs each with three 

25-foot-diameter spherical air chambers for surge suppression. From this point, 

9

 The design is for an exchange of up to 1,200 cfs. However, subsequent operation studies 

indicate an exchange of up to 1,050 cfs not to exceed the “bucket-for-bucket” exchange objective. 

2-67 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

one 120-inch-diameter buried steel pipeline (550-cfs capacity) would extend 

1 mile to the Roza Canal (MP 59.0); one 84-inch buried steel pipeline (400-cfs 

capacity) would extend about 2 miles to discharge into the Sunnyside Canal 

(MP 37.0); and one 72-inch-diameter buried steel pipeline (200-cfs capacity) 

would continue farther upstream to the Sunnyside Canal (MP 30.0). The 

pipelines to the Sunnyside Canal would provide water by gravity flow, while the 

pipeline to the Roza Canal would require pumping the water. Most of the buried 

pipeline system would be located on the east side of the Yakima River. The 

pipeline would cross the Yakima River downstream from Benton City, 

Washington, at Songbird Island. Pumping plants #2 and #3 would have 

emergency overflow reservoirs that would be used in the case of pumping plant 

shutdown. Additional facilities would include minimum basic recreation facilities 

as described under the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative. 

The power for the pumping plants would be supplied by the construction of the 

new powerlines as follows: 

•	 A 500-kV, 1⁄2-mile-long, powerline from pumping plant #1 to the closest 

substation, 

•	 A 230-kV, 11⁄2-mile-long powerline from an existing nearby substation to 

pumping plant #2, and 

•	 A 115-kV, 3-mile-long powerline from the closest tap onto an existing 

powerline to pumping plant #3. 

The annual volume delivered during the irrigation season by the pump exchange 

in a nonprorated water year would range from about 263,000 to 382,000 acre-feet. 

The residual demand of about 278,000 to 382,000 acre-feet would continue to be 

diverted from the Yakima River at the Roza Diversion Dam (RM 127.9) and the 

Sunnyside Diversion Dam (RM 103.8). 

Pipeline Delivery System 

The pipeline delivery system would split the deliveries between Sunnyside and 

Roza, with the capability to deliver 650 cfs to Sunnyside Canal and 550 cfs to 

Roza Canal. The points of delivery and the delivery capabilities are the 

Sunnyside Canal at three locations: 200 cfs at MP 30.0; 400 cfs at MP 37.0; 

50 cfs at MP 59.29; and the Roza Canal at one location, MP 59.0, with a delivery 

capability of 550 cfs. The division of flow between Sunnyside and Roza could be 

adjustable. 

Table 2.41 presents the design components of the pump exchange portion of the 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative. 

2-68 
_.

-­ _..~-

-­

_.­

-­

_. 

.~- .. 

_--.-­

Plant 

; -- I 

Plant #21 

--

_.­

Priest Rapids Dam 

Plant #1 

-•• 

Hanford Site 

(Department of Energy) 

....""'",0... 

!",a nklln County 

j 

I 

Th .. r~erenc e l7aphic i$ .,tended tor inI<)nr~ti<)(1~ 1 pWp(>M$(><1 ly, It i$ _ant to n~$1 in 

~aw,e locatIOn re lati' '' l0 othe r landmarl<s. Geographic featu rn h""" been in1<t11tiona ~ Yakima River Pump Exchange Component "rr ed in an attempt to p<""ide a mor .. readable product. No repr esentation is made 

11$ 10 locuraq of this <!<:>rumen!, Location of pipe is based on data obUIine<I from 

Golder Associates and is onlyappr""imate. Current .... 01 January 2008. 
Table 2.41 Design components of the Yakima River pump exchange 

Item Pumping plant #1 Pumping plant #2 Pumping plant #3 

By Columbia River, Near Benton City, Near Sunnyside 

Location in Kennewick, WA WA Canal MP 37.0 

Inflow 1,200 cfs 1,200 cfs 1,150 cfs 

Outflow capacity 1,200 cfs 1,200 cfs 550 cfs 

Pumps and capacity 6 pumps at 6 pumps at 3 pumps at 

200 cfs each1 200 cfs each1 183 cfs1 

Lift 530 feet 270 feet 165 feet

Discharge to Outflow pipeline Outflow pipeline (see below) 

Outflow pipeline (pumped water) 

Pumping plant #2 to 

pumping plant #3 

with 50 cfs 

discharge to 

Pumping plant #1 to Sunnyside Canal Pumping plant #3 to 

Location pumping plant #2 (MP 59.29) Roza Canal (MP 59.0) 

Capacity 1,200 cfs 1,200 cfs 550 cfs 

Type 2 steel pipelines 2 steel pipelines 1 steel pipeline 

Diameter 132-inch-diameter 132-inch-diameter 120-inch 

each each 

Length 17 miles 31 miles 1 mile 

Outflow pipeline (gravity-flow water) 

Location Pumping plant #3 to 

Sunnyside Canal 

(MP 37.0) 

Capacity 400 cfs 

Type 1 steel pipeline 

Diameter 84-inch 

Length 2 miles 

Location Plant #3 to Sunnyside 

Canal (MP 30.0) 

Capacity 200 cfs 

Type 1 steel pipeline 

Diameter 72-inch 

Length 5 miles 

1

 In addition, there is one standby pump at each pumping plant. 

Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

The capacities represent the design capacities from the October 2006 report 

(Golder and Associates, 2006). Since that time, it has been concluded that the 

maximum pump exchange would have to be no more than about 1,050 cfs to have 

“no net loss” in flow in the Columbia River at the mouth of the Yakima River. 

Construction Activities 

A cofferdam on Columbia River would be installed for intake and fish screen 

construction for pumping plant #1. 

2-69 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Pumping plant #1 would require wells for dewatering the pumping plant site. 

Major crossings for the discharge pipelines at SR-240, I-182, and Yakima River at 

Songbird Island would be by bored tunnel. The Yakima River crossing would 

require dewatering and excavation on Songbird Island. 

Minor crossing for the pipelines at SR-224, SR-225, Sunnyside Canal, Corral 

Creek, Snipes Creek, and Spring Creek would be cut-and-cover construction. 

Operation and Maintenance Activities 

Routine maintenance at the intake for pumping plant #1 would include daily 

cleaning of debris off the trashrack and fish screens. At the pumping plants, 

minor painting, facility cleaning and lubrication would be required on a monthly 

and annual basis. Major maintenance and disassembly of pumps would take place 

on a 5-year cycle. Replacement of pumps and associated equipment would be on 

a 20-year cycle. 

Typical Annual Operation Scenario 

The pump exchange would operate every year beginning in mid-to-late March 

with the priming of the irrigation systems and continuing through the April 

through October irrigation season. This operation would improve the aquatic 

habitat of the Yakima River by leaving up to approximately 1,000 cfs of water in 

the river that otherwise would have been diverted by Roza and Sunnyside. 

Total project cost estimate for the pump exchange (table 2.42) was estimated at 

$4 billion (April 2007 prices). Table 2.43 presents annual operation, 

maintenance, replacement, and pumping energy costs. 

2.6.2 Operations 

2.6.2.1 Wymer Reservoir Component 

The operational aspects of Wymer reservoir in are the same as described in 

section 2.5.2.1 for the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative. 

2.6.2.2 Yakima River Pump Exchange Component 

Exchange Participants Water Supply 

A “bucket-for-bucket” exchange of flow at the mouth of the Yakima River for a 

portion of the flow that would have been diverted by Roza and Sunnyside begins 

when water is first required for priming of the canal systems (usually about midMarch). The Yakima River pump exchange would continue throughout the AprilOctober irrigation season. The water that Roza and Sunnyside would have 

diverted remains in the Yakima River from the current points of diversion, 

increasing the volume of water passing the Parker gage and continuing 

downstream to its confluence with the Columbia River. 

2-70 
 

Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

Table 2.42 Total project costs for Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange 

Alternative 

Feature Costs 

Yakima River pump exchange intake structure and pumping plant #1 

Yakima River pump exchange pumping plant #2 

Yakima River pump exchange pumping plant #3 

Delivery facilities 

Pipeline 

Wymer dam structure, 400-cfs pumping plant and outlet 

$120,210,000 

$115,400,000 

$51,530,000 

$450,000 

$1,164,130,000 

$538,659,713 

Subtotal of pay items $1,990,379,713 

Total mobilization costs (5% +/-) $100,000,000 

 Subtotal with mobilization 2,090,379,713 

Total unlisted items (15% +/-) $313,556,957 

Construction contract cost $2,400,000,000 

Total contingencies (25% +/-) $600,000,000 

Total field cost $3,000,000,000 

Noncontract costs (35% +/-) $1,100,000,000 

Total project cost1

 $4,100,000,000 

1

 Total project cost does not include interest during construction 

Table 2.43 Annual operation, maintenance, replacement, and 

pumping energy costs for Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River 

Pump Exchange Alternative 

Item Costs 

Operation, maintenance, and replacement costs 

Energy costs for pumping 

$18,198,000 

$19,815,000 

 Total $38,013,000 

The flow objective (and the equivalent volume of water) in the Yakima River at 

the Parker gage (Wapato reach) is shown in table 2.2. The operation criteria for 

the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative is to provide 

1,500 cfs during the irrigation season, in conjunction with the Title XII target 

flow requirements downstream from Sunnyside Diversion Dam, to assist in 

meeting these instream target flows.10 In the first part of the irrigation season 

(April-June), a combination of unregulated flows (natural and return flows) 

supplemented from the pump exchange are used. Once storage control begins 

(generally about the first of July), stored water releases are made to meet the 

Title XII instream target flows similar to the No Action Alternative operation and 

these are supplemented to the extent necessary by the pump exchange to maintain 

a July-October target objective of 1,500 cfs. 

10 These are the Title XII target flows as increased by the water conservation measures of the 

No Action Alternative. 

2-71 
 

 

 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

The maximum pump exchange is about 1,050 cfs which results from 1,500 cfs, 

less the dry year Title XII target flows and conservation action flows downstream 

from Sunnyside Diversion Dam. In wetter years when the Parker Title XII target 

flows are greater, the pump exchange is at the minimum of about 650 cfs.11 The 

first priority of the exchange is the 550 cfs to be delivered at Roza Canal MP 59.0. 

This is because Roza’s current point of diversion is higher in the Yakima River 

system (RM 127.9) than Sunnyside’s (RM 103.8), thus providing the maximum 

extent of improved streamflows. The exchange with Sunnyside is contingent on 

the residual flow needed to meet the 1,500-cfs operation criteria. However, the 

exchange is limited by the pump exchange delivery capacity to the Sunnyside 

Canal, which is 650 cfs and cannot result in a flow in the Columbia River at the 

mouth of the Yakima River that would be less than that which would have 

occurred in the absence of the pump exchange. When Roza is exchanging its 

maximum, Sunnyside’s maximum exchange capability is 500 cfs. However, 

Sunnyside’s pump exchange may be as low as 100 cfs in wet years when 

maximizing Roza’s exchange.12 

The volume of water delivered to Roza and Sunnyside by means of the pump 

exchange and the residual volume diverted from the Yakima River is illustrated 

in table 2.44 by two nonprorated water years: 1997 (with a TWSA estimate of 

about 4.63 million acre-feet) and 2004 (with a TWSA estimate of 2.64 million 

acre-feet). As shown in the table, the water exchange to Roza in a nonprorated 

water year remains the same and the variance occurs in the pump exchange 

deliveries to Sunnyside. 

Table 2.44 Source of water supply for exchange participants (using nonprorated years) 

Yakima River pump 

exchange 

Yakima 

River Total 

(acre-feet rounded for illustration) 

Water year 1997 (results from Yak-RW model) 

Roza Division 188,000 112,000 300,000 

Sunnyside Division 

 (with minimum from pump exchange) 75,000 285,000 360,000 

Total 263,000 397,000 660,000 

Water year 2004 (results from Yak-RW model) 

Roza Division 188,000 112,000 300,000 

Sunnyside Division 

 (with maximum from pump exchange) 194,000 166,000 360,000 

Total 382,000 278,000 660,000 

11 It was assumed in the operation modeling that the maximum delivery to Sunnyside was 

750 cfs. However, the current plan has a maximum delivery capacity of 650 cfs to Sunnyside. 12 The 500 cfs is computed as 1,050 cfs less Roza’s 550 cfs. 

2-72 
Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

2.6.2.3	 Yakima Project 

Modifications to Operations 

The addition of the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

results in the following operational modifications to the Yakima Project: 

•	 October 1-May 31 additional releases from Cle Elum Lake for improved 

aquatic habitat and for filling 82,500 acre-feet of Wymer reservoir storage 

capacity. This permits, to some extent, the subsequent “backfilling” of the 

vacated Cle Elum Lake storage space. 

•	 The capability to meet some of the irrigation demands and Title XII target 

flows downstream from Wymer dam and reservoir by releasing the stored 

water, which is pumped to the 82,500 acre-feet of Wymer reservoir 

storage space. 

•	 The January 1-March 31 “skimming operation” of Yakima River flows in 

excess of 1,475 cfs for storage in the 80,000 acre-feet of Wymer reservoir 

storage space for use in dry years to improve the proratable water supply 

when it is less than 70 percent. 

•	 Flows downstream from Sunnyside Diversion Dam would be the 

enhanced flows during the April-October irrigation season with the 

capability to deliver up to 1,050 cfs to Roza and Sunnyside by means of 

the Yakima River pump exchange. 

2.6.2.4	 Municipal Operations 

Municipal water supply operations would be the same as described for the Black 

Rock Alternative. 

2.6.2.5	 Summary 

The primary operation criteria of an integrated Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River 

Pump Exchange Alternative are shown in table 2.45. 

2.6.3 Accomplishments 

2.6.3.1	 Water Provided by the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

Exchange Alternative 

Table 2.46 shows the hydrologic indicator changes which occur when comparing 

the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative to the No Action 

Alternative. 

2-73 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2.46 Changes in hydrologic indicators under Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

Exchange Alternative compared to the No Action Alternative for the 25-year period of record 

(1981-2005) (changes shown in absolute value and percent of change) 

April 1 

TWSA 

TWSA distribution Apr-Sep 

Yakima 

River 

 flow 

volume 

at mouth 

Irrigation 

delivery 

volume 1 shortage

Irrigation 

proration 

level 

Apr-Sep 

Yakima 

River flow 

volume at 

Parker gage 

Apr-Sep 

Diversion 

volume 

upstream of 

Parker gage 

Sep 30 

reservoir 

contents 

change 

(maf) and % change 

Proration 

and 

% change 

Average 1981-2005 (results from Yak-RW Model) 

No Action 

Alternative 

2.84 0.62 1.91 0.30 0.86 0.05 

Wymer Dam Plus 

Yakima River Pump 

Exchange 

Alternative 

2.94 0.90 1.64 0.40 0.83 0.05 

Change from No 

Action Alternative 

0.10 0.28 -0.27 0.10 -0.03 0.00 

% change 4% 45% -14% 33% -3% 0% 

Dry year 1994 (results from Yak-RW Model) 

No Action 

Alternative 

1.75 0.25 1.42 0.07 0.31 0.38 27% 

Wymer Dam Plus 

Yakima River Pump 

Exchange 

Alternative 

1.77 0.57 1.13 0.06 0.31 0.38 29% 

Change from No 

Action Alternative 

0.02 0.32 -0.29 -0.01 0.00 0.00 2% 

% change 1% 128% -20% -14% 0% 0% 

1

The irrigation delivery volume shortage is the difference between a full water supply to the farm (represented by the 

median volume delivered for the period of record of 1981-2005) and the volume delivered in a specific year. 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table 2.45 Integrated Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative – Yakima 

Project operation criteria 

End of prior calendar year Current calendar year 

Prior 

irrigation 

season Irrigation season 

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 

Additional Cle Elum Lake 

releases of 185-200 cfs 

Filling 82,500 acre-feet Wymer reservoir 

Filling 80,000 acrefeet Wymer reservoir 

(following dry years) 

Yakima Project irrigation diversions 

Yakima River pump exchange deliveries to Roza and 

Sunnyside 

Enhanced Parker gage flows 

Municipal water diversions 

2-74 
Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

The changes outlined in the table show an improvement in the Yakima Project 

water supply over the 25-year period of record. The primary reason for this 

improvement is the water exchange whereby some of the current Yakima River 

irrigation diversions are now provided by pumping water from near the mouth of 

the Yakima River upstream for delivery to Sunnyside and Roza. 

2.6.3.2 Instream Flows Provided 

In general, the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

would provide greater spring flows than the No Action Alternative at the Parker 

gage, but with the same stream runoff pattern as the No Action Alternative and 

the greatest summer flows of all the alternatives (figure 2.3). Summer flows in 

the upper Yakima River (Umtanum gage) are identical to those under the Wymer 

Dam and Reservoir Alternative, with a flow reduction that falls between those of 

the Black Rock and No Action Alternatives (figure 2.10.) 

Ellensburg Reach (Umtanum gage) 

The seasonal flow volumes are spring, 2 percent above No Action; summer, 

11 percent below the No Action Alternative; and winter, 10 percent above the 

No Action Alternative, which is not considered detrimental (table 2.12). 

The spring season stream runoff pattern for the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River 

Pump Exchange Alternative is similar to the other alternatives. The Wymer Dam 

Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative provides a reduction in summer 

flows similar to the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative in the upper Yakima 

River and in between those of the Black Rock and No Action Alternatives. 

Wapato Reach (Parker gage) 

The seasonal flow volumes are spring, 19 percent above No Action; summer, 

98 percent above the No Action Alternative; and winter, 1 percent below the No 

Action Alternative, which is not considered detrimental (table 2.12). 

The spring season stream runoff pattern for the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River 

Pump Exchange Alternative is not improved, as it mimics that of the No Action 

Alternative only at higher daily flows. Summer flows are the highest of all the 

alternatives (figure 2.11 in section 2.9.1). 

2.6.3.3 Dry Year Proratable Irrigation Supply Provided 

Dry year proratable irrigation supply provided is the same as under the Wymer 

Dam and Reservoir Alternative. 

2.6.3.4 Municipal Supply Provided 

Municipal supply provided is the same as under the Wymer Dam and Reservoir 

Alternative. 

2-75 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

2.6.4 Economic and Financial Analysis 

The total project costs were estimated using 35 percent noncontract cost 

component (table 2.47). For the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange 

Alternative, estimated benefits cover 7 percent of total project costs. This implies 

negative net benefits or uncovered costs of $5.5 billion. Based on the results of 

this BCA, this alternative is not economically justified. See section 2.7 for a 

complete economic and financial analysis. 

Table 2.47 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

Construction period (noncontract cost percent) 10 years (35%) 

Total costs ($ million) Present value 

Annual 

5,926.8 

291.4 

Total benefits ($ million) Present value 

Annual 

428.7 

21.1 

Net benefits ($ million) Present value 

Annual 

-5,498.1 

-270.4 

Benefit-cost ratios Present value and annual .07 

2.6.5 Actions and Permits 

Reclamation would obtain all necessary permits to implement the Wymer Dam 

Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative before any construction is begun, 

in accordance with local, State, Federal, and Tribal laws. See chapter 1, 

Section 1.4, “Related Permits, Actions, and Laws.” 

2.7 Economic and Financial Analysis 

This section describes the results of a NED-oriented BCA, presenting information 

as to the economic feasibility of the proposed alternatives. See section 2.2 in this 

chapter for a discussion of national versus regional economic analyses. In 

addition, a short discussion of financial feasibility (i.e., cost allocation/repayment) 

is presented at the end of this section. 

2.7.1 NED Benefit-Cost Analysis 

The NED BCA compares the present value of a proposed project’s benefits to the 

present value of its costs. If benefits exceed costs, the project is considered 

economically justified. Because both benefits and costs can occur at various 

points throughout the study period, it is important to convert them to a common 

point in time. For this analysis, the costs and benefits were measured as of the 

start of the benefits period (which is equivalent to the end of the construction 

period). The study period or period of analysis for the benefits period was 

2-76 
 

 

Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

assumed to be 100 years, as suggested by the P&Gs. The interest rate used to 

convert costs and benefits to a common year was Reclamation’s fiscal year 2007 

planning rate of 4.875 percent. 

Table 2.48 presents the results of the NED BCA for the Black Rock, Wymer Dam 

and Reservoir, and Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternatives. 

This table displays the total costs, total benefits, net benefits (i.e., total benefits 

minus total costs), and benefit-cost ratios (i.e., total benefits divided by total 

costs) for each alternative. Each piece of information is shown in both present 

value and annual equivalent terms. The annual equivalent estimate converts the 

present value figure to an average annual value over the 100-year study period. 

Details on the individual cost and benefit estimates associated with each 

alternative can be found below. 

Table 2.48 Benefit-cost analysis summary

 Value option 

Black Rock 

Alternative 

Wymer 

Dam and 

Reservoir 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam 

Plus Yakima 

River Pump 

Exchange 

Alternative 

Construction period 10 years 10 years 10 years 

Noncontract cost % 35 35 35 

Total costs Present value 6,739.5 1,417.7 5,926.8 

($ million) Annual 331.4 69.7 291.4 

Total benefits Present value 1,045.1 414.8 428.7 

($ million) Annual 51.4 20.4 21.1 

Net benefits Present value -5,694.4 -1,002.9 -5,498.1 

($ million) Annual -280.0 -49.3 -270.4 

Benefit-cost ratios Present value and 

annual 

0.16 0.29 0.07 

The cost categories aggregated into total costs include: (1) upfront total 

construction costs including field costs, noncontract costs, and interest during 

construction and (2) annual operation, maintenance, replacement, and pumping 

energy costs. The 100-year stream of annual OMR&E costs was discounted to a 

present value as of the start of the benefits period before being combined with the 

total construction costs. 

The benefit categories aggregated into total benefits include: (1) agriculture, 

(2) municipal, (3) recreation (both at the proposed reservoirs and at existing 

reservoirs and rivers), (4) hydropower (Black Rock and Sunnyside plants plus lost 

hydropower benefits from Federal and non-Federal facilities, e.g., Priest Rapids 

powerplant), and (5) fisheries use values (commercial, sport, Tribal subsistence). 

The 100-year stream of annual benefits was also discounted to a present value as 

of the start of the benefits period. 

2-77 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Black Rock Alternative. The benefit-cost results for the Black Rock Alternative 

are presented in table 2.48. The costs were developed using a 10-year 

construction period and noncontract costs estimated at 35 percent of total field 

costs. The estimated benefits for the Black Rock Alternative cover 16 percent of 

total project costs. This implies negative net benefits or uncovered costs of nearly 

$5.7 billion. Based on the results of this benefit-cost analysis, this alternative is 

not economically justified. 

Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative. As presented in table 2.48, the 

Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative costs were estimated using a 10-year 

construction period with noncontract costs at 35 percent of total field costs. 

Estimated total benefits cover 29 percent of total project costs. This implies 

negative net benefits or uncovered costs of about $1.0 billion. Based on the 

results of this benefit-cost analysis, this alternative is not economically justified. 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative. As presented 

in table 2.48, the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

costs were estimated using a 10-year construction period with noncontract costs at 

35 percent of total field costs. Estimated total benefits cover 7 percent of total 

project costs. This implies negative net benefits or uncovered costs of nearly 

$5.5 billion. Based on the results of this benefit-cost analysis, this alternative is 

not economically justified. 

2.7.1.1 Cost Analysis 

The cost analysis for each alternative is broken down into two subsections: 

(1) upfront construction costs, including IDC and (2) annual OMR&E costs. The 

IDC calculation represents the cost of Federal borrowing during the construction 

period. 

Black Rock Alternative. The appraisal-level construction costs for the Black 

Rock Alternative, as obtained from the Black Rock Summary Report 

(Reclamation, 2004e), were indexed to April 2007 dollars via Reclamation cost 

engineers. As presented in table 2.49, total field costs were estimated at 

$3.274 billion. Noncontract costs were estimated at 35 percent of the total field 

costs or $1.146 billion. Adding these two cost items together results in a total 

construction cost (before IDC) of $4.420 billion. Using a 10-year construction 

period along with the annual construction cost estimates, Reclamation calculated 

IDC at $1.096 billion for a total construction cost of $5.516 billion. 

The OMR&E costs occur on an annual basis. To calculate a present value, these 

annual costs were assumed to occur each year of the 100-year study period. The 

annual OM&R costs were estimated at $10.17 million ($206.8 million in present 

value) and the annual energy costs at $50 million ($1.017 billion in present value) 

for a total annual OMR&E cost of $60.17 million ($1.224 billion in present 

value). 

2-78 
 

 

Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

Table 2.49 Upfront construction costs and annual OMR&E costs by alternative 

Black Rock 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam Plus 

Yakima River Pump 

Exchange Alternative 

Construction period 

Noncontract cost % 

10 years 

35 

10 years 

35 

10 years 

35 

Upfront construction costs ($ million) 

Field 3,274.0 780.0 2,980.0 

Noncontract: 1,145.9 273.0 1,043.0 

IDC 1,095.9 304.1 1,130.6 

Total 5,515.8 1,357.1 5,153.6 

OMR&E costs ($ million) 

Operation, maintenance, 

and replacement (OM&R) 

Energy

Total 

10.17 

50.0 

60.17 

1.08 

1.90 

2.98 

18.20 

19.82 

38.02 

Present value of 

100 years of OMR&E 

costs 

1,223.7 60.6 773.1 

Total cost ($ million) 

Total construction cost 

plus present value of 

OMR&E 

6,739.5 1,417.7 5,926.8 

The total project cost, representing the sum of the total construction cost plus the 

present value of the annual OMR&E cost, equals $6.740 billion. 

Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative. The appraisal-level construction costs 

for the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative, as obtained from the Wymer Dam 

and Reservoir Appraisal Assessment (Reclamation, 2007a), were indexed to April 

2007 dollars by Reclamation cost engineers. As shown in table 2.49, total field 

costs were estimated at $780 million. Noncontract costs were estimated at 

35 percent of the total field costs or $273.0 million. Summing these two cost 

items results in a total construction cost (before IDC) of $1.053 billion. Based on 

the 10-year construction period and the annual construction cost estimates, 

Reclamation calculated IDC at $304.1 million for a total construction cost 

estimate of $1.357 billion. 

The OMR&E costs occur on an annual basis. To calculate a present value, the 

annual costs were assumed to occur each year of the 100-year study period. The 

annual OM&R costs were estimated at $1.08 million ($21.96 million in present 

value) and the annual energy costs at $1.9 million ($38.64 million in present 

value) for a total annual OMR&E cost of $2.98 million ($60.6 million in present 

value). 

2-79 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

The total project cost, representing the sum of total construction cost plus the 

present value of the OMR&E cost, equals $1.418 billion. 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative. The appraisallevel construction costs for the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange 

Alternative, as obtained from the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Appraisal 

Assessment (Reclamation, 2007a), were indexed to April 2007 dollars by 

Reclamation cost engineers. 

Total field costs were estimated at $2.98 billion. Noncontract costs were 

estimated at 35 percent of the total field cost or $1.043 billion. Summing these 

results in a total construction cost (before IDC) of $4.023 billion. Based on the 

10-year construction period and the annual construction cost estimates, 

Reclamation calculated IDC at $1.131 billion for a total construction cost estimate 

of $5.154 billion. 

The OMR&E costs occur on an annual basis. To calculate a present value, the 

annual costs were assumed to occur each year of the 100-year study period. The 

annual OM&R costs were estimated at $18.198 million ($370.1 million in present 

value) and the annual energy costs at $19.815 million ($403.1 million in present 

value) for a total annual OMR&E cost of $38.013 million ($773.1 million in 

present value). 

The total project cost, representing the sum of total construction cost plus the 

present value of the OMR&E cost, equals $5.927 billion. 

2.7.1.2 Benefits Analysis 

This section estimates economic benefits for the following areas: (1) agriculture, 

(2) municipal, (3) recreation, (4) hydropower, and (5) fisheries. 

As noted previously, to the extent possible, these analyses follow the criteria for 

measuring NED benefits defined in the P&Gs. A P&G analysis of NED benefits 

is a “with versus without” project comparison. Comparisons were, therefore, 

made between the “with project” Black Rock, Wymer Dam and Reservoir, and 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternatives and the “without 

project” No Action Alternative. 

Agricultural Benefits 

Agricultural benefits for each alternative are realized only in drought years 

when the proration level is less than 70 percent. The Black Rock Alternative 

replaces some annual Yakima River water deliveries used for irrigated agriculture 

with Columbia River water. This Columbia River water exchange provides 

enough water so that all Yakima River basin entities with proratable irrigation 

entitlements will receive a proratable water supply of not less than 70 percent of 

their entitlements in dry years. 

2-80 
 

Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

Methodology.—The agricultural benefits are based on (1) the cropping pattern for 

both with and without the Black Rock, Wymer Dam and Reservoir, and Wymer 

Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternatives, (2) the benefit unit value 

per acre for each crop, and (3) the probability of occurrence of dry years (below a 

70-percent proration). Each of these is discussed below. 

Reclamation’s Yakima Agricultural Impact (YAI) model, developed by the 

Technical Service Center Economics Group, estimates the crop acreages for 

(1) the Black Rock, Wymer Dam and Reservoir, and Wymer Dam Plus 

Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternatives and (2) the dry years without 

the Black Rock, Wymer Dam and Reservoir, and Wymer Dam Plus Yakima 

River Pump Exchange Alternatives. The model relies on the Yakima 

RiverWare model to estimate the water supply. This analysis assumes that 

future dry years will follow the same pattern as those experienced in the 

25-year period of record (1981-2005). 

The cropping acreages estimated by the YAI model are based on the following 

water data supplied by the Yak-RW model. Yak-RW model results show that the 

water supply falls under the 70 percent threshold in 5 years out of the 25-year 

period of record (table 2.13) under the No Action Alternative. 

The YAI model estimates the changes in cropping acreages for seven irrigation 

districts based on the available water supply. The decision to include these 

districts in the YAI model is based on the availability of Reclamation Crop 

Reports. The districts included in the YAI are shown in table 2.50, along with 

their water entitlements. 

Table 2.50 Water entitlements by district 

Entity 

Proratable water 

entitlement 

(acre-feet) 

Nonproratable 

water entitlement 

(acre-feet) 

Kittitas Reclamation District 

Roza Irrigation District 

336,000 

375,000 

0 

0 

Subtotal 711,000 0 

Sunnyside Division 

Wapato Irrigation Project 

Union Gap Irrigation District 

Yakima Valley Canal Company 

Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District 

142,684 

350,000 

4,642 

4,305 

38,181 

315,836 

305,613 

20,697 

23,720 

75,868 

Subtotal 1,961,812 741,734 

 Other proratable water entitlements 29,062 

Total all proratable water entitlements 1,279,874 

Source: Reclamation (2002a). 

2-81 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Benefit Values.—A P&G analysis of NED agricultural benefits is a “with and 

without” project comparison that identifies the change in net farm income related 

to a change in crop acreage while maintaining the same cropping pattern. The 

YAI model aggregates the crops grown in the Yakima Project districts into 

representative crops and their acreages. This aggregation is based on the percent 

of total harvested acres that each crop represents and the availability of supporting 

data including yields, production costs, and prices. 

Crop benefit unit values, based on net farm income (gross income minus 

production costs), were estimated using a farm budget methodology for the crops 

grown within the study area. The crops selected are based on production records 

collected by Reclamation and USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service 

(NASS) and the availability of crop enterprise budgets published by Washington 

State University (WSU). Information on juice grapes was not available when the 

benefit unit values were estimated, but will be included in the final benefit 

analysis. This analysis assumes that juice grapes have the same benefit as wine 

grapes. 

Crop benefit unit values, calculated in a previous study, are applied to the 

cropping acreages estimated by the YAI model to estimate the NED agricultural 

benefits. 

Probability of Dry Years.—Because benefits only accrue in dry years below the 

70-percent threshold, the probability of a dry year below the 70-percent level was 

applied to the total benefit value for the Black Rock, Wymer Dam and Reservoir, 

and Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternatives. The 

probability used in this analysis assumes that, under the No Action Alternative, 

dry years occur 5 years out of the 25 years included in the period of record (1981­

2005). Because the benefits in each of the 5 dry years vary depending on the 

proration percentage, an annual probability of .04 (1 out of 25 years) was applied 

to each annual benefit estimate. 

Results.— 

Black Rock Alternative. Table 2.51 presents the results of the agricultural 

benefits analysis by alternative for those districts that would benefit from the 

alternatives. It should be noted that not all the districts would benefit because 

they receive nonproratable water. The present value of the 100-year stream of 

agricultural benefits equals $84.6 million (the annual equivalent is equal to 

$4.16 million) for the Black Rock Alternative. The majority of the benefits are 

experienced by the Roza Irrigation District (74.5 percent). 

Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative. As shown in table 2.51, the present 

value of the 100-year stream of agricultural benefits equals $26.51 million (the 

annual equivalent equals $1.3 million) for the Wymer Dam and Reservoir 

Alternative. The majority of the benefits are experienced by the Roza Irrigation 

District (74.6 percent). 

2-82 
Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

Table 2.51 Agricultural benefits analysis by alternative 

Irrigation 

district 

Black Rock Alternative 

benefits 

($ million) 

Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir Alternative 

benefits 

($ million) 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima 

River Pump Exchange 

Alternative benefits 

($ million) 

Annual 

Present 

value Annual 

Present 

value Annual 

Present 

value 

Roza 

Kittitas 

Tieton 

Wapato 

Sunnyside 

Union Gap 

Total 

3.10 

0.30 

0.09 

0.45 

0.22 

0.01 

4.16 

62.97 

6.00 

1.84 

9.07 

4.44 

0.29 

84.60 

0.97 

0.09 

0.03 

0.14 

0.07 

0.00 

1.30 

19.78 

1.81 

0.56 

2.86 

1.40 

0 

26.51 

0.97 

0.09 

0.03 

0.14 

0.07 

0.00 

1.30 

19.78 

1.81 

0.56 

2.86 

1.40 

0 

26.51 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative. As shown in 

table 2.51, the benefits associated with the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

Exchange Alternative are the same as for the Wymer Dam and Reservoir 

Alternative. The present value of the 100-year stream of agricultural benefits 

equals $26.51 million (the annual equivalent equals $1.3 million). The majority 

of the benefits are experienced by the Roza Irrigation District (74.6 percent). 

Municipal Benefits 

Providing a portion of future municipal water demand is a component of the 

Black Rock, Wymer Dam and Reservoir, and Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River 

Pump Exchange Alternatives. The goal of each alternative is to supply 

82,000 acre-feet of future municipal water demand annually to the communities in 

the Yakima River basin by the year 2050. Specifically, the Black Rock 

Alternative is expected to supply 81,100 acre-feet; the Wymer Dam and Reservoir 

Alternative, 79,800 acre-feet; and Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

Exchange Alternative, 80,500 acre-feet. The three Joint Alternatives were 

designed in part to try to meet year 2050 projections of unmet municipal demand. 

Subtle differences between the alternatives led to the minor differences in year 

2050 municipal water supply for each alternative. 

Methodology.—A $235.66-per-acre-foot wholesale price of municipal water 

(indexed to April 2007 dollars), as obtained from a recent Reclamation report, 

2006 M&I Water Rate Survey Data (Reclamation, 2006d), was used to value 

the annual supply of municipal water associated with each alternative. The 

$235.66-value reflects the average of Pacific Northwest Region municipal water 

prices for the Yakima Project. 

The basic assumption of this alternative cost method to valuation is that municipal 

water demand must be addressed. If municipal water needs are assumed to be 

met regardless of the selected alternative, then the benefits associated with the 

provision of municipal water in essence become irrelevant and the analysis can 

focus on the cost differentials between the various water supply provision options 

inherent within each alternative. In this case, it was assumed that 82,000 acre-feet 

2-83 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

of municipal water would be provided by each of the Joint Alternatives (i.e., 

Black Rock, Wymer Dam and Reservoir, and Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River 

Pump Exchange). The No Action Alternative source of municipal water would be 

a water market purchase. The costs of providing 82,000 acre-feet of municipal 

water are reflected in the construction and annual operating costs for the Black 

Rock, Wymer Dam and Reservoir, and Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

Exchange Alternatives, whereas the avoided cost-benefits (i.e., avoided market 

purchases associated with the No Action Alternative) are presented in this section. 

Because the municipal water supply target for each Joint Alternative was 

identified for year 2050, it was necessary to project a growth in municipal water 

supply for each alternative from the start of the benefit period to year 2050. 

Assuming each alternative would involve a 10-year construction period, and it 

would take some additional time to complete the planning process, the assumption 

was made that the benefit period would not start until the year 2020. Therefore, a 

projection needed to be developed from year 2020 to year 2050 for each 

alternative. 

The 82,000 acre-feet of unmet municipal water demand in year 2050 was 

obtained from a report entitled Watershed Management Plan. This report also 

provided a graphic (exhibit 2-2) which depicted estimates of future total 

municipal water demand in years 2010, 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050. Deducting 

current groundwater and surface water supply sources of 104,000 acre-feet 

allowed for the estimation of unmet demand in each of these years. The 

difference in unmet demand between each 10-year period (e.g., 2030 minus 2020) 

was spread equally across each year of the 10-year period (2021, 2022, . . . 2030) 

to develop the projection for each alternative. It was then assumed that the year 

2050 municipal supply for each alternative would be provided from year 2050 to 

the end of the 100-year benefit period. Finally, the $235.66 value per-acre-foot 

estimate was applied to each annual municipal water supply estimate associated 

with each alternative. The resulting annual municipal values by alternative were 

discounted to the start of the benefit period (i.e., year 2020) and summed into a 

present value estimate by alternative. 

Assumptions.— 

•	 Current groundwater and surface water supply sources are sustainable at 

104,000 acre-feet. 

•	 Assuming a 10-year construction period for each Joint Alternative, 

municipal water supply from each Joint Alternative would not begin until 

year 2020. 

•	 Municipal water supplied by each alternative would reach its maximum in 

year 2050 and continue at that level to the end of the period of analysis. 

2-84 
Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

•	 Unmet municipal water demands must be provided for regardless of the 

selected alternative. 

•	 For each Joint Alternative, the next best option for obtaining the needed 

municipal water would be a market purchase. 

•	 The assumption was made that municipalities in search of municipal water 

could obtain the water at wholesale rates. 

Results.— 

Black Rock Alternative. The value of the growth in annual municipal water 

supply to 81,100 acre-feet in year 2050 and beyond was estimated to average 

$14.1 million annually or $286.8 million in present value over the 100-year study 

period for the Black Rock Alternative. 

Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative. The value of the growth in annual 

municipal water supply to 79,800 acre-feet in year 2050 and beyond was 

estimated to average $14.0 million annually or $285.2 million in present value 

over the 100-year study period for the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative. 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative. The value of 

the growth in annual municipal water supply to 80,500 acre-feet in year 2050 and 

beyond was estimated to average $14.1 million annually or $286.1 million in 

present value over the 100-year study period for the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima 

River Pump Exchange Alternative. 

Recreation Benefits 

Impacts to recreation could potentially be quite diverse with the construction of 

either Black Rock or Wymer reservoirs. Including the most obvious, and possibly 

most significant recreation benefit occurring at the new reservoirs themselves, 

recreation effects could also be seen at other existing regional reservoirs and river 

segments due to reductions in irrigation diversions or increases of instream flows 

for fish habitat from the Yakima River. 

Adverse recreational effects could also be experienced outside the Yakima River 

basin due to site substitution. In this case, site substitution refers to reductions in 

recreation use of sites outside the Yakima River basin as a result of the 

construction of new sites or quality improvements at existing sites within the 

basin. Given the difficulty and speculative nature of attempts to quantitatively 

measure the degree of possible site substitution, site substitution effects have not 

been included in the recreation analysis. As a result, the estimated recreation 

benefits may be overstated. 

Recreation Benefits at Proposed Black Rock and Wymer Reservoirs.—This 

section analyzes the potential recreational effects at the proposed Black Rock and 

Wymer reservoirs. Note that both the Wymer Dam and Reservoir and Wymer 

2-85 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternatives would produce the same 

recreational effects at the proposed Wymer reservoir, but different recreational 

effects at the existing reservoirs and rivers within the region. (See subsequent 

sections for an analysis of the effects at existing reservoir and rivers.) 

Reclamation recreation development at new reservoirs would remain at the 

minimum level to maintain safety and protect resources for the first 5 years. 

The proposed reservoir recreation economic methodology used estimates of 

recreation visitation by activity as described and presented in the “Recreational 

Resources” section of chapter 4. The annual visitation by activity estimates were 

projected over the 100-year study period based on annual growth rate 

assumptions, as also noted in the “Recreational Resources” section (i.e., Black 

Rock reservoir, 5 percent for the first 10 years and 3 percent thereafter; Wymer 

reservoir, 3 percent for entire study period). Recreation specialists also provided 

carrying capacity estimates of 700,000 for Black Rock reservoir and 200,000 for 

Wymer reservoir based on reservoir surface acreage at high pool, boating acreage 

requirements, nonboating visitation estimates, associated parking lot size and 

turnover, and the length of the high- and low-use recreation seasons. The 

carrying capacity estimates were assumed to reflect an upper bound on annual 

visitation and were, therefore, used to constrain the visitation growth projection. 

To estimate annual recreation economic benefits by alternative, per-visit 

economic benefits were applied to the estimated annual visitation levels. Because 

economic benefits or values per visit vary by recreation activity, it was important 

that the visitation estimates were broken down by recreation activity. Values per 

visit for the activities identified in the recreation visitation analysis were obtained 

from a nationwide recreation valuation study (Kaval and Loomis, 2003). The 

Kaval and Loomis study gathered information from hundreds of recreation 

economic studies throughout the United States. Values per visit by activity from 

the Pacific Coast region were used in the analysis. Because the values were in 

1996 dollars, they were updated to April 2007 dollars using consumer price 

indexes to be consistent with the cost estimates. The annual values were then 

converted to a present value before incorporating them into the BCA. 

Black Rock Alternative. Table 2.52 presents the results of the visitation 

projection by recreation activity for the proposed Black Rock reservoir. Note that 

the visitation projection is constrained by the estimated carrying capacity of the 

reservoir (700,000 visits) in year 23 such that years 23 through 100 are assumed 

to be at the 700,000-visit carrying capacity. The economic valuation results are 

presented at the end of table 2.52. The economic values per visit by recreation 

activity, ranging from $20.32 for horseback riding to $81.26 for wildlife viewing, 

are presented, as well as the present value of the 100-year stream of recreation 

benefits for each activity. The economic values per visit by activity were 

multiplied by the estimated annual visits by activity to estimate the annual 

economic benefit by activity (result not shown). The annual recreation benefit by 

activity was then discounted to the beginning of the 100-year benefit period. 

2-86 
Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

Table 2.52 Black Rock reservoir visitation projections 

Year 

(% of 

total =>) 

Recreation activities 

Boat 

fishing 

Shore 

fishing Swimming 

Picnicking 

Water 

skiing, 

jet skiing 

Walking, 

hiking 

Wildlife 

viewing 

Horseback 

riding 

Offhighway 

vehicle 

riding Total 

Visits 0.25 0.1 0.15 0.15 0.25 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 

1 62,500 25,000 37,500 37,500 62,500 7,500 7,500 5,000 5,000 250,000 

2 65,630 26,250 39,380 39,380 65,630 7,880 7,880 5,250 5,250 262,530 

3 68,910 27,560 41,350 41,350 68,910 8,270 8,270 5,510 5,510 275,640 

4 72,360 28,940 43,420 43,420 72,360 8,680 8,680 5,790 5,790 289,440 

5 75,980 30,390 45,590 45,590 75,980 9,110 9,110 6,080 6,080 303,910 

6 100,000 40,000 60,000 60,000 100,000 12,000 12,000 8,000 8,000 400,000 

7 105,000 42,000 63,000 63,000 105,000 12,600 12,600 8,400 8,400 420,000 

8 110,250 44,100 66,150 66,150 110,250 13,230 13,230 8,820 8,820 441,000 

9 115,760 46,310 69,460 69,460 115,760 13,890 13,890 9,260 9,260 463,050 

10 121,550 48,630 72,930 72,930 121,550 14,580 14,580 9,720 9,720 486,190 

11 125,200 50,090 75,120 75,120 125,200 15,020 15,020 10,010 10,010 500,790 

12 128,960 51,590 77,370 77,370 128,960 15,470 15,470 10,310 10,310 515,810 

13 132,830 53,140 79,690 79,690 132,830 15,930 15,930 10,620 10,620 531,280 

14 136,810 54,730 82,080 82,080 136,810 16,410 16,410 10,940 10,940 547,210 

15 140,910 56,370 84,540 84,540 140,910 16,900 16,900 11,270 11,270 563,610 

16 145,140 58,060 87,080 87,080 145,140 17,410 17,410 11,610 11,610 580,540 

17 149,490 59,800 89,690 89,690 149,490 17,930 17,930 11,960 11,960 597,940 

18 153,970 61,590 92,380 92,380 153,970 18,470 18,470 12,320 12,320 615,870 

19 158,590 63,440 95,150 95,150 158,590 19,020 19,020 12,690 12,690 634,340 

20 163,350 65,340 98,000 98,000 163,350 19,590 19,590 13,070 13,070 653,360 

21 168,250 67,300 100,940 100,940 168,250 20,180 20,180 13,460 13,460 672,960 

22 173,300 69,320 103,970 103,970 173,300 20,790 20,790 13,860 13,860 693,160 

23-100 175,000 70,000 105,000 105,000 175,000 21,000 21,000 14,000 14,000 700,000 

Economic 49.74 49.74 30.59 72.01 63.87 26.06 81.26 20.32 45.26 

value per visit 

by activity 

(4/2007$) 

Present value 134.9 54.0 49.8 117.2 173.2 8.5 26.4 4.4 9.8 578.1 

of 100-year 

stream of 

benefits 

($ million) 

Summing the present value estimates across the various recreation activities 

provides the $578.1 million total discounted recreation benefit estimate for Black 

Rock reservoir. 

2-87 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative. Table 2.53 presents the results of the 

visitation projection by recreation activity for the proposed Wymer reservoir 

included within both the Wymer Dam and Reservoir and Wymer Dam Plus 

Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternatives. The visitation projection is 

constrained by the estimated carrying capacity of the reservoir (200,000 visits) in 

year 42 such that years 42 through 100 are assumed to be at the 200,000-visit 

carrying capacity. The economic valuation results are presented at the end of 

table 2.53. The economic values per visit by recreation activity, ranging from 

$26.06 for walking/hiking to $81.26 for wildlife viewing, are presented, as well as 

the present value of the 100-year stream of recreation benefits for each activity. 

Summing the present value estimates across the various recreation activities 

provides the $97.7 million total discounted recreation benefit estimate for Wymer 

reservoir. 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative. Table 2.53 

presents the results of the visitation projection by recreation activity for the 

proposed Wymer reservoir included within both the Wymer Dam and Reservoir 

and Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternatives. As noted 

previously for the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative, the present value of the 

100-year stream of annual recreation benefit estimates across the various 

recreation activities sums to $97.7 million for Wymer reservoir. 

Recreation Benefits at Existing Reservoirs and Rivers.—This section analyzes 

the potential recreational effects of each alternative at existing reservoirs and river 

reaches within the Yakima River basin. The following reservoirs and rivers were 

included in the analysis: Kachess Lake, Cle Elum Lake, Clear Lake, Bumping 

Lake, Rimrock Lake, Keechelus Lake, Lake Easton, Yakima River, Tieton River, 

Cle Elum River, Naches River, and Bumping River. Of these sites, only four 

showed differences in hydrologic measures (e.g., reservoir water levels and river 

flows) resulting in visitation impacts as compared to the No Action Alternative: 

Kachess Lake, Cle Elum Lake, Yakima River, and Tieton River. This section 

presents the results of the recreation visitation and economic valuation analysis 

for these four sites. 

As with the proposed reservoir recreation analysis, the existing site recreation 

economic methodology used estimates of recreation visitation as described and 

presented in the “Recreation” section of “Chapter 4, Environmental 

Consequences.” For the existing sites, changes in recreation visitation as 

compared to the No Action Alternative were estimated based on differences in the 

number of months in which reservoir water levels or river instream flows fell 

within acceptable ranges. The acceptable reservoir water levels and river 

instream flows were obtained from a recreation survey Yakima River Basin 

Reservoir and River Recreation Survey Report of Findings (Reclamation, 2008d). 

2-88 
 

Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

Table 2.53 Wymer reservoir visitation projections 

Recreation activities 

Canoeing, 

kayaking, 

Year small Boat Shoreline Walking, Wildlife 

(% of 

Total =>) 

sailboats fishing fishing Swimming Picnicking hiking viewing Total 

Visits 0.2 0.1 0.25 0.15 0.15 0.1 0.05 

1 8,000 4,000 10,000 6,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 40,000 

2 8,240 4,120 10,300 6,180 6,180 4,120 2,060 41,200 

3 8,490 4,240 10,610 6,370 6,370 4,240 2,120 42,440 

4 8,740 4,370 10,930 6,560 6,560 4,370 2,180 43,710 

5 9,000 4,500 11,260 6,760 6,760 4,500 2,250 45,030 

6 14,000 7,000 17,500 10,500 10,500 7,000 3,500 70,000 

7 14,420 7,210 18,030 10,820 10,820 7,210 3,610 72,120 

8 14,850 7,430 18,570 11,140 11,140 7,430 3,720 74,280 

9 15,300 7,650 19,130 11,470 11,470 7,650 3,830 76,500 

10 15,760 7,880 19,700 11,810 11,810 7,880 3,940 78,780 

11 16,230 8,120 20,290 12,160 12,160 8,120 4,060 81,140 

12 16,720 8,360 20,900 12,520 12,520 8,360 4,180 83,560 

13 17,220 8,610 21,530 12,900 12,900 8,610 4,310 86,080 

14 17,740 8,870 22,180 13,290 13,290 8,870 4,440 88,680 

15 18,270 9,140 22,850 13,690 13,690 9,140 4,570 91,350 

16 18,820 9,410 23,540 14,100 14,100 9,410 4,710 94,090 

17 19,380 9,690 24,250 14,520 14,520 9,690 4,850 96,900 

18 19,960 9,980 24,980 14,960 14,960 9,980 5,000 99,820 

19 20,560 10,280 25,730 15,410 15,410 10,280 5,150 102,820 

20 21,180 10,590 26,500 15,870 15,870 10,590 5,300 105,900 

21 21,820 10,910 27,300 16,350 16,350 10,910 5,460 109,100 

22 22,470 11,240 28,120 16,840 16,840 11,240 5,620 112,370 

23 23,140 11,580 28,960 17,350 17,350 11,580 5,790 115,750 

24 23,830 11,930 29,830 17,870 17,870 11,930 5,960 119,220 

25 24,540 12,290 30,720 18,410 18,410 12,290 6,140 122,800 

26 25,280 12,660 31,640 18,960 18,960 12,660 6,320 126,480 

27 26,040 13,040 32,590 19,530 19,530 13,040 6,510 130,280 

28 26,820 13,430 33,570 20,120 20,120 13,430 6,710 134,200 

29 27,620 13,830 34,580 20,720 20,720 13,830 6,910 138,210 

30 28,450 14,240 35,620 21,340 21,340 14,240 7,120 142,350 

31 29,300 14,670 36,690 21,980 21,980 14,670 7,330 146,620 

32 30,180 15,110 37,790 22,640 22,640 15,110 7,550 151,020 

33 31,090 15,560 38,920 23,320 23,320 15,560 7,780 155,550 

34 32,020 16,030 40,090 24,020 24,020 16,030 8,010 160,220 

35 32,980 16,510 41,290 24,740 24,740 16,510 8,250 165,020 

36 33,970 17,010 42,530 25,480 25,480 17,010 8,500 169,980 

37 34,990 17,520 43,810 26,240 26,240 17,520 8,760 175,080 

38 36,040 18,050 45,120 27,030 27,030 18,050 9,020 180,340 

39 37,120 18,590 46,470 27,840 27,840 18,590 9,290 185,740 

40 38,230 19,150 47,860 28,680 28,680 19,150 9,570 191,320 

41 39,380 19,720 49,300 29,540 29,540 19,720 9,860 197,060 

42-100 40,000 20,000 50,000 30,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 200,000 

Economic 31.21 49.74 49.74 30.59 72.01 26.06 81.26 

value per visit 

by activity 

(4/2007 $) 

Present value 

of 100-year 

stream of 

benefits 

($ million) 

13.3 10.6 26.6 9.8 23.1 5.6 8.7 97.7 

2-89 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

The difference in visitation estimates varied with the water year type—wet, 

average, or dry. To calculate an average annual difference in visitation estimate, 

the differences in visitation by water year type were multiplied by the probability 

of occurrence of each water year type (i.e., 50 percent for average year and 

25 percent each for wet and dry years). Because the differences in visitation were 

not estimated by recreation activity, the general assumption was made that the 

differences in visitation would follow the current distribution of recreation by 

activity seen at each impacted site. Instead of estimating the difference in 

visitation for each site by recreation activity as was done for the proposed 

reservoir analysis, a weighted average economic value for each site was 

developed by multiplying the percent of visitation by primary recreation activity 

at each site (as obtained from the recreation survey) by the indexed economic 

values per visit by recreation activity (as obtained from the Kaval and Loomis, 

2003 study). The weighted average values per visit at each site were estimated as 

follows: Kachess Lake, $90.28; Cle Elum Lake, $69.00; Yakima River, $53.93; 

and Tieton River, $31.21. The annual difference in recreation economic value by 

site and alternative was assumed to occur each year over the 100-year study 

period. This 100-year stream of annual recreation economic values was then 

discounted to a present value estimate. These annual values were not projected to 

increase over the 100-year study period because no carrying capacity estimate 

was available to constrain the growth in visitation. As a result, the discounted 

present value may be an underestimate. Accounting for the potential growth in 

visitation as compared to the No Action Alternative over time is an issue which 

may need to be addressed in subsequent analyses. 

Black Rock Alternative. As shown in table 2.54, positive recreation effects are 

expected at Kachess Lake, Cle Elum Lake, and the Yakima River under the Black 

Rock Alternative. Negative effects were estimated for the Tieton River. The 

combined annual difference in value across all four existing sites approached 

$1.2 million, which converts to a discounted present value of $24.3 million. 

These estimates may be understated given that the visitation estimates could not 

be projected over time due to lack of carrying capacity information. 

Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative. As shown in table 2.55, positive 

recreation effects are expected at Cle Elum Lake and the Yakima River under the 

Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative. No impacts were estimated at Kachess 

Lake and the Tieton River. The combined difference in value across all four 

existing sites was estimated at $246,200 annually, which converts to a discounted 

present value of $5.0 million. Again, these estimates may be understated. 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative. As shown in 

table 2.56, positive recreation effects are expected at Kachess Lake, Cle Elum 

Lake, and the Yakima River under the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

Exchange Alternative. 

2-90 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

Table 2.54 Differences in recreation visitation and value at existing sites under Black Rock Alternative 

Site 

Water 

year 

type 

Difference in recreation days compared to No Action 

Alternative1 

Probability 

Difference 

in days 

(expected 

value) 

Apr-07 

weighted 

average 

value 

per day2 

Average 

annual 

difference 

in value3 

Present 

value of 

100-year 

benefit 

stream 

May June July Aug Sep Oct Total ($ million) 

Kachess Wet 0 0.25 0 

Lake Dry 8,610 8,610 17,220 0.25 4,305 

Average 8,610 8,610 0.5 4,305 

Total: 8,610 90.28 777,269 15.8 

Cle Elum Wet 2,736 2,736 5,472 0.25 1,368 

Lake Dry 0 0.25 0 

Average 0 0.5 0 

Total: 1,368 69.00 94,390 1.9 

Yakima Wet 3,630 1,815 1,815 7,260 0.25 1,815 

River Dry -667 3,630 1,815 4,778 0.25 1,195 

Average 3,630 1,815 1,815 7,260 0.5 3,630 

Total: 6,640 53.93 358,063 7.3 

Tieton Wet -2,250 -2,250 0.25 -563 

River Dry 0 0.25 0 

Average -1,125 -1,125 0.5 -563 

Total: -1,126 31.21 -35,146 -.7 

Combined 

total 15,522 1,194,576 24.3 

1

 From recreation analysis presented in chapter 4.
 2 Weighted value per visit based on current visitation by recreation activity percentages (as obtained from the recreation survey) combined with
 

values per visit by activity (from Kaval and Loomis, 2003). 3

 Does not take into account projected population growth over the 100-year study period. 

Table 2.55 Changes in recreation visitation and value at existing sites for Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Site 

Water 

year 

type 

D

May

ifference in

 June 

 recreation days compar

Alternative1 

July Aug Sep 

ed to No Action 

Oct Total Probability 

Difference 

in days 

(expected 

value) 

Apr-07 

weighted 

average 

value 

per day2 

Average 

annual 

difference 

in value3 

Present 

value of 

100-year 

benefit 

stream 

($ million) 

Kachess 

Lake 

None 0 0 

Cle Elum 

Lake 

Wet 

Dry 

Average 

-1,231 

2,736 2,736 

-1,231 

0 

0.25 

0.25 

0.5 

Total: 

684 

-308 

0 

376 69.00 25,943 .5 

Yakima

 River 

Wet 

Dry 

Average 

 1,815 

3,630 

 1,815 

 908 

 1,815 

 908 

 908 

 908 

 3,631 

 5,445 

 3,631 

0.25 

0.25 

0.5 

Total: 

908 

1,361 

1,816 

4,085 53.93 220,284 4.5 

Tieton 

 River 

None 0 0 0 

Combined 

total 4,461 246,227 5.0 

1

 From recreation analysis presented in chapter 4. 

2 Weighted value per visit based on current visitation by recreation activity percentages (as obtained from the recreation survey) combined with values 

per visit by activity (from Kaval and Loomis, 2003). 3

 Does not take into account projected population growth over the 100-year study period. 

2-91 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table 2.56 Differences in recreation visitation and value at existing sites under Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River 

Pump Exchange Alternative 

Site 

Water 

year 

type 

Difference in recreation days compared to No Action 

Alternative1 

Probability 

Difference 

in days 

(expected 

value) 

Apr-07 

weighted 

average 

value 

per day2 

Average 

annual 

difference 

in value3 

Present 

value of 

100-year 

benefit 

stream 

May June July Aug Sep Oct Total ($ million) 

Kachess Lake Wet 

Dry 

Average 

8,610 8,610 

0 

17,220 

0 

0.25 

0.25 

0.5 

Total: 

0 

4,305 

0 

4,305 90.28 388,635 7.9 

Cle Elum Lake Wet 

Dry 

Average 

2,736 2,736 

0 

0 

0.25 

0.25 

0.5 

Total: 

684 

0 

0 

684 69.00 47,195 1.0 

Yakima River Wet 

Dry 

Average 

1,815 

3,630 

1,815 

908 

1,815 

908 

908 

908 

3,631 

5,445 

3,631 

0.25 

0.25 

0.5 

Total: 

908 

1,361 

1,816 

4,085 53.93 220,284 4.5 

Tieton River None 0 0 0 

Combined total 13,394 656,114 13.3 

1

 From recreation analysis presented in chapter 4.
 2 Weighted value per visit based on current visitation by recreation activity percentages (as obtained from the recreation survey) combined with values
 

per visit by activity (from Kaval and Loomis, 2003). 3

 Does not take into account projected population growth over the 100-year study period. 

No impacts were identified for the Tieton River under this alternative. The 

combined difference in value across all four existing sites exceeds $655,000 

annually, which converts to a discounted present value of $13.3 million. Again, 

recall that these estimates may be understated given that the visitation estimates 

could not be projected over time due to lack of carrying capacity information. 

Combined Recreation Results.—This section combines the present value of the 

100-year recreational benefit estimate stream at both the proposed reservoirs and 

the existing reservoir and river sites for each alternative. 

On the one hand, this analysis fails to take into consideration population growth 

within the existing reservoir and river analysis (understates benefits), but on the 

other hand, the analysis does not take into account possible substitution from 

other recreation sites outside the region (overstates benefits). It is not possible to 

suggest whether the combined results are likely to be understated or overstated. 

Black Rock Alternative. The combined recreational benefit stream for both the 

proposed reservoirs and the existing reservoir and river sites results in a total 

present value of $602.4 million ($29.6 million average annual equivalent) for the 

Black Rock Alternative. 

Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative. The combined recreational benefit 

stream for both the proposed reservoirs and the existing reservoir and river sites 

2-92 
Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

results in a total present value of $102.7 million ($5.1 million average annual 

equivalent) for the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative. 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative. The combined 

recreational benefit stream for both the proposed reservoirs and the existing 

reservoir and river sites results in a total present value of $111.1 million 

($5.5 million average annual equivalent) for the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River 

Pump Exchange Alternative. 

Hydropower Benefits 

The Black Rock Alternative includes the construction of two new hydropower 

facilities—the Black Rock powerplant and the Sunnyside powerplant. Because 

both the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative and the Wymer Dam Plus 

Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative have no hydropower generation 

component, the Black Rock Alternative is the only alternative that provides 

hydropower benefits. In addition, by pumping water up to the proposed Black 

Rock reservoir from the Columbia River at Priest Rapids Dam, a certain amount 

of power generation at Priest Rapids Dam and facilities both upstream of and 

downstream from Priest Rapids would be forgone. Some of the diverted water 

would be replaced by increased flows at the mouth of the Yakima River due to 

decreased irrigation diversions. This water replacement does not occur on an 

instantaneous basis but is accomplished on an annual basis. 

Methodology.—Average annual power generation at the Black Rock 

and Sunnyside powerplants was estimated at about 71,671 and 

125,080 megawatthours (MWh), respectively. These annual generation 

estimates were distributed by month based on monthly water delivery 

percentages and the resultant monthly generation multiplied by average 

monthly energy values to estimate total annual hydropower value. The 

average monthly energy values, as used by Bonneville Power Administration, 

were obtained from the Black Rock Summary Report (Reclamation, 2004e). The 

annual hydropower values were discounted to a present value based on the 

assumption that they would occur each year over the 100-year study period. 

In addition, annual lost hydropower benefits result from the pumping of water 

from Priest Rapids Lake to the new Black Rock reservoir. The water which is 

pumped to Black Rock reservoir is no longer available to generate hydropower at 

Priest Rapids Dam and at downstream Federal Columbia River hydropower 

facilities. While there are both positive and negative effects upstream of and 

downstream from Priest Rapids Dam due to hydropower system reoperation, the 

December 2004 Black Rock Summary Report estimated the net result as a loss in 

annual hydropower benefits of $4 million. To calculate a present value, the 

annual costs were assumed to occur each year of the 100-year study period. This 

lost hydropower was deducted from the additional hydropower generated at the 

Black Rock and Sunnyside powerplants to estimate a net hydropower benefit. 

2-93 
 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Results.— 

Black Rock Alternative. As presented in table 2.57, the hydropower generation 

at both plants is expected to average about 196,751 MWh annually, with a 

combined monthly generation ranging from a low of about 14,508 MWh in 

October to a high of 35,637.6 MWh in July and August. Total generation was 

valued at about $7.1 million annually. The present value of the 100-year stream 

of annual hydropower benefits was estimated at $143.9 million. The lost 

hydropower generation at Priest Rapids Dam and other upstream and downstream 

dams was estimated at $4 million annually, or $81.3 million in present value. 

Combining the gains and losses in hydropower value results in a positive 

hydropower benefit of approximately $3.1 million annually, or $62.5 million in 

present value. This combined hydropower benefit accrues only to the Black Rock 

Alternative. 

Table 2.57 Hydropower benefits for the Black Rock Alternative 

Month 

Monthly 

generation 

(MWh) 

Average energy 

value per month 

($/MWh) 

Total annual 

value 

($ thousands) 

Present value of 

100-year benefit 

stream 

($ thousands) 

Black Rock powerplant 

April 

May

June 

July

August 

September 

October 

Totals 

7,820.0 

10,742.5 

12,144.0 

13,689.6 

13,689.6 

8,832.0 

4,753.3 

71,671.1 

$37.60 

$31.92 

$22.68 

$32.24 

$40.69 

$43.64 

$55.56 

294.0 

342.9 

275.4 

441.4 

557.0 

385.4 

264.1 

2,560.2 52,063.0 

Sunnyside powerplant 

April 

May

June 

July

August 

September 

October 

Totals 

11,800.0 

19,509.3 

21,240.0 

21,948.0 

21,948.0 

18,880.0 

9,754.7 

125,080.0 

$37.60 

$31.92 

$22.68 

$32.24 

$40.69 

$43.64 

$55.56 

443.7 

622.7 

481.7 

707.6 

893.1 

823.9 

542.0 

4,514.7 91,822.0 

Black Rock and Sunnyside powerplants total 

April 

May

June 

July

August 

September 

October 

Totals 

19,620.0 

30,251.9 

33,384.0 

35,637.6 

35,637.6 

27,712.0 

14,508.0 

196,751.1 

737.7 

965.6 

757.1 

1,149.0 

1,450.1 

1,209.4 

806.1 

7,075.0 143,885.0 

Value of lost generation at Priest Rapids and other Columbia 

River dams 

-4,000.0 -81,348.4 

Net hydropower benefit 3,075.0 62,536.6 

2-94 
Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative. The Wymer Dam and Reservoir 

Alternative has no hydropower generation effects. 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative. The Wymer 

Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative has no hydropower 

generation effects. 

Fisheries Benefits 

This section presents the results of the anadromous fisheries benefits analysis for 

salmon (i.e., spring Chinook, fall Chinook, coho) and steelhead. 

The anadromous fisheries analysis focuses primarily on use values. Use values 

refer to values individuals obtain by using the fishery resource. In the case of 

anadromous fisheries, use values accrue to individuals that use/consume the fish 

(e.g., commercial, sport, or Tribal fishermen) and are typically based on the 

quantity of fish actually used (e.g., harvested/caught). 

It should be noted that consideration was also given to the estimation of nonuse 

values. Nonuse values reflect values individuals hold for a resource even if they 

will never actually use it (e.g., threatened and endangered species). Yakima River 

steelhead are a federally listed (i.e., threatened) species and generally speaking 

cannot be harvested, implying little to no fishery use value. However, given 

steelhead were expected to be impacted by the alternatives under consideration, it 

was speculated the nonuse values (but not use values) may be applicable to this 

species. As will be discussed in a subsequent section, for various reasons mostly 

related to measurement, nonuse values were not included within the benefit-cost 

analysis. However, this does not diminish the possibility that nonuse values may 

indeed exist at least for the listed steelhead population. By excluding nonuse 

values for this threatened species, the overall fishery benefit estimate will be 

understated. 

Fisheries Use Value.—The use value analysis represents the traditional 

commercial and recreational fisheries analysis found in many Reclamation 

benefit-cost analyses, with the added dimension of attempting to value Tribal 

subsistence harvest. 

Methodology.—For this analysis, fish harvests were valued for the 

following harvest categories: 

• Pacific Ocean commercial 

• Pacific Ocean sport 

• Lower Columbia River zones 1-5 non-Indian commercial 

• Lower Columbia River zones 1-5 sport 

• Columbia River zone 6 Tribal commercial 

2-95 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

• Columbia River zone 6 Tribal ceremonial and subsistence 

• Yakima River sport 

• Yakima River Tribal ceremonial and subsistence 

These harvest categories reflect the migratory path of Yakima River salmon. 

Note that the harvest category “Tribal ceremonial and subsistence,” found in the 

Columbia River (zone 6) and the Yakima River, includes ceremonial harvest 

which is typically not included in BCAs because that would be akin to 

economically valuing Tribal spiritual beliefs. Because Storage Study biologists 

had no data to exclusively separate subsistence harvest from ceremonial harvest, 

the decision was made to value the total ceremonial and subsistence harvest using 

the subsistence harvest value under the assumption that the ceremonial harvest is 

likely to be a fairly minor portion of the total. As a result, total fishery use value 

benefits representing commercial, sport, and subsistence harvests may be 

overstated to some extent by the inclusion of ceremonial harvest. 

Economic values per fish by species (e.g., coho salmon, spring Chinook salmon, 

fall Chinook salmon) and harvest category (listed above), as presented in 

table 2.58, were obtained from a detailed analysis of existing economic fishery 

value information as described in the Yakima River Fishery Economics Draft 

Technical Report (Reclamation, 2007g). These values were measured in April 

2007 dollars to be consistent with the cost estimates. The following briefly 

summarizes the basis for the values: (1) commercial values were based on 

estimates of profitability per fish as obtained from the most recent 5 years of catch 

and price data; (2) sport values were obtained from a literature search; and 

(3) subsistence values were based on the market price per fish under the 

assumption that subsistence harvest could have been sold in the marketplace. 

While the subsistence value is considered a lower bound, the decision was made 

to value the harvest using a defendable lower bound rather than ignore valuing 

subsistence harvest altogether. As with other Columbia River Basin studies 

(e.g., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2002), the per-fish salmon sport fishing 

values proved significantly higher than the other per fish values because these 

sport-fishing values are related to the per-trip values. The very low catch rates 

per trip (less than one) imply a single fish equates to the sport fishing value of 

several trips combined, hence the large value per sport caught fish. Note that 

Storage Study biologists also evaluated impacts to Yakima River steelhead 

populations, but given their Federal listed (threatened) status, the assumption was 

made that harvest of those species would be precluded. 

Harvest estimates by fish species, type of harvest, and alternative were provided 

by Storage Study biologists. The harvest estimates were developed by applying 

harvest rates by species to annual estimates of returning adults by species. The 

harvest rates, as provided by Yakama Nation biologists, reflect current fishery 

management compacts and ESA restrictions for salmon and steelhead returning to 

the Yakima River basin. The All H Analyzer (AHA) model was used to calculate 

2-96 
Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

Table 2.58 Economic values per fish by species and harvest category ($) 

Harvest category 

Coho 

salmon 

Spring Chinook 

salmon 

Fall Chinook 

salmon 

Ocean commercial 

Ocean sport 

Lower Columbia River (zones 1-5) commercial 

Lower Columbia River (zones 1-5) sport 

Columbia River (zone 6) Tribal commercial 

Columbia River (zone 6) Tribal ceremonial and 

subsistence 

Yakima River sport 

Yakima River Tribal ceremonial and subsistence 

8.07 

118.54 

5.82 

304.02 

3.11 

3.89 

368.00 

3.89 

25.57 

101.49 

45.53 

304.02 

22.56 

28.2 

461.52 

28.20 

25.57 

101.49 

14.56 

304.02 

8.78 

10.97 

368.00 

10.97 

the annual number of returning adults for a 100-year period for spring Chinook, 

fall Chinook, coho, and steelhead, which accounts for fish produced both by the 

natural environment and those released from Yakima River basin hatcheries. 

The AHA model was developed by Washington State fishery managers as a 

tool to facilitate analysis of anadromous salmonid recovery strategies in the 

Pacific Northwest. The “H” stands for Habitat, Hatcheries, Harvest and the 

Hydroelectric system (of the Columbia River). The model allows the user 

to better understand the relationship between the 4-Hs towards developing 

viable salmon recovery and enhancement strategies. A more comprehensive 

discussion of the AHA model can be found on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Web site http://www.fws.gov/pacific/Fisheries/Hatcheryreview/ 

documents/All-HAnalyzerDraftUsersGuideAug05.pdf. 

Differences in harvest by species were calculated for each of the Joint Alternative 

by subtracting No Action Alternative harvest levels from Joint Alternative harvest 

levels. Population and harvest estimates were developed on an annual basis for 

each year of the 100-year study period. Instead of presenting the 100-year harvest 

projections for each species and alternative, table 2.59 presents summary 

information on the range (i.e., average, high, and low) of annual incremental total 

harvest by species and alternative for the 100-year study period. For example, for 

the Black Rock Alternative, the average annual increase in total spring Chinook 

harvest over the No Action Alternative was estimated at 580 fish, with a range of 

294 to 1,926 fish. These annual estimates of total additional harvest by 

alternative and fish species were then allocated across the eight harvest categories. 

The economic values per fish by harvest category presented in table 2.58 were 

applied to the annual estimates of harvest difference by species, harvest category, 

and alternative to obtain annual values by species and alternative. The annual 

values were then discounted to a present value based on Reclamation’s 2007 

planning rate (4.875 percent). Finally, the discounted values by species, type 

of harvest, and alternative were aggregated to estimate the total fisheries use 

value by alternative. These fisheries use values were then included in the 

BCA calculation. The total fisheries use value by alternative reflects the 

difference in value from the No Action Alternative. 

2-97 
 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table 2.59 Annual increment in fish harvest as compared to No Action Alternative 

Salmon 

Black Rock 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir Alternative 

Wymer Dam Plus 

Yakima River Pump 

Exchange 

Alternative 

Spring Chinook 

Average 

High 

Low

580 

1,926 

294 

33 

106 

17 

379 

1,273 

191 

Fall Chinook 

Average 2,580 133 1,479 

High 9,121 460 5,519 

Low 1,251 66 682 

Coho 

Average 623 41 323 

High 1,875 123 947 

Low 304 19 150 

Results.— 

Black Rock Alternative. Table 2.60 presents the results of the fisheries use 

value analysis. The values presented in table 2.60 reflect the present value 

of the 100-year stream of fishery use values by alternative, fish species, and 

harvest category. The total present value for the Black Rock Alternative 

was estimated at $8.7 million. Over 90 percent of that additional fishery 

use value stemmed from the ocean, lower Columbia River (zones 1-5), and 

Yakima River sport fisheries. 

Table 2.60 Discounted 100-year stream of fisheries use values by alternative ($) 

Columbia River Columbia River 

Alternative 

Ocean zones 1-5 zone 6 Yakima River 

Total 

Commercial Sport Commercial Sport Commercial 

Ceremonial 

and 

Subsistence Sport 

Ceremonial 

and 

Subsistence 

Black Rock 

Spring Chinook 

Fall Chinook 

Coho 

11,411 

37,075 

23,666 

0 

147,153 

521,448 

25,268 

64,129 

7,254 

386,930 

1,339,055 

568,378 

16,609 

256,024 

3,974 

83,045 

16,836 

262 

437,833 

4,530,341 

136,472 

114,051 

0 

0 

1,075,145 

6,390,614 

1,261,454 

Total 72,152 668,601 96,651 2,294,364 276,607 100,142 5,104,645 114,051 8,727,213 

Wymer Dam and Reservoir 

Spring Chinook 

Fall Chinook 

Coho 

658 

1,893 

1,562 

0 

7,513 

34,423 

1,457 

3,274 

479 

22,309 

68,369 

37,521 

958 

13,072 

262 

4,788 

860 

17 

25,243 

231,309 

9,009 

6,576 

0 

0 

61,988 

326,291 

83,273 

Total 4,113 41,936 5,210 128,198 14,292 5,665 265,562 6,576 471,552 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange 

Spring Chinook 

Fall Chinook 

Coho 

7,436 

21,703 

12,333 

0 

86,143 

271,740 

16,466 

37,541 

3,780 

252,147 

783,882 

296,196 

10,823 

149,877 

2,071 

54,117 

9,856 

136 

285,318 

2,652,058 

71,119 

74,322 

0 

0 

700,631 

3,741,061 

657,375 

Total 41,472 357,883 57,787 1,332,226 162,771 64,109 3,008,496 74,322 5,099,067 

2-98 
Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative. The total present value of the 

100-year stream of fishery use values for the Wymer Dam and Reservoir 

Alternative was estimated at $471.6 thousand. 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative. The total 

present value of the 100-year stream of fishery use values for the Wymer Dam 

Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative was estimated at $5.1 million. As 

under the Black Rock Alternative, over 90 percent of that additional fishery use 

value stemmed from the ocean, lower Columbia River (zones 1-5), and Yakima 

River sport fisheries. 

Fisheries Nonuse Value.—As mentioned in the introduction to this fisheries 

benefits section, consideration was given to the estimation of nonuse values. In 

their purest form, nonuse values suggest that individuals may value a resource 

despite the fact that they know they will never actually use the resource. For 

example, nonusers may be willing to pay to preserve a unique resource of national 

significance—a threatened and endangered species, a pristine free flowing river, a 

unique natural setting. Since Yakima River steelhead are currently a federally 

listed (i.e., threatened) species, it was deemed possible that nonuse values could 

be relevant to the study. From a fisheries perspective, pure nonuse values accrue 

only to nonharvested fish populations (e.g., threatened and endangered species). 

A less strict interpretation of nonuse values suggests nonlisted harvested fish 

species of regional significance might also generate nonuse values, but likely to a 

much lesser extent. The economics literature indicates that nonuse values may be 

greatest when the resource is scarce or unique, when the magnitude of the 

resource difference is relatively large, when the resource is of national 

significance, and when adverse impacts are likely to be irreversible or of long 

duration. By diluting the idea of uniqueness (by focusing on nonlisted species) 

and relaxing the national significance requirement (by focusing on species of 

regional significance), this interpretation is likely to be met with much more 

resistance from the economic community. This less strict interpretation also 

suggests that resource users, as well as nonusers, may hold nonuse values for 

nonharvested nonlisted fish (e.g., spawners of a harvested population). However, 

for resource users, it may be difficult to separate nonuse values from future use 

values (i.e., users’ willingness to pay to preserve the resource for future use). 

Nonuse valuation is a very controversial topic. Most economists probably agree 

in theory with the concept of nonuse values; but, based on the previous 

discussion, interpretation questions exist as to which resources may actually 

generate nonuse values. The idea of nonuse values for less unique species of 

regional significance is more likely to be disputed as compared to unique species 

of national significance. In addition, the issue of nonuse value measurement may 

be even more pressing and problematic than the issue of which species generate 

nonuse values. Generally speaking, the most acceptable approach for estimating 

nonuse values would involve the use of stated preference contingent valuation 

2-99 
 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

(CV) or contingent ranking/conjoint analysis (CR) surveys designed to address 

study-specific nonuse value questions.13 Both of these survey-oriented 

approaches, especially the early CV approaches, have been severely criticized 

from a number of perspectives. Despite improvements in the application of these 

survey approaches over time, nonuse value measurement remains extremely 

controversial. 

For various reasons (e.g., the considerable time and budget required to pursue 

such surveys, the lack of fish population estimates necessary to construct the 

willingness-to-pay questions), the nonuse value analysis attempted for the Storage 

Study instead investigated the use of benefits transfer techniques for nonuse value 

estimation. Benefits transfer attempts to make use of existing research conducted 

at other sites to value conditions at the study site. Initially, attempts were made to 

estimate a meta analysis model in which the willingness-to-pay results from 

previous salmon nonuse value surveys were statistically regressed on the fish 

population changes associated with each underlying study. The results of that 

modeling effort, while initially promising, ultimately proved unsatisfactory. 

Another effort involved the direct application of an existing salmon nonuse value 

model from what was considered the most applicable of the studies included 

within the meta analysis dataset. After investigating the details of the model, 

enough problems with interpretation surfaced as to make the application of the 

model to the Storage Study highly questionable. Because benefits transfer is 

fairly controversial in its own right, and the use of benefits transfer approaches for 

nonuse valuation have seldom been attempted, chances are that benefits transferbased nonuse value estimates may not have been fully defensible even had they 

proved successful. This situation, along with the degree of controversy associated 

with even the preferred nonuse value survey approaches, led to the decision to 

leave measurement of nonuse values out of the BCA. While Reclamation 

currently has no binding policy with regard to the incorporation of nonuse values 

within a BCA, the decision to leave nonuse values out of the BCA in this case is 

consistent with other Reclamation studies to date which have attempted to 

consider nonuse values. In conclusion, Reclamation has yet to include nonuse 

values within a benefit-cost calculation. 

Despite the fact that attempts at nonuse value estimation proved unsuccessful for 

this study and, therefore, the decision was made to exclude them from the 

BCA calculation, that does not diminish the possibility that nonuse values may 

indeed exist (especially for the listed steelhead populations) as well as vary with 

the alternatives under consideration in this study. 

13 Both approaches evaluate survey respondent willingness-to-pay for described changes in 

resource conditions (e.g., threatened and endangered fish populations). The CV approach directly 

asks valuation questions whereas the CR approach has respondents rank alternatives; both 

approaches provide respondents with information on before- and after-resource conditions, costs, 

etc., for each of the alternatives. 

2-100 
Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

It should be noted that suggestions have been made in the past to use certain costs 

(e.g., the application of past, present, and likely future private and public 

expenditures of funds to preserve and recover listed species) as a proxy measure 

for nonuse value benefits under the assumption that those costs would not have 

been incurred had the benefits not at least equaled them. However, unless 

previous expenditures of funds had actually been made based on some sort of 

benefit-cost comparison, this claim of benefits at least equaling costs could not be 

made. In summary, costs reflect costs and do not provide an adequate measure of 

economic benefits. 

2.7.2 Financial Feasibility 

After a project is found to be economically justified, analyses are undertaken 

to determine if the Federal project cost outlays are recoverable from the 

project beneficiaries. Financial feasibility is the process of analyses identifying 

reimbursable and nonreimbursable financial costs and the ability to recover 

reimbursable costs from project beneficiaries. The analyses consist of a cost 

allocation and subsequent repayment analyses. 

2.7.2.1 Cost Allocation 

Cost allocation is used as a transitional step leading from economic evaluation to 

repayment analysis. Allocation is not a means of justifying an alternative or 

project but follows the determination of economically feasible project 

alternatives. 

The objective of cost allocation is to equitably distribute economically justified 

project costs of feasible alternatives among the purposes served. The purposes 

allocated to can be either reimbursable or nonreimbursable based on existing 

legislative authority. Formulation of plans by incremental analysis normally 

assures that the cost of the plan increments is justifiable for each project purpose. 

Based on the assumptions that project formulation principles have been applied, 

equitable cost distribution may be obtained by preventing costs allocated to any 

purpose from exceeding corresponding benefits. This establishes, for 

reimbursable project functions, the cost base from which repayment schedules are 

developed. 

Following are the principles of cost allocation: 

•	 Each purpose is allocated directly, as a minimum, the identifiable 

separable cost (costs omitted from total project costs if one purpose is 

excluded) of that purpose. 

•	 Project purposes should not be assigned costs in excess of benefits or the 

assigned costs should not be greater than the cost of a single purpose 

alternative that could likely be built as a Federal project. Thus, the lesser 

2-101 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

of either benefits or the most likely Federal alternative costs is the 

justifiable expenditure or maximum allocation for a purpose. 

•	 The costs remaining, after separable costs are identified and deducted 

from the justifiable expenditure, are allocated to each purpose in the same 

ratio as the remaining benefits. 

•	 All costs necessary to achieve benefits claimed are included. 

Based on the benefit-cost results of this analysis, benefits do not equal or exceed 

the costs under each of the conditions for the three alternatives; therefore, the 

alternatives are not economically justified. Because none of the alternatives are 

economically justified, a cost allocation to reimbursable and nonreimbursable 

purposes pursuant to acceptable methods cannot be made, and repayment 

requirements cannot be determined. If benefits were used in an attempt to 

allocate annual operating costs to determine repayment requirements, a 

dysfunctional allocation would result because there are insufficient benefits to 

justify the annual operating costs, and the entire project construction cost would 

remain unallocated as a non-Federal investment. 

2.7.2.2 Project Repayment 

A project repayment analysis usually follows the cost allocation but, in this case, 

because a Federal alternative has not been justified and an equitable cost 

allocation was not achievable, repayment of project costs was not considered. 

The cost allocation equitably distributes project costs between reimbursable and 

nonreimbursable purposes as identified by Reclamation law and a projects 

authorizing legislation. Unless specifically identified in the authorizing 

legislation, costs allocated to irrigation water supply, municipal water supply, and 

power are reimbursable. A repayment study for those receiving an irrigation 

water supply determines their ability to pay for their allocated costs. The 

Reclamation Project Act of 1939 requires that water users, at a minimum, be able 

to pay for their allocated project’s operation and maintenance costs. 

2.8 Comparative Evaluation of Alternatives 

The P&Gs outline the procedures Federal water resource agencies should use to 

identify, evaluate, and compare alternatives. The P&Gs present four accounts for 

the evaluation and display of that comparison. These accounts, listed at the 

beginning of chapter 2, are the NED, RED, EQ, and OSE. The NED account 

provides an evaluation of the economic justification of each alternative based on 

net benefits, as presented earlier in chapter 2. The P&Gs suggest that the study 

agency develop the methods to be used for the other three accounts. 

2-102 
Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

The RED analysis examines how the regional and local economies are affected by 

each alternative. The RED analysis measures employment, industry output, and 

income resulting from construction expenditures, gross farm income, and 

recreational spending. The RED analysis is included in chapter 4. The remaining 

two accounts, EQ and OSE, are discussed in the following section. 

A primary distinction between a NED BCA and a RED analysis is geographic. 

The RED analysis focuses on economic impacts to the local region, whereas 

NED analysis focuses on economic benefits to the entire Nation. The RED 

evaluation recognizes the NED benefits accruing to the local region plus the 

transfers of income into the region. However, because the RED analysis focuses 

purely on the local region, it does not take into account potential offsetting effects 

occurring outside the region as does the NED analysis. As a Federal agency, 

Reclamation must analyze the NED effects so as not to favor one area of the 

country over another. Reclamation also analyzes the RED effects to the local 

economy to provide specific information on the primary impact area. However, 

economic justification is determined for each Joint Alternative solely by the 

benefit-cost analysis and must be demonstrated on the basis of NED benefits 

exceeding NED costs. 

In addition to the geographic differences between the analyses, the RED analysis 

includes not only the initial or direct impact on the primary affected industries (as 

does the NED analysis), but also the secondary or indirect effects on those 

industries providing input to the directly affected industries (referred to as the 

multiplier effect). This multiplier effect is not included in the NED analysis. 

Finally, yet another difference between the NED and RED analyses relates to the 

distinction between economic impacts and economic benefits. Economic impacts 

measure total economic activity within a given region using such indicators as 

output (sales or gross receipts), income, and employment. Economic impacts 

stem from changes in expenditures within the region. Conversely, benefits 

measure economic welfare based on a net value concept. For consumers, 

economic welfare reflects the value of goods and services consumed above what 

is actually paid for them (willingness-to-pay in excess of cost—also referred to as 

consumer surplus). For producers or businesses, economic welfare can be 

estimated by gross revenues minus operating costs (profit). 

While benefits and economic impacts often move in unison because they typically 

rise or fall with levels of production, there are many situations in which changes 

in benefits and economic impacts diverge. This potential for divergence, 

combined with the need to consider both national and regional perspectives, and 

the fact that different user groups are often interested in different economic 

measures, creates a need for both NED and RED analyses. Table 2.61 presents a 

summary of the results of the NED and RED analyses. 

2-103 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table 2.61 Comparative display of the NED and RED accounts for the Draft PR/EIS 

No Action 

Alternative1 

Black Rock 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam 

Plus Yakima 

River Pump 

Exchange 

Alternative 

NED account 

Beneficial effects – Present value of 100-year annual benefit stream in excess of No Action Alternative 

($ million) 

Agriculture Not applicable 84.6 26.5 26.5 

Municipal and industrial Not applicable 286.8 285.2 286.1 

Hydropower Not applicable 62.5 0 0 

Recreation Not applicable 602.4 102.7 111.1 

Fisheries Not applicable 8.7 0.5 5.1 

Total benefits Not applicable 1,045.1 414.8 428.7 

Adverse effects – OMR&E costs reflect present value of 100-year annual cost stream ($ million) 

Construction costs Not applicable 4,419.9 1,053.0 4,023.0 

Interest during 

construction 

Not applicable 1,095.9 304.1 1,130.6 

OM&R costs (present 

value) 

Not applicable 206.8 22.0 370.1 

Power costs (present 

value) 

Not applicable 1,016.9 38.6 403.1 

Total costs Not applicable 6,739.5 1,417.7 5,926.8 

Net benefits (total 

benefits – total costs) 

Not applicable (5,694.4) (1,002.9) (5,498.1) 

Benefit-cost ratio (total 

benefits ÷ total costs) 

Not applicable 0.16 0.29 0.07 

RED account 

Construction period impacts 

Construction: Estimates reflect impacts summed over the entire 10-year construction period. 

Output/sales ($ million) Not applicable $2,100 $613 $1,732 

Income ($ million) Not applicable $710 $216 $589 

Employment (jobs) Not applicable 18,667 5,677 15,539 

Annual benefit period impacts 

Irrigated agriculture: Agricultural impacts only occur in years when the proration percentage falls below 70%. 

As a result, impacts occur periodically and not every year. Agricultural impacts occurred in 5 of the 25 years of 

the hydrologic record (i.e., 1987, 1993, 1994, 2001, and 2005). 

Output/sales ($ million)

 1987 Not applicable $53.9 $16.8 $3.4 

1993 Not applicable $66.4 $45.7 $38.0 

1994 Not applicable $234.1 $14.5 $12.1 

2001 Not applicable $126.9 $81.3 $70.8 

2005 Not applicable $121.2 $22.8 $19.9 

Labor income ($ million) 

1987 Not applicable $18.4 $5.7 $1.2 

1993 Not applicable $22.7 $15.6 $13.2 

1994 Not applicable $82.6 $5.3 $4.4 

2001 Not applicable $44.2 $28.6 $25.3 

2005 Not applicable $42.2 $8.0 $7.2 

2-104 
Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

Table 2.61 Comparative display of the NED and RED accounts for the Draft PR/EIS 

(continued) 

No Action 

Alternative1 

Black Rock 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam 

Plus Yakima 

River Pump 

Exchange 

Alternative 

Employment 

1987 Not applicable 580 179 37 

1993 Not applicable 716 493 407 

1994 Not applicable 2,608 169 140 

2001 Not applicable 1,394 902 786 

2005 Not applicable 1,330 254 222 

Recreation (Recreation effects were converted to an average annual basis) 

Existing sites 

Output/sales ($ million) Not applicable $ 0.14 $ 0.05 $ 0.09 

Labor income ($ 

million) 

Not applicable $ 0.07 $ 0.02 $ 0.04 

Employment Not applicable 2 1 1 

Black Rock reservoir 

Output/sales ($ million) Not applicable $ 23.6 Not applicable2

 Not applicable2 

Labor income ($ 

million) 

Not applicable $ 9.2 Not applicable Not applicable 

Employment Not applicable 360 Not applicable Not applicable 

1

 All the economic effects were measured as a change from the No Action Alternative; as a result, No Action 

Alternative effects were not analyzed. 

2

 Recreators at Wymer reservoir are assumed to be from the local area; therefore, no regional impacts were 

generated. 

2.8.1 Preparing the EQ Evaluation 

The EQ account was evaluated by a team of Reclamation staff using information 

from the analyses prepared for each of the three Joint Alternatives. Disciplines 

represented on the team are as follows: activity management, engineering, 

wildlife biology, and fishery biology. The team identified six resource categories 

considered to be the most important in comparing the alternatives. The team 

subdivided some of these resource categories and proceeded with a nominal group 

technique to prioritize and weight the subcategories and categories. The weights, 

combined with the determination of effects under each category within each 

alternative, provide the framework for determining the environmentally preferred 

alternative. Table 2.62 presents the categories, subcategories, and weights. 

Table 2.63 presents a summary of the results of the EQ analyses. 

2-105 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table 2.62 Environmental quality resource categories and weights 

Category Weight Subcategories Weight 

Final 

weight 

Water resources 0.28 Prorationing

Municipal 

Total water supply available 

0.60 

0.13 

0.27 

0.168 

0.0364 

0.0756 

Fish 0.28 Base summer flow 

Spring flows 

Fish numbers 

Flip-flop 

0.07 

0.33 

0.47 

0.13 

0.0196 

0.0924 

0.1316 

0.0364 

Vegetation 0.04 Shrub-steppe

Black cottonwood 

0.67 

0.33 

0.0268 

0.0132 

Water quality 0.32 Temperature 

Seepage 

0.27 

0.73 

0.0864 

0.2336 

Threatened and 

endangered 

species 

0.04 Steelhead

Bull trout 

0.60 

0.40 

0.024 

0.016 

Land use 0.04 Overall impacts 1.00 0.04 

Totals 1.00 1.00 

Table 2.63 Comparative display of the EQ account for the Draft PR/EIS 

No Action 

Alternative 

Black Rock 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam 

and Reservoir 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam 

Plus Yakima 

River Pump 

Exchange 

Alternative 

EQ account 

Total score 0 0.66 0.37 0.61 

2.8.2 Preparing the OSE Evaluation 

The P&Gs recommend the Other Social Effects account should display and 

integrate information on effects from perspectives that are not reflected in the 

other three accounts. The study team identified three resource categories to 

include in the OSE account. The team subdivided two categories and used a 

nominal group technique to prioritize and weigh the subcategories and categories. 

The weights, combined with the determination of effects under each category 

within each alternative, provide the framework for determining the 

environmentally preferred alternative. Table 2.64 presents the identified 

categories, subcategories, and weights. Table 2.65 presents a summary of the 

results of the OSE analyses. 

2-106 
Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

Table 2.64 OSE resource categories and weights 

Final 

Category Weight Subcategories Weight weight 

Environmental justice 0.12 Overall impacts 1.0 0.12 

Recreation 0.44 Reservoir recreation 0.65 0.286 

Rafting 0.35 0.154 

Public health 0.44 Mosquitoes 0.65 0.286 

Hazardous and toxic 0.35 0.154 

materials 

Totals 1.00 1.00 

Table 2.65 Comparative display of the OSE account for the Draft PR/EIS 

No Action 

Alternative 

Black Rock 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam Plus 

Yakima River 

Pump Exchange 

Alternative 

OSE Account 

Total score 0 0.57 0.44 0.17 

2.8.3 Displaying the EQ and OSE Impacts from Alternatives 

During the effects analysis, each team member used the degree of impact as 

measured by the preset indicators and off-setting factors to determine how 

significant each impact would be. To help compare the effects of each 

alternative, the team used the scale below. 

0 (zero) = No effect 

-1 or +1 = Minor effect 

-2 of +2 = Significant effect 

-3 or +3 = Highly significant effect 

To determine the final score, the team multiplied each alternative’s resource 

category or subcategory effects score (between -3 and +3) with the category or 

subcategory weight. The resulting numbers reflect both the significance of the 

effect and the relative importance of the resource category or subcategory. The 

final scores indicate the relative beneficial or adverse affect on the environment or 

other social category. The Comparative Display of Alternatives (table 2.66) 

displays the final results of the EQ and OSE analyses. 

Table 2.69 (at the end of this chapter) presents a summary of the effects of the 

Joint Alternatives on the selected resource indicators. 

2-107 
 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table 2.66 Comparative display of alternatives 

Category Black Rock 

Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir 

Wymer Dam Plus 

Yakima River Pump 

Exchange 

EQ resource categories Weight Significance Score Significance Score Significance Score 

Water 

resources 

Prorationing 

Municipal 

Total Water 

Supply 

Available 

0.168 

0.0364 

0.0756 

3 

3 

1 

0.504 

0.1092 

0.0756 

1 

2 

1 

0.168 

0.0728 

0.0756 

1 

2 

1 

0.168 

0.0728 

0.0756 

Fish Base 

summer flow 

Spring flows 

Fish 

numbers 

Flip-flop 

0.0196 

0.0924 

0.1316 

0.0364 

2 

3 

2 

2 

0.0392 

0.2772 

0.2632 

0.0728 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0.0364 

3 

1 

1 

1 

0.0588 

0.0924 

0.1316 

0.0364 

Vegetation Shrubsteppe 

Black 

cottonwood 

0.0268 

0.0132 

-2 

1 

-0.0536 

0.0132 

-1 

0 

-0.0268 

0 

-1 

1 

-0.0268 

0.0132 

Water quality Temperature 

Seepage 

0.0864 

0.2336 

0 

-3 

0 

-0.7008 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Threatened 

and 

endangered 

species 

Steelhead 

Bull trout 

0.024 

0.016 

1 

0 

0.024 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0.024 

0 

Land use Overall 

impacts 

0.04 1 0.04 1 0.04 -1 -0.04 

Totals 1 0.664 0.366 0.606 

OSE resource categories Weight Significance Score Significance Score Significance Score 

Environmental 

justice 

Overall 

impacts 

0.12 0 0 0 0 -1 -0.12 

Recreation Reservoir 

recreation 

Rafting 

0.286 

0.154 

2 

1 

0.572 

0.154 

1 

1 

0.286 

0.154 

1 

1 

0.286 

0.154 

Public health Mosquitoes 

Hazardous 

and Toxic 

Materials 

0.286 

0.154 

0 

-1 

0 

-0.154 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

-1 

0 

-0.154 

Totals 1 0.572 0.440 0.166 

2-108 
 

Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

2.9 Other Alternatives Considered but Eliminated 

from Further Study 

2.9.1 Bumping Lake Enlargement Alternative 

Enlarging Bumping Lake has been proposed at various times by Reclamation and 

others in the Yakima River basin since the 1950s. The proposal for Bumping 

Lake Enlargement consists of a new dam approximately 4,500 feet downstream 

from the existing dam, with an enlarged reservoir capacity of approximately 

400,000 to 458,000 acre-feet. The zoned rockfill dam would be approximately 

233 feet high, with a crest length of about 3,300 feet. The surface area of the 

enlarged reservoir would be about 4,100 acres. The existing Bumping Lake Dam 

would be breached. The Bumping Lake enlargement area lies at the end of a twolane paved road some 12 miles off the Chinook Pass Highway. Goose Prairie is a 

small community a short distance downstream from the new damsite and would 

not be inundated. 

In 1979, Reclamation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prepared a joint 

feasibility report which was approved by the Secretary of the Interior, and a 

Proposed Bumping Lake Enlargement, Final Environmental Impact Statement, 

was filed by Reclamation with the Council of Environmental Quality on 

August 23, 1979 (Reclamation, 1979). Bumping Lake enlargement was also 

considered as a part of the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project 

conducted in the 1980s and early 1990s. In the mid-1980s, a 250,000-acre-foot 

enlargement was also considered. 

Over the years, several bills have been introduced in the Congress to authorize the 

construction and operation of the Bumping Lake Enlargement Alternative. 

However, no action has been taken. This is primarily due to the concerns 

expressed by the environmental community through local, State, and national 

organizations opposed to such action. 

The following environmental and social issues were raised in previous studies and 

are still of concern today. 

The William O. Douglas Wilderness Area, approximately 170,000 acres, is 

adjacent to the existing Bumping Lake. None of the reservoir enlargement 

options that have been considered were within the Wilderness Area boundary. 

However, a common concern voiced was that the enlarged reservoir would be 

visible from various vantage points and detract from the scenic vistas and 

aesthetic value of the Wilderness Area through reservoir drawdown and exposure 

of the reservoir bottom area. 

About 2,800 acres of terrestrial habitat, including approximately 1,900 acres 

of old-growth timber, would be inundated if Bumping Lake were enlarged to 

2-109 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

a capacity of 400,000 to 458,000 acre-feet. Old-growth timber serves as 

habitat for the spotted owl, an ESA-listed endangered species. 

Enlarging Bumping Lake would inundate approximately 10 miles of perennial 

and intermittent stream habitat downstream from the existing dam and upstream 

of the existing reservoir, affecting the aquatic ecosystem and fishery resources. 

This is compounded by the recent designation of Deep Creek and Bumping River 

as critical habitat for bull trout. 

The larger capacity reservoir would not fill on a regular basis and would not be a 

reliable source of water. 

Previous studies identified approximately 14 summer homes within the impact 

area of the enlarged reservoir. It was proposed that these summer homes would 

need to be relocated downstream from the new dam. A number of the owners 

opposed downstream relocation. 

The enlarged reservoir would also inundate existing recreational facilities and 

approximately 9 miles of U.S. Forest Service road, plus approximately 17 miles 

of road that would be closed, terminating all vehicle traffic above the damsite and 

road access to campgrounds above the existing reservoir. In addition to the roads, 

about 4 miles of trails would be inundated. These actions would hamper 

accessibility to areas above the reservoir. 

Increased traffic associated with construction activities at the new dam, including 

logging of the enlarged reservoir area, would have an adverse impact on the 

community of Goose Prairie. Further, increased recreation use at an enlarged 

reservoir could also adversely affect the community. 

While the concept of a natural (unregulated) hydrograph was not a primary issue 

in the past, it has become a significant concern in recent years. Representatives of 

the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and others expressed 

considerable reluctance at the spring 2007 Storage Study Roundtable discussions 

to include an enlarged Bumping Lake as a storage alternative to be carried into the 

planning report and environmental impact statement phase of the Storage Study. 

Figure 2.11 provides hydrographs of the estimated natural (unregulated) flow 

regime and the No Action flow regime of the Bumping River at RM 17.0. 

Currently, peak spring flows downstream from Bumping Dam parallel the natural 

(unregulated) flow with a “lag time” of about 20-30 days. With current capacity, 

Bumping Lake would fill and spill on the average about three times a year. 

2-110 
 

Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

Bumping River 

0 

100 

200 

300 

400 

500 

600 

700 

800 

900 

1000 

1-Nov

16-Nov

1-Dec

16-Dec31-Dec

15-Jan30-Jan

14-Feb

1-Mar

16-Mar31-Mar

15-Apr30-Apr

15-May30-May

14-Jun29-Jun

14-Jul29-Jul

13-Aug28-Aug

12-Sep27-Sep

12-Oct27-Oct 

Date 

Median Daily Flow (cfs) 

unregulated no action

 Figure 2.11 Median daily flow (cfs) in the Bumping River for unregulated and No Action Alternative flow

 scenarios, 1981-2005. 

Spring flows in excess of those required to fill the 33,700-acre-foot Bumping 

Lake are currently passed downstream and diverted for irrigation purposes or flow 

downstream from the Sunnyside Diversion Dam. Increased Bumping Lake 

storage would require regulation of spring flows, thus altering the current flow 

regime of the Bumping and Naches Rivers to the confluence of the Tieton River. 

The extent of change would depend on how much of the spring peak flow is 

captured and stored. 

An enlarged Bumping Lake could be used to help meet irrigation demands in the 

middle Yakima River basin subarea downstream from the confluence of the 

Yakima and Naches Rivers during the “storage control” period of Yakima Project 

operation. This could lessen the effect of the current early September “flip-flop” 

operation but it would require retention of some of the spring runoff from the 

Bumping Lake watershed in an enlarged Bumping Lake. This would also alter 

the current Bumping River flow regime. 

For comparison, approximately 82,500 acre-feet of stored irrigation water is 

released from Cle Elum Lake and pumped into Wymer reservoir during the winter 

season under the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative. This stored winter 

water would be released in July and August for irrigation, thus reducing 

2-111 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

streamflows in the Cle Elum River and in the upper Yakima River to Lmuma 

Creek by approximately 700 cfs compared to the current operation. 

The amount of Bumping Lake water available in an average water year to 

exchange with the upper Yakima River subbasin when flows greater than 400 cfs 

are captured and stored is 9,530 acre-feet; for 300 cfs, 19,200 acre-feet; and for 

200 cfs, 35,300 cfs (table 2.67). 

Table 2.67 Water available for an enlarged Bumping Lake and exchanged with the upper 

Yakima River reservoirs in an average water year 

Water Year Type 

Acre-feet potentially 

stored when flows 

>400 cfs 

Acre-feet potentially 

stored when flows 

>300 cfs 

Acre-feet potentially 

stored when flows 

>200 cfs 

Average 9,530 19,200 35,300 

If the maximum amount of additional Bumping Lake storage of 35,300 acre-feet 

is applied to the operation of Cle Elum Lake and Wymer reservoirs, it would 

provide a flow reduction in July and August of 295 cfs or a comparable reduction 

of 750 cfs for 24 days (table 2.68). Table 2.68 presents the number of flow days 

available for exchange between Bumping Lake and the upper Yakima River basin 

reservoirs for an average water year when Bumping River flows are in excess of 

400, 300, and 200 cfs are captured and stored and later used for an exchange in 

streamflow increments of 100 to 500 cfs. 

Table 2.68 Number of days available for exchange between Bumping Lake and the upper 

Yakima River basin 

cfs 

Average water year 

Number of days 

riverflow >400 cfs 

Number of days 

riverflow >300 cfs 

Number of days 

riverflow >200 cfs 

100 

200 

300 

400 

500 

48 

24 

16 

12 

10 

97 

48 

32 

24 

19 

178 

89 

59 

45 

36 

The amount of additional stored water available in average water years does not 

represent a meaningful amount to exchange with the three reservoirs in the upper 

Yakima River basin to warrant further consideration of this alternative. 

Because of the reasons stated above, Reclamation has concluded that the proposal 

for Bumping Lake Enlargement Alternative will be eliminated from further 

consideration in the Storage Study. 

2-112 
 

 

 

Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

2.9.2 Keechelus-to-Kachess to Pipeline Alternative 

A pipeline extending from Keechelus Dam to Kachess Dam has been considered 

for the primary purpose of improving water storage in Kachess Lake. A 

secondary purpose is streamflow management in the upper Yakima River from 

Keechelus Dam to Easton Diversion Dam. The concept is to transfer water from 

Keechelus Lake to Kachess Lake to increase the volume of total stored water. 

The pipeline could also be used to bypass some of the releases from Keechelus 

Dam during the irrigation season in the 11-mile Yakima River reach upstream of 

the Kachess confluence for anadromous fishery management, primarily during 

September spawning. 

The Keechelus-to-Kachess pipeline improves Kachess Lake storage contents in 

only 1 year of the 23-year period of record (1981-2003).14 This additional stored 

supply amounts to only about 400 acre-feet. The capability to bypass up to a 

maximum of 210 cfs of summer releases from Keechelus Lake could provide a 

benefit to the fishery in the reach of the Yakima River from Keechelus Dam to 

Easton Dam. RiverWare modeling indicated all the integrated operation scenarios 

do not appear to move the river flow regime toward a more normative regime 

because of the need to transport a high volume of water from the upper Yakima 

River reservoirs (primarily Cle Elum Lake) to irrigation users in the middle 

Yakima River basin area. Moving this high volume of water during the summer 

and fall seasons results in high flows, which is contrary to the natural 

(unregulated) hydrograph. Also, the modeled integrated 70-percent operation 

scenario does not eliminate or significantly diminish the current flip-flop reservoir 

operation. 

Reclamation, through its hydrologic analysis, has determined that the Keechelusto-Kachess pipeline provides neither irrigation nor fish habitat benefits, as it only 

provides extra storage in 1 year out of the 23-year period of record (1981-2003) 

and does not move the flow regime toward the more normative regime. Also, this 

alternative would not contribute to achieving the municipal water supply goal. 

Because of its failure to adequately meet the purpose and need of the project, 

Reclamation will not further analyze the Keechelus-to-Kachess Pipeline 

Alternative in this Draft PR/EIS. 

2.9.3 Rattlesnake Creek 

A proposed damsite called “Devil’s Table” would be located on Rattlesnake 

Creek in central Washington about 61⁄2 miles upstream of the Naches River. 

Reservoir size would be 43,000-58,000 acre-feet. The dam would inundate about 

580 acres of land and contain about 4.9 million cubic yards of embankment 

material, and require relocation of some county roads. 

14 Prior to 2007, Storage Study operation studies used a 23-year period of hydrologic record 

of 1981-2003. This has subsequently been expanded to a 25-year period of 1981-2005. 

2-113 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

The size of the reservoir is small, and the location within the basin is poor. This 

site cannot help meet the needs of the upper Naches River because it is not low 

enough on the Naches River system to achieve any significant benefits for 

reregulation of streamflows. Anadromous fish enhancement potential is only fair 

because of the limited amount of new storage possible and poor location on the 

Naches River system. Some potential anadromous fish spawning and rearing 

habitat would be inundated. Devil’s Table would offer some cooler water 

temperatures for instream flows, but it would be a small amount. 

Rattlesnake Creek sustains natural populations of cutthroat, rainbow, and bull 

trout. The remoteness of the area and presence of naturally produced fish results 

in a highly valued fishery because of the scarcity of such fisheries in the Yakima 

River basin. Impacts of a reservoir on this fishery would be highly significant, 

and elk and deer use of this area is substantial. Therefore, wildlife impacts and 

mitigation would be highly significant. 

A geotechnical study was conducted in 1987 and identified serious geotechnical 

problems with the potential Devil’s Table damsite, as well as with an alternative 

damsite identified at MP 4. Both locations are underlain by massive landslide 

deposits which could be reactivated by reservoir impoundment at these sites, 

causing instability of the right abutment and southern reservoir rim. Seepage 

through the right abutment areas at both sites could also be difficult to control. 

Remedial measures to reduce the seepage and the risk of slope failure are not 

technically practical or economically feasible. 

This alternative is eliminated from further analysis due to the geologic instability 

of the dam and reservoir, lack of fishery benefits to the basin, and lack of benefit 

to the instream reregulation benefits. 

2.9.4 Klickitat Diversion Project 

Two slightly different storage projects have been proposed on the Klickitat River. 

Project #1 was to build a “Mount Adams Dam” on the Klickitat River, including 

an 8-mile-long tunnel to divert the Klickitat River into the Yakima Valley near 

White Swan, west of Toppenish. Two aqueducts into the Yakima Valley would 

be included. One would run 25 miles from White Swan to Roza Canal, carrying 

400,000 acre-feet from April through October; the other would carry 100,000 

acre-feet of drinking water year-round to cities in the valley from White Swan to 

West Pasco, a distance of approximately 95 miles. 

Project #2 involved building a “Wakkiacus Dam” on the Klickitat River, 

including a 15-mile-long tunnel to divert the Klickitat River into the Yakima 

Valley near the town of Klickitat, to the Hanford “300 Area” at North Richland. 

A 110-mile-long aqueduct would deliver 500,000 acre-feet from April through 

October. 

2-114 
Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

This alternative is eliminated from further analysis due to the controversies 

associated with it. The Klickitat River is one of the few remaining free-flowing 

rivers in the Pacific Northwest, and construction of a mainstem dam would 

eliminate this. The lowermost reach of the Klickitat River (Wheeler Creek to the 

confluence) is designated as Wild and Scenic (1986); though this reach is 

downstream from the proposed damsite, disruption of sediment transport and a 

change in the temperature and flow regime would most likely have adverse 

consequences to this Wild and Scenic River reach. A dam of this size would 

decrease both juvenile and adult migrant survival rates, which is contrary to the 

fishery enhancement goals of the Yakama Nation and WDFW. 

2.10 Summary Comparison of Environmental 

Impacts of Alternatives 

Table 2.69 presents a summary of the effects of the Joint Alternatives on 

resources, by indicator. 

Table 2.69 Comparative analysis of Joint Alternatives by indicator: Yakima River Basin 

Water Storage Study Draft PR/EIS 

Resource 

indicator 

measurement 

Alternative 

No Action Black Rock 

Wymer Dam 

and Reservoir 

Wymer Dam 

Plus Yakima 

River Pump 

Exchange 

WATER RESOURCES 

Average for water years 1981-2005 (million acre-feet) 

Actual difference from No Action Alternative
 

Percentage difference from No Action Alternative
 

Water supply 

April 1 TWSA 2.84 2.90 

0.06 

2% 

2.94 

0.10 

4% 

2.94 

0.10 

4% 

Water distribution 

April-September Parker 

flow volume 

0.62 0.98 

0.36 

58% 

0.59 

-0.03 

-5% 

0.90 

0.28 

45% 

April-September diversion 1.91 1.47 

-0.44 

-23% 

1.95 

0.04 

2% 

1.64 

-0.27 

-14% 

September 30 reservoir 

contents 

0.30 0.43 

0.13 

43% 

0.40 

0.10 

33% 

0.40 

0.10 

33% 

April-September flow 

volume at mouth of 

Yakima River 

0.86 1.22 

0.36 

42% 

0.83 

-0.03 

-4% 

0.83 

-0.03 

-3% 

Irrigation delivery volume 

shortage 

-0.05 0.02 

-0.03 

-60% 

0.05 

0.00 

0% 

0.05 

0.0 

0% 

2-115 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table 2.69 Comparative analysis of Joint Alternatives by indicator: Yakima River Basin 

Water Storage Study Draft PR/EIS (continued) 

Resource 

indicator 

measurement 

Alternative 

No Action Black Rock 

Wymer Dam 

and Reservoir 

Wymer Dam 

Plus Yakima 

River Pump 

Exchange 

WATER RESOURCES (continued) 

1994 dry year (million acre-feet) 

Actual difference from No Action Alternative
 

Percentage difference from No Action Alternative
 

Water supply 

April 1 TWSA 1.75 1.94 

0.19 

11% 

1.76 

0.01 

1% 

1.77 

0.02 

1% 

Water distribution 

April-September Parker 

flow volume 

0.25 .58 

0.33 

132% 

0.25 

0.00 

0% 

0.57 

0.32 

128% 

April-September diversion 1.42 1.32 

-0.10 

-7% 

1.44 

0.02 

1% 

1.13 

-0.29 

-20% 

Sep 30 reservoir contents 0.07 0.04 

-0.03 

-43% 

0.06 

-0.01 

-14% 

0.06 

-0.01 

-14% 

April-September flow 

volume at mouth of 

Yakima River 

0.31 0.65 

0.34 

110% 

0.31 

0.00 

0% 

0.31 

0.00 

0% 

Irrigation delivery volume 

shortage 

0.38 0.12 

-0.26 

-68% 

0.38 

0.00 

0% 

0.38 

0.00 

0% 

Irrigation proration level 27% 70% 

43% 

29% 

2% 

29% 

2% 

NON-FEDERAL AND FEDERAL COLUMBIA RIVER HYDROPOWER 

Generation loss (average 

annual MW) 

None - 9.2 MW Not applicable Not applicable 

Value of generation loss 

(average annual $ 

millions) 

- $4 million 

Additional generation 

capacity (average annual 

MW) 

None 52.5 MW Not applicable Not applicable 

Pumping power 

requirement (average 

annual MW) 

None 132 MW 4.8 MW 61.7 MW 

Cost of pumping (average 

annual $ millions) 

None $50 million $1.9 million $19.8 million 

GROUNDWATER 

Volume and direction of 

seepage, continuous 

annual flow (cfs) 

No change 57 cfs – toward 

Columbia River 

Unknown - 

toward Yakima 

River 

Unknown - 

toward Yakima 

River 

SEDIMENT 

Sand transport No change Increased No change Increased 

Bed scour No change No change No change No change 

2-116 
 

 

Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

Table 2.69 Comparative analysis of Joint Alternatives by indicator: Yakima River Basin 

Water Storage Study Draft PR/EIS (continued) 

Resource 

Indicator 

measurement 

Alternative 

No Action Black Rock 

Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir 

Wymer Dam 

Plus Yakima 

River Pump 

Exchange 

WATER QUALITY 

Temperature No change No change No change No change 

Nutrients No change Decreased 

concentrations 

No change Decreased 

concentrations 

Pollutants – Yakima River No change Decreased 

concentrations 

No change Decreased 

concentrations 

Pollutants – Hanford reach No change Potential increase No change No change 

VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE 

Shrub-Steppe 

Disturbance 

(number of acres) 

None 3,850 1,055 1,055 

Movement Corridors 

Disturbance (number of 

places animal corridors are 

disturbed) 

None Impedes passage 

over 1/3 of corridor 

Negligible Negligible 

Black Cottonwood 

Regeneration None Increase No change Slight increase 

Wetland Abundance and Distribution 

Number of acres disturbed None 9 83 83 

ANADROMOUS FISH 

High summer flows in the upper Yakima and Cle Elum Rivers (acres of available habitat) 

Easton reach 

Steelhead fry habitat 4.1 4.4 

7.3% 

4.4 

7.3% 

4.3 

5.5% 

Steelhead yearling habitat 57.9 63.9 

10.4% 

58.6 

1.7% 

58.7 

1.3% 

Spring Chinook fry habitat 2.5 2.4 

-4.0% 

2.5 

0.0% 

2.5 

0.0% 

Spring Chinook yearling 

habitat 

47.9 52.6 

9.8% 

49.3 

2.9% 

49.0 

2.3% 

Ellensburg reach 

Steelhead fry habitat 2.2 2.1 

-4.5% 

2.1 

-4.5% 

2.1 

-4.5% 

Steelhead yearling habitat 20.2 26.1 

29.2% 

20.5 

1.5 

20.6 

2.3% 

Spring Chinook fry habitat 1.7 1.8 

5.9% 

1.8 

5.9% 

1.8 

4.5% 

Spring Chinook yearling 

habitat 14.9 14.6 

-2.0% 

13.8 

-7.4% 

14.5 

-2.4% 

Rate of change flip-flop (average cfs per day August 15 to September 14) 

Easton reach -8 cfs -4 cfs -7 cfs -6 cfs 

Ellensburg reach -78 cfs -51 cfs -58 cfs -57 cfs 

Lower Naches River reach 34 cfs 20 cfs 37 cfs 36 cfs 

2-117 
 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table 2.69 Comparative analysis of Joint Alternatives by indicator: Yakima River Basin 

Water Storage Study Draft PR/EIS (continued) 

Resource 

indicator 

measurement 

Alternative 

No Action Black Rock 

Wymer Dam 

and Reservoir 

Wymer Dam 

Plus Yakima 

River Pump 

Exchange 

ANADROMOUS FISH (continued) 

Reduced spring freshets downstream from the Parker gage (percentage difference in spring season flow 

between the alternative and flow objective; if >=0 then target flow reached) 

Stream runoff timing -7% 

Not applicable 

29% 

Improved 

-10% 

No change 

-11% 

No change 

Summer flows downstream from the Parker gage (acres of available habitat) 

Coho yearling habitat 

Total 63.7 64.7 

1.5% 

63.7 

-0.1% 

66.4 

4.1% 

Mainstem 56.7 44.2 

-22.0% 

56.7 

-0.2% 

41.8 

-26.2% 

Side channel 7.0 19.8 

184.9% 

7.0 

0.6% 

23.6 

239.7% 

Average annual fish escapement (includes harvest) numbers (natural + hatchery) 

Spring Chinook 7,189 9,066 7,294 8,428 

Fall Chinook 6,893 11,128 7,112 9,321 

Coho 8,475 10,242 8,591 9,392 

Steelhead 2,700 4,067 2,724 3,338 

RESIDENT FISH 

Summer flows in the upper Yakima and lower Naches Rivers 

(acres of available habitat and difference from No Action Alternative)
 

Easton reach 

Rainbow trout fry 

habitat 5.2 5.5 

5.8% 

5.4 

3.8% 

5.5 

5.8% 

Rainbow trout yearling 

habitat 57.2 63.2 

10.5% 

57.9 

-3.8% 

54.6 

-4.5% 

Bull trout yearling 

habitat 61.9 66.1 

6.8% 

62.9 

1.6% 

62.8 

1.5% 

Ellensburg reach 

Rainbow trout fry habitat 2.5 2.4 

-4.0% 

2.4 

-4.0% 

2.4 

-4.0% 

Rainbow trout yearling 

habitat 19.9 25.7 

28.9% 

20.3 

-20.1% 

17.0 

-9.5% 

Bull trout yearling 

habitat 20.5 20.3 

-1.0% 

20.3 

-1.0% 

2.3 

-1.0% 

Lower Naches River reach 

Rainbow trout fry habitat 4.3 4.2 

-0.8% 

4.3 

0.0% 

4.3 

0.0% 

Rainbow trout yearling 

habitat 45.9 47.2 

2.9% 

48.1 

0.2% 

46.0 

0.1% 

Bull trout yearling 

habitat 64.8 65.0 

0.3% 

64.8 

0.0% 

64.6 

-0.3% 

2-118 
Table 2.69 Comparative analysis of Joint Alternatives by indicator: Yakima River Basin 

Water Storage Study Draft PR/EIS (continued) 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam Resource Plus Yakima 

indicator Wymer Dam River Pump measurement No Action Black Rock and Reservoir Exchange 

RESIDENT FISH (continued) 

Bull trout spawner upmigration at reservoirs (inseason days impeded) 

Kachess Lake 18 15 18 17 

-16.7% 0.0% -5.5% 

Keechelus Lake 37 38 37 37 

2.7% 0.0% 2.7% 

Rimrock Lake 3 3 1 1 

0.0% -66.6% -66.6% 

Average minimum and maximum reservoir elevation during bull trout spawning migration: 

July 15 – September 15 (feet) 

Kachess Lake 2,248.4 2,253.1 2,249.3 2,249.7 

2,202.4 - 2,262.0 2,206.0 - 2,262.0 2,201.0 - 2,262.0 2,202.4 - 2,262.0 

Keechelus Lake 2,467.3 2,466.6 2,467.6 2,468.0 

2,427.5 - 2,513.3 2,427.6 - 2,514.4 2,427.5 - 2,514.9 2,427.5 - 2,514.9 

Rimrock Lake 2,909.9 2,906.2 2,912.3 2,911.7 

2,869.8 - 2,927.8 2,839.8 - 2,927.7 2,872.4 - 2,927.8 2,868.0 - 2,927.8 

AQUATIC INVERTEBRATES 

Community changes No change Positive No change Slight benefit 

THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

Middle Columbia River No effect No effect No effect No effect 

steelhead – false 

attraction 

Bull trout – false attraction No effect No effect No effect No effect 

Bald eagle No effect No effect No effect No effect 

Greater sage-grouse No effect Moderate adverse Moderate adverse Moderate adverse 

effect effect effect 

Ferruginous hawk No effect Low effect No effect No effect 

Ute Ladies’-tresses No effect Low to moderate No effect No effect 

beneficial effects 

Umtanum wild buckwheat No effect Low effect No effect No effect 

RECREATIONAL RESOURCES 

Annual visitation for new No effect 400,000 - 700,000 70,000 - 200,000 70,000 - 200,000 

facilities 

Additional annual No effect 14,745 3,631 3,631 

visitation at existing 

facilities (average year) 

LAND USE AND SHORELINE RESOURCES 

Acquisition of private land Not applicable 13,000 4,000 110 

(approximate acres) 

Acquisition of public lands Not applicable 0 0 0 

(approximate acres) 

Easement/ROW Not applicable 18 6 61 

acquisition across private 

land (approximate miles) 

Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

2-119 
 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table 2.69 Comparative analysis of Joint Alternatives by indicator: Yakima River Basin 

Water Storage Study Draft PR/EIS (continued) 

Resource 

indicator 

measurement 

Alternative 

No Action Black Rock 

Wymer Dam 

and Reservoir 

Wymer Dam 

Plus Yakima 

River Pump 

Exchange 

LAND USE AND SHORELINE RESOURCES (continued) 

Compatibility with existing 

uses 

Not applicable Local 

incompatibilities 

Local 

incompatibilities 

Local 

incompatibilities 

Consistency with relevant 

county land use plans and 

policies 

Not applicable Reservoir: 

consistency 

uncertain. 

Other facilities: 

likely consistent as 

conditional use 

Reservoir: 

consistency 

uncertain. 

Other facilities: 

likely consistent 

as conditional 

use 

Reservoir: 

consistency 

uncertain. 

Pump exchange: 

locally significant 

inconsistencies 

REGIONAL ECONOMY. See Regional Economic Development (RED) section of table 2.61 

PUBLIC SERVICE AND UTILITIES 

Exceedance of service or 

utility capacity (long-term 

impact) 

Not applicable None None None 

Disruption of services or 

utilities for existing 

residents and landowners 

(short-term, constructionphase impacts) 

Not applicable High potential but 

mitigable 

Minor potential; 

mitigable 

Highest potential 

but mitigable 

TRANSPORTATION 

Long term: Road/highway 

relocations (miles) 

Not applicable 15 0 0 

Short term: 

Road/highway crossing 

(instances) 

Not applicable 1 1 9 

AIR QUALITY 

Emissions during 

construction 

Not applicable Slight, short-term 

effect 

Slight, shortterm effect Slight, short-term 

effect 

Emissions during 

operation 

Not applicable No effect No effect No effect 

NOISE QUALITY 

Noise levels during 

construction 

Not applicable Slight, short-term 

effect 

Slight, shortterm effect Slight, short-term 

effect 

Noise levels during 

operation 

Not applicable No effect No effect No effect 

VISUAL RESOURCES 

Large-scale changes in 

visual setting 

Not applicable Visible to the public 

(significant) 

Visible to the 

public 

(significant) 

Visible to the public 

(significant) 

Local-scale changes in 

visual setting 

Not applicable Yes – significant Yes – significant Yes – significant 

HISTORIC PROPERTIES 

Number of affected 

properties 

Not applicable Unknown Unknown Unknown 

2-120 
Table 2.69 Comparative analysis of Joint Alternatives by indicator: Yakima River Basin 

Water Storage Study Draft PR/EIS (continued) 

Resource 

indicator 

measurement 

Alternative 

No Action Black Rock 

Wymer Dam 

and Reservoir 

Wymer Dam 

Plus Yakima 

River Pump 

Exchange 

HISTORIC PROPERTIES 

Number of affected 

properties 

Not applicable Unknown Unknown Unknown 

INDIAN SACRED SITES 

Number of affected sites Not applicable Unknown Unknown Unknown 

INDIAN TRUST ASSETS 

Number/type affected None None None None 

PUBLIC HEALTH 

Hazardous and toxic 

materials 

No change No change No change No change 

Mosquitoes No change No change No change No change 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

Impact to minority and 

low-income populations 

None Negligible None Unknown 

Chapter 2 

Joint Alternatives 

2-121 
Chapter 3 

STATE ALTERNATIVES 
CHAPTER 3 

STATE ALTERNATIVES 

3.1 Introduction 

3.1.1 Alternatives Development 

This chapter describes the alternatives that Ecology is considering under its 

authority to evaluate both storage and nonstorage alternatives to improve flows in 

the Yakima River basin. These alternatives are outside the authority and scope of 

Reclamation’s Storage Study and are described and evaluated separately as “State 

Alternatives.” 

Reclamation’s authority for the Storage Study is limited to a Black Rock 

Alternative and other storage options in the Yakima River basin. Ecology and 

Reclamation are jointly considering these Joint Alternatives. As described in 

chapter 1, Ecology is evaluating a broader range of alternatives to meet the 

requirements of SEPA. For the purposes of SEPA, the alternatives are not limited 

to storage options or storage facilities located in the Yakima River basin. Another 

difference between the Joint Alternatives and the State Alternatives is that the 

Joint Alternatives apply only to irrigation districts in the Yakima Project. The 

State Alternatives apply to individual irrigators, all irrigation districts, and 

municipal and industrial users. 

In December 2006, Reclamation and Ecology initiated scoping for the combined 

NEPA/SEPA EIS on the Storage Study. A number of scoping comments 

requested that Ecology consider nonstorage alternatives to fulfill its obligations 

under SEPA to identify reasonable alternatives in the EIS. Ecology determined 

that the objectives of the Yakima Storage Study are to provide additional water 

supplies for anadromous fish and agricultural irrigation, as well as to provide 

water for municipal growth. Based on these objectives and the scoping 

comments, Ecology decided to evaluate three additional State Alternatives in the 

EIS. These alternatives are: 

•	 Alternative 1: Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative to implement 

water conservation measures in the basin; 

•	 Alternative 2: Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative 

that includes water transfers and water banking; and 

•	 Alternative 3: Groundwater Storage Alternative that includes both active 

aquifer storage and recharge, and passive recharge. 

In addition, Ecology considered including sites from the Columbia River 

Mainstem Off-Channel Storage Study to supplement water supplies in the Yakima 

3-1 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

River basin. However, as described in section 3.5, that alternative is not being 

carried forward at this time because further study of storage in the Columbia 

River Basin has not been authorized, and it would be speculative to carry forward 

such an alternative at this time. The No Action Alternative, required to be 

considered under both NEPA and SEPA, is described in chapter 2 and the 

description is not repeated in this chapter. The analysis of the State Alternatives 

compares the proposed actions to the No Action Alternative. 

The three State Alternatives are described below. Impacts of the State 

Alternatives are evaluated in chapter 5. 

3.1.2 Summary of Alternative Results 

The purposes of the State Alternatives are to improve water supply and water 

allocation in the Yakima River basin and specifically to meet the congressional 

goals of: 

• Improving fish habitat 

• Improving water supply for irrigation 

• Meeting future municipal needs 

It is not anticipated that any one State Alternative would meet all of the Storage 

Study goals (chapter 1) in all parts of the basin all of the time. Each of the goals 

has different requirements for quantity of water, place of use, and season of use. 

The goal for the proratable irrigation districts is 896,000 acre-feet of water for 

irrigation during a dry year. The cabin owners who hold post-1905 water rights 

have a need for approximately 500 acre-feet of municipal supply in the upper 

watershed during the irrigation season in dry years. Growing cities need water 

year-round for municipal supply. Additional water for instream flow is most 

valuable in tributaries within the system and in the upper reaches of the mainstem 

Yakima River. Each of the State Alternatives has the potential capacity to meet 

some of the goals more than others. Therefore, it is likely that the State 

Alternatives could be used in combination to meet specific goals or individually 

to address specific water allocation problems. For example, the Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative may supply instream flows in a specific reach or 

improve water supply for some proratable irrigation rights; the Market-Based 

Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative may supply water for instream flows 

and for the cabin owners; and the Groundwater Storage Alternative may supply 

municipal needs. 

The Enhanced Conservation Alternative will slightly improve instream flow and 

water supply conditions during drought years. It can also meet future municipal 

demands during most years. For example, instream flow in the Yakima River 

(measured at the Parker gage) would increase by 40,000 acre-feet on average. 

Water supplies for proratable water users would increase by 20,000 acre-feet 

3-2 
Chapter 3 

State Alternatives 

during a severe drought year such as occurred in 1994. An additional municipal 

water supply of 13,400 acre-feet upstream of the Parker gage could be provided in 

a drought year such as occurred in 1994. 

The Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative would not 

increase the overall water supply in the Yakima River Basin, but could supply 

some municipal and irrigation water needs. It may improve instream flow in 

some reaches, depending on the location of transfers. It is estimated that 

approximately 225,000 acre-feet of water could be transferred during a typical 

drought year to meet proratable water users’ demands. During non-drought years, 

water transfers could improve streamflow, meet municipal demands and provide 

some water for irrigation. However, the water supplied would be obtained from 

existing uses. 

The Groundwater Storage Alternative would slightly improve streamflow in the 

Yakima River during the April-September time period and provide water for 

future municipal demands, instream flow or irrigation. The water supply for 

those needs would increase by 22,800 to 25,800 acre-feet per year on average 

during the April-September time period. This alternative would require water 

withdrawals from the Yakima River to supply the groundwater storage projects 

so a decrease in flow of 33,000 acre-feet per year on average would also occur, 

but only when flow is available for diversion. During a drought year when no 

flow is available for diversion, some groundwater return flow, approximately 

1,600 acre-feet, would still occur and slightly increase water supply. 

3.1.3 Consumptive versus Nonconsumptive Use of Water 

Consumptive and nonconsumptive use are important considerations in water 

conservation programs, water transfers, and water markets and banking. Defining 

consumptive use is an important consideration for the Enhanced Water 

Conservation and the Market-Based Reallocation of Water Alternatives. 

For a use of water involving a diversion from a source, a portion of the water 

withdrawn is consumed or lost to further use, primarily through evaporation. 

Examples of consumptive use within irrigation delivery systems include 

evaporation from open canals and drains, and evapotranspiration (ET) from 

vegetation growing along canal banks. For on-farm water use, consumptive use 

includes crop ET, evaporation of water sprayed into the air (spray evaporative 

loss), evaporation from the plant canopy (canopy loss), and water blown off of the 

irrigated property (wind drift) (Ecology, 2005a). 

A nonconsumptive use is defined by Ecology regulation as water that is not 

diverted from a source or that is diverted and used without diminishment of the 

source. Examples of nonconsumptive uses include seepage and return flow from 

an irrigation canal and percolation from farmlands where water in excess of ET is 

3-3 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

applied to fields. An example of a nonconsumptive use when water is not 

removed from the source is hydroelectric generation at a dam. 

A water use may also be consumptive to a specific reach of a stream when water 

is diverted, used, and returned to the same source at a point downstream that is 

not in close proximity to the point of diversion. The segment of the stream 

between the point of withdrawal and the point of discharge is called the bypass 

reach. An example is a hydroelectric project that diverts the source into a canal 

that carries the water to a generating station, then returns it to the source some 

distance downstream. 

The consumptive and nonconsumptive portions of a water right are important 

when determining how much water can be transferred or reallocated from a water 

conservation or water transfer project. Ecology has published guidance 

on determining irrigation efficiency and crop consumptive use (Ecology, 2005a). 

Typically the consumptive use portion of a water right can be transferred or 

reallocated from one water user to another within the Yakima River basin with 

conditions as to the location of transfers, effect on streamflow, and operations of 

the Yakima Project. 

Transfers of the nonconsumptive portion of a water right are more difficult 

because each must be “water budget” neutral, that is, it must not increase 

consumptive use (unless offset by other water provided). In addition, each 

transfer cannot impair water rights, including instream flow water rights, in the 

bypass reach between the locations of the original and new points of diversion. 

3.2 Alternative 1 - Enhanced Water Conservation 

3.2.1 Description 

The Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative is an aggressive program of water 

conservation measures to improve basin water supply without constructing 

additional large water storage reservoirs. The alternative includes conservation 

measures for irrigation district infrastructure improvements, on-farm conservation 

and irrigation efficiency improvements, municipal conservation, and commercial 

and industrial conservation. 

Specific water conservation measures include lining or piping existing canals, 

automating canals, constructing reregulating reservoirs on irrigation canals, 

improving water measurement and accounting systems, installing on-farm water 

conservation improvements, and other measures. Municipal, commercial, and 

industrial conservation measures include improvements to infrastructure, 

household conservation programs, changes in commercial and industrial practices, 

and the use of reclaimed water. 

3-4 
 

 

 

 

Chapter 3 

State Alternatives 

Most of the projects proposed for the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative 

involve reducing seepage and return flow which are nonconsumptive uses of 

water when viewed in terms of the entire river basin. They are consumptive uses 

when viewed reach by reach. Only a small amount of the water that will be 

conserved can be attributed to consumptive uses. However, the Yakima Project 

has some flexibility in its operation and can allow some redistribution of water 

within the basin. The challenge is balancing the reduced seepage and return flow 

from conservation projects with the potential effects on downstream water users 

and instream flows. For that reason, water conservation projects in lower basin 

locations such as Roza Irrigation District, Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District, 

and Wapato Irrigation District may be the focus for water conservation as long as 

projects to mitigate for reduced streamflow and water supply and to improve 

water quality below the Parker gage are completed. 

3.2.2 Enhanced Water Conservation Projects 

Agricultural water conservation measures included in the Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative have been identified in currently published Water 

Conservation Plans or other documents prepared by irrigation districts, 

conservation districts, or State and Federal entities. Specific projects are listed in 

the following tables. Table 3.1 provides a list of potential water conservation 

projects for water users that divert from the Yakima River, table 3.2 provides a 

list of potential water conservation projects for water users that divert from the 

Naches River. Other water conservation opportunities have been identified and 

are described in the Technical Report on the Enhanced Water Conservation 

Alternative (Ecology, 2007f). These other conservation opportunities were not 

analyzed in this study as the RiverWare model works with mainstem water users 

along the Yakima and Naches Rivers and not the tributaries. However the volume 

of water represented by the additional conservation projects is small compared to 

the volumes shown in tables 3.1 and 3.2 and would not change the findings of this 

report. 

Table 3.1 Conserved water resulting from enhanced water conservation measures – Yakima River 

water users 

Conserved water 

Flow Volume 

Entity Action 

(cfs) (acre-feet) 

Seepage 

Reduced 

spill Total Seepage 

Reduced 

spill Total 

Kittitas 

Reclamation 

District 

Lining/piping 5.5 5.5 2,000 2,000 

Westside 

Irrigation 

Lining/piping 1.7 1.7 600 600 

3-5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table 3.1 Conserved water resulting from enhanced water conservation measures – Yakima River 

water users (continued) 

Entity Action 

Conserved water 

Flow 

(cfs) 

Volume 

(acre-feet) 

Seepage 

Reduced 

spill Total Seepage 

Reduced 

spill Total 

Westside 

Irrigation 

On-farm 

conservation 

9.1 9.1 3,300 3,300 

Ellensburg 

Water 

Company 

On-farm 

conservation 

19.6 19.6 7,100 7,100 

Cascade 

Irrigation 

District 

On-farm 

conservation 

24.8 24.8 9,000 9,000 

Cascade 

Irrigation 

District 

Variable pump 

installation and 

tailwater reuse 

5.8 5.8 2,088 2,.88 

Bull Canal 

Company 

Lining/piping 1.8 1.8 639 639 

Bull Canal 

Company 

On-farm 

conservation 

1.9 1.9 680 680 

Union Gap 

Irrigation 

District 

Automation 0.6 0.6 200 200 

Wapato 

Irrigation 

Project 

Lining/piping 101.4 101.4 36,800 36,800 

Wapato 

Irrigation 

Project 

On-farm 

conservation 

89.5 89.5 32,500 32,500 

Wapato 

Irrigation 

Project 

Automation 40.5 40.5 14,700 14,700 

Wapato 

Irrigation 

Project 

Storage/ 

reregulation 

700 700 

Sunnyside 

Valley 

Irrigation 

District 

Lining/piping 11.7 11.7 4,265 4,265 

Kennewick 

Irrigation 

District 

Pump 

exchange 

1

178 64,500 

Kiona 

Irrigation 

District 

Lining/piping 41.2 41.2 439 4,124 

Columbia 

Irrigation 

District 

Lining/piping 

and pump 

exchange 

1

72 26,000 

1

 Conserved flow and volume results from change in point of diversion from Yakima River to Columbia River along 

with some reduced seepage from replacing canals. 

3-6 
 

Chapter 3 

State Alternatives 

Table 3.2 Conserved water resulting from enhanced water conservation measures – Naches River 

water users 

Entity Action 

Conserved water 

Flow 

(cfs) 

Volume 

(acre-feet) 

Seepage 

Reduced 

spill Total Seepage 

Reduced 

spill Total 

Nile Valley 

Ditch 

Association 

Lining/piping 1.1 – 1.1 395 395 

NachesSelah 

Irrigation 

District 

Lining/piping 23.9 – 23.9 8,675 8,675 

South 

Naches 

Irrigation 

District 

Lining/piping 26.8 – 26.8 9,733 9,733 

Gleed Ditch 

Company 

Lining/piping 0.3 – 0.3 100 100 

Yakima 

Valley Canal 

Company 

Lining/piping 1.4 – 1.4 500 500 

Naches and 

Cowiche 

Canal 

Company 

Lining/piping 1.7 – 1.7 600 600 

The Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative assumes that the conservation 

measures would be funded through State and Federal sources as well as local 

sources. 

An additional water conservation project on the mainstem Yakima River has been 

identified but not analyzed for this report. The largest potential project is a pump 

back project on the lower Yakima River where water would be pumped into the 

lower Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District or Roza Irrigation District canals. This 

project may be feasible because of the increased instream flow present from 

implementation of the YRBWEP and the reduced diversions by Kennewick 

Irrigation District and Columbia Irrigation District for the projects shown in 

table 3.1. If feasible, the project may supply up to 200 cfs (72,000 acre-feet on an 

annual basis) back to the Sunnyside and Roza Canals. The project was not further 

analyzed at this time because of uncertainty of impacts to fisheries in the lower 

Yakima River. Further study of the feasibility of the project is recommended 

prior to selecting conservation projects to implement. 

3-7 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

3.2.3 Comparison to the No Action Alternative 

Both the No Action Alternative (chapter 2) and the Enhanced Water Conservation 

Alternative include conservation measures. The conservation measures included 

in the No Action Alternative are measures that will be implemented under the 

Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Program. The Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative represents more aggressive implementation of 

conservation and differs from the No Action Alternative as follows: 

•	 Conservation measures proposed under YRBWEP will be implemented. 

The Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative includes other 

conservation projects and municipal, industrial, and commercial 

conservation projects. 

•	 Under YRBWEP, two-thirds of the conserved water resulting from a 

conservation measure is assigned to instream flows, and it is assumed to 

remain in the river from the implementing entity’s point of diversion to the 

last point of operational discharge from its water delivery system. Onethird of the conserved water is retained by the implementing entity 

for irrigation use. Under YRBWEP, two-thirds of the implementation cost 

of conservation measures will be federally funded by Reclamation, and 

one-third will be funded equally by a non-Federal entity (Ecology) and the 

implementing entity. A “cost ceiling” was established for the Federal 

funds of $67.5 million (in 1990 dollars) and is subject to increase by 

applicable cost indices. (The 2007 Federal cost ceiling is $115 million.) 

•	 For the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative two options are being 

considered: 

o	 Two-thirds of the conserved water may be retained by the 

implementing entity for irrigation or municipal and industrial use, 

while one-third is assumed to remain in the river from the 

implementing entity’s point of diversion to the last point of operational 

discharge from its water delivery system; or 

o	 All of the conserved water would be retained by the implementing 

entity for irrigation or municipal and industrial use. 

For the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative, it is assumed that at least twothirds of the implementation cost would be funded by Ecology without Federal 

funds, with the remainder funded by the implementing entity. No specific cost 

ceiling has been established for the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative. 

For this analysis it was assumed that conserved water would become part of the 

TWSA to be managed by Reclamation for all water users. The assignment of 

benefits of conserved water will likely depend on the funding source and will be 

determined during the implementation phase. 

3-8 
Chapter 3 

State Alternatives 

The total estimated cost in 2007 dollars is $405 million. The cost may change as 

feasibility studies progress and some projects are found to be either not feasible or 

the benefits not sufficient to support the cost. 

3.3 Alternative 2 – Market-Based Reallocation of 

Water Resources 

3.3.1 Description 

The Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative proposes to 

reallocate water resources through a water market and/or water bank to improve 

water supply in the Yakima River basin. The alternative intends to: 

•	 Increase the overall value of the goods and services derived from the 

basin’s water resources, by reallocating water from low-value to highvalue uses. 

•	 Reduce the delay and cost of transactions that reallocate water resources. 

•	 Ensure that, before transactions are completed, appropriate consideration 

is given to the potential impacts on third parties. 

•	 This alternative proposes both water marketing and water banking options 

to facilitate water transfers and reallocate water resources. There is no one 

accepted definition of water markets or water banking. For the purposes 

of this alternative, the term “water market” refers to an institutional 

process designed to facilitate the voluntary transfer of water rights from a 

willing buyer to a willing seller on a permanent or temporary basis. The 

term “water bank” means an institution designed to (1) accept deposit of a 

water use entitlement, which will not be used by the water right owner 

during the time it is in the bank, and (2) make the entitlement available for 

withdrawal by the water right owner/depositor or another entity (Mentor 

and Morin, 2007). 

The primary difference between a water market and a water bank is that in a water 

market, a water right holder is seeking a direct transaction with someone who 

wants to buy or lease his or her water. In a water bank, a water right holder 

deposits the water right into the bank on a permanent or temporary basis, and the 

bank makes the water available to a third party. The transactions in a water bank 

are between the water right holder and the bank on the one hand, and the bank and 

the third party on the other hand. The bank may pool water rights deposited by 

multiple water right holders to make larger blocks of water available for sale or 

lease. Another important distinction is that water rights listed in a market 

continue to be used pending a transaction to sell or lease the right. Water rights 

deposited to a bank are not beneficially used while they are on deposit and 

therefore, they must be protected from relinquishment. 

3-9 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

3.3.2 Water Banks and Water Markets in Washington 

To date, formal water marketing in Washington has been limited. Purchases and 

leases of water rights on a permanent or temporary basis occur regularly 

throughout the State. Many of the temporary leases are undertaken by non-profit 

groups such as the Washington Water Trust or Washington Rivers Conservancy 

to benefit instream flows. Ecology and Reclamation implemented an emergency 

leasing program in the Yakima River basin during the 2001 drought. In 2003, the 

Washington Legislature provided authority for water banking in the Yakima River 

basin using the Trust Water Rights Program (Chapter 90.42 RCW). Under this 

authority, Ecology conducted reverse auctions in the Yakima Basin in 2005 and 

2007. 

Beginning with the 2001 drought, the use of the State’s Trust Water Right 

Program has evolved substantially to meet the needs of existing and prospective 

water users (Ecology, 2006b). Experience to date indicates that reallocation of 

existing water rights has taken place in five fairly distinct categories: 

1. Drought-year transfers of a single season duration; 

2. Drought-year mitigation banks; 

3. Leases and purchases for environmental purposes; 

4. Transfers and mitigation banking for post-1905 domestic and municipal 

water users; and 

5. Transfers and mitigation banking for prospective domestic and municipal 

purposes. 

To comply with requirements of the water banking legislation, Ecology prepared 

reports to the legislature in 2004 and 2006 (Ecology and WestWater Research, 

2004; Ecology, 2006b). The 2004 report summarizes the status of water banking 

in western states and describes the considerations for developing a successful 

water bank. The 2006 report included a summary of statutory challenges to water 

banking in Washington. 

3.3.3 Development of Options for the Market-Based Reallocation 

of Water Resources Alternative 

Because the State has limited experience and success with water markets and 

water banks, Ecology determined that a broad range of options should be 

considered for the Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative. 

The options presented in this EIS provide Ecology with the opportunity to 

evaluate a variety of options for administering and operating water markets or 

banks. The options include those for both water markets and water banks to allow 

additional flexibility in developing a reallocation system. 

3-10 
Chapter 3 

State Alternatives 

Ecology developed the options for the Market-Based Reallocation of Water 

Resources Alternative using information from the 2004 and 2006 legislative 

reports and a review of literature on existing water markets in the West. Key 

considerations in developing the options were elements for administering the 

market or bank and changes that would be required to existing Washington water 

law. A detailed report on developing the options is presented in the Technical 

Report on the Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative 

(Ecology, 2007h). 

Development of the Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative 

considered both the administrative structure of the water market or water bank 

and issues and concerns specific to implementing such a program in Washington. 

Both are briefly described below and are addressed in more detail in the Technical 

Report (Ecology, 2007h). 

3.3.3.1	 Administrative Structure of Water Markets and Water Banks 

There are a variety of administrative considerations in developing water markets 

and water banks. Considerations include: 

•	 Organization structure and function. A key to successful markets is the 

availability of information. Options for providing information include 

information clearinghouse, brokerage, and providing technical support. 

Means must also be provided to verify that transactions have occurred and 

comply with the terms of the contract. 

•	 Administrator. A successful administrator must have the trust of all the 

users and the expertise to provide the structure and functions of the market 

or bank. 

•	 Price. Because potential buyers and sellers may not know of one another 

or have enough information about costs, an important function of a water 

market or bank is the distribution of information regarding the water 

available for sale or lease, the price attached to each, and details of prior 

transactions. 

•	 Who can buy/lease or sell/lease water. The goal of a water market or 

water bank will determine who should be allowed to participate. The 

market or bank can be restricted to those who already hold water rights or 

could be open to anyone desiring water. 

3.3.3.2	 Issues and Concerns with Market-Based Reallocation of Water 

Resources in Washington 

An important element for the success of water markets and water banks is a 

system that not only allows, but facilitates and encourages water transfers through 

such mechanisms. In Washington the key issues to facilitate reallocation are: 

3-11 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

•	 Laws and Rules Governing Transfers of Water Rights. Transfers of water 

rights are subject to statutory requirements (RCW 90.03.380) and transfers 

into and out of the Trust Water Rights Program (TWRP) have additional 

requirements (Chapters 90.38 and 90.40 RCW). The time to process water 

right transfers under these requirements is seen as an impediment to 

successful markets and banks. Streamlining the process may require 

changes in legislation and agencies rules, policies, and procedures. 

•	 Who Evaluates the Water Rights Transfer? Government approval of a 

water right transfer has been identified as a serious impediment to 

successful water markets and water banks with the blame placed on 

processes that are slow, costly, and burdensome (Ecology 2007h). In 

Washington, Ecology evaluates a water rights transfer. Until the Yakima 

River basin adjudication is complete, the Yakima Superior Court evaluates 

temporary transfers. Federal laws and Reclamation water contracts add a 

layer of complexity. 

•	 Timing of Evaluation. In the past, Ecology’s review process has slowed 

the transfer of water rights. Legislation that established a separate review 

process for new water rights and water rights changes and other 

administrative changes have reduced the review time. Additional changes 

could be made to separate the review process for transfers through a water 

market or bank. 

•	 Transaction Costs. Transaction costs include processing time and the 

expenses parties incur to overcome the complexity of completing a deal. 

Buyers and sellers can be discouraged if they perceive the transactions 

costs are too high. The Yakima Transfer Working Group has helped 

reduced some of the transaction costs in the Yakima basin. Other changes 

such as improved publicizing of markets and prices could further reduce 

real and perceived transaction costs. 

•	 Third-Party Impacts. The impacts of water transfers on third parties is a 

major concern with water markets and water banking and may present the 

greatest impediment to successful water markets and banks (MacDonnell, 

1995). RCW 90.38.380 requires that a transfer may not impair other 

existing water rights. Other third-party impacts, including public interest 

values such as the viability of a particular industry or the prosperity of a 

community, are not considered when surface water transfers are evaluated. 

Ecology could seek legislative changes to require consideration of the 

public interest in the evaluation of water right transfers. 

•	 Who Do You Trust? Lack of trust in the entity administering water 

markets and water banks is a potential impediment to reallocation, 

especially when the entity that administers the transfers is the same entity 

that regulates water rights. Ecology has acknowledged that some 

3-12 
Chapter 3 

State Alternatives 

landowners lack trust in the agency (Ecology, 2006b). Ecology may be 

able to overcome this problem through education and other efforts. An 

alternative solution to this problem is to allow non-regulatory entities to 

provide education on water transfer opportunities, to conduct confidential 

evaluations of water rights, and possibly to administer a water market or 

water bank. 

•	 Irrigation Districts and Water Right Transfers. Irrigation districts play a 

major role in the allocation of water in the Yakima River basin. Districts 

are allowed to make some water transfers within irrigation districts 

without Ecology approval and may form a Board of Joint Control between 

districts to allow transfers between those districts. Irrigation districts can 

prevent the transfer of water outside the district and this has been 

identified as a barrier to water right transfers. If this is identified as a 

problem in the Yakima basin, Ecology could seek legislation that requires 

irrigation districts that object to a transfer to demonstrate that the transfer 

would adversely affect the delivery of water or the financial integrity of 

the district. 

3.3.4 Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative 

Options 

Based on the evaluation of potential water markets and water banks presented in 

Technical Report (Ecology 2007h), Ecology is considering two options for 

implementing water marketing and four options for water banking in the Yakima 

River basin. Alternatives 2A and 2C are based on existing laws and structures 

with some suggestions for streamlining and efficiency. Alternatives 2B, 2D, 2E, 

and 2F call for substantial changes to the existing laws and structures. 

Alternatives 2E and 2F are options for creating water banks to facilitate transfers 

within and from irrigation districts. 

3.3.4.1 Alternative 2A: Water Market Using Existing Authority 

The Water Market Using Existing Authority option would bring sellers and 

buyers together and operate under existing laws and regulations regarding water 

right transfers with noted changes to improve efficiency. The market would be 

administered by a private nonprofit entity that would operate solely as a 

clearinghouse. The administrator would post information about the water rights 

of willing sellers and information about water rights that willing buyers are 

looking for. Information would include the location of the water right, the 

elements of the right including quantity, point of diversion, place of use, purpose 

of use, season of use, and priority date. 

Additional characteristics of the Water Market Using Existing Authority 

Alternative include: 

3-13 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

•	 The market would accept a water right for posting based on evidence of 

confirmation by the Yakima Superior Court through the adjudication. If 

more than 5 years have passed since entry of the Conditional Final Order 

for the water right, a water right evaluated by a Certified Water Rights 

Examiner would be accepted for posting. Legislation would be required to 

authorize the certification of water rights examiners. 

•	 The administrator would conduct outreach and education regarding the 

market and opportunities it provides. The administrator would also track 

all transactions carried out through the market to provide others with 

information about previous transactions. 

•	 The market would be restricted to buyers/lessees who hold current water 

rights that do not provide adequate water for the purpose for which they 

were issued and to those acquiring water for instream flow. 

•	 Prices would be determined by market forces and negotiations between 

buyers and sellers. A transaction fee would be charged to help fund the 

administration of the market. 

The water right transfer process would be based on existing statutes, implemented 

in slightly different ways from Ecology’s current practices. Currently, the 

primary statutory requirement for transfers is that a transfer may not impair any 

existing water rights. Because the extent and validity of the rights would have 

been determined by the Yakima Superior Court or by a Certified Water Rights 

Examiner, the determination of potential injury from the transfer would be limited 

to the consumptive use analysis. Legislation is required to simplify this analysis 

and make the process more transparent. To facilitate implementation, Ecology 

should also amend its rule to create a separate line for processing applications to 

transfer water rights that are being acquired through the market. This would 

provide an incentive to conduct transactions through the market. 

3.3.4.2 Alternative 2B: Open Water Market 

This alternative provides the framework for a more open and active market. The 

market would offer more services to sellers and buyers, and the transfer approval 

process would require legislative changes. The administrator of this market 

would operate not only as an information clearinghouse similar to Alternative 2A, 

but also as a broker to oversee the mechanics of the transaction. This function is 

analogous to a real estate broker in that the administrator would help sellers post 

and price water for sale or lease and help buyers find water on the market that 

meets their needs. The administrator would offer technical support to move the 

transfer through the regulatory process. The administrator would also offer 

verification services to confirm that the seller no longer uses the right, the buyer 

received it, and both parties complied with the contract. 

3-14 
Chapter 3 

State Alternatives 

There are two options for administering and funding this market. One would be 

for a private, nonprofit organization to administer the market (like Alternative 

2A), with operation of the market funded by transaction fees. A second option 

would be for a private, for-profit entity to administer the market and charge 

commissions as well as fees on transactions, including perhaps a use fee for water 

transferred through the market. The price for water would be market-driven, and 

anyone could buy or lease water through the market regardless of whether they 

currently have water rights. 

The most significant difference from Alternative 2A would be the process for 

review and approval of the water right transfer. Under the Open Water Market 

Alternative, Washington State would adopt the “Colorado process” for use in the 

Yakima River basin. In Colorado, water courts are district courts, similar to 

Washington’s superior courts. The water courts conduct general business of the 

district court but also specialize in water cases. An application to transfer a water 

right is submitted to the court, which assigns it to the water referee. The referee 

investigates the truth of the statements in the application and any statements in 

opposition. The referee also consults with the division engineer for the region 

where the court operates. The advantage of this system is that the water rights 

transfers would be reviewed by a body that would be independent of Ecology and 

other regulatory agencies and have no responsibility for regulating the use of 

water rights. 

3.3.4.3	 Alternative 2C: Water Banking Using Existing Trust Water Rights 

Program 

Under this alternative, the existing TWRP would function as the water bank. 

Under the TWRP, water rights can be temporarily or permanently transferred to 

trust. Those water rights that are temporarily transferred to trust may be 

withdrawn by the depositor for his or her own use or may be transferred to 

another person or entity. Those water rights permanently transferred to trust are 

either to be used according to the terms of the transfer or may be used by Ecology 

for any recognized beneficial use. Significantly, a water right is protected from 

relinquishment as long as it is in trust (RCW 90.38.040(6)). RCW 90.42.100 

specifically authorizes Ecology to use the TWRP for water banking purposes in 

the Yakima River basin. 

Ecology is authorized to acquire water rights, including storage rights, by 

purchase, lease, donation or other means, except condemnation, on a temporary or 

permanent basis (RCW 90.38.020(1)(a),(3)). When the TWRP is used as a bank, 

Ecology is the banker and can use the water itself or make it directly available to 

third parties. 

The use of the TWRP suffers from some of the problems that have reduced the 

success of other water banks. In particular the requirements for approval of water 

right transfers can be complex and time consuming. When a water right is 

3-15 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

transferred to the TWRP for administration for water banking purposes, 

the water right is reviewed under RCW 90.03.380 both at the time it is 

transferred into trust, and in some situations, when the right is transferred out 

of trust (RCW 90.42.110). The application for the transfer into trust “must 

indicate the reach or reaches of the stream where the trust water right will be 

established before the transfer of the water right to the TWRP” and “identify any 

reasonably foreseeable future temporary or permanent beneficial uses for which 

the water right may be used by a third party upon transfer from the TWRP.” If 

the future place of use or other elements of the water right are not identified when 

the right goes into trust, “another review under RCW 90.03.380 will be necessary 

at the time of a proposed transfer from the trust water [rights] program” 

(RCW 90.42.110). 

3.3.4.4 Alternative 2D: Nonregulatory Water Bank 

Under this alternative, a bank would be formed outside of the TWRP. The bank 

could be administered by a private, nongovernmental entity (a nonprofit or forprofit organization) or by a nonregulatory governmental agency. The bank could 

offer a standing price for the purchase of water rights and for temporary deposits 

of water rights to be made available for lease, or the price could be negotiated on 

a case-by-case basis. The water right holder would be compensated regardless of 

whether the bank was able to sell or lease the rights and regardless of the price the 

bank received. Because the water rights would not be used while on deposit with 

the bank, legislative changes would be required to protect the rights from 

relinquishment. 

The extent and validity of the right would be established prior to deposit to the 

bank. As with Alternative 2A: Water Market Using Existing Authority, a water 

right confirmed in the adjudication within 5 years of deposit would be accepted as 

confirmed by the court. If more than 5 years had passed, the right could be 

certified by a Certified Water Rights Examiner. 

The transfer of the water right would be reviewed at the time the water right is 

sold or leased from the bank. Because the extent and validity of the right would 

be established prior to deposit with the bank, the review of the transfer would be 

limited to the issue of impairment. The review could be conducted by Ecology as 

explained for Alternative 2A, or through a water court as recommended in 

Alternative 2B. Whichever approach is chosen, the goal would be to simplify the 

transfer process and create certainty and trust. As for the market alternatives, 

water right transfers from the bank to a third party would be processed through a 

separate line that would allow priority processing. 

3-16 
Chapter 3 

State Alternatives 

3.3.4.5	 Alternative 2E: Drought Year Transfers Outside of Irrigation 

Districts 

This alternative is intended to free up transfers of water outside of an irrigation 

district during drought years. Under current law, Ecology must receive the 

concurrence of an irrigation district where water is proposed to be transferred 

outside of the district (RCW 90.03.380(2)). Under this alternative, irrigation 

districts would be required to allow transfer up to 30 percent of the total water 

supply allotted to the district in years when the State declares a drought under 

RCW 43.83B.405. A system would be established to allow a member of the 

district to petition for the temporary transfer of water under their water right to 

Reclamation to be managed as part of TWSA. The member would fallow the 

acres associated with the transferred water. The member would be paid by 

Reclamation, Ecology or a water bank established for that purpose, who would in 

turn be paid by the recipient of the transferred water. Prices would be set by a 

process, yet to be determined, that may have Reclamation, Ecology or a water 

bank setting fixed prices or the different parties negotiating prices specific to 

individual transactions. 

3.3.4.6	 Alternative 2F: Irrigation District Bank 

Under this alternative, an irrigation district would act as a water bank during both 

good water years and years of drought. The difference from Alternative 2E is that 

the district would act as the bank rather than Reclamation or Ecology. A district 

would send out a call for water to their members at a fixed price. Water right 

holders within the district would decide to fallow all or a portion of their land for 

all or a portion of the irrigation season and bank their water with the district. The 

district could pool the banked water and identify blocks of water that they are 

willing to sell to junior districts or others. By selling large blocks the districts 

would have more pricing power. The districts would take a portion of the selling 

price and manage water use. 

3.4 Alternative 3 – Groundwater Storage 

3.4.1 Description 

The Groundwater Storage Alternative proposes to use surface water to recharge 

(replenish) aquifers and use the natural storage capacity of geologic formations to 

store water for later recovery and use. Typically aquifers would be recharged 

with surface water during high flow periods. The stored water would be used to 

supply out-of-stream uses, increase streamflows through increased groundwater 

discharge, and/or replenish depleted groundwater storage. The source water is 

expected to be surface water from the Yakima River or one of its tributaries. A 

water right would be required to divert water from the river or a tributary and to 

store the water in a reservoir, including an underground geological formation. 

RCW 90.03.370. A new water right may not be granted if it would impair 

3-17 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

existing rights, including Reclamation’s water rights for the Yakima Project. 

New or existing infrastructure (canals or pipelines) would be used to convey this 

water to the recharge site. The availability of water would be a function of 

seasonal timing and location within the Yakima River basin. 

Groundwater storage is achieved by recharging water to the deep (confined) and 

shallow (unconfined) portions of the aquifer system. There are two distinct 

methods of recharge: 

•	 Injection Recharge (Direct Injection with Active or Passive Recovery). 

This method injects water via wells and targets deeper confined aquifers. 

The injected water would be actively recovered via wells or passively 

recovered through natural discharge to streams. 

•	 Surface Recharge with Passive Recovery. This method distributes water 

at the ground surface, which then infiltrates to a shallow unconfined 

aquifer and naturally discharges to streams or springs. 

3.4.1.1 Injection Recharge 

Injection recharge is a method that injects water via wells into a deep aquifer. 

The injected water may be recovered actively or passively depending on the 

objective of the recharge. Municipal aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) is the 

term used when the stored groundwater is actively recovered for potable uses. 

When the storage is allowed to discharge naturally, it is called injection with 

passive recovery. Both methods of recovery are included in this alternative. 

Municipal Aquifer Storage and Recovery 

ASR systems inject water via wells into aquifers during periods of excess capacity 

and withdraw the water for municipal supply during periods of peak demand or 

limited supply. Figure 3.1 shows a typical configuration of an ASR system. In 

Washington State, ASR systems are regulated under WAC 173-157. Because the 

source water must meet water quality standards for potable water, the water is 

obtained from conventional drinking water treatment plants or from groundwater 

wells. ASR systems require recharge/recovery wells and conveyance 

infrastructure to transport the water from the source to the recharge well, and from 

the recovery well to the municipal supply. 

Injection with Passive Recovery 

Direct injection can also be used to store water in the aquifer with passive 

recovery (figure 3.1). Under this option, potable water would be injected into an 

aquifer during periods of excess capacity, but the water would become part of the 

natural groundwater system, remain in the aquifer, and flow to natural discharge 

areas (i.e., streams or springs). The water would be passively recovered when it 

reaches the stream and would be available for instream or out-of-stream uses. 

3-18 
Figure 3.1 Injection recharge. 

Chapter 3 

State Alternatives 

Injection into a deep aquifer results in a longer lag time (interannual retention) 

between injection and when the water reaches natural discharge areas. This 

interannual retention time provides a more constant discharge of recharged water 

to streams and other discharge areas. Injection to shallower portions of the 

aquifer system provides shorter lag times between the time of recharge and the 

time of peak return flows. 

Injection with passive recovery would require treatment facilities, injection wells, 

and conveyance infrastructure to transport the water from the source (similar to 

facilities needed for municipal ASR). However, no conveyance system would be 

required to transport water to the place of use. 

Potential Locations 

Candidate sites evaluated for municipal ASR include the cities of Yakima 

(Ahtanum Valley), Ellensburg (Kittitas Valley) and Kennewick (Lower Valley). 

Sites evaluated for direct injection with passive recovery include the Black RockMoxee Valley and the Lower Yakima Valley immediately downstream of Union 

Gap. Direct injection of water at the headwaters of the Lower Yakima Valley 

(i.e., immediately below the Parker gage) could offset the small municipal users 

throughout the Lower Valley. Water recharged to the Upper Ellensburg 

Formation by direct injection may be passively recovered by seepage back to 

streams. Such seepage may be used to mitigate impacts from junior water users 

by increasing streamflows. 

Specific sites for municipal ASR would be selected at a future time if the 

Groundwater Storage Alternative is carried forward. Additional site-specific 

studies would be required to identify specific sites. 

3-19 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Direct Injection Analysis 

To evaluate the potential for utilizing ASR, a three-dimensional groundwater flow 

model was developed of the Ahtanum-Moxee Subbasin in the Yakima Valley. 

The goal of modeling was to estimate the quantity of recharged water to three 

injection wells that would: (a) return to the Yakima River; (b) discharge at other 

hydrologic sinks; or (c) remain in the subsurface in the form of increased 

groundwater storage. The impacts of direct injection for both passive and active 

recovery are based on the computer simulation of the direct injection of water into 

the deeper portion of the groundwater system of the Ahtanum Valley. The results 

are summarized below. Details of the modeling and results are described in the 

Technical Report for the Groundwater Alternative (Ecology, 2007g). 

•	 Direct Injection. Direct injection resulted in an immediate increase of 

aquifer storage and a delayed seepage of water to the stream. After the 

first annual cycle, 92 percent of the recharged water remained in the 

aquifer, and the increased seepage rate from the aquifer to the Yakima 

River above baseline conditions was approximately 0.6 cfs. Direct 

injection during winter months for 10 years resulted in an increased 

aquifer storage by approximately 28,600 acre-feet, and a seepage rate of 

approximately 3 cfs at the end of the 10-year period. 

•	 Active Recovery. Active recovery of recharged water on an annual basis 

resulted in a recovery efficiency of greater than 92 percent. For instance, 

an injection rate of 8,000 gpm over half a year results in a recoverable 

volume of approximately 6,000 acre-feet per year, with the remainder of 

the recharged water that is not recovered seeping out to streamflow. 

•	 Passive Recovery. Passive recovery results in a year-round seepage rate 

approximately equal to the average annual recharge rate once equilibrium 

is achieved. For instance, extrapolating the model results to an injection 

rate of 8,000 gallons per minute (gpm) (17.9 cfs) over half a year results in 

increased streamflows of approximately 8.9 cfs. 

The costs associated with a direct injection program include infrastructure 

associated with obtaining recharge water (e.g., surface water treatment facilities 

or river bank filtration wells), transmission pipelines, injection wells, and 

additional costs (permitting, operations and maintenance, land acquisitions for 

facilities). The total cost for the sites above Parker gage is estimated to be 

$65 million based on the assumptions described in the Technical Report (Ecology, 

2007g). Unit costs used to develop the cost estimate include $1 million per 1 mgd 

capacity of a treatment plant, $500,000 per well for a river bank filtration well, 

$1 million per mile of transmission pipelines, and $2 million per direct injection 

well. 

3-20 
Figure 3.2 Surface recharge. 

Chapter 3 

State Alternatives 

Surface Recharge with Passive Recovery 

Surface recharge with passive recovery involves diverting and infiltrating surface 

water into a recharge basin during periods of high streamflow and allowing it to 

discharge naturally back to a stream (figure 3.2). The natural discharge back to 

the stream is termed passive recovery because the water is available for instream 

and out-of-stream uses when it reaches the stream. The infiltration sites would be 

located so that the timing of return flow to a stream corresponds to periods of low 

flow. The source of the infiltration water would be direct surface diversion from 

a river or irrigation canal, or reclaimed water treated to standards for recharge. 

Surface recharge systems are intended to recharge water before lower streamflow 

conditions occur. 

Potential Locations for Surface Recharge 

Specific sites were not identified for surface recharge locations because of the 

lack of site-specific hydrogeologic data. Instead a map of the possible locations 

for sites was developed that could be used with more site-specific data. A 

detailed discussion of the methods and analysis are provided in the Technical 

Report on the Groundwater Storage Alternative (Ecology, 2007g). The specific 

number of surface recharge facilities has not been determined, but could range 

from more than 30 small basins to less than 10 larger basins. 

3-21 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

The surface recharge facilities would be located in the shallow alluvium and 

unconsolidated sediments in the Yakima River basin to maximize aquifer storage 

and transmission of groundwater. Surface recharge facilities may require 

conveyance facilities to move water from the source to the infiltration basin. 

Pumping may be required to move the water through the canal system if a gravity 

canal system is not feasible. 

Surface Recharge Analysis 

Two approaches were used to evaluate the volume and timing of water diverted to 

an infiltration pond and the subsequent timing and volume of return flow to the 

stream: 

•	 Target Return Flow Profile. This approach identified a desired 

condition for groundwater return flows, and examined the amount of 

infiltration and total area of infiltration ponds required to achieve the 

target infiltration profile. 

•	 Water Supply in Excess of Entitlements and Flow Targets. This 

approach used the historical monthly availability of TWSA for the period 

from 1978 to 2000 to determine in which months there was water in 

excess of entitlements and flow targets in reservoir storage that could be 

diverted into infiltration ponds. 

The results of these estimates suggest that an average infiltration capacity of 20 to 

60 acre-feet per acre per month would be reasonable to expect for the study area. 

Based on these infiltration capacities, an area of 166 to 500 acres of land would be 

required to infiltrate 10,000 acre-feet of water in 1 month. Details on the analysis 

are provided in the Technical Report on the Groundwater Storage Alternative 

(Ecology, 2007g). 

The costs associated with surface recharge sites will be highly variable depending 

on the location and design of the infiltration facilities. Rather than conduct a 

detailed engineering cost breakdown, costs were estimated using a comparison 

with five Central Arizona Project recharge facilities. Based on the assumptions 

summarized in the Technical Report (Ecology, 2007g), total construction costs 

could range from $50 million to $100 million, with an expected cost of 

$89 million. 

3-22 
Table 3.3 Impacts summary 

Element of the 

environment 

Enhanced 

Conservation 

Market-Based 

Reallocation of Water 

Resources 

Groundwater 

Storage 

Water resources 

Surface water There is potential to increase Construction and long-term Construction impacts would 

Construction 

 Long-term

sediment loading to surface 

water bodies during 

construction. 

impacts and mitigation 

measures would be similar 

to that of Enhanced 

be similar to those described 

under Enhanced 

Conservation. 

 Mitigation Long-term impacts may include 

an increase in streamflow in 

Conservation, but of a 

lesser magnitude. Changes in flow and 

temperature would occur 

the stream being diverted from when flow is diverted for 

along with a reduction in return recharge. Flows will decrease 

flow from reduced seepage in when water is diverted and 

other streams. The reduction in increase when the stored 

return flow may reduce base water reaches the river. 

flows in streams. Reservoir Increased discharge to 

levels may change from seeps, springs, and surface 

existing if conservation allows water would occur. 

water to be stored in the 

reservoir for a longer period of 

time before being released. 

Construction and long-term 

mitigation measures would be 

similar to those described for 

Mitigation of construction Enhanced Conservation. 

impacts can be achieved 

through construction related 

BMPs. Long-term impacts can 

be mitigated by ensuring the 

net effect of the project is 

beneficial. 

Water rights No construction impacts to By law, all existing water Construction and long-term 

Construction 

 Long-term

 Mitigation 

water rights would occur. 

In the long term, conservation 

may free up water under 

existing water rights for 

potential transfer and 

reallocation. Additional water 

may be available, which may 

reduce curtailment of junior 

water rights during water-short 

years. 

Proposed projects must meet 

State standards for review and 

mitigation regarding specific 

issues listed in RCW 

90.03.370(2)(a) and defined 

further in Chapter 173-157 

WAC. 

rights, senior and junior, are 

protected from impairment 

by any proposed transfer. 

One of the impediments to 

an active market is the 

administrative approval of 

the transfer. Some of the 

water marketing and water 

banking alternatives 

propose changes to the 

review of transfers. To the 

extent the law is changed to 

facilitate transfers through 

markets, there may be 

additional impacts to water 

rights. 

Proposed projects must 

meet the same standards 

as described for the 

Enhanced Conservation 

Alternative. 

impacts and mitigation 

measures would be similar to 

those described under 

Enhanced Conservation. 

Chapter 3 

State Alternatives 

3.5 Comparative Evaluation of State Alternatives 

The impacts of the three State Alternatives are described in chapter 5 and 

summarized in table 3.3. 

3-23 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table 3.3 Impacts summary (continued) 

Market-Based 

Element of the Enhanced Reallocation of Water Groundwater 

environment Conservation Resources Storage 

Water resources (continued) 

Groundwater Construction impacts are not Construction impacts are not Limited construction impacts 

Construction 

 Long-term

 Mitigation 

anticipated. 

Long-term impacts may include 

changes in the level, gradient, 

recharge and discharge rates, 

and contaminant introduction. 

Impacts may be mitigated by 

conducting appropriate 

hydrogeological studies prior to 

project implementation. 

anticipated. 

Long-term impacts and 

mitigation measures would 

be similar to those described 

under Enhanced 

Conservation. 

Mitigation measures would 

be similar to those described 

under Enhanced 

Conservation. 

would be associated with the 

development of groundwater 

storage facilities including 

infiltration basins and 

treatment facilities; however 

construction is not expected 

to extend to the groundwater 

table and dewatering is not 

anticipated. 

Long-term impacts and 

mitigation measures would 

be similar, but possibly 

greater than, those 

described under Enhanced 

Conservation. 

Hydropower Construction impacts are not Similar to the Enhanced No construction impacts are 

Construction 

 Long-term

 Mitigation 

anticipated, because 

construction activities will not 

impact streamflows. 

Conservation may result in 

reduced power generation at 

the BIA plants during most 

years, but may be improved 

during drought years. 

Conservation Alternative, no 

construction impacts are 

anticipated. 

Long-term impacts would 

depend on the location of the 

transfers. If water is 

transferred to the WIP, some 

increase in hydropower may 

occur. 

No mitigation would be 

required. 

anticipated. 

There would be no long-term 

impacts to hydropower 

generation. 

No mitigation would be 

required. 

Sediment Construction could temporarily Impacts and mitigation would Impacts and mitigation 

Construction 

 Long-term

 Mitigation 

increase rates of sediment 

erosion. 

There would be no long-term 

impacts to channel 

morphology. 

Mitigation measures would 

include the implementation of 

BMPs including the timing of 

construction, and measures 

that limit erosion and stabilize 

degraded conditions. 

be similar to those described 

under the Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative. 

In the long-term, changed 

land uses could cause 

increased or decreased 

erosion depending on the 

new land use. 

No mitigation would be 

required. 

would be similar to those 

described under Enhanced 

Conservation. 

Water quality There is potential to increase Construction impacts would Construction impacts would 

Construction 

 Long-term

sediment loading to surface 

water bodies during 

construction. 

be similar to those described 

under the Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative, but 

be similar to those described 

under Enhanced 

Conservation. 

 Mitigation Long-term impacts may include 

increased dissolved oxygen, 

reduced stream temperatures 

and increased pollutant 

concentrations in runoff. 

Mitigation for construction 

impacts would be similar to the 

preventive measures described 

under Sediment. 

to a lesser degree. 

Long-term impacts from 

water transfers are not 

known. Water quality 

parameters (including 

temperature) may improve or 

degrade depending on the 

type of land use the water is 

transferred to, and the 

volume and location of water 

Changes in groundwater 

quality could occur, but 

these changes are not 

expected to be significant. 

Mitigation for construction 

impacts would be similar to 

the preventive measures 

described under Sediment. 

transferred. 

3-24 
Chapter 3 

State Alternatives 

Table 3.3 Impacts summary (continued) 

Market-Based 

Element of the Enhanced Reallocation of Water Groundwater 

environment onservation Resources Storage 

Water resources (continued) 

Water quality Mitigation for construction 

(continued) impacts would be similar 

Construction 

 Long-term

to the preventive 

measures described under 

Sediment. 

 Mitigation 

Vegetation and Construction impacts from Construction impacts and Construction impacts would be 

wildlife irrigation improvements may mitigation measures would similar to those described 

Construction 

 Long-term

 Mitigation 

alter existing vegetation 

structure and the distribution of 

habitat potentially disrupting 

wildlife. Construction impacts 

would also include noise and 

activities that would temporarily 

displace wildlife. 

be similar to those 

described under 

Enhanced Conservation, 

except to a lesser degree. 

In the long-term, water 

rights transfers may 

impact land use ultimately 

under Enhanced Conservation. 

Over the long-term, 

groundwater levels would rise, 

which may affect vegetation 

communities and wildlife 

habitat in some areas. This 

could have both positive and 

Over the long term, reduced altering vegetation negative impacts. 

seepage and water rights 

transfers may alter the 

distribution of vegetation and 

wildlife. 

structure and wildlife 

habitat distribution in 

some areas. 

Mitigation measures for 

Mitigation measures for 

construction impacts would be 

similar to those described 

under Enhanced Conservation. 

Mitigation measures for construction impacts 

construction impacts would be would be similar to those 

alleviated by siting and described under 

designing facilities to minimize Enhanced Conservation. 

the need for vegetation 

removal. These measures 

would also include the 

application of construction 

BMPs, and the restoration of 

disturbed areas. 

Anadromous fish There is potential to increase Construction and long- Construction impacts and 

Construction 

 Long-term

sediment loading to surface 

water bodies during 

construction. 

term impacts and 

mitigation measures would 

be similar to those 

mitigation measures would be 

similar to those described 

under Enhanced Conservation. 

 Mitigation Long-term impacts associated 

with the potential increase in 

streamflow would be 

considered beneficial. 

Mitigation for construction 

impacts would be similar to the 

measures described for 

Sediment. Additional 

mitigation measures for 

impacts to Anadromous Fish 

are listed in chapter 5. 

described under the 

Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative, 

except to a lesser degree. 

In the long-term, groundwater 

storage is expected to benefit 

anadromous fish and other 

aquatic organisms by 

potentially improving base 

flows and providing influxes of 

cold water. 

Resident fish 

Construction 

 Long-term

 Mitigation 

Construction and long-term 

impacts are similar to those 

described for anadromous fish. 

Applicable mitigation measures 

for impacts to resident fish are 

listed in chapter 5. 

Construction and longterm impacts and 

mitigation measures would 

be similar to those 

described under the 

Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative, 

except to a lesser degree. 

Construction and long-term 

impacts and mitigation 

measures would be similar to 

those described under the 

Enhanced Water Conservation 

Alternative. 

3-25 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table 3.3 Impacts summary (continued) 

Market-Based 

Element of the Enhanced Reallocation of Water Groundwater 

environment Conservation Resources Storage 

Water resources (continued) 

Aquatic Construction impacts are Construction and long- Construction and long-term 

invertebrates anticipated to be minor and term impacts and impacts and mitigation would 

Construction 

 Long-term

 Mitigation 

isolated to areas adjacent to 

instream disturbances. 

Long-term impacts may include 

changes to the community 

mitigation would be similar 

to those described under 

Enhanced Water 

Conservation. 

be similar to those described 

under Enhanced Water 

Conservation. 

composition of aquatic 

invertebrates due to potential 

increases in streamflows, and 

site specific alterations created 

during the enhancement 

irrigation infrastructure. 

Project-specific studies would 

be required to determine 

potential impacts to aquatic 

invertebrates. 

Threatened and Construction and long-term Construction and long- Construction and long-term 

endangered 

species 

Construction 

 Long-term

 Mitigation 

impacts would be similar to 

those described for 

Anadromous Fish and 

Vegetation and Wildlife. 

Mitigation measures would be 

similar to those described for 

Anadromous Fish and 

term impacts and 

mitigation measures would 

be similar to those 

described under the 

Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative, 

except to a lesser degree. 

impacts and mitigation 

measures would be similar to 

those described under the 

Enhanced Water Conservation 

Alternative. 

Vegetation and Wildlife. 

Recreation Impacts to recreation from Construction and long- Construction and long-term 

Construction 

 Long-term

 Mitigation 

construction are not expected. 

Conservation may increase 

streamflows in some reaches, 

but not to the extent that 

recreation would be impacted. 

No mitigation would be 

required. 

term impacts and 

mitigation measures would 

be similar to those 

described under the 

Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative, 

except to a lesser degree. 

impacts and mitigation 

measures would be similar to 

those described under the 

Enhanced Water Conservation 

Alternative. 

Land use and Impacts to land use from Construction impacts Construction impacts would be 

shorelines construction are not expected. would be similar to those similar to those described 

Construction 

 Long-term

 Mitigation 

Improvements to irrigation 

efficiency could reduce the 

potential conversion of 

agricultural lands to other uses. 

described under the 

Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative, 

except to a lesser degree. 

under the Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative. 

Acquisition and/or special 

management of lands in the 

No mitigation would be 

required. 

Transfers of water rights 

may result in changes in 

land use intensity. 

vicinity of the infiltration or 

injection areas may be 

required. 

Whether development 

intensity increases or 

decreases is dependent 

on currently unspecified 

transfers. 

Property would be purchased 

from willing sellers or acquired 

according to applicable State 

and Federal regulations. 

Impacts to land use would 

be mitigated by 

compliance with existing 

land use and zoning 

regulations. 

3-26 
Chapter 3 

State Alternatives 

Table 3.3 Impacts summary (continued) 

Market-Based 

Element of the Enhanced Reallocation of Water Groundwater 

environment Conservation Resources Storage 

Water resources (continued) 

Socioeconomics The scope and design of spe- Construction impacts and Construction impacts and 

Construction 

 Long-term

cific projects would determine 

their short-term costs and benefits on socioeconomic factors. 

mitigation measures would 

be similar to those 

described under the 

mitigation measures would be 

similar to those described 

under the Enhanced Water 

 Mitigation In the long term, this alternative 

is intended to yield net 

Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative. 

Conservation Alternative. 

In the long-term, increases in 

economic gains sooner rather In the long-term, transfers groundwater levels could alter 

than later, by lowering legal, of water would likely the production of goods and 

financial, and/or institutional increase the economic services near wetland, 

barriers that otherwise would well-being of those who floodplain, and riparian areas. 

impede the extent and speed of participate in them 

conservation efforts in the basin. because a transaction 

Mitigation, if any, would be 

determined by future socioeconomic conditions. Measures may include, but would 

would occur only if both 

the buyer and the seller 

expected it to be 

beneficial. 

not be limited to compensation 

and /or replacement of lost 

goods and services. 

Public services and Construction along roadways Construction impacts and Construction impacts and 

utilities could cause temporary mitigation measures would mitigation measures would be 

Construction 

 Long-term

 Mitigation 

disruption of utilities and 

increased response time for 

police and fire emergencies. 

Over the long-term, 

be similar to those 

described under the 

Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative. 

similar to those described 

under the Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative. 

In the long-term, groundwater 

conservation programs would In the long-term, this storage would require 

reduce overall expenditures on alternative would incur additional costs for treatment 

public services and utilities. costs for implementation and operation. 

Mitigation measures designed to 

avoid impacts during 

construction are listed in 

chapter 5. 

and administration; 

however, water rights 

transfers have potential to 

improve the reliability of 

irrigation supplies. 

Transportation 

Construction 

 Long-term

Construction impacts could 

include temporary disruption of 

traffic depending on project site 

locations. 

Construction and longterm impacts and 

mitigation measures would 

be similar to those 

Construction and long-term 

impacts and mitigation 

measures would be similar to 

those described under the 

 Mitigation No long-term impacts are 

anticipated. 

Mitigation would include 

maintaining access to 

described under the 

Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative, 

except to a lesser degree. 

Enhanced Water Conservation 

Alternative. 

properties, installing signage, 

and providing information to 

the public. 

Air Quality

 Construction 

 Long-Term

Construction impacts would 

include increases in fugitive 

dust from disturbed soils and 

increased emissions. 

Construction impacts and 

mitigation measures would 

be similar to those 

described under the 

Construction impacts and 

mitigation measures would be 

similar to those described 

under the Enhanced Water 

 Mitigation No long-term impacts are 

anticipated. 

Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative. 

Conservation Alternative. 

Long-term impacts would not 

Mitigation measures are listed 

in chapter 5. 

Long-term impacts would 

not affect air quality unless 

water transfers create 

affect air quality unless 

infiltration basins go dry, 

increasing the potential for 

fallow field conditions fugitive dust. 

increasing the potential for 

fugitive dust. 

3-27 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table 3.3 Impacts Summary (continued) 

Market-Based 

Element of the Enhanced Reallocation of Water Groundwater 

Environment Conservation Resources Storage 

Water resources (continued) 

Noise Noise sources would Construction and long- Construction impacts and 

Construction 

 Long-Term

 Mitigation 

temporarily increase during 

construction activities. 

No long-term impacts are 

anticipated. 

No mitigation measures are 

required. 

term impacts and 

mitigation measures would 

be similar to those 

described under the 

Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative. 

mitigation measures would be 

similar to those described under 

the Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative. 

Pumps used at storage facilities 

would generate noise during 

operations, but the noise would 

be minimal and likely 

undetectable offsite. 

Visual Construction equipment and Construction impacts and Construction impacts and 

Construction activities would temporarily mitigation measures would mitigation measures would be 

 Long-Term alter, but not obstruct, views. be similar to those similar to those described under 

Mitigation Conservation projects would 

alter to the long-term views of 

the landscape, but impacts are 

described under the 

Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative. 

the Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative. 

Long-term impacts to visual 

anticipated to be limited. Long-term impacts to resources from the developNo mitigation measures are 

required. 

visual resources from land 

type conversion would 

depend on the type and 

ment of infiltration and well 

facilities would depend on 

location and size of the facilities. 

amount converted land. 

Cultural Any construction that involves Construction and long- Construction impacts and 

Construction ground disturbing activities has term impacts and mitigation measures would be 

 Long-Term the potential to impact cultural mitigation measures would similar to those described under 

Mitigation resources. be similar to those the Enhanced Water 

In the long-term, human activity 

patterns may be altered by 

conservation projects resulting 

described under the 

Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative. 

Conservation Alternative. 

Increasing groundwater levels 

may affect the preservation of 

in relic collecting and site buried organic materials or the 

disturbance. soil chemistry of buried cultural 

Ecology would initiate additional 

cultural resource surveys when 

specific projects are identified. 

resources. Groundwater storage 

is not likely to other-wise 

adversely affect cultural 

resources during construction or 

over the long-term. 

Public Health and Construction activities are not Construction and long- Construction and long-term 

Safety anticipated to significantly term impacts and impacts and mitigation measures 

Construction impact public health and safety. mitigation measures would would be similar to those 

 Long-Term 

Mitigation No significant long-term impacts 

are anticipated. 

Mitigation measures are listed in 

chapter 5. 

be similar to those 

described under the 

Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative. 

described under the Enhanced 

Water Conservation Alternative. 

3.6 Other Alternatives Considered but Eliminated 

from Further Study 

Ecology considered using water from a site identified in the Columbia River 

Mainstem Off-Channel Storage Study to augment supply in the Yakima River 

basin. The Appraisal Evaluation of Columbia River Mainstem Off-Channel 

3-28 
Chapter 3 

State Alternatives 

Storage Options (Reclamation and Ecology, 2007) evaluated four off-channel 

sites. The study recommended the Crab Creek site for further evaluation. The 

Crab Creek site is located on Lower Crab Creek, which discharges to the 

Columbia River on the east bank between Wanapum and Priest Rapids Dams. 

The Appraisal Evaluation indicated that Crab Creek is a viable option that could 

supply enough water to supplement supply in the Yakima River basin. 

Although the project seems viable, Ecology decided not to carry it forward at this 

time. There is no congressional authorization for a feasibility study of the project, 

and it would be speculative to assume that the project would go forward. Also, 

since no feasibility study has been done on the Columbia River off-channel 

options, it would not be possible to analyze these options in a way comparable to 

the Black Rock or Wymer Alternatives. If Congress authorizes additional study 

of the Crab Creek site, Ecology may reconsider the off-channel alternative. 

3-29 
 

Chapter 4 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES: 

JOINT ALTERNATIVES 
CHAPTER 4 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES: 

JOINT ALTERNATIVES 

4.1 Introduction 

This chapter presents a description of the affected environment and an evaluation 

of the environmental consequences of implementing each of the proposed Joint 

Alternatives. Effects under the Joint Alternatives are compared to the No Action 

Alternative, and effects under the No Action Alternative are compared to the 

current condition, as appropriate. In cases in which alternatives would have the 

same effects on an environmental component, the analysis is presented once and 

summarized or referenced in subsequent analyses to eliminate redundancy. 

Environmental consequences, impacts, and effects are synonymous in this 

document. 

Some alternatives may cause effects outside the Yakima River basin, in specific 

reaches of the Columbia River. Therefore, some discussions address Columbia 

River reaches, as appropriate, and then address the Yakima River basin. 

Resources and/or resource issues identified during scoping activities are 

addressed in a hierarchical fashion. For example, water resources are presented 

first because changes in this resource resulting from the Joint Alternatives would 

likely affect other resources. 

Finally, because resources in the Storage Study area are numerous and complex, 

potential effects on some resources were evaluated using representative 

indicators. For example, rather than analyzing all fish populations, certain species 

were selected to provide a focused analysis of the effects of the alternatives. 

Chapter 1 contains a detailed description of the Storage Study location and 

setting, along with a history of water management in the Yakima River basin. 

4.2 Water Resources 

4.2.1 Affected Environment 

Water resources within both the Columbia River Basin and the Yakima River 

basin could be affected by the proposed Joint Alternatives. This section addresses 

river regulation and water supply available. The current operation is discussed in 

detail in chapter 2 in the description of the No Action Alternative. 

4-1 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

4.2.1.1 River Regulation 

The natural flow regime defines river ecosystems. The availability and diversity 

of habitats are determined by physical processes, especially the movement of 

water and sediment within the channel, and between the channel and floodplain. 

Different habitat features are created and maintained by a wide range of flows. 

For example, many channel and floodplain features, such as river bars and rifflepool sequences, are formed and maintained by dominant or bank-full runoff that 

can move significant quantities of sediment. Occurring frequently enough, bankfull runoff can modify the channel, which, in turn, maintains a healthy river 

ecosystem. For many riverine species, including anadromous and resident 

salmonids, the complete life cycle requires an array of different habitat types, 

which are produced by the flow regime. 

River basins such as the Yakima that are regulated for irrigation and flood control 

purposes exhibit a change from the natural flow. A portion of the natural flows 

produced from precipitation during the winter and snowmelt during the spring and 

early summer are captured for storage. Downstream from major reservoirs, flows 

are greatly altered from the major variations observed under natural hydrologic 

conditions. Peaking natural flows from rain, and rain-on-snow events, causing 

“flood events,” are captured in available storage and bypassed during a lower 

flow period. Consequently, the magnitude and frequency of ecologically 

significant discharges (overbank and channel-forming flows) are reduced. 

Patterns of spring and summer flows are largely influenced by irrigation demands, 

with flows typically reaching peaks during July and August upstream of the major 

diversions. Downstream from these diversions, flows can be low, even to the 

point of being below natural flows. Unnatural flow patterns result from reservoir 

storage and releases intended to meet downstream irrigation demands. 

Yakima Project irrigation diversions generally began in mid-March when “flood 

flows” are diverted to “prime” (fill) the irrigation systems. These flows are 

returned to the rivers as operational spills. Irrigation deliveries generally begin in 

April and continue through mid-to-late October. In the initial part of the irrigation 

season, diversion demands are met by unregulated runoff accruing to the river 

system downstream from the reservoirs (or being spilled from the reservoirs) and 

irrigation return flows. On the average, this period has generally extended to 

June 24. When Yakima River flows at the Parker gage must be controlled to meet 

the Title XII flows by using supplemental storage releases, the Yakima Project is 

deemed to be on “storage control” and depletions of reservoir storage begin. 

Storage control has begun as early as April 1 and as late as August 17. The 

variability in the date of storage control depends on the extent of precipitation and 

snowpack and the timing of the snowmelt. 

The cumulative impacts of the regulated Yakima River basin system result in 

major changes throughout the water year on the flow regime. These changes can 

4-2 
 

 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

best be illustrated by the hydrographs in chapter 2, which show flows at six 

Yakima River locations: Umtanum gage (RM 140), which is the upstream 

boundary of the middle Yakima River basin and near the point of diversion for the 

Roza Division (RM 127.9); Parker gage (RM 104), which is the downstream 

boundary of the middle Yakima River basin just downstream from Sunnyside 

Diversion Dam; Easton gage (RM 202); Cle Elum gage (RM 7.9); lower Naches 

River gage (RM 17); and Kiona gage (RM 29). Water entitlements in this subarea 

account for about 60 percent of the total.1 

The flow regimes depicted in these hydrographs are an approximation of natural 

flows that might have occurred under predevelopment runoff conditions without 

the influence of reservoir storage or diversions. The current condition hydrograph 

reflects current Yakima Project operations. As shown, there is a substantial 

“shift” in the timing and volume of peak spring flows and summer flows from the 

unregulated regime to the current condition. 

4.2.1.2 Water Supply Available 

The major control point for operating the Yakima Project is the Yakima River 

near the Parker gage. Yakima Project operations are keyed to meet the irrigation 

entitlements upstream of the Parker gage, maintain instream target flows for the 

fishery resources, and provide maximum flood control benefits for the Yakima 

River basin. Since April 1995, the Yakima Project has been operated to provide 

the target flows downstream from Sunnyside Diversion Dam as specified in the 

Title XII legislation (table 4.1). These flows are based on total water supply 

estimates and range from 300 to 600 cfs for the period of April 1 through 

October 31. Runoff and return flows downstream from the Parker gage in the 

lower Yakima River basin subarea exceed irrigation demands in that area and, 

therefore, do not influence storage releases. 

Table 4.1 Title XII target flows 

TWSA estimate for period 

(maf) 

Target flows from date of 

estimate through October 

downstream from: 

Scenario Apr-Sep May-Sep Jun-Sep Jul-Sep 

Sunnyside 

Diversion 

Dam 

(cfs) 

Prosser 

Diversion 

Dam 

(cfs) 

1 3.2 2.9 2.4 1.9 600 600 

2 2.9 2.65 2.2 1.7 500 500 

3 2.65 2.4 2.0 1.5 400 400 

Less than scenario 3 water supply 300 300 

1

 The major diverters are the Roza Division (RM 127.9), Wapato Irrigation Project 

(RM 106.7), and the Sunnyside Division (RM 103.8). 

4-3 
 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Total Water Supply Available Estimates 

The TWSA estimate is a primary component of the 1945 Consent Decree and 

Yakima Project operations. TWSA represents the combined quantity of 

forecasted runoff, return flows, and stored water available upstream of the Parker 

gage. Each year, Reclamation prepares TWSA forecasts for the Yakima River 

basin upstream of the Parker gage beginning in March for the April-September 

period. The estimate is updated each subsequent month through July, and, in dry 

years, forecasts may continue throughout the irrigation season. These forecasts 

are the basis for determining Title XII target flows and irrigation water 

entitlements and deciding the amount of proration, if any, which may be 

2 necessary.

Simply put, TWSA is equal to the sum of: 

•	 The natural runoff forecast for April 1 through September 30, 

•	 The reservoir storage at the end of March 31, and 

•	 The usable return flows upstream of the Parker gage. 

TWSA is used to determine the instream flow targets for the year in accordance 

with Title XII operating criteria. 

The water supply available for irrigation (WSAI) is equal to the TWSA minus: 

•	 The estimated reservoir contents at the end of September 30 (desired 

carryover), and 

•	 The flows downstream from the Parker gage for the period April 1 through 

the end of September (the combination of undiverted unregulated flows, 

operational spills, and Title XII quantified target flows). 

Nonproratable irrigation entitlements are subtracted from the total water supply 

available for irrigation as these are the senior (pre-1905) entitlements. The 

remaining WSAI is the water supply available to meet proratable (post-1905) 

entitlements. If the remaining WSAI divided by the proratable entitlements is less 

than 100 percent, prorationing may be necessary. 

Projected runoff forecasts are made for the five major reservoirs and at three key 

checkpoints on the Yakima River system.3

 While the runoff volume for a given 

period can be estimated with some degree of accuracy, the timing of how and 

when the runoff will occur is unknown, as it is affected by temperature variation, 

2

 In calculating TWSA, only the irrigation water entitlements in the 1945 Consent Decree for 

the mainstem Yakima River basin are included; irrigation diversions on tributaries or other 

adjudicated streams are not included. 3

 These three key checkpoints are the Yakima River at Cle Elum (RM 185.6), Naches River 

near Naches (RM 16.8), and Yakima River at Parker (RM 103.7). 

4-4 
 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

snowpack density, rainfall intensity, and subsequent snowfall. Warm temperature 

or precipitation, especially in combination, greatly affects the intensity of the 

runoff. Generally, runoff begins about mid-March and peaks about mid-June. As 

the season progresses, a portion of runoff becomes reservoir storage until the date 

of storage control or the storage is filled. Consequently, the TWSA estimate 

becomes more accurate as the runoff component declines and the reservoir 

storage component increases. 

Return flows resulting from irrigation diversions upstream of Sunnyside 

Diversion Dam are an integral part of the TWSA estimate. The timing of return 

flows and the location where they enter the river system determines whether or 

not they can be reused. Return flows depend on the level of diversion, which is 

conditioned by the amount, time, and availability of runoff. The return flow 

volume varies from year to year, but the useable portion is fairly uniform. 

Reservoir contents are the volume of water available in the total storage system. 

In most years, Yakima Project reservoirs are operated to peak storage contents in 

mid-June, about the same time the major natural runoff ends. 

RiverWare Model 

A reservoir and river simulation computer model known as the Yak-RW model is 

used to assess potential physical and operational changes to the Yakima Project. 

The Yak-RW model is a daily time-step reservoir and river operation simulation 

model of the Yakima Project that uses a 25-year Yakima River basin historical 

hydrologic period of water years 1981 through 2005 (November 1, 1980, through 

October 31, 2005). Current-day operation criteria such as the Title XII instream 

target flows (implemented in 1995) and current minimum streamflow 

maintenance releases from Yakima Project reservoirs are input to the model for 

the entire 25-year period. Further, actual day-to-day “hands-on” operation 

decisions cannot be reflected in the Yak-RW model. Consequently, the proration 

levels generated by the Yak-RW model for the current operations are different 

than actually experienced in the prorated water years for the 25-year period of 

record (1981-2005). The Yak-RW model is used in the Storage Study to compare 

the operational effects and accomplishments of Joint Alternatives to a no action 

operation (i.e., No Action Alternative). 

Yak-RW model results show the average April 1 TWSA estimate for the 25-year 

period of record is about 2.82 million acre-feet, ranging from a maximum (1997) 

of 4.54 million acre-feet to a minimum (1994) of 1.74 million acre-feet. The 

components and the distribution of this average TWSA are shown in figure 4.1. 

4-5 
 

Current Operation
 

TWSA Distribution Percentages
 

Average TWSA of 2.82 Maf f rom Yak-RWModel Result s 1981-2005 

Non-Prorated Reservoir WSAI, Diversion Volume Sep 30, 72% 

Volume, 35% 10% 

Flow Volume
 

past Parker
 Prorated includes Title XII Diversion Targets, 18% Volume, 37% 

Current Operation 

TWSA Distribution Percentages 

Average TWSA of 2.82 maf from Yak-RW Model Results 1981-2005 

Non-Prorated 

Reservoir WSAI, Diversion 

Volume Sep 30, 72% 

Volume, 35% 10% 

Flow Volume 

past Parker Prorated includes Title XII 

Diversion Targets, 18% Volume, 37% 

Figure 4.1 Components and distribution of average TWSA— 

(1) reservoir volumes and (2) flow volumes compared to prorated and 

 nonprorated diversion volumes. 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

4-6 
 

 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Drought Operations 

The years 2001 and 2005 were single dry years. The TWSA was 1.80 million 

acre-feet and 1.76 million acre-feet in 2001 and 2005, respectively, which resulted 

in major single-year irrigation proration levels of 40 percent and 38 percent, 

respectively. The 3-year dry cycle of water years 1992, 1993, and 1994 resulted 

in a downward trend in TWSA of 2.1 maf in 1992; 2.1 maf in 1993; and 1.75 maf 

in 1994; and irrigation proration levels of 68 percent, 56 percent, and 28 percent, 

respectively. Reservoir carryover was severely depleted at the end of October 

1992 and 1993; in 1994, total system contents were 50,000 acre-feet, about 

5 percent of the total reservoir capacity. 

Irrigation entities with major proratable water entitlements are the ones most 

critically affected by dry water years—both from short- and long-term agricultural 

cropping and production and economic considerations. The Kittitas and Roza 

Divisions, with only proratable entitlements of 336,000 and 375,000 acre-feet, 

respectively, and the Wapato Irrigation Project, with 350,000 acre-feet 

(53 percent) of its water entitlements proratable, are significantly affected. 

Table 4.2 summarizes the distribution of water entitlements in the Yakima River 

basin. 

Table 4.2 Yakima River basin annual water entitlements 

Irrigation entity 

Annual water entitlements (maf)1 

Proratable Nonproratable Total 

Kittitas Division .336 .336 

Roza Division .375 .375 

Wapato Irrigation Project .350 .306 .656 

Sunnyside Division .143 .316 .459 

Tieton Division .038 .076 .114 

Other .042 .519 .561 

Total basin 1.284 1.217 2.501 

1

 Entitlements used when prorationing of the water supply available for irrigation is required. Conditional 

Final Orders of the Adjudication Court and Water Right Settlement Agreements have, in some cases, 

established limitations on the volume that can be diverted in any year. 

In dry years, instream flows throughout the Yakima River basin are also 

substantially reduced. The Title XII target flows downstream from Sunnyside 

Diversion Dam can be 300 cfs less than (or half) the target flows in wet years and 

100 to 200 cfs lower than in average years; summer base flows are substantially 

lower than the unregulated flow regime. 

4-7 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Future Municipal Water Supply 

The Storage Study used the average municipal supply provided over the 25-year 

period of record and the water supply provided in dry years to indicate future 

(year 2050) municipal water needs. 

4.2.2 Environmental Consequences 

Chapter 2 provides information on the hydrologic indicators used to evaluate the 

success in meeting the Storage Study goals of improving instream flows, dry year 

irrigation proratable water supply, and future municipal water needs. This section 

discusses the environmental consequences to the Yakima River basin’s water 

resources of the current Yakima Project operation and the operation of each Joint 

Alternative in comparison to the No Action Alternative as measured by the 

hydrologic indicators. 

Table 4.3 presents a summary of the “absolute values” of the hydrologic 

indicators shown in chapter 2. An explanation of why these were selected as the 

hydrologic indicators for the assessing the system operations studies is also 

provided in chapter 2. 

Table 4.3 Hydrologic indicators 

Hydrologic 

indicator 

Current 

operation 

No Action 

Alternative 

Black Rock 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam 

and 

Reservoir 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam 

Plus Yakima 

River Pump 

Exchange 

Alternative 

Average for water years 1981-2005 (maf) 

April 1 TWSA 2.82 2.84 2.90 2.94 2.94 

Apr-Sep flow 

volume at the 

Parker gage 

0.51 0.62 0.98 0.59 0.90 

Apr-Sep diversion 

volume upstream 

of the Parker 

gage 

2.02 1.91 1.47 1.95 1.64 

Sep 30 reservoir 

contents 

0.27 0.30 0.43 0.40 0.40 

Apr-Sep flow 

volume at the 

mouth of the 

Yakima River 

0.85 0.86 1.22 0.83 0.83 

Water year 1994 (maf) 

Irrigation delivery 

volume shortage 

Irrigation proration 

level 

0.40 

28% 

0.38 

27% 

0.12 

70% 

0.38 

29% 

0.38 

29% 

4-8 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

4.2.2.1 No Action Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts under the No Action Alternative would be considered under 

separate NEPA evaluation as discussed in chapter 2. 

Long-Term Impacts 

April 1 TWSA Estimate.—Model results show that the April 1 TWSA estimate is 

20,000 acre-feet greater under the No Action Alternative than under the current 

operation. This difference is the result of greater September 30 carryover storage, 

which, in turn, is the result of implementing No Action Alternative water 

conservation measures and the ability to retain some of the irrigation portion of 

the conserved water as carryover storage in wet and average years. Table 4.4 

presents the environmental consequences on the Yakima River basin’s reservoir 

resources. These consequences are represented by the average contents of the 

Yakima Project reservoir system for three periods: March 31 (prior to the 

beginning of the irrigation season and used in the April 1 TWSA estimate); 

June 30 (the target date for the reservoirs to reach full storage capacity); and 

September 30. Cle Elum Lake contents are shown for June 30. 

Table 4.4 Yakima Project total reservoir contents and Cle Elum Lake contents (maf) 

(1981-2005) 

Period 

Current 

operation 

No Action 

Alternative 

Black Rock 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam 

and Reservoir 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam 

Plus Yakima 

River Pump 

Exchange 

Alternative 

March 31 0.60 

(56% full) 

0.62 

(58% full) 

0.68 

(63% full) 

0.72 

(58% full) 

0.73 

(59% full) 

June 30 Yakima 

Project total 

0.91 

(85% full) 

0.92 

(86% full) 

0.91 

(85% full) 

1.05 

(85% full) 

1.05 

(85% full) 

June 30 Cle Elum 

Lake 

0.35 

(80% full) 

0.36 

(82% full) 

0.34 

(78% full)] 

0.33 

(75% full) 

0.33 

(75% full) 

September 30 0.27 

(25% full) 

0.30 

(28% full) 

0.43 

(40% full) 

0.40 

(37% full) 

0.40 

(32% full) 

April-September Flow Volume Downstream from the Parker Gage.—The AprilSeptember flow volume is greater under the No Action Alternative than under the 

current operation because the Title XII flows are greater as a result of 

implementation of water conservation measures and changes in points of 

diversions. Table 4.5 presents the April-September flow volume and the JulySeptember flow volume downstream from the Parker gage under all the 

alternatives. 

4-9 
 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table 4.5 Flow volume downstream from the Parker gage for April-September and JulySeptember (maf) 

Period 

Current 

operation 

No Action 

Alternative 

Black Rock 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam 

and Reservoir 

Alternative 

Wymer 

Dam Plus 

Yakima 

River Pump 

Exchange 

Alternative 

Apr-Sep 

Jul-Sep 

0.51 

0.09 

0.62 

0.13 

0.98 

0.23 

0.59 

0.13 

0.90 

0.29 

The No Action Alternative July-September higher flow volume of 40,000 acrefeet is about 36 percent of the total 6-month change of 110,000 acre-feet. The 

daily average flow for the July-September period is 470 cfs under the current 

operation compared to 720 cfs under the No Action Alternative. 

April-September Diversion Volume Upstream of the Parker Gage.—AprilSeptember diversions upstream of the Parker gage average 110,000 acre-feet less 

over the 25-year period of record under the No Action Alternative than under the 

current operation because the water conservation measures are implemented. 

Water conservation measures result in a total diversion reduction of about 

157,200 acre-feet (conserved water), of which 84,700 acre-feet is the instream 

flow portion and 72,500 acre-feet is the irrigation portion retained by the 

conserving entities for use in dry years. 

September 30 Reservoir Contents.—See “April 1 TWSA.” 

April-September Flow Volume at the Mouth of the Yakima River.—See “AprilSeptember Flow Volume at Parker.” 

Irrigation Delivery Volume Shortage and Proration Level (1994 Dry Year).— 

The current operation does not include the water conservation measures of the No 

Action Alternative. Water conservation measures improve the irrigation delivery 

volume shortage, and, since these measures are included in the No Action 

Alternative, the irrigation delivery shortage volume is less (20,000 acre-feet) than 

under the current operation. These measures, however, do not improve the 

irrigation proratable level in the third year (1994) of the 3-year 1992-1994 dry 

cycle, and the current operation proration level of 28 percent is slightly better than 

the No Action Alternative proration level of 27 percent.4 

4

 The irrigation water supply benefits of the conservation actions are realized in 1992 and 

1993 as shown by the improved irrigation proration levels of the No Action Alternative. By 1994, 

the third year of the dry cycle, the difference in the proration level of the No Action Alternative 

and the current operation is negligible and is due to rounding of the Yak-RW model results. 

4-10 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

4.2.2.2 Black Rock Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

No construction-related impacts to the storage and delivery of water are 

anticipated under this alternative. 

Long-Term Impacts 

April 1 TWSA.—The April 1 TWSA estimate for the Black Rock Alternative is 

60,000 acre-feet greater than under the No Action Alternative. This difference is 

the result of the water exchange whereby a sizeable irrigation demand of the Roza 

and Sunnyside Divisions is removed from the Yakima Project and met by the 

delivery of water stored in Black Rock reservoir. As a result, the September 30 

reservoir carryover is greater, which increases the April 1 TWSA. It should be 

noted that the only storage included in the TWSA estimate is storage in the 

existing reservoirs filled from Yakima River basin runoff. The TWSA estimate 

does not include the volume of stored water in Black Rock reservoir. Further, the 

additional release of 185-200 cfs from Cle Elum Lake to improve the aquatic 

resources begins in September and continues through May. While some 

“backfilling” of the vacated storage space does occur, there is no Yakima Project 

storage downstream from Cle Elum Lake to capture these releases and they 

continue downstream to the Columbia River confluence. The environmental 

consequences of this water exchange on the Yakima River basin’s reservoir 

resources are presented in table 4.4. 

April-September Flow Volume Downstream from the Parker Gage.—The AprilSeptember flow volume downstream from the Parker gage is 360,000 acre-feet 

greater than under the No Action Alternative, which is the result of the water 

exchange and the enhanced instream flows based on the April 1 TWSA estimate 

(chapter 2). Table 4.5 presents a summary of the April-September and JulySeptember flow volumes downstream from the Parker gage. 

The Black Rock Alternative flow volume downstream from the Parker gage 

during July-September of 230,000 acre-feet is equivalent to about a daily average 

flow of about 1,260 cfs. A hydrograph showing median daily flows at Parker 

under the Black Rock Alternative and the No Action Alternative is shown in 

chapter 2. 

April-September Diversion Volume Upstream of the Parker Gage.—An increase 

in the April-September diversion volume upstream of the Parker gage is 

associated with the future municipal water supply. Irrigation diversions are less 

than under the No Action Alternative, as a major portion of the Roza and 

Sunnyside Divisions’ water needs are from Black Rock reservoir. The net effect 

is a decrease of 440,000 acre-feet. 

4-11 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

September 30 Reservoir Contents.—See “April 1 TWSA.” 

April-September Flow Volume at the Mouth of the Yakima River.—With the 

integration of the Black Rock Alternative and Yakima Project operations, the 

April-September flow volume at the mouth of the Yakima River is 360,000 acrefeet greater under the Black Rock Alternative than under the No Action 

Alternative, which is the result of importing water into the basin. 

Irrigation Delivery Volume Shortage and Proration Level (1994 Dry Year).— 

The irrigation delivery volume shortage is substantially less under the Black Rock 

Alternative, and the irrigation proration level is improved to the 70-percent goal 

in the third year of the 3-year dry cycle. These differences are the result of the 

greater proratable irrigation water supply that is available in dry years. 

The environmental consequences of these actions include the following: 

•	 Agricultural irrigated areas would receive an adequate water supply to 

sustain cropping through extreme dry cycles. 

•	 Instream flows for aquatic habitat would be maintained throughout the 

Yakima River basin in these dry years at a reduced, but much better, flow 

level than under the No Action Alternative. 

4.2.2.3 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

No construction-related impacts to the storage and delivery of water are 

anticipated under this alternative. 

Long-Term Impacts 

April 1 TWSA.—With the addition of Wymer reservoir to the Yakima Project, 

several primary changes occur, increasing the April 1 TWSA estimate. 

The contents in the 162,500 acre-feet of Wymer reservoir capacity is included in 

the TWSA estimate. 

The additional October-May Cle Elum Lake releases to improve aquatic habitat 

conditions in the Cle Elum River and downstream to the Wymer pumping plant 

result in the capability to “backfill” vacated storage space in Cle Elum Lake. 

This, in turn, provides more stored water for the April 1 TWSA. 

However, all of the Cle Elum Lake vacated space cannot be “backfilled.” As a 

result, total Yakima Project reservoir contents would be higher, but the Cle Elum 

Lake contents would be lower. The average contents of the Yakima Project 

reservoir system for the 25-year period of record are shown in table 4.4 for three 

periods: March 31 (prior to the beginning of the irrigation season and used in the 

4-12 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

April 1 TWSA estimate), June 30 (the target date for the reservoirs to full storage 

capacity), and September 30. Cle Elum Lake contents are also shown for June 30. 

April-September Flow Volume Downstream from the Parker Gage.—The AprilSeptember volume of flows downstream from the Parker gage would be slightly 

reduced with implementation of the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative. This 

reduction is due to (1) the “backfilling” of Cle Elum Lake vacated space, which 

results from the additional October-May releases and (2) future municipal water 

supply diversions upstream of Parker which are provided from unregulated flows 

prior to the storage control period (generally about April-June). Title XII target 

flows are the same as under No Action Alternative. 

Table 4.5 presents the volume of flows downstream from the Parker gage during 

the April-September and July-September periods for the Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir Alternative. The flow reduction occurs during April-June, which is 

normally prior to the storage control period. The average volume reduction of 

30,000 acre-feet is about a 5-percent decrease from the No Action Alternative and 

is equivalent to a daily average flow of about 83 cfs. The July-September flow 

volume downstream from the Parker gage is the same under the No Action 

Alternative (130,000 acre-feet) and is equivalent to a daily average flow of about 

720 cfs. 

April-September Diversion Volume Upstream of the Parker Gage.—Diversions 

upstream of the Parker gage are an average of about 40,000 greater for the 

25-year period of record (1981-2005) under the Wymer Dam and Reservoir 

Alternative than under the No Action Alternative. This difference is the result of 

the following two actions: (1) diversions to meet future municipal water needs 

and (2) improvement in the dry year water supply for proratable irrigation 

entitlements. 

September 30 Reservoir Contents.—See “April 1 TWSA.” 

April-September Flow Volume at the Mouth of the Yakima River.—The AprilSeptember volume of water exiting the Yakima River basin at the Columbia River 

confluence with implementation of a Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative is an 

average of about 30,000 acre-feet (about 4 percent) less than under the No Action 

Alternative. This decrease in flow volume is associated with the added diversions 

to meet future municipal water supply needs. This average decrease takes into 

account the return flows that would accrue to the river from the additional future 

municipal water use. 

Irrigation Delivery Volume Shortage and Proration Level (1994 Dry Year).— 

Model results show a slight improvement in the proration level under the Wymer 

Dam and Reservoir Alternative as the result of the Wymer reservoir storage space 

of 80,000 acre-feet for dry year proratable irrigation water supply. The shortage 

4-13 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

in the volume of water delivered to the farm turnout does not show an appreciable 

difference under the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative compared to the No 

Action Alternative. 

4.2.2.4 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

No construction-related impacts to the storage and delivery of water are 

anticipated under this alternative. 

Long-Term Impacts 

April 1 TWSA.—The greater April 1 TWSA estimate is the result of the same 

primary changes as noted for the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative. 

Table 4.4 presents the environmental consequences on the Yakima River basin’s 

reservoir resources. 

April-September Flow Volume Downstream from the Parker Gage.—Under the 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative, the AprilSeptember flow volume downstream from the Parker gage is 280,000 acre-feet 

greater than under the No Action Alternative. This increase is the result of 

establishing instream flow objectives at Parker gage and implementing the 

Yakima River pump exchange whereby some of the water that would normally be 

diverted by the Roza and Sunnyside Divisions remains in the river. The volume 

of flow downstream from the Parker gage is presented in table 4.5. 

The July-September daily average flow downstream from the Parker gage is 

equivalent to 1,580 cfs, or 860 cfs (121 percent) greater than under the No Action 

Alternative, as shown in the hydrographs in chapter 2. 

April-September Diversion Volume Upstream of the Parker Gage.—AprilSeptember diversion volume upstream of the Parker gage is greater under this 

alternative than under the No Action Alternative as a result of the future 

municipal water supply. However, the net effect is a decrease of about 

270,000 acre-feet in diversions because of the water exchange whereby water 

pumped from the mouth of the Yakima River is substituted for irrigation 

diversions that would have been made from the Yakima River by the Roza and 

Sunnyside Divisions. 

September 30 Reservoir Contents.—See “April 1 TWSA.” 

April-September Flow Volume at the Mouth of the Yakima River.— 

Average flows in the Columbia River at the mouth of the Yakima River 

are less than under the No Action Alternative. While the pump exchange 

is bucket-for-bucket, the Columbia River flows at the mouth of the Yakima 

River are reduced because of the added diversions to meet future municipal 

4-14 
 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

water supply needs. The environmental consequences are a very slight 

reduction in Columbia River discharge. 

Irrigation Delivery Volume Shortage and Proration Level (1994 Dry Year).— 

Model results show a minor improvement in the shortage in the volume of water 

delivered to the farm turnout in 1994, the third year of the 3-year dry-cycle. The 

improvement is because the irrigation proration level is 29 percent, slightly 

greater than the No Action Alternative proration level of 27 percent. The 

environmental consequences associated with these actions are that more water is 

provided to the agricultural lands and return flows to the river system are about 

11 percent greater (10,000 acre-feet) than under the No Action Alternative. 

4.2.2.5 Mitigation 

No mitigation would be required. 

4.2.2.6 Cumulative Impacts 

Columbia River Basin Water Management Program 

The Columbia River Basin Water Management Program could affect water 

resources in both the Yakima and Columbia Rivers. The conservation provisions 

could improve irrigation deliveries and instream flows in both the Yakima and 

Columbia Rivers, but conservation actions under the program are not well enough 

defined to estimate what the changes might be. The same is true with respect to 

future storage. Options being considered might improve streamflows and 

irrigation deliveries in the Yakima River basin, but options are not sufficiently 

developed to determine the potential impacts, adverse or beneficial. Currently, 

three sites are under consideration for development of a large off-stream storage 

reservoir off the Columbia River. It would be difficult to develop both the Black 

Rock Alternative and a large mainstem off-stream storage option as both would 

depend upon flows in the Columbia River to fill the reservoirs. 

Global Climate Change 

Global climate change has the potential to impact water resources in the study 

region. Potential impacts relate to changes in future temperatures and 

precipitation patterns, and the resulting implications to stream runoff rate and 

timing, water temperatures, and reservoir operations. 

Current Understanding on Global to Regional Climate Change.—Assessments 

on climate change science and contemporary projections have been periodically 

released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since 1988. 

The IPCC was established by the World Meteorological Organization and 

the United Nations Environment Programme, and has been coordinating the 

assessments of “...climate change, its potential impacts and options for 

adaptation and mitigation” (www.ipcc.ch). IPCC has recently released its Fourth 

Assessment Report (FAR) (IPCC, 2007). The IPPC report offers statements and 

4-15 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

associated uncertainties about recent trends, apparent human influence and 

projections for various extreme weather events (e.g., table SPM.2, IPCC 2007). 

Relatively more certain statements are offered about warming-related events. For 

example, table SPM.2 states that global trends of “warmer and fewer cold days” 

and “warmer and more frequent hot days” occurred with greater than 90 percent 

probability during the 20th century and that it is “virtually certain” that these 

trends will continue based on 21st century projections of climate response to 

future greenhouse gas emissions scenarios (IPCC, 2000). Relatively less certain 

statements are offered about precipitation-related events (e.g., phenomena like the 

areal extent of droughts, heavy precipitation event frequency). 

Recent Studies of Climate Change Impacts on Pacific Northwest Water 

Resources.—Numerous studies have been conducted on the potential 

consequences of climate change for water resources in the Pacific Northwest. 

This section summarizes findings from recent studies demonstrating evidence of 

regional climate change during the 20th century, and exploring water resources 

impacts associated with various climate change scenarios. 

Recent Historical Trends in Pacific Northwest Climate and 

Snowpack.—It appears that the Pacific Northwest has became generally warmer 

and wetter during the 20th century. Based on results from Mote et al. (2003), the 

region experienced average temperature and precipitation trends of approximately 

+1.4 degrees °F (+0.8 degree Celsius [°C]) and +14 percent, respectively, during 

1916-1997. Hamlet et al. (2007) showed similar findings in an annual sense, 

however seasonal trends in precipitation were found to differ in sign from about 

the mid-20th century (table 4.6). 

Table 4.6 Pacific Northwest Region meteorological trends during 1916–2003 and 1947–2003 

(Hamlet et al., 2007)1 

Season Period Precipitation 

Temperature 

maximum 

Temperature 

minimum 

Cool (Oct-Mar) 1916-2003 

1947-2003 

7.86 

-11.07 

1.81 (1.01) 

3.47 (1.93)

3.01 (1.670 

 4.09 (2.27) 

Warm (Apr-Sep) 1916-2003 

1947-2003 

27.67 

16.16 

0.40 (0.22)

2.68 (1.49)

 2.43 (1.35) 

 3.47 (1.93) 

1

 Precipitation units are percent change per century. Temperatures units are °F (°C) per century. 

Coincident with these trends, the region also experienced a general decline in 

spring snowpack, as indicated by analysis of 20th century snow water equivalent 

(SWE) measurements dating back to at least 1950 (Mote, 2003). It appears that at 

most regional SWE measurement stations, particularly those located below about 

5,900 feet above mean sea level (i.e., 1,800 meters), there has been a decline in 

SWE coincident with observed temperature increase and in spite of coincident 

4-16 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

precipitation increase (Mote, 2003). In the latter study, declines in SWE were 

found to be largest in the Cascades and Coast ranges, and trend magnitudes were 

found to diminish at elevations above about 1,800 meters. 

Mote (2006) explored the separate roles of temperature trend, precipitation 

trend, and climate variability in explaining observed SWE trends in the 

Pacific Northwest. Results showed that about half of the Pacific Northwest’s 

SWE trend since the mid-20th century can be accounted for by an indicator 

of Pacific climate variability, the North Pacific Index on sea level pressure 

conditions, and the other half by the coincidental warming in the region. 

The significance of the results is that, even after accounting for the influence 

of climate variability, there still seems to be a substantial decreasing trend 

in Pacific Northwest snowpack conditions consistent with the observed 

warming. 

These findings are significant for regional water resources management and 

reservoir operations because snowpack has traditionally played a central role in 

determining the seasonality of natural runoff. In many Pacific Northwest 

headwater basins, the precipitation stored as snow during winter accounts for a 

significant portion of spring and summer inflow to lower elevation reservoirs. 

The mechanism for how this occurs is that (with precipitation being equal) 

warmer temperatures in these watersheds causes reduced snowpack development 

during winter, more runoff during the winter season, earlier spring peak flows 

associated with an earlier snowmelt, and reduced warm season natural runoff 

(Hamlet et al., 2007). 

Climate Change Studies in the Columbia River Basin.—A study 

conducted by Hamlet and Lettenmaier (1999) was framed by future climate 

scenarios derived from four state-of-the-art global climate models and focused on 

scenario changes in regional climate, Columbia River Basin runoff, and Columbia 

River reservoir system management. The relevance of Hamlet and Lettenmaier 

(1999) for this report is that their assumed climate scenarios span different 

increments of future warming and precipitation changes that remain within the 

range of changes surveyed among contemporary climate projections. (See the 

following section.) 

Hamlet and Lettenmaier (1999) highlight water resource impacts associated with 

two of the scenarios analyzed (table 4.7). The impacts analysis starts from the 

treatment of each climate scenario, where change in long-term mean temperature 

and precipitation conditions is superimposed on observed climate variability. In 

other words, their study does not consider change in the spread or extremes of 

temperature or precipitation conditions about the mean. 

4-17 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table 4.7 Scenario changes in climate analyzed by Hamlet and Lettenmaier, 1999 

Scenario 

Change in... Change in... 

Winter 

temperature 

Summer 

temperature 

Annual 

temperature 

Winter 

precipitation 

Summer 

precipitation 

Annual 

precipitation 

HC 

MPI 

+3.6 

(+2.0) 

+3.4 

(+1.9) 

+2.7 

(+1.5) 

+4.0 

(+2.2) 

+3.2 

(+1.8) 

+3.8 

(+2.1) 

+20 

+3 

+22 

-9 

+21 

-3 

1

 Precipitation units are percent change per century. Temperatures units are °F (°C). 

2 HC and MPI scenarios were derived from climate simulations produced by the United Kingdom Hadley Centre and 

Deches Klimarechenzntrum at the Max Planck Institute as part of the IPCC’s global climate change experiments 

conducted during 1998-1999. 

Results showed that changes in Columbia River runoff at The Dalles varied 

significantly by scenario (table 4.8). The two scenarios were consistent in that 

increased winter runoff volumes would be expected as warmer temperatures cause 

a greater fraction of winter precipitation to fall as rain rather than snow. This, in 

turn, results in reduced snowpack accumulation during winter leading to less 

snowmelt support of summer runoff. The results from these two scenarios 

suggest that without an increment of precipitation increase to offset warming, dry 

season runoff in the region would decrease. Further, it highlights the importance 

of seasonally focused climate change on the regional water response. 

Table 4.8 Scenario changes in natural runoff at The Dalles, simulated by Hamlet and 

Lettenmaier, 1999 

Scenario 

Change in... 

Winter mean Summer mean Annual mean 

HC 162 107 123 

MPI 121 88 98 

1

 Change is expressed as percent of base runoff, as simulated using 20th century meteorology over the 

basin. 

2

 Scenarios are the same as those listed in table 4.7. 

Hamlet and Lettenmaier (1999) subsequently translated simulated changes in 

Columbia River runoff into reservoir operations response. Their results suggest 

that the scenario runoff changes presented in table 4.8, particularly for scenario 

MPI, could lead to increased competition for water during the spring, summer, 

and early fall between nonfirm energy production, irrigation, instream flow, and 

recreation. Other studies focused on Columbia River system response to scenario 

climate changes have produced similar findings (Mote et al., 1999; Mote et al., 

2003; Payne et al., 2004). 

Past Climate Change Studies in the Yakima River Basin.—Several 

recent investigations have explored scenario climate change impacts for runoff 

and water demand response in the Yakima River basin. Both of the two studies 

4-18 
 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

discussed in this section (Scott et al., 2006; Mastin and Sharp, 2006) were based 

on warming-only scenarios and did not include the influence of coincidental 

precipitation change. 

Scott et al. (2006) focused on how scenario climate changes could translate into 

shifts in water shortages for irrigated agriculture and associated impacts on 

regional agribusiness. Their results showed that the “normal years” probability of 

needing more than 50 percent prorationing among basin junior water users 

increased from about 14 percent under current climate to about 54 percent with 

3.6 oF (2 °C) warming. 

Mastin and Sharp (2006) used an application of the U.S. Geological Survey’s 

Modular Modeling System and simulated runoff under historical meteorology 

(1950-2005) (i.e., base) and then again with the same historical meteorology 

warmed by a uniform 3.6 oF (+2 °C) during the simulation period (i.e., climate 

change). Results showed that runoff was seasonally redistributed during the year, 

and would seem to necessitate water management adjustments in the Yakima 

River basin in order to continue serving present operating objectives. 

Table 4.9 presents “dry season” runoff responses to the scenario increment of 

warming (i.e., change in April-August natural runoff volume in the warmed 

climate scenario versus the base climate scenario) for five locations in the basin. 

Table 4.9 Change in April-August natural runoff at various Yakima River basin locations 

based on a 3.6 oF (2 °C) warming scenario (Mastin and Sharp, 2006) 

Basin location 

Difference (%) 

Exceedence percentile 

10% 50% 90% 

Bumping Lake 

Rimrock Lake 

Cle Elum Lake 

Kachess Lake 

Keechelus Lake 

Yakima River near Parker gage 

-27 

-25 

-40 

-47 

-45 

-38 

-28 

-20 

-49 

-54 

-53 

-41 

-37 

-16 

-39 

-55 

-53 

-37 

They show a median reduction of dry season runoff of -28 to -54 percent, varying 

by location. Mastin and Sharp (2006) attributed their simulated seasonal 

redistribution of runoff to reduction in snowpack. 

Contemporary Climate Projection Information.—The preceding section 

highlighted earlier modeling efforts by Scott et al. (2006) and Mastin et al. (2006) 

reflecting future warming without precipitation change in the Pacific Northwest 

that could impact water resources in the Yakima River basin. The climate 

scenarios modeled by Scott and Mastin can be viewed as “what if” scenarios. It is 

of interest to understand how their scenarios compare to a survey of contemporary 

climate projection information, which this section introduces in some detail. In 

4-19 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

summary, the contemporary information reveals consensus among reputable 

climate models that future warming should occur. Further, there appears to be a 

split-majority among the models that, with this future warming, there will also be 

an increase in mean-annual precipitation over the region. 

For this study, the survey was on projections contained within the World Climate 

Research Programme’s Coupled Model Intercomparison Project – Phase 3 multimodel dataset (World Climate Research Programme [WCRP] CMIP3, 

http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/about_ipcc.php). These are the same projections 

referenced in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2007). Specifically, the 

WCRP CMIP3 dataset was sampled to collect regional information from 

112 contemporary climate projections (http://gdo-dcp.ucllnl.org/downscaled_ 

cmip3_projections) representing 16 different climate models. Each projection 

was spatially sampled over the Columbia River Basin and adjusted for climate 

model bias and downscaled to 1/8o spatial resolution (Wood et al., 2002; 

Wood et al., 2004). 

Results from the survey are summarized for two areas in this study: near 

Cle Elum Lake and Kachess Lake in the upper Yakima River watershed 

(figure 4.2), and over the greater Upper Columbia River Basin region (figure 4.3). 

From the surveyed projections, there is consensus that Yakima-region warming 

should occur during the 21st century (figure 4.4), with median warming 

projections being about 1.8 oF (+1.0 oC) and 3.4 oF (+1.9 oC) by early- and 

mid-21st century, respectively. As for regional precipitation change, there is 

a split-majority, with more projections suggesting wetter rather than drier 

conditions. Roughly 75 percent of the projections suggest wetter conditions 

with median expected change being about +3.3 percent and +5.8 percent by 

early- to mid-21st century. From the distribution of projected paired-changes 

in the Yakima region (figure 4.5), there does not appear to be a significant 

relationship between projected temperature (T) and precipitation (P) changes. 

For example, the correlation between projected T and P by period (n = 112) 

was -0.14 and -0.06, neither of which passes a test of statistical significance at 

the 90-percent confidence level given 112 paired observations. This suggests 

that contemporary projections of T and P change are somewhat independent, 

and that the systematic drivers behind projected T change cannot be used to 

explain projected P changes. This raises questions about the spread and 

central tendency of projected P changes. In other words: What is the 

paradigm for Pacific Northwest precipitation response to global warming 

scenarios, and is this paradigm reflected on contemporary climate projections? 

This question relates to more general questions of regional climate responses 

to anthropogenic warming in the context of natural climate variability, and 

remains a focus of ongoing research (e.g., WRCP CLIVAR activities, 

www.clivar.org/science/components.php). 

4-20 
 

 

 

 

Figure 4.2 Projection survey area #1 near Cle Elum and Kachess 

 Lakes, Washington. 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Figure 4.3 Projection survey area #2 over the Upper Columbia River 

 Basin and surrounding region. 

4-21 
Figure 4.4 Variable-specific 21st century climate projections over Cle Elum 

and Kachess Lakes, Washington. 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Plots show projection-specific changes in surface air temperature (oF) and 

precipitation (percent) by 2011-2040 (top panel) and 2041-2070 (bottom 

panel) relative to 1971-2000 from 112 climate projections. The projections 

were collectively produced by 16 WCRP CMIP3 climate models offering one 

or more simulations of the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios 

pathways A2, A1b and B1 (IPCC, 2000). 

4-22 
Figure 4.5 Paired 21st century climate projections over Cle Elum and Kachess Lakes, 

Washington. 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Plots show paired projection-specific changes in surface air temperature (oF) and 

precipitation (percent) by 2011-2040 (top panel) and 2041-2070 (bottom panel) 

relative to 1971-2000 for the same 112 climate projections summarized on figure 4.4. 

4-23 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Moving to the second survey area, figures 4.6 and 4.7 illustrate how projected 

T and P changes are spatially distributed throughout the region by early- and mid21st century, respectively. At each 1/8o location in the projection datasets, all 

112 projections were surveyed for mean-annual T and P change by early- and 

mid-21st century period. The 25-, 50- and 75-percent exceedence changes were 

then sampled and mapped as shown on the panels of figures 4.6 and 4.7. Similar 

to information on figure 4.4 and 4.5, it appears that there is consensus among the 

projections that warming is projected to occur throughout the basin, and that for 

roughly 75 percent of the projections, there is an expectation for wetter conditions 

throughout the basin. 

It is noted that the data shown on figures 4.4 through 4.7 do not infer regional 

“climate change probabilities.” The data represent only the surveyed results from 

a heterogeneous mix of WCRP CMIP3 climate models, three IPCC FAR 

emissions pathways, and various states of climate modeling capability. Not 

represented among these projections are the uncertainties associated with the 

many factors still absent from current climate models or in the pathways included 

here (e.g., assumed global technological development, distributed energytechnology portfolios, resultant spatial distribution of greenhouse gas sources and 

sinks through time, and biogeochemical interaction with greenhouse gas sources 

and sinks through time, and many others). Further, these data do not fully 

represent how climate change impacts on large-scale weather patterns 

(e.g., Pacific storm tracks affecting the region) could interact with local-scale 

features relevant to Yakima River basin hydroclimate (e.g., Cascade orographic 

controls on Yakima River basin precipitation fed by storms tracking in from the 

Pacific Ocean, and how those controls vary with rainfall versus snowfall storms). 

Treatment of Climate Change in this Draft PR/EIS.—Initial efforts for this Draft 

PR/EIS focused on two “what-if” climate scenarios and their associated impacts 

on Yakima River basin and Columbia River Basin water resources. Those two 

climate scenarios assumed amounts of mean-annual warming (i.e., +1 oC and 

+2 oC) with no change in precipitation. Reclamation proceeded to coordinate 

scenario analyses of runoff response in both the Yakima River basin and in the 

Columbia River basins, operations response in the Columbia River reservoir 

system, and related water supply available for diversion at Priest Rapids. 

While that work was underway, the IPCC released its Fourth Assessment Report. 

As presented earlier, a survey of projections from the WCRP CMIP3 dataset 

suggests that the assumption of “no precipitation change” implicit in the scoped 

climate change scenarios may not be well representative of the future. However, 

this survey of contemporary precipitation projections is not accompanied by 

information on regional projection credibility. For example, the IPCC FAR 

(IPCC, 2007) did not offer information suggesting that global climate models can 

credibly translate global warming scenarios into regional precipitation response. 

4-24 
Figure 4.6 Early-21st century WCRP CMIP3 climate change projections over the 

Upper Columbia Region. 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Precipitation Temperature 

Maps show projected changes in surface air temperature (oF) and precipitation (inches 

per year) by 2011-2040 relative to 1971-2000 from 112 climate projections, as 

described in the caption of figure 4.4. At each downscaled location (i.e., 1/8-degree 

spatial resolution), projections were sorted to identify 75-, 50-, and 25-percent 

exceedence projection values. 

4-25 
Precipitation Temperature

Figure 4.7 Mid-21st century WCRP CMIP3 climate change projections over the Upper 

Columbia Region. 

Same as figure 4.6, but for projected changes in surface air temperature (oF) and 

precipitation (inches per year) by 2041-2070 relative to 1971-2000. 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

4-26 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

In contrast, the IPCC FAR offered information that suggested climate models can 

credibly simulate global- to continental-scaled temperature trends, which also 

suggests credibility on a regional scale as continental and regional temperature 

trends are similar. 

Realistic projections of future runoff appear to be dependent upon our ability to 

predict future changes in both temperature and precipitation. As noted above 

credible projections of temperature changes can now be made but the credibility 

of contemporary regional precipitation projections remains questionable. The 

uncertainly associated with the regional precipitation projections is a significant 

concern when trying to develop quantitative results since scenario studies have 

shown that warming-induced decreases in Pacific Northwest runoff during spring 

and summer can be offset by some amount of precipitation increase (Hamlet and 

Lettenmaier, 1999). Given this uncertainty, the treatment of climate change for 

this Draft PR/EIS was modified to involve a qualitative discussion rather than a 

presentation of quantitative results from the originally scoped scenarios. 

Therefore, the remainder of this section provides a qualitative assessment of 

climate change impacts on alternative operations and resources. 

Potential Climate Change Impacts on Regional Water Resources.— 

This section summarizes potential climate change impacts related to PR/EIS 

action-alternative analyses, including runoff and surface water supplies, flood 

control, hydropower, fisheries, surface water quality, and groundwater. 

•	 Runoff and Surface Water Supplies 

o	 Based on recent scenario studies of climate change impacts to 

Columbia River and Yakima River runoff, it appears that warming 

without precipitation change would trigger a seasonal shift toward 

increased runoff during winter and decreased runoff during summer. 

It appears that such runoff shifts would lead to reduced scenario water 

supplies under the No Action Alternative. 

o	 Based on contemporary climate projections, it appears plausible that 

precipitation increase could occur with regional warming and offset a 

significant portion of summer runoff decreases associated with 

warming alone. The resultant affect could be a minor change in dry 

season water supply (albeit with significantly increased winter runoff 

to manage). 

•	 Flood Control 

o	 With or without offsetting precipitation increases, it would appear that 

winter runoff increases under regional warming could motivate 

adjustments to Columbia River flood control strategies. If current 

flood protection values in the Columbia River reservoir system are to 

4-27 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

be preserved, it could become necessary to make flood control rule 

adjustments as climate evolves (e.g., deeper winter draft requirements) 

which may further affect dry season water supply at Priest Rapids. 

•	 Hydropower 

o	 Hydropower production is generally a function of reservoir storage 

while demand generally tracks with temperature (e.g., heating demand 

during cold days, air conditioning demand during warm days). 

Climate changes that decrease the quantity or alter the timing of 

reservoir inflows have the potential to adversely impact the 

productivity of hydroelectric facilities (Hamlet and Lettenmaier 1999). 

Alternatively, increases in average flows would increase hydropower 

production. 

•	 Fisheries 

o	 The scenario studies on regional warming, which assumed no change 

in precipitation, would seem to indicate adverse effects on Pacific 

Northwest salmon due to increased winter flows, reduced summer and 

fall flows, and warmer stream and estuary temperatures (Mote et al., 

2003). Assumptions about possible changes in precipitation, which 

could affect projected summer runoff, may alter these conclusions. 

•	 Surface Water Quality 

o	 Water quality depends on several variables including water 

temperature, flow, runoff rate and timing, and the physical 

characteristics of the watershed. Climate change has the potential to 

alter all of these variables. Increased summer air temperatures could 

increase dry season aquatic temperatures and affect fisheries habitat. 

•	 Groundwater 

o	 Reduced mountain snowpack, earlier snowmelt, and reductions in 

spring and summer streamflow volumes originating from snowmelt 

would likely affect surface water supplies and could trigger heavier 

reliance on groundwater resources (Scott et al. 2006). However, 

warmer, wetter winters could increase the amount of water available 

for groundwater recharge. 

Considering how climate change could influence each of these areas, it seems 

questionable whether contemporary water management objectives and operations 

would persist as climate evolves. Previous scenario studies on climate change 

impacts for regional water resources have typically assumed contemporary 

management paradigms and constraints while allowing climate change to modify 

4-28 
 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

surface water supplies. On the contrary, it seems possible that new water 

management paradigms could emerge in the region as an adaptation response, 

thereby affecting the assumptions framing these EIS analyses. Social systems 

could play a role, as they define values related to local and regional flood 

protection, environmental habitat support, energy management, recreational 

objectives, etc. 

4.3 Groundwater Resources 

4.3.1 Affected Environment 

Groundwater is the principal source of drinking water in the Yakima River basin 

and supplies about 330,000 people, or about 80 percent of the population, in a 

three-county area. At least 45,000 wells withdraw water in the basin. Irrigation 

of cropland is the largest use of groundwater, pumped from about 2,300 irrigation 

wells (Vaccaro and Sumioka, 2006). 

The headwaters of the Yakima River basin are on the forested east slope of the 

Cascade Range, where annual precipitation is more than 100 inches. However, 

the sedimentary and metamorphic rocks in the upper basin are generally poor 

aquifers and groundwater recharge in the upper basin is not available to the 

majority of wells in the lower basin. The lower Yakima River basin is generally 

arid, with an annual precipitation of less than 10 inches. Mean annual recharge to 

the basin has increased about 31 percent since predevelopment conditions due to 

the application of irrigation water to croplands (Vaccaro and Olsen, 2007). 

The addition of surface water storage and conveyance facilities could affect the 

groundwater resource by providing the opportunity for water to seep into the 

ground. This additional seepage could have either beneficial or detrimental 

effects, depending on the quantity and location. 

4.3.1.1 Geology Overview 

Basaltic rocks that underlie the majority of the Yakima River basin are part of the 

larger Columbia River Basalt Group (CRBG). The CRBG is comprised of more 

than 300 individual basalt flows that erupted from fissures in the eastern part of 

the Columbia Plateau during the Miocene Epoch (6 to 17 million years ago). 

Individual flows range from a few feet to more than 300 feet thick, with an 

average about 100 feet. The CRBG hosts multiple aquifers in various layers and 

formations that are collectively called the Columbia Plateau Aquifer System. The 

Columbia Plateau Aquifer System underlies about 63,000 square miles in central 

and eastern Washington, north-central and eastern Oregon, and a small portion of 

northwestern Idaho (figure 4.8). 

4-29 
Washington 

Oregon / 

Legend 

- - - Subprovince Boundaries 

c=J Yakima River Basin 

.. Columbia Plateau Aquifer 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

, 

, - ~­, 

, 

/ 

"-- R I !-<---- , 

/ 

, 

Blue Mountains--

Subprovince 

. lAGr_ 

Location 

Palouse 

Subprovince 

p 

" • 

25 50 

Idaho 

100 Mile 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Figure 4.8 Location of Yakima River basin and Columbia Plateau Aquifer System. 

4-30 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

The Columbia Plateau Aquifer System lies in the Columbia Intermontane 

physiographic province, which has been divided into three subprovinces: the 

Yakima Fold Belt, the Palouse, and the Blue Mountains. The three subprovinces 

are largely defined by structural differences. The Yakima River basin lies within 

the Yakima Fold Belt, which has experienced more tectonic folding and faulting 

than the other areas (figure 4.8). The topography of the Yakima Fold Belt 

consists of northwest-southeast-trending ridges (anticlines) separated by broad, 

flat valleys (synclines) that were folded and faulted under north-south 

compression. 

The basalts have been divided into separate formations based on their physical, 

geochemical, and paleomagnetic polarity differences. From oldest to youngest 

the basaltic formations include the following: 

•	 Grande Ronde Basalt - found mainly in the subsurface and only exposed 

at the surface where faulting or erosion has occurred. It is the thickest and 

most extensive of the basalt formations. The top of the Grande Ronde 

Basalt is generally defined by a zone of weathering or the presence of a 

sedimentary interbed (the Vantage sandstone). 

•	 Wanapum Basalt - overlies the Grande Ronde Basalt and is found nearly 

everywhere in the Yakima River basin at depth. The Wanapum Basalt is a 

very productive aquifer throughout the Columbia Plateau and is widely 

used for irrigation and municipal wells. 

•	 Saddle Mountains Basalt - is less than 1 percent of the total volume of 

the CRBG, yet is the most chemically diverse of any of the basaltic 

formations in the group (Swanson and Wright, 1978). The thickness and 

extent of the Saddle Mountains Basalt also varies more than other basalt 

formations. 

Interbedded sediments between some of the basalt flows are assigned to the 

Ellensburg Formation and are mainly found between flows of the Saddle 

Mountains Basalt. Toward the end of the volcanism period, there were longer 

intervals of time between subsequent basalt flows for deposition to occur. The 

interbed materials were derived chiefly from volcanic activity and erosion from 

the Cascade Range and from the anticlinal ridges. The interbeds are relatively 

thin, compared to the thick sequence of basalts, and are generally fine-grained, 

weakly consolidated, and have low permeability. However, in some areas, the 

interbeds are coarse-grained and serve as aquifers. 

Folding, faulting, and other large-scale geologic deformation can affect regional 

groundwater flow direction, influence hydraulic gradients, and create flow 

conduits or barriers. At least some of the faults in the Yakima Fold Belt are 

proven hydraulic barriers. Others appear to be conductive and may connect deep 

4-31 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

basaltic formations with shallower formations and surface springs. Folding 

increases the occurrence of fractures on the anticlinal ridges and tends to enhance 

aquifer hydraulic conductivity. 

4.3.1.2 Groundwater Occurrence 

Groundwater within the basalts is controlled primarily by the physical 

characteristics of the rock units, the geometry and relationship between rock units, 

and the geologic structure. The physical characteristics of the basaltic flows 

(density and texture, fractures, and internal structures) are important in 

determining their hydraulic properties. Internal structures found in the flows may 

influence both the ease of water movement and direction of flow through the 

formation. Individual basalt flows typically exhibit features that are formed from 

the emplacement and cooling of the flow. These features may include a vesicular 

flow top (having many small cavities), dense flow interior, and vesicular or 

brecciated (having many sharp angled fragments) flow bottom. If the basalt 

flowed into a body of water or encountered saturated sediments, a pillow-shaped 

structure is often formed and the space between the pillows is usually composed 

of palagonite (hydrated basaltic glass). “Pillow basalts” generally exhibit high 

hydraulic conductivity values. Hydraulic conductivity (permeability) is a measure 

of the ease with which water flows through geologic layers. Below the basalt 

flow top, in the dense interior portion of the flow, the basalt has very low 

horizontal conductivity and the flow interiors often serve as confining beds that 

separate adjacent aquifers. The flow bottom has hydraulic properties similar to 

the flow top and the combination of flow top and adjacent flow bottom is called 

an “interflow.” The interflow zone generally has high horizontal conductivity and 

is where most of the horizontal groundwater flow occurs within the basalt units. 

The basaltic flows and permeable interflow zones are often laterally continuous 

for tens of miles. 

The thickness and extent of basalt flows and the occurrence or absence of finegrained sedimentary interbeds also influence groundwater movement. At the 

distal ends of the basalt flows or where erosion has interrupted the continuity of 

flows, interbedded sediments are able to commingle and may serve as a vertical 

conduit between previously separated flow systems. 

Groundwater flow is generally from the anticlinal ridges toward the streams and 

rivers in the synclinal valleys. Shallow groundwater flow is usually vertically 

downward from the surface to the underlying basalt units. However, because of 

the geologic structure of the synclinal basins, there are a number of areas that 

have upward flow and artesian wells in the lower valleys. 

4.3.1.3 Aquifer Recharge and Discharge 

Local-, intermediate-, and regional-scale groundwater flow systems within 

the Yakima River basin are recharged by various mechanisms. Local and 

4-32 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

intermediate flow systems are recharged through basalts that are exposed to 

precipitation at the ground surface on the anticlinal ridges, and through 

groundwater exchange with other basins and formations. On a regional scale, 

basaltic units are recharged along the western margin of the Columbia Plateau 

where the basalts interfinger with prebasaltic rocks and sediments at higher 

elevations in the Cascade Range. 

Much of the natural recharge (from precipitation) occurs in the upper basin and is 

not available to the bedrock aquifers where most pumping takes place (Vaccaro 

and Olsen, 2007). The lower, arid portion of the Yakima River basin generally 

receives about 6 to 10 inches of precipitation annually, and most groundwater 

recharge is from application and distribution of irrigation water (Vaccaro and 

Olsen, 2007). 

About 45 percent of the water diverted for irrigation is eventually returned to the 

river system as surface-water inflows and groundwater discharge (Reclamation, 

1999). Irrigation return flows to the lower Yakima River account for about 

75 percent of the streamflow downstream from the Parker gage (Vaccaro and 

Sumioka, 2006). 

Aquifer discharge occurs principally to major surface drainage systems 

(i.e., Yakima and Columbia Rivers) and through irrigation well pumping. Annual 

pumping in the Yakima River basin increased almost 270 percent from 1960 to 

2000 (Vaccaro and Sumioka, 2006). About 395,096 acre-feet were pumped in 

2000; 60 percent of the pumping was for irrigation, another 12 percent was for 

municipal water supply. The annual quantities appropriated in State water right 

certificates and permits are about 529,231 acre-feet (Vaccaro and Sumioka, 

2006). 

4.3.1.4 Hydraulic Properties 

Physical variations within the basalt flows indicate that a wide range of hydraulic 

conductivity values exist within a single basalt flow. Hydraulic conductivities can 

be inferred from injection or pumping tests in drill holes and from water level 

measurements and trends. Aquifer testing at the Hanford Site and at other 

locations around the Columbia Plateau has provided a range of hydraulic 

conductivity values for various zones within the basalt units (Lindsey et al., 

2003). 

Hydraulic conductivity, along with gradient and other material properties, 

determine the likelihood and quantity of seepage from the proposed Black Rock 

and Wymer reservoir sites. 

4-33 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Hydrogeologic unit 

Range of horizontal hydraulic conductivity 

(Kh)1 

Basalt flow tops 1x10-6 to 1x103 feet/day 

Basalt flow interiors 1x10-9 to 1x10-3 feet/day 

(vertical K estimated about 1 to 3 times Kh or 

3x10-9 to 3x10-3 feet/day) 

Sedimentary interbeds 1x10-6 to 1 feet/day 

1

 Kh = horizontal hydraulic; k = hydraulic conductivity. 

4.3.2 Environmental Consequences 

4.3.2.1 Methods and Assumptions 

Several methods were used to help evaluate the effects of the Joint Alternatives 

on groundwater, as described in the following sections. 

The following indicators were selected to evaluate groundwater: 

•	 Increased hydraulic head and pore pressures (resulting from the creation of 

surface storage reservoirs at the Black Rock or Wymer sites) 

•	 Volume and direction of seepage flow 

•	 Construction impacts – dewatering and water disposal 

Groundwater Flow Model 

Reclamation developed a groundwater flow model to estimate potential seepage 

and hydrologic impacts from the Black Rock reservoir (Reclamation, 2007d). 

The groundwater flow model used the USGS MODFLOW software package 

(Harbaugh et al., 2000), a computer program that provides a mathematical 

representation of the groundwater flow system. MODFLOW is recognized as the 

industry standard for groundwater flow models, and it has been reviewed and 

used for more than 20 years. It numerically solves the three-dimensional 

groundwater flow equation for a porous medium by using a finite-difference 

method. The modeled area is represented by a three-dimensional grid of cells that 

are laid out in a series of rows, columns, and layers. The model layers simulate 

confined or unconfined aquifers. Each cell has a single point, called a node, 

where head is calculated. Hydraulic boundary conditions, hydraulic parameters 

and stresses to the system (such as pumping wells, flow to riverbeds, aerial 

recharge) are defined as model input. Model output includes head and flow at 

each node within the model domain. 

Black Rock Reservoir Modeling 

The seepage model for the Black Rock Alternative quantifies the expected change 

in head and seepage flows for that area. The Black Rock seepage model relied 

heavily on previous hydro geologic studies, including the USGS Columbia 

4-34 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Plateau regional groundwater model (Hansen et al., 1994) and the Yakima River 

basin hydro geologic framework study (Jones et al., 2006). The seepage model 

study was used first to represent the current condition in the model area (called 

the base case in the seepage study and comparable to the No Action Alternative in 

the reservoir area), then to predict a range of expected impacts related to the 

presence of the Black Rock reservoir. Data used in the model were acquired 

through various literature reviews, field work, hydrological testing of wells, 

geological mapping, and from the model itself. The investigation also 

incorporated the results of recent geologic drilling and aquifer testing by 

Reclamation at the proposed Black Rock site (Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratory [PENN], 2007; Reclamation, 2004g). 

Wymer Reservoir Modeling 

A comparable study has not been completed for the Wymer Dam and Reservoir 

Alternative, but head increases and seepage flows can be qualitatively described 

based on site investigations and available data. Field investigations and borehole 

testing were recently completed, and the results of these and previous studies 

were used to evaluate the likely effects under the Wymer Dam and Reservoir 

Alternative. 

4.3.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts under the No Action Alternative would be considered under 

separate NEPA evaluation as discussed in chapter 2. 

Long-Term Impacts 

During dry water years, State law allows emergency pumping from numerous 

drought relief wells as a source of supplemental irrigation supply. Historical 

water level data indicate that pumping from these wells during droughts has 

caused long-term water level declines in the deep basalts. The potential use of 

these emergency wells is expected to be less under any of the Joint Alternatives 

than under the No Action Alternative. 

4.3.2.3 Black Rock Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

During excavation of the pumping plants, tunnels, and appurtenant structures 

associated with the Black Rock Alternative, dewatering may be necessary 

during construction in some areas. The Priest Rapids member of the Wanapum 

Basalt would be excavated for the intake pumping plant along the Columbia 

River. The amount of dewatering necessary would depend on the occurrence 

of rock fractures and interflow zones encountered in the excavation. Some 

provision for dewatering and disposal of pumped water would be necessary. 

4-35 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

The tunnels would be excavated above the regional water table and may not 

require substantial dewatering during construction (Reclamation, 2004e). 

Long-Term Impacts 

Table 4.10 presents total annual reservoir seepage, annual rate of increase in 

aquifer storage, and annual rate of increase in discharge to creeks, drains, and 

springs, as estimated by the seepage model, with respect to time since reservoir 

filling begins. The table provides a range of seepage values resulting from a 

sensitivity analysis that was conducted to bracket most of the uncertainty in model 

input parameter values. 

Table 4.10 Model-based estimates of total annual reservoir seepage rates (Reclamation, 2007d) 

Time since 

reservoir 

Total annual reservoir 

seepage rate 

(acre-feet)1 

Annual rate of increase in 

aquifer storage 

(acre-feet) 

Annual rate of increase in 

discharge to creeks, drains, 

and springs 

(acre-feet) 

filling begins Min Max Mean Min Max Mean Min Max Mean 

13 months 

5 years 

25 years 

100 years 

300 years 

72,900 

101 cfs 

32,100 

30,700 

29,900 

29,800 

41 cfs 

121,000 

168 cfs 

54,300 

53,400 

53,200 

52,300 

73cfs 

96,950 

135 cfs 

44,900 

42,200 

41,300 

40,900 

57 cfs 

49,900 

69 cfs 

2,400 

1,000 

200 

1 

0 cfs 

80,000 

111 cfs 

14,700 

6,100 

2,900 

1,500 

2 cfs 

64,950 

90 cfs 

8,600 

3,400 

1,300 

600 

1 cfs 

22,400 

31 cfs 

25,600 

27,600 

28,500 

29,200 

41 cfs 

40,400 

56 cfs 

51,100 

51,400 

51,500 

51,600 

72 cfs 

31,400 

44 cfs 

36,300 

38,800 

40,000 

40,400 

56 cfs 

1

Total annual reservoir seepage is generally not the exact sum of its two components in this table because the minimum, 

maximum, and mean values presented are from different model runs. 

Model results indicate that the effect of reservoir seepage on aquifer hydraulic 

head conditions is greatest in the immediate area of the proposed reservoir itself, 

but especially at the dam, where the reservoir would be deepest (Reclamation, 

2007d). A full reservoir would ultimately increase head directly beneath the 

reservoir in the sediments, Saddle Mountains, and Wanapum basalts by 250 to 

650 feet. Model results show that the effect of seepage on head diminishes 

rapidly with distance from the reservoir. Five to ten miles from the reservoir, the 

head increase in the basalts to the south and northwest is generally less than 

20 feet. 

A minimal increase in head is expected in the sediments west of the reservoir 

because the west end is the upper, shallow end and there would be a lower 

hydraulic gradient in that direction. In the Saddle Mountains Basalt, the head 

increase is mainly to the south since the unit is absent in the Yakima Ridge 

anticline, north of the reservoir. Likewise, the Wanapum Basalt thins slightly 

to the west of the reservoir and the unit outcrops along the north and south 

anticlinal ridges. These conditions and variations in vertical conductivity 

4-36 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

influence the pattern of increased head in the basalts. The modeled head 

increase in the basalts is generally less than 10 feet in the lower Yakima valley 

after 300 years (Reclamation, 2007d). 

Most of the increase in aquifer discharge to creeks, drains, and springs occurs into 

the Dry Creek drainage. Seepage is expected to “daylight” at the upstream end of 

Dry Creek (to the east of the reservoir) then reinfiltrate into the sediments that 

overlie the basalts at the downstream end of Dry Creek and result in an increase in 

head of up to 250 feet. Along Cold Creek, at the western boundary of the 

Hanford Site, head increases can range up to 60 feet and the increased head 

continues, although diminished, into the Hanford Site. 

Seepage from the Black Rock reservoir has the potential to affect aquifer head, 

magnitude, and direction of groundwater flow and rate of contaminant movement 

on the Hanford Site. The U.S. Department of Energy is evaluating treatment, 

storage, and closure options for tanks and other units around the Hanford Site 

through the ongoing “Tank Closure and Waste Management Environmental 

Impact Statement,” to be completed in 2008. The Department of Energy (DOE) 

intends to include an analysis of the potential impacts to groundwater beneath the 

Hanford Site as a result of seepage from the Black Rock reservoir in that EIS. 

The results of that analysis will be included in the Storage Study Final PR/EIS. 

The model estimates that current west-to-east groundwater flow beneath Cold 

Creek in the sediment layer is about 8,000 acre-feet per year. Cold Creek in this 

area is synonymous with the western Hanford Site boundary. As a result of 

seepage reinfiltration, the model estimates that groundwater flow in the sediments 

beneath Cold Creek could ultimately increase to 23,000-30,000 acre-feet per year, 

an increase of between 15,000 and 22,000 acre-feet per year compared to the 

current condition. Most of the increased flow beneath Cold Creek would occur 

near the confluence with Dry Creek. The model predicts little increase in 

groundwater flow beneath Cold Creek in the Saddle Mountains and Wanapum 

layers. 

Landslides are common in the Yakima Fold Belt and generally form on the oversteepened south limbs of the anticlines. Several ancient landslides have been 

identified on the Horsethief Mountain anticline, which comprises the right 

abutment of the proposed Black Rock dam (Columbia Geotechnical Associates, 

2004). The steeply dipping orientation and layering of the low-strength sediments 

and the presence of the Horsethief Mountain Thrust Fault along the southern edge 

of the reservoir valley present a potentially hazardous combination. Though the 

slide areas are currently stable, seepage from the reservoir into the presently 

unsaturated basalts and interbedded sediments would increase pore pressures 

within those materials and would likely reactivate some of those slides as well as 

initiate new landslides along the reservoir rim and dam abutments. Slope stability 

would also be an issue for the re-alignment of SR-24 along the south rim of the 

reservoir. 

4-37 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

4.3.2.4 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

The pumping plant to supply the Wymer reservoir would be located along the 

Yakima River, and construction of the plant would require dewatering. 

Approximately 25 feet of alluvial material lies above the Grande Ronde Basalt in 

the pumping plant location, and the groundwater level would be expected to 

follow the river stage, which is about 10 feet below ground surface. The pumped 

water would need to be treated or allowed to settle to remove turbidity and 

suspended sediments prior to discharging the water back to the river. There are 

no private wells in the immediate area that would be affected by the dewatering. 

Dewatering also would be required during construction of the dam foundation. 

Artesian conditions were encountered at a depth of about 55 feet (35 feet into the 

Grande Ronde Basalt) during the drilling of two wells in the river valley 

(Reclamation, 1988). About 20 gpm flowed at the ground surface under unknown 

pressure from each well. Additional water may be encountered with depth and 

excavation into additional water-bearing basalt flows. 

Long-Term Impacts 

The majority of groundwater seepage from the proposed Wymer reservoir would 

be west toward the Yakima River and could involve substantial volumes. 

Permeability testing in a drill hole on the left abutment indicates very high 

hydraulic conductivity values in the upper basaltic layers. The basalt was so 

pervious that no pressure could be established within the test zone while injecting 

water at the capacity of the pump (50-60 gpm). The upper dam abutments would 

be in the Frenchman Springs member of the Wanapum Basalt. This basalt 

member is a widely used aquifer because of its high conductivity and waterbearing properties. 

The Vantage interbed lies below the Frenchman Springs member. Results of 

hydraulic conductivity testing indicate moderate values in the sandstone and 

siltstone: 1x101

 to 2x103 feet per day; similar values are indicated in the 

underlying Grande Ronde Basalt: 1x101

 to 2x102 feet per day. The Vantage 

interbed is currently unsaturated. Reservoir seepage would cause a rise of pore 

pressures within the unit and could cause instability of the low-strength materials 

in the reservoir basin. There are seeps and springs along the lower contact of the 

Vantage interbed, indicating that the underlying Grande Ronde Basalt is a lower 

permeability unit and probable confining bed. 

As under the Black Rock Alternative, hydraulic head increases would be 

greatest near the downstream end of the proposed reservoir and would 

decrease with distance away from the reservoir. Because the Yakima River 

valley is less than a mile from the Wymer damsite, seepage would have a 

relatively short flow path and would be under a high-flow gradient from the 

4-38 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

full reservoir to the river valley below. Mitigation would be required to 

control the seepage and potential for sediment transport through the 

abutments and reservoir rim. 

4.3.2.5 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

The environmental consequences of this alternative would include all of the 

impacts for the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative, plus the impacts from the 

pump exchange project in the lower Yakima River basin. 

Construction Impacts 

The Yakima River pump exchange component of this alternative includes 

construction of a pumping plant in Columbia Park that would require dewatering 

by wells. In addition, excavation of the pipeline delivery system to a depth of 

about 18 feet would require dewatering in areas where the water table is shallow 

and where the pipeline crosses the Yakima River and other minor creeks. The 

dewatering may lower water levels in nearby wells and temporarily affect the 

water supply to those wells. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Other groundwater impacts (decrease of recharge or return flows) due to 

decreasing the amount of irrigation water delivered and applied would be 

relatively small and would be spread out over a relatively large area, and so have 

not been quantified for this analysis. 

4.3.2.6 Mitigation 

Mitigation is proposed for Black Rock reservoir seepage. Seepage would occur in 

all directions from the reservoir, but the most important impact could come from 

the seepage that travels in an easterly direction toward the Hanford Site, described 

in chapter 1. The seepage that would enter the groundwater under the Hanford 

Site could remobilize contaminants and move them into the Columbia River at a 

higher rate than is currently taking place. MODFLOW model estimates of the 

total seepage rates from the reservoir range from 41 to 74 cfs (Reclamation, 

2007d). The model also estimated that, at steady state conditions 20 to 31 cfs of 

groundwater would flow under Cold Creek, which is the western boundary of the 

Hanford Site. 

Measures being proposed to minimize the impacts from the Black Rock reservoir 

seepage to the Hanford Site include blanketing, cutoff walls, grout curtains, 

drainage tunnels, and wells. These measures would be in addition to the features 

included in the Black Rock designs and cost estimates which were included to 

protect and stabilize the structure of the dam from impacts of groundwater 

seepage. Some measures would be used to control the direction of the 

groundwater flow, and others would be used to remove and transport the 

groundwater to a location away from the Hanford Site. 

4-39 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Modeling of the groundwater flow system in and around the damsite showed 

potential for a large amount of groundwater seepage through the south abutment 

of the dam due to the fragmented nature of the geologic formations. It is 

anticipated that tunnels and drain holes would be placed in the south abutment of 

the dam. These features would be underground. The water collected from these 

features would be contained in pipelines and not allowed to seep back into the 

groundwater. 

Another feature would likely be a cutoff wall located downstream from the Black 

Rock reservoir to block groundwater that has not been collected by the features in 

the right abutment. This cutoff wall could be up to 400 feet deep and would be 

underground. Wells could be placed downstream from this structure to collect 

and deliver the seepage to a location away from the Hanford Site. 

In addition, other wells would be located downstream from the cutoff wall to 

collect any groundwater flows that moved around the wall and were not collected 

by the right abutment features. The wells would be placed so that this 

groundwater would be pumped from the ground and collected into pipelines or 

canals to convey it away from the Hanford Site. 

All groundwater collected by the above mentioned features would be conveyed 

away from the Hanford Site and would be available for consumptive uses such as 

drinking water, irrigation, and even to supplement streamflows. 

If the Black Rock Alternative were selected, additional geologic investigations 

would have to be undertaken to establish the exact locations for any seepage 

mitigation features. Facilities would be constructed to provide the best control 

and removal of the groundwater seepage when the dam is constructed. Also, a 

monitoring well program would be established to determine where the water 

flows and how much water could be expected. Additional facilities would be 

constructed as the monitoring program indicated was necessary. 

The Wymer reservoir would not require mitigation for seepage. 

4.3.2.7 Cumulative Impacts 

Currently, groundwater pumping occurs on the Hanford Site as part of cleanup 

operations. Additional pumping may occur in the future as cleanup options are 

selected. Pumping on the Hanford Site is not anticipated to affect conditions at 

the Black Rock dam or reservoir or affect the quantity of seepage from the 

reservoir. However, depending on the quantity and location of pumping, the area 

of influence from Hanford Site pumping could extend to or beyond the western 

Hanford Site boundary and affect the hydraulic gradient across the boundary at 

Cold Creek. A steepening of the gradient could increase the amount of 

groundwater flow (including Black Rock seepage) entering the Hanford Site. 

4-40 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

4.4 Hydropower Resources 

This section describes the mid-Columbia River hydroelectric power generation 

system and the possible effects of the Joint Alternatives. 

4.4.1 Affected Environment 

The following discussion of the mid-Columbia River hydroelectric power 

generation system is from Grant County’s PUD 2003 relicensing report (Grant 

County PUD, 2003). 

The Priest Rapids Project is located on the mainstem Columbia River in central 

Washington and includes two hydroelectric developments–Wanapum and Priest 

Rapids–owned and operated by Grant County PUD. Each development consists 

of a dam, powerplant, fishways, reservoir, 230-kV transmission lines, and 

ancillary facilities. Wanapum and Priest Rapids powerplants each have 

10 turbine-generators with capacities of 900 megawatts (MW) and 850 MW, 

respectively, for a presently authorized, installed capacity of 1,750 MW. The 

maximum hydraulic capacity of each powerplant is approximately 175,000 cfs, 

assuming all units are operating at full capacity. 

The two developments produced a total of 9.65 billion kilowatthours (kWh) of 

electricity in 2002, which is equivalent to the energy consumed in a year by a city 

of approximately the size of Seattle. Under current power purchase agreements, 

Grant County PUD reserves 36.5 percent of the energy produced for its own use. 

The remaining 63.5 percent of the generation is provided under long-term 

contracts, at cost, to 12 Pacific Northwest utilities that collectively serve 

customers in Washington, Idaho, Oregon, Montana, and Utah. 

Priest Rapids development is part of the much larger, seven-dam, mid-Columbia 

River hydroelectric system of about 14,000 MW, which extends from near the 

United States/Canada border to the beginning of the Hanford reach, for a total of 

351 miles. This system includes two Federal facilities, Grand Coulee Dam 

(Reclamation) with an installed generation capacity of about 6,800 MW, and 

Chief Joseph Dam (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) with an installed capacity of 

about 2,600 MW. 

Three Washington PUDs own and operate the five hydroelectric projects 

downstream from Chief Joseph Dam, with a combined installed generation 

capacity of about 4,500 MW. Priest Rapids Dam is at the downstream end of this 

integrated system of hydropower facilities. 

Table 4.11 presents information on the mid-Columbia River system. Figure 4.9 

shows many of the important dams in the Federal Columbia River Power System. 

4-41 
Table 4.11 Summary of hydroelectric projects in the mid-Columbia River system 

Project Owner 

Location 

(RM) 

Drainage 

area (mi2

) 

Usable 1 storage

(million 

acre-feet) 

Maximum 

plant 

hydraulic 

activity 

(cfs) 

Installed 

capacity 

(MW) 

Grand 

Coulee 

Reclamation 596.6 74,700 5.22 280,000 2

6,809 

Chief Joseph U.S. Army 

Corps of 

Engineers 

545.1 75,000 0.12 213,000 2,614 

Wells3 Douglas PUD 515.8 86,100 0.10 220,000 840

Rocky 

Reach3 Chelan PUD 473.7 87,800 0.04 220,000 1,287

Rock Island3

 Chelan PUD 453.4 89,400 0.01 220,000 660 

3 Wanapum Grant PUD 415.8 90,900 0.16 180,000 900

Priest 

Rapids3 Grant PUD 397.1 96,000 0.04 175,000 855

1

 The volume of water contained within the normal reservoir operating range. 

2

 Includes generating capacity of the pump/generator plant. 

3

 Date for these private facilities obtained from Grant PUD’s relicensing report of 2003.
 

Figure 4.9 Important dams in the Federal Columbia River Power System. 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Downstream from the mouth of the Yakima River, Federal powerplants on the 

lower Columbia River are at McNary, John Day, The Dalles, and Bonneville 

Dams. 

The seven-dam, mid-Columbia system contains a substantial amount of active 

storage that enhances the reliability and flexibility of the Northwest’s entire 

electric generation system. The usable storage in the mid-Columbia system is 

primarily at Grand Coulee (Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake) with more than 

5,200,000 acre-feet, while the six downstream projects account for about 

440,000 acre-feet, or about 10 percent. Overall, 86 percent of the annual flow at 

Priest Rapids Dam is provided by controlled releases from Grand Coulee Dam. 

4.4.2 Environmental Consequences 

4.4.2.1 Methods and Assumptions 

Black Rock Alternative 

The Black Rock Alternative would affect the mid-Columbia River hydroelectric 

power generation system by (1) adding an additional power demand associated 

with pumping water from Priest Rapids Lake to a Black Rock reservoir and 

(2) changing the Columbia River flow regime available for hydropower 

generation at Federal and non-Federal powerplants by the depletion of water 

withdrawn at Priest Rapids Lake and the accretion of water from Yakima Project 

operations about 62 miles downstream at the confluence of the Yakima River. 

These effects on power generation due to altered flows on the Columbia River 

were evaluated using the Bonneville Power Administration’s HYDSIM computer 

model. The HYDSIM computer model simulated the current monthly operating 

requirements of the FCRPS based on recurrence of flows and the alteration of 

such flows by Black Rock operations during the historical hydrologic period of 

record of 1929-98. This period provides an 18-year overlap with the Yak-RW 

model’s hydrologic period of 1981-2005 and includes the high-flow years of 

1996-97 and the low-flow years of 1992-94. 

The value of net loss in power generation due to such alteration of flows, as 

well as the value of power to operate Black Rock pumps, was computed 

using prior cost estimates developed by BPA for the historical runoff years of 

1929-78 for the Summary Report, Appraisal Assessment of the Black Rock 

Alternative (Reclamation, 2004e). These cost estimates reflected the same 

assumptions in BPA’s August 2003 rate case. However, the monthly costs for 

each year in 1981-98 were determined by Reclamation based on BPA cost 

estimates for a similar runoff year in 1929-78. 

The following indicators were selected to evaluate effects on hydropower for the 

Black Rock Alternative: 

4-43 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

• Average annual pumping power requirement 

• Additional hydropower generation used (average annual MW) 

• Additional generation value (average annual $ million) 

• Additional generation capacity (average annual MW) 

Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

For the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative, the indicator of average annual 

pumping power requirement was selected. The amount of power required to 

pump water from the Yakima River into Wymer reservoir was computed using 

daily flow data from the Yak-RW model. The difference in pumping head was 

computed from the daily elevation of the water in the reservoir and the average 

elevation of the Yakima River at the pumping plant. Because the elevation of the 

water of the Yakima River at the pumping plant ranges from 1,275 to 1,284 feet, 

the average elevation used in the daily computations was 1,279.5 feet. The daily 

energy used was totaled, and an average computed for each month. The average 

monthly megawatt hours of pumping was then determined. From this, the 

average monthly pumping cost was computed by applying monthly pumping 

energy cost estimates forecast by the BPA in its August 2003 rate case. These 

reflect an average hourly rate for the respective month. Finally, an average 

annual pumping power requirement was computed. 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

Energy use and power cost were calculated for pumping into Wymer reservoir as 

outlined above. Energy use and power costs for the exchange portion of this 

alternative were also calculated. These costs were based on the energy required to 

pump the water at all three pumping plants, plus the energy needed for plant 

service needs. Volume to be pumped was determined from a schedule of 

deliveries derived for the proposed project to the Sunnyside and Roza Canals 

(Sonnichsen, 2007). The needs were calculated from historic daily data of canal 

diversions from 1980 through 2003. These values were averaged for each month. 

The head loss and pumping head were calculated using these average flows. The 

pumps were assumed to have a water-to-wire efficiency of 80 percent. The 

deliveries from pumping plant #3 would be by gravity and pump. It was assumed 

that the deliveries by pump would be up to the pump capacity. The flows above 

this were assumed to be delivered by gravity, which provides a conservative 

estimate of the energy requirements. 

Once energy needs were calculated, average monthly pumping cost was computed 

by applying monthly pumping energy cost estimates forecast by the BPA in its 

August 2003 rate case. These reflect an average hourly rate for the respective 

month. Finally, an average annual pumping power requirement was computed. 

4-44 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

4.4.2.2 No Action Alternative 

There would be no construction or long-term impacts on hydropower generation 

under the No Action Alternative. 

4.4.2.3 Black Rock Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

No construction-related impacts to hydropower resources are anticipated under 

this alternative. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Pumping Energy Requirements and Costs.—Table 4.12 presents monthly 

pumping power requirements (average MW) and estimated pumping costs for the 

Black Rock Alternative. The average annual power required for pumping to a 

Black Rock reservoir is estimated at 132 MW. 

Table 4.12 Black Rock Alternative monthly pumping power 

requirements and costs 

Month 

November 

December 

January 

February 

March 

April 1-15 

April 16-30 

May

June 

July

August 1-15 

August 16-31 

September 

October 

Annual average 

Range of costs 

Average annual costs 

Pumping power required 

(average MW)1 

27 

40 

98 

43 

50 

74 

64 

128 

184 

 No pumping2
 

No pumping2
 

No pumping2
 

511 

430 

1323
 

$33 to $93 million 

$50 million 

1

 The monthly power required represents the 18-year average for the 

respective month. 

2

 Pursuant to the Columbia River Basin Water Management Program 

authorized by the Washington Legislature in 2006, the policy is that no 

withdrawal of water from the Columbia River will occur in July and August 

(unless appropriate mitigation is provided). 

3

 Represents the average annual megawatts required for the 18-years of 

1981-1998. Computed by summing the monthly pumping requirements for 

each year and dividing by 18 years. 

4-45 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Current Hydropower Generation.—Hydropower generation effects associated 

with Black Rock Alternative would occur at both Federal and non-Federal 

projects wherever the flows are altered due to: (a) pumping withdrawals from 

Priest Rapids forebay into Black Rock reservoir, and (b) altered operations of 

FCRPS reservoirs upstream of Priest Rapids in reaction to power loss on the 

coordinated system due to Black Rock pumping, or power gain due to return 

flows from Yakima River into McNary forebay. In HYDSIM’s monthly 

simulation, the alterations in Coulee’s and Libby’s operations are minor. 

Also, Hungry Horse operations do not change because Hungry Horse has 

been at its operating limits; hence, there are no power impacts on downstream 

projects on the Clark Fork River basin. However, in actual operations, all 

FCRPS reservoir draft or fill, as well as the availability of water for pumping 

into Black Rock, are contemplated to be coordinated on a weekly basis with 

parties to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) in-season 

management forums. 

Hydropower Generation at Non-Federal Hydropower Projects.—Diversion of 

3,500 cfs from Priest Rapids Lake for pumping to a Black Rock reservoir would 

reduce generation at Priest Rapids Powerplant on the average by about 4 MW, 

which is less than 1 percent annually. Power generation impacts at other nonFederal projects on the Mid-Columbia River are power gains or losses. These 

power gains or losses are due to additional draft or fill of FCRPS reservoirs 

(primarily Grand Coulee) in order to maintain firm coordinated system load with 

the addition of Black Rock pumping demand and the return flow from the Yakima 

River into McNary forebay. Table 4.13 presents the monthly difference in 

generation at non-Federal Columbia River hydropower projects and the estimated 

value of the difference. 

Hydropower Generation at Federal Hydropower Projects.—Hydropower 

generation would change at Federal facilities upstream of Priest Rapids Dam and 

downstream from the Yakima River confluence. With the Black Rock reservoir 

in operation, diversions from Priest Rapids Lake would diminish streamflow in 

the 62-mile reach from Priest Rapids Dam to the Yakima River confluence, where 

there are no Federal hydropower facilities. Streamflow depletions from Black 

Rock pumping would be somewhat offset by greater flows entering the Columbia 

River from the Yakima River as the result of use of the exchange water. On 

average, the FCRPS would lose approximately 5.4 MW of annual generation, as 

shown on table 4.13, at an average annual value of $3 million. 

Changes in the drawdown pattern in Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake would occur 

primarily in the fall and winter months; the greatest average monthly change in 

drawdown of less than 0.1 foot would occur in November. 

4-46 
 

 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Table 4.13 Monthly difference in non-Federal, Federal, and regional combined non-Federal 

and Federal Columbia River hydropower generation related to operation of the Black Rock 

Alternative (average MW) 

Month 

Priest Rapids 

only 

Non-Federal 

hydropower 

without Priest 

Rapids 

Non-Federal 

hydropower 

including Priest 

Rapids FCRPS 

Combined 

Federal and 

Non-Federal1 

October -14.8 0 -14.8 -53.4 -68.2 

November -1.7 -3.2 -4.9 -5.7 -10.6 

December -0.8 +1.7 +0.9 +7.6 +8.5 

January -2.7 +0.9 -1.8 -5.5 -7.3 

February -1.2 +0.5 -0.7 -0.1 -0.8 

March -1.5 -0.1 -1.6 -1.9 -3.5 

April 1-15 -2.0 +0.2 -1.8 +10.8 +9.0 

April 16-30 -0.4 0 -0.4 +14.3 +13.9 

May -1.1 0 -1.1 +17.7 +16.6 

June -1.9 0 -1.9 +9.1 +7.3 

July 0 0 0 +7.1 +7.1 

August 1-15 -0.1 -2.0 -2.1 +1.1 -1.0 

August 16-31 +0.4 +2.3 +2.7 +16.3 +19.0 

September -18.2 0 -18.2 -61.8 -80.0 

Annual average -3.7 0 -3.7 -5.4 -9.2 

Range of value -$3 million to 

-$1 million 

-$5 million to 

+$1 million 

-$17 million to 

+$8 million 

-$21 million to 

+$9 million 

Average annual 

value 

-$2 million -$2 million -$3 million -$4 million 

1

 Due to rounding, these values do not equal precisely the sum of the previous columns. 

New Hydropower Generation.—Two new powerplants would be constructed as a 

part of the Black Rock Alternative at the point of discharge of water from the 

Black Rock outflow conveyance system to the Roza Canal at MP 22.6 (Black 

Rock powerplant) and to the Sunnyside Canal at MP 3.83 (Sunnyside 

powerplant). 

Each powerplant would consist of one turbine generator; the Black Rock 

powerplant would have a generating capability of 23 MW, and the Sunnyside 

powerplant would have a generating capability of 29.5 MW. Generation would 

occur during the Yakima Project irrigation season of April through October when 

water would be released from Black Rock reservoir to the two exchange 

participants. 

4-47 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Annual generation is estimated to total about 196,000 MWh (72,000 MWh at the 

Black Rock powerplant and 125,000 MWh at the Sunnyside powerplant). 

4.4.2.4 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

No construction-related impacts to hydropower resources are anticipated under 

this alternative. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Pumping power requirements, costs, and energy rates (October through May) are 

presented in table 4.14. The average monthly pumping power requirement ranges 

from 0 MW in June through September to 9.7 MW in March. The average annual 

pumping power requirement for the 25-year period of record (1981-2005) is 

4.8 MW. Average monthly pumping costs range from $0 in June through 

September to about $300,000 in March. Total average annual pumping costs are 

estimated at about $1.9 million, but these costs could be higher or lower if a new 

rates analysis is performed due to changes in market conditions (Reclamation 

2006b). 

Table 4.14 Average monthly pumping power requirements, costs, and energy rates 

Month 

Average monthly 

pumping power 

requirements (MW) 

Average monthly 

pumping costs ($) 

Average monthly 

energy rates 

($/MWh) 

October 

November 

December 

January 

February 

March 

April 

May

4.6 

5.3 

5.7 

7.0 

8.4 

9.7 

8.3 

8.5 

190,000 

220,000 

240,000 

245,000 

285,000 

300,000 

220,000 

200,000 

55.56 

58.16 

56.32 

47.27 

50.63 

42.14 

37.60 

31.92 

Average annual 1

4.8 1,900,000 

1

 Represents the average annual megawatts required for the 25-year period of record (1981-2005). 

Computed by summing the monthly pumping requirement for each year and then dividing by 25. 

4.4.2.5 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

No construction-related impacts to hydropower resources are anticipated under 

this alternative. 

4-48 
 

 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Long-Term Impacts 

In addition to the Wymer pumping power requirements, costs, and energy rates 

presented in table 4.14, the pumping power requirements, costs, and energy rates 

(March through October) are presented in table 4.15 for the Yakima River pump 

exchange component of the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange 

Alternative. The average monthly pumping power requirement ranges from 

0 MW in November through February to 110.7 MW in June. The average annual 

pumping power requirement for the 23-year period of record (1981-2003)5 is 

56.9 MW. Average monthly pumping costs range from $0 in November through 

February to about $3.3 million in August. Total average annual pumping costs 

are estimated at about $17.9 million, but these costs could be higher or lower if a 

new rates analysis is performed due to changes in market conditions (Golder and 

Associates, 2006). 

Table 4.15 Yakima River pump exchange component of Wymer Dam Plus Yakima 

River Pump Exchange Alternative: average monthly pumping energy requirements, 

costs, and energy rates 

Month 

Average monthly 

pumping power 

requirements (MW) 

Average monthly 

pumping power 

costs ($) 

Average monthly 

energy rates 

($/MWh) 

March 

April 

May

June 

July

August 

September 

October 

41.1 

80.4 

109.3 

110.7 

110.5 

110.3 

99.4 

79.7 

624,000 

2,177,000 

2,595,000 

1,808,000 

2,650,000 

3,341,000 

3,125,000 

1,595,000 

42.14 

37.60 

31.92 

22.68 

32.24 

40.69 

43.64 

55.56 

Average annual 1

56.9 17,915,000 

1 Represents the average annual power in megawatts required for the 23-year period of record 

from 1981-2003. Computed by dividing the average annual energy required in megawatthours for the 

period of record by 8,760 hours, the average operational time during 1 year (365 days x 24 hours per 

day). 

Table 4.16 presents the average annual power requirements and energy costs at 

each pumping plant for the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange 

Alternative. 

4.4.2.6 Mitigation 

No mitigation would be required. 

5

 Prior to 2007, Storage Study operation studies used a 23-year period of hydrologic record of 

1981-2003. This has subsequently been expanded to a 25-year period of 1981-2005. The work 

conducted by Golder and Associates in 2006 is based on the 23-year period of record. 

4-49 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table 4.16 Average annual pumping power requirements and costs 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange 

Alternative 

Average annual pumping 

power requirement 

(MW) 

Average annual energy 

cost ($) 

Wymer pumping plant 

Pumping plant #1 

Pumping plant #2 

Pumping plant #3 

4.8 

35.1 

17.3 

4.4 

1,900,00 

11,118,000 

5,444,000 

1,353,000 

Total 61.7 $19,815,000 

4.4.2.7 Cumulative Impacts 

As the FCRPS mitigation projects on the mainstem Columbia River and 

Biological Opinion continue to be implemented, hydropower generation in the 

FCRPS will continue to be reduced. Coupled with Black Rock Alternative, there 

could be additional loss of power generation in the FCRPS. 

4.5 Sediment Resources 

Sediment transport investigations in a river basin serve two purposes: 

•	 To improve understanding of aquatic resources important in defining 

habitat suitability for fish 

•	 To provide potential scenarios of future channel change 

Changes in basin hydrology and the construction of roads, bridges, levees, and 

other structures within floodplains alter the transport of sediment within the basin. 

Future changes in hydrology would likely affect sediment transport and, therefore, 

aquatic habitat conditions, because of linkages and dependencies among system 

processes and components (figure 4.10). 

4.5.1 Affected Environment 

It was assumed that any effects of the Joint Alternatives would occur within the 

Yakima River basin, and that any potential effects to sediment from water 

withdrawal from the Columbia River would be nondetectable and/or 

nonmeasurable within the Columbia River due to the size of the withdrawal 

relative to riverflow; thus, sediment resources in the Columbia River were not 

evaluated. 

4-50 
 

 

 

 

 

Stream Flow 

(Quantity and Quality) 

Sediment 

Transport 

Riparian Floodplain 

(Quantity and Quality of 

Groundwater/Hyphorheic Flow) 

Channel 

Structure 

Salmon Stream Habitat 

Water Temperature Spawning Substrate Water Temperature 

Passage/Migration Depth Large Woody Debris 

Spawning Depth Invertebrate Food Cover 

Incubation/Emergence Invertebrate Food 

Food (particle transport) Cover Nutrients 

Figure 4.10 Streamflow and sediment transport attributes that define the quality 

of salmon stream habitat. 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

The western part of the Yakima River basin is mountainous and formed by 

sedimentary, volcanic, and metamorphic rock, while the eastern portion of the 

basin is comprised of a thick sequence of lava flows that have folded into ridges 

and troughs (Kinnison and Sceva, 1963). This type of geology has an important 

impact on sediment transport, as the riverflows from alluvial valleys through 

bedrock canyons and gaps. It has been stated that the Yakima River has a low 

sediment discharge for a river of its size (Dunne and Leopold, 1978), which might 

be attributed to the lack of available sediment in the canyon reaches and bedrock 

control at many locations. Intensive flow regulation and levee construction have 

more recently affected the transport of sediment and channel morphology since 

the early part of the 20th century. 

Yakima River floodplains were also likely historically important in providing 

habitat resources for anadromous salmonids and resident fish (Snyder and 

Stanford, 2001), but are now degraded (Stanford et al., 2002). Key fluvial 

processes include erosion and deposition of sediments and channel movement. 

These processes shape the floodplain and result in a continual shifting mosaic of 

physical channel attributes that either provide habitat resources directly, or 

support habitat resources for fish and other aquatic organisms (figure 4.10). 

Maintaining this shifting mosaic is dependent on the ability of the river to move 

freely about the historic floodplain, and on the balance between channel 

movement and sediment erosion and deposition. Native aquatic species have 

evolved to these historical fluvial processes, and their alteration is likely to have 

adverse effects on one or more life stages of salmonids. Fluvial processes are also 

dependent on a sufficient sediment supply needed to build new bars and islands, 

4-51 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

and to prevent channel incision that would disconnect important groundwatersurface water interactions (Stanford et al., 2002). 

4.5.2 Environmental Consequences 

Changes in sediment transport and bed scour are related to the changes in the flow 

regime. Those alternatives that would significantly increase flows in particular 

reaches could change the sediment transport locally. Because the most significant 

changes in flow occur downstream from the Parker gage, the reaches that would 

be most affected are in that area. Changes in operations, particular in the upper 

portions of the Yakima River, would affect bed scour, although generally, these 

changes are not biologically significant, even in years with the highest scour 

values. 

4.5.2.1 Methods and Assumptions 

Several methods were used to evaluate sediment resources, as discussed in the 

following sections. The indicators of sediment transport and bed scour were 

selected to evaluate sediment resources. 

Sediment Transport 

The analysis of sediment transport was performed using techniques from the 

model, Sediment Impact Analysis Methods (SIAM). SIAM simulates the 

movement of sediment through a drainage network to estimate the effect of 

sediment dynamics on channel morphology. Using principles of sediment 

continuity and channel response, SIAM links basinwide processes to perform a 

trend analysis on a river system identifying the current state as well as the 

direction of potential adjustments in both the short and long term. The model was 

developed to accommodate large basins, incorporate sediment sources, and 

prescribe rehabilitation alternatives using a system perspective. More information 

about SIAM can be found at http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/sediment/model/srhsiam/ 

index.html. This analysis assumed equilibrium conditions where inflowing load 

restocked any transported material and, therefore, long-term changes could not be 

detected. A lack of calibration and verification data for high-flow hydraulics and 

the reference shear stresses results in high levels of uncertainty for interpreting 

results quantitatively (i.e., actual tons in the river). However, the underlying 

assumptions are unlikely to change significantly between reaches or between 

alternatives for the same reach. The analysis can provide a relative sense of the 

impact from changes in discharge. 

Results are only for those reaches modeled, not the entire basin. The reaches 

modeled for sediment are the same as those modeled for one-dimensional (1-D) 

hydraulics, as the 1-D hydraulic model provided the geometric input to the 

sediment model (Hilldale and Mooney, 2007a). 

4-52 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Hydraulic Engineering Center-River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) is a 

1-D hydraulic model intended for calculating water surface profiles for steady, 

gradually varied, and unsteady flow conditions. More information about 

HEC-RAS can be found at http://www.hec.usace.army.mil/software/ 

hec-ras/hecras-document.html. 

The modeling performed for this assessment used a steady flow analysis over a 

wide range of discharges to evaluate flow depth, top width, and cross section 

averaged values of velocity. The primary purpose of the HEC-RAS modeling 

effort was to provide input to the decision support system (DSS), SIAM and 

temperature models. The HEC-RAS output was also used as input for some of 

the attributes for the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) biological 

model. 

Bed Scour 

Female anadromous salmonids generally bury their eggs beneath the channel bed 

to a depth of about 6 to 8 inches (15 to 20 centimeters (cm)); smaller resident and 

anadromous trout bury their eggs to a depth of 2 to 4 inches (5 to 10 cm; 

De Vries, 1997; Montgomery et al., 1996). SIAM provides estimates of mean 

annual bed scour using the monthly time step provided by Yak-RW. While this 

value provides some information regarding bed scour, it is more critical to 

understand bed scour on a daily time step during periods of incubation. For this 

reason, bed scour as it relates to the disruption of redds was investigated using a 

decision support system model. The DSS model takes daily values of streamflow 

and sediment transport capacity for a given discharge, determined by SIAM, to 

arrive at a daily value of bed scour. 

The DSS model estimates the amount of habitat available for various species and 

life stages. Habitat is measured for the various species and life stages. Flow 

depth, velocity, and substrate also factored into estimates of spawning habitat. 

For this study, it was used to estimate the quantity of habitat specific to spring and 

fall Chinook, coho, steelhead, bull trout, and resident rainbow trout for the adult 

holding, spawning/incubation, fry, summer rearing, and winter rearing lifestages 

in the Easton, Ellensburg, Union Gap, Wapato and lower Naches River reaches. 

The following input was required for this component of the DSS model to 

function: (1) the estimated daily average streamflow for each alternative for each 

of the five reaches, (2) two-dimensional hydraulic flow models that “map” flow 

depth and velocity through each reach at each flow of interest, and (3) the 

relationship between flow depth and velocity and habitat for each species and 

lifestage. 

4-53 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

4.5.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts under the No Action Alternative would be considered under 

separate NEPA evaluation as discussed in chapter 2. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Model results indicate that the potential for the Yakima River to transport sand is 

currently high, and it is expected to remain high under the No Action Alternative. 

However, sand transport under this and all the other alternatives would have no 

effect on habitat or morphology. Effects on channel morphology and, therefore, 

habitat are much more affected by gravel transport in the Yakima River. 

Morphologic activity of the recent past is expected to continue under the No 

Action Alternative. That is to say, significant morphologic change or change to 

habitat is only likely to occur during very large flood events and would be 

localized. No widespread effect on channel morphology or habitat is anticipated 

under the No Action Alternative. 

Table 4.17 presents model results for percentage difference in average gravel 

load, by Yakima River reach, between each Joint Alternative and the No Action 

Alternative.
 

Table 4.17 Percentage difference in average annual gravel load, by Yakima River reach, 

between each Joint Alternative and No Action Alternative (Negative values indicate a decrease 

in the modeled load.) Modified from Mooney (2007). 

Yakima River reach 

Black Rock 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam 

and Reservoir 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam Plus 

Yakima River 

Pump Exchange 

Alternative 

Easton 

Upstream of Ellensburg 

Ellensburg 

Lower Naches River 

Union Gap 

Wapato Dam to Sunnyside Diversion Dam 

Wapato 

Upstream of Prosser Diversion Dam 

Downstream from Prosser Diversion Dam 

10 

25 

4.1 

2 

14 

6 

21 

29 

12 

2 

0 

-1.4 

0 

-7 

-7 

-6 

-6 

4 

-4.1 

5 

4.1 

3 

6 

-2 

18 

24 

7 

The maximum bed scour estimated for the egg incubation period for steelhead, 

salmon, and rainbow trout in the Easton, Ellensburg, Wapato, and lower Naches 

River reaches of the Yakima River for all alternatives is shown in table 4.18. 

These are the largest values for the 25-year period of record. Overall, there is 

little difference in potential maximum bed scour among the alternatives for all the 

species for the four reaches. With the exception of the lower Naches River reach, 

the risk of potential egg scour is minimal for salmonids (table 4.18). 

4-54 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Table 4.18 Maximum annual bed scour in inches and centimeters during the egg 

incubation period for steelhead, salmon, and rainbow trout for the Easton, Ellensburg, 

Wapato, and lower Naches River reaches of the Yakima River 

Reach and 

Species 

No Action 

Alternative 

Black Rock 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam Plus 

Yakima River 

Pump Exchange 

Easton 

Steelhead 

Spring Chinook 

Coho 

Rainbow trout 

1.3 in (3.2 cm) 

2.5 in (6.4 cm) 

2.5 in (6.4 cm) 

1.3 in (3.2 cm) 

1.3 in (3.2 cm) 

7.6 in (19.2 cm) 

3.8 in (9.6 cm) 

1.3 in (3.2 cm) 

1.3 in (3.2 cm) 

3.8 in (9.6 cm) 

3.8 in (9.6 cm) 

1.3 in (3.2 cm) 

2.5 in (6.4 cm) 

5.0 in (12.8 cm) 

3.8 in (9.6 cm) 

2.5 in (6.4 cm) 

Ellensburg 

Steelhead 

Spring Chinook 

Coho 

Rainbow trout 

1.3 in (3.2 cm) 

2.5 in (6.4 cm) 

2.5 in (6.4 cm) 

1.3 in (3.2 cm) 

1.3 in (3.2 cm) 

2.5 in (6.4 cm) 

2.5 in (6.4 cm) 

1.3 in (3.2 cm) 

1.3 in (3.2 cm) 

2.5 in (6.4 cm) 

2.5 in (6.4 cm) 

1.3 in (3.2 cm) 

1.3 in (3.2 cm) 

2.5 in (6.4 cm) 

2.5 in (6.4 cm) 

1.3 in (3.2 cm) 

Wapato 

Fall Chinook 

Coho 

2.5 in (6.4 cm) 

1.3 in (3.2 cm) 

1.3 in (3.2 cm) 

1.3 in (3.2 cm) 

2.5 in (6.4 cm) 

2.5 in (6.4 cm) 

2.5 in (6.4 cm) 

1.3 in (3.2 cm) 

Lower Naches River 

Steelhead 

Coho 

Rainbow trout 

55.1 in (140 cm) 

24.0 in (61 cm) 

49.2 in (125 cm) 

53.9 in (137 cm) 

24.0 in (61 cm) 

46.9 in (119 cm) 

57.5 in (146 cm) 

24.0 in (61 cm) 

51.6 in (131 cm) 

55.1 in (140 cm) 

24.0 in (61 cm) 

49.2 in (125 cm) 

4.5.2.3 Black Rock Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

No construction-related impacts to sediment resources are anticipated under this 

alternative. 

Long-Term Impacts 

The Yakima River from Prosser Diversion Dam (RM 47) to approximately 

Toppenish Creek (RM 80) currently has the lowest sediment transport rate 

in the Yakima River (the reach upstream of Prosser Diversion Dam and 

portions of the Wapato reach in table 4.17), primarily because the Columbia 

River Basalt formation rises to the surface and exerts a control on the river, and 

to a lesser extent, Prosser Diversion Dam. These reaches of the Yakima River 

indicate the greatest likelihood of morphologic change under the Black Rock 

Alternative, as sediment transport would be greater under this alternative than 

under the No Action Alternative. Morphologic change is expected to improve 

habitat conditions, as there would be increased habitat diversity that may 

continue to change over time. Although morphologic change in this reach 

may benefit habitat, channel migration has the potential to affect properties 

4-55 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

adjacent to the river. A more detailed analysis would be required to understand 

the magnitude of channel change in this reach. 

Model results for the Wapato reach also show greater gravel transport under the 

Black Rock Alternative than under the No Action Alternative (table 4.17). 

Anticipated effects on this reach may consist of greater split channel morphology 

throughout much of the reach, which would represent an improvement to habitat. 

Much of the floodplain in this reach is low relative to the main channel, indicating 

greater floodplain-channel interaction with increased discharges. Channel 

migration in this reach is of less concern, as much of the floodplain is not 

developed or under cultivation. 

Model results for the Union Gap reach indicate slightly greater gravel loads 

(table 4.17) under the Black Rock Alternative than under the No Action 

Alternative. Greater gravel transport through this reach may provide some benefit 

to surrounding infrastructure near Union Gap, as recent aggradation 

(accumulation of sediment) has caused the channel to migrate in this location and 

threaten roadways. Greater gravel transport at Union Gap is dependent on the 

level of control exerted on the river by Wapato Dam and the gap itself. This level 

of analysis has not been performed. 

Model results for the reach upstream of Ellensburg indicate 25-percent greater 

average annual gravel load under this alternative (table 4.17) than under the No 

Action Alternative. Gravel transport in this reach is very low compared to other 

reaches and may be attributed to increased sediment sizes related to channel 

confinement throughout much of the reach. Additionally, irrigation diversions 

may limit the transport of sediment from upstream reaches to this reach. The 

greater sediment transport is not expected to affect morphology, as transport rates 

are expected to remain low in spite of the 25-percent increase. However, a more 

frequent disruption of the armor layer would be of some benefit to habitat. 

Compared to the No Action Alternative, no consequential effects on maximum 

annual bed scour are expected under the Black Rock Alternative (table 4.18). 

Though model results show the bed scour value in the Easton reach for spring 

Chinook increases from 2.5 inches (6.4 cm) to 7.6 inches (19.2 cm), which is 

within the egg pocket depth for anadromous salmon; this level of bed scour only 

occurs once in the 25-year period of record. In all other years, the change in scour 

is not enough to reach the egg pocket depth. 

4.5.2.4 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

No construction-related impacts to sediment resources are anticipated under this 

alternative. 

4-56 
 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Long-Term Impacts 

Model results indicate slightly less sand transport throughout most of the river 

under the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative than under the No Action 

Alternative. The minor difference indicated (generally less than 5 percent) would 

have no effect on the habitat and morphology in the Yakima River basin with 

respect to aggradation of sand. Model results for gravel loads also indicate no 

significant change in gravel transport rates. Thus, this alternative is not expected 

to significantly affect the morphology or habitat with respect to sediment 

transport compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Compared to the No Action Alternative, no consequential changes to maximum 

annual bed scour are expected under the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative. 

4.5.2.5 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

No construction-related impacts to sediment resources are anticipated under this 

alternative. 

Long-Term Impacts 

This alternative would have similar effects on habitat and morphologic change 

as the Black Rock Alternative, although to a slightly lesser extent (referring to 

the Wapato reach and the reach upstream of Prosser Diversion Dam only). 

For the Wapato reach and the reach upstream of Prosser Diversion Dam, the 

increase in gravel transport loads (table 4.19) under the Wymer Dam Plus 

Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative is slightly less than under the Black 

Rock Alternative, indicating that similar changes are likely to occur, although 

they may progress more slowly. No significant changes are indicated in other 

reaches. 

Compared to the No Action Alternative, no consequential changes to maximum 

annual bed scour are expected. 

4.5.2.6 Mitigation 

No mitigation would be required. 

4.5.2.7 Cumulative Impacts 

Other ongoing or proposed projects in the basin would have little significant 

effect on seasonal or annual discharge in the basin. None of the actions predicted 

to occur in the reasonably foreseeable future would involve reconnecting 

significant portions of the floodplain to the river channel where disconnection has 

occurred. As a result, there would be little additional effects on sediment 

transport or bed scour. 

4-57 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

4.6 Water Quality 

4.6.1 Affected Environment 

Surface water quality could be affected in the Columbia and Yakima Rivers, 

where additional storage and changes in streamflow may occur. Under two of the 

proposed alternatives, Black Rock and Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

Exchange, water would be withdrawn from the Columbia River. The surface 

water quality parameters discussed in this section are limited to those parameters 

that appear to be of most concern and would potentially be affected under the 

Joint Alternatives. These parameters are either physical or chemical in nature. 

Physical parameters of interest include: temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), and 

turbidity. Chemical parameters of interest include nutrients (such as nitratesnitrites and total phosphorus), total suspended solids (TSS), and toxins such as 

pesticides or Hanford Site contaminants (Reclamation, 2007c). A brief discussion 

of each of these parameters and a summary of the general levels that exist for 

each of the reaches follows. 

4.6.1.1 Columbia River 

The area of interest is a portion of the Mid-Columbia River extending from 

Vantage, Washington, to the confluence of the Columbia and Yakima Rivers near 

Pasco, Washington. Temperature was one of the water quality parameters of 

interest, because Black Rock and Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

Exchange Alternatives would remove water from the Columbia River, which 

could affect temperatures. Other parameters of interest with respect to the 

Columbia River are the contaminants found in the surface water and groundwater 

at the Hanford Site. Because increased seepage from the Hanford Site to the 

Columbia River could occur under the Black Rock Alternative, these 

contaminants were considered. 

Temperature 

The Columbia River is listed on the Washington State list of impaired water 

bodies (i.e., “303(d) list”) for temperature (Ecology, 2007b). Historical data 

retrieved from the Rock Island Dam for 1933-97 show that daily temperatures for 

the months of August and September, the warmest months of the year, were 

above 64.4 °F (18 °C) 58 percent and 43 percent of the time, respectively. 

Monitoring for 1997-2000 at fixed monitoring sites show that the State 

temperature numeric criteria standards were exceeded during the warm months of 

the year. 

Ecology is planning to implement a temperature total maximum daily load 

(TMDL) for the Columbia River in the near future, which is anticipated to 

improve conditions. 

4-58 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Hanford Site Contaminants 

Hanford Site pollutants, both radiological and chemical, enter the Columbia River 

along the Hanford reach. Effluent from each direct discharge point is monitored 

routinely (PNNL, 2006). Potential sources of pollutants not associated with the 

Hanford Site include irrigation return water and groundwater seepage associated 

with extensive irrigation north and east of the Columbia River and industrial, 

agricultural, and mining effluent introduced upstream of the Hanford Site (PNNL, 

2006). 

Surface Water 

In 2005, Columbia River water samples were collected from fixed-location 

monitoring stations at Priest Rapids Dam and Richland, Washington, and 

from cross-river transects and near-shore locations near the Vernita Bridge, 

100-N Area, 100-F Area, Hanford town site, 300 Area, and the city of Richland, 

Washington (PNNL, 2006). (See figure 4.11.) A number of the parameters 

measured have no regulatory limits; however, they are useful as indicators of 

water quality and contaminants of Hanford Site origin. Results of the water 

samples collected at Priest Rapids Dam and Richland in 2005 show that 

radionuclide concentrations were low throughout the year. Tritium, strontium-90, 

iodine-129, uranium-234, uranium-238, plutonium-239/240, and naturally 

occurring beryllium-7 and potassium-40 were consistently measured at levels 

above the reported minimum detectable concentrations but below the Washington 

State ambient surface-water quality criteria, EPA drinking water standards, or 

Ecology-derived concentration guide (PNNL, 2006). Concentrations of all other 

radionuclides were typically below the minimum detectable concentrations. 

Tritium, strontium-90, iodine-129, and plutonium-239/240 exist in worldwide 

fallout from historical nuclear weapons testing, as well as in effluent from 

Hanford Site facilities. Tritium and uranium occur naturally in the environment, 

in addition to being present in Hanford Site effluent. 

Contaminants of Hanford Site origin continued to be detected in water from 

shoreline springs entering the Columbia River along the Hanford Site in 2005. 

Tritium, strontium-90, technetium-99, iodine-129 (2005 data pending), uranium234, uranium-235, and uranium-238 were detected in spring water. All 

radiological contaminant concentrations measured in shoreline springs in 2005 

were less than applicable DOE-derived concentration guides. Metals and anions 

(chloride, fluoride, nitrate, and sulfate) were detected in spring water. The 

concentrations of most metals measured in water collected from springs along the 

Hanford Site shoreline during 2003 through 2005 were below Washington State 

ambient surface-water chronic toxicity levels (Ecology, 2006). Concentrations of 

volatile organic compounds were near or below their detection limits in all 

samples. Chemicals measured with detected concentrations were nitrate and 

dissolved chromium. Nitrate concentrations at all spring water locations were in 

compliance with the Federal drinking water standard. Concentrations of 

4-59 
r 

PneSl Rapid' Dam 

100A,us 

! I 

I I 

.wcJA,u 

~ .. 

" ..... -=-v 

_. 

_ --_... -~-"'-- _ _ .. 

.. _._-..- _ ......... """'-_ .. ...... _.- .... _

-.-~ - .... 

""""_ ,-_ .. _-. ...,_ ... .... ""- -~-.... .-,-

.. --­

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Figure 4.11 Locations of Columbia River water sampling. 

4-60 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

dissolved chromium at the shoreline springs were above the Washington State 

ambient surface water chronic toxicity level and above the acute toxicity level for 

the same area (PNNL, 2006). 

Several metals and anions were detected in Columbia River transect samples both 

upstream of and downstream from the Hanford Site in the 2005 samples. The 

concentrations of metals and anions observed in river water in 2005 were similar 

to those observed in the past. Arsenic, antimony, cadmium, copper, lead, 

mercury, nickel, and zinc were detected in the majority of samples, with similar 

levels at most locations. Beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, selenium, silver, 

and thallium were detected occasionally. All metal and anion concentrations in 

river water were less than the Washington State ambient surface-water quality 

criteria for the protection of aquatic life, with the exception of arsenic 

concentrations, which exceeded the EPA standard for the protection of human 

health for the consumption of water and organisms (PNNL, 2006). 

Sediment 

As a result of past operations at the Hanford Site, large amounts of radioactive 

and nonradioactive materials were discharged to the Columbia River. Upon 

release to the Columbia River, some of these materials were deposited on the 

riverbed as sediment, particularly in upstream areas near downstream dams. The 

concentrations of the radioactive materials decreased as they underwent 

radioactive decay. Fluctuations in the riverflow, as a result of the operation of 

upriver hydroelectric dams, annual spring high riverflows, and occasional floods 

have resulted in the re-suspension, relocation, and subsequent redeposition of the 

sediment. Upper layer sediment in the Columbia River contains low 

concentrations of radionuclides and metals of Hanford Site origin, as well as 

radionuclides from nuclear weapons testing fallout, along with metals and other 

nonradioactive contaminants from mining and agricultural activities. 

Radionuclides consistently detected in river sediment adjacent to and downstream 

from the Hanford Site in 2005 included potassium-40, strontium-90, cesium-137, 

uranium-238, plutonium-238, and plutonium-239/240. The concentrations of all 

other radionuclides were below the reported minimum detectable concentrations 

for most samples (PNNL, 2006). 

Detectable amounts of most metals were found in all river sediment samples. 

Maximum and median concentrations of most metals were higher for sediment 

collected in the reservoir upstream of Priest Rapids Dam compared to either the 

Hanford site or McNary Dam sediment. The concentrations of cadmium, 

mercury, and zinc had the greatest differences between locations. Currently, there 

are no Washington State freshwater sediment quality criteria for comparison to 

the measured values (PNNL, 2006). 

4-61 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Groundwater 

Current groundwater conditions on the Hanford Site are due mainly to the 

production of plutonium. It is for this reason that groundwater is monitored 

throughout the entire Hanford Site, especially in areas where contaminants were 

stored. The 100, 200, and 300 Areas located on the Hanford Site have ongoing 

extensive monitoring of groundwater. These areas are contaminated with tritium, 

strontium-90, nitrate, chromium, trichloroethene, sulfate, technetium-99, uranium, 

and iodine-99. The 400 Area is the Hanford Site water supply and is 

contaminated with a tritium plume, although the supply is in compliance with 

drinking water standards (PNNL, 2006). 

Contaminant plumes with concentrations above drinking water standards were 

present on about 12 percent of the Hanford Site in 2006 (PNNL, 2006). The 

tritium and iodine-129 plumes have the largest areas. The dominant plumes had 

sources in the 200-East Area and extend toward the east and southeast. Tritium 

and iodine-129 plumes are also present in the 200-West Area. Technetium-99 

plumes are present in the 200-East and 200-West Areas. One technetium-99 

plume has moved northward from the 200-East Area. Uranium plumes are found 

in the 100-H, 200-East, 200-West, and 300 Areas. Strontium-90 concentrations 

exceed the drinking water standard in the 100 Areas (except the 100-D Area), the 

200-East Area, and beneath the former Gable Mountain Pond. Other 

radionuclides, including cesium-137, cobalt-60, and plutonium, exceed drinking 

water standards in a few wells. 

Certain contaminants, which are found only in specific areas of the site, are 

hexavalent chromium, carbon-14, petroleum hydrocarbons, plutonium, carbon 

tetrachloride, ranium, chloroform, cis-1, 2 dichloroethene, tributyl phosphate, 

fluoride, cesium-137, cobalt-60, cyanide, calcium, sodium, chemical oxygen 

demand, chlorine, coliform bacteria, and low pH (PNNL, 2006). Many of these 

contaminants form plumes throughout the site, while many of the same 

contaminates exceed drinking water standards (PNNL, 2006). 

Nitrate is a widespread chemical contaminant in Hanford Site groundwater. 

Plumes originated from the 100 and 200 Areas and from offsite industry and 

agriculture. Carbon tetrachloride forms a large plume beneath the 200-West 

Area. Trichloroethene plumes are found in the 100-F and 200-West Areas. 

New wells in the 300 Area detected trichloroethene at levels above the drinking 

water standard at depth in the aquifer. Chromium exceeds the 100-microgramsper-liter (μg/L) drinking water standard in parts of the 100-K and 100-D Areas. 

Chromium exceeds the State’s aquatic standard (10 μg/L) in these areas and parts 

of the 100-B/C, 100-H, and 100-F Areas. Local plumes of chromium are also 

present in the 200 Areas, particularly the north part of the 200-West Area. 

Drinking water located on the Hanford Site has ongoing extensive monitoring 

similar to that done for groundwater. All 11 DOE-owned drinking water systems 

4-62 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

(10 of the 11 systems use water from the Columbia River and one system in the 

400 Area uses groundwater from the unconfined aquifer beneath the site) on the 

Hanford Site were in compliance with drinking water standards for radiological, 

chemical, and microbiological contaminant levels in 2005. Contaminant 

concentrations measured in 2005 were similar to those observed in recent years 

(PNNL, 2006). 

The Columbia River is the primary source of the city of Richland’s drinking 

water. The city of Richland also monitors its water for radiological and chemical 

contaminants, and for general water quality. 

4.6.1.2 Yakima River 

The Yakima River basin was separated into the upper and lower reaches for 

purposes of analyzing water quality. The upper and lower Yakima River basins 

are separated by the Yakima River Canyon, approximately 20 miles of arid shrubsteppe and steep basalt canyon lying approximately north-south between the 

Kittitas and Yakima Valleys (Ecology, 2002c, 2006). The upper reach extends 

from RM 214.5 at the Keechelus gage to RM 140.4 at Umtanum. The lower 

reach extends from RM 140.4 at Umtanum to the mouth of the Yakima River at 

RM 0. 

Water quality in headwater streams and the upper Yakima River is good but 

degrades downstream to the mouth. This degradation is caused both by natural 

processes and by the impacts from human activities, including both point and 

nonpoint sources (Reclamation, 1999). 

Water quality parameter values indicate that current surface water quality 

standards for water temperature, DO, pH, turbidity, ammonia, total 

dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), and other pesticides, as well as fecal 

coliform bacteria, are not met on the mainstem and tributaries of the upper and 

lower Yakima River basin at various times. These contaminants are listed along 

with their impaired water body or water bodies on the 2002-2004 303(d) list 

(Johnson, 2007 and Coffin et al., 2006). In addition, phosphorus concentrations 

have been detected on occasion at levels of concern relative to effects on aquatic 

life. 

The highest concentrations of turbidity, nutrients, bacteria, and pesticides occur in 

agricultural drains rather than in the mainstem or natural tributaries and, therefore, 

cause degradation in the water quality of the Yakima River downstream from the 

drain discharge points (Reclamation, 1999). 

The parameters analyzed for this study that may be affected are temperature, DO, 

turbidity/suspended sediments, and the nutrients phosphorus and nitrogen. 

4-63 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Temperature 

The primary factors that control the mainstem water temperatures are streamflow 

(river morphology and slope); air temperature; rate of vertical mixing; time of 

travel; and the temperature of inflowing water from natural tributaries (including 

groundwater discharge), canals, wasteways, and agricultural drains. Water in the 

upper basin is cold but warms as the riverflows to the lower basin. As water 

flows through the stream reaches with a high rate of vertical mixing, the water 

temperature quickly equilibrates near air temperature. The temperature of slowmoving water in shallow reaches increases because of the long exposure time to 

the sun, particularly where shading riparian vegetation is missing. Fast-flowing 

water in deep channels with minimal roughness, such as in canals, increases 

temperature the least. In the lower portion of the basin, the mainstem 

temperatures in the late summer tend to be similar to the temperatures of the 

agricultural return flows because a high percentage of riverflows in the late 

summer is return flows from agriculture (Reclamation, 1999). 

Many of the tributaries and the mainstem Yakima River are currently listed on the 

2002-2004 Washington State 303(d) list for temperature impairment (Ecology, 

2007c). Temperature concerns in the Yakima River basin focus on the protection 

of aquatic life; Ecology has implemented TMDLs for the mainstem of the river as 

well as for some of its tributaries. 

Dissolved Oxygen 

In the lower Yakima River, few locations downstream from Prosser Diversion 

Dam failed to meet the DO criteria of 8 milligrams per liter (mg/L) during 

USGS’s July 1987 synoptic sampling. A value of 7.5 mg/L was measured near 

sunrise, when DO levels are usually at their minimum, at the Yakima River, 

Van Geisen Bridge, near Richland, Washington. Review of 1986 to 1991 data 

showed the mainstem Yakima River at Kiona also did not meet the DO criteria. 

The USGS noted that the effects of agricultural return flow, urban runoff, and 

point source discharges are noticeable in the lower Yakima Valley, where most of 

the low DO levels were measured (Morace et al., 1999). 

Turbidity/Suspended Sediment 

Comprehensive water quality monitoring studies of the Yakima River basin 

were conducted in the mid- to late 1970s (Ecology, 1979) with several studies 

evaluating sediment loading in various parts of the basin (CH2M Hill, 1975; 

Boucher, 1975; Soil Conservation Service [SCS], 1978; U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, 1978; Nelson, 1979; Boucher and Fretwell, 1982). Much of the 

work indicated that irrigation practices directly affected suspended sediment 

concentrations and turbidity in the lower Yakima River and return drains from 

March through October (Coffin et al., 2006). The 2003 TMDL targets called for a 

90th percentile turbidity limit of 25 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) at the 

mouths of all irrigation drains within the Storage Study area. The turbidity limit 

was set to correspondingly limit the suspended sediment concentration to 

4-64 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

56 mg/L, as based on the prior TSS/turbidity correlation. Both values were 

considered moderately protective of aquatic communities according to literature 

at the time (Joy and Patterson, 1997). Of the nine monitoring sites for turbidity, 

five of which are on the mainstem Yakima River and four of which are major 

irrigation return flows; only one (Granger Drain) did not meet the fifth-year 

(2003) goal of a 90th percentile turbidity of 25 NTU or less during the entire 

sampling period (April through October). Two of the four major tributaries, 

Moxee Drain and Granger Drain, did not meet the TSS concentration goal of 

56 mg/L; however, sediment loads have still been reduced in each of these 

tributaries by approximately 60 percent and 85 percent, respectively (Coffin et al., 

2006). Although, turbidity levels are decreasing, values still remain above State 

standard criteria. 

Implementation of Best Management Practices by the irrigation districts and onfarm practices, as well as the TMDL process initiated by Ecology have resulted in 

significant improvements to the turbidity and suspended sediment/solid 

concentrations throughout the basin. With continued efforts to keep improving 

water quality in the drains and wasteways, the Yakima River should experience 

even further improvements. 

Toxins 

Pesticides (DDT and its metabolites, endosulphan, dieldrin, and others, as well 

as polychlorinated bi-phenols- [PCB] 1260) are widespread low-level 

contaminants that have been observed in water and sediment samples in the 

Yakima River system. The concentrations of dieldrin and DDT compounds 

have apparently been decreasing (USGS, 1991) since the early 1970s because 

of the EPA ban on the use of DDT in 1972 and the ban in the production of 

dieldrin in 1974. However, these pesticides still show up in the drains and, 

subsequently, in the Yakima River because of the residuals that exist in 

the irrigated soils in the basin. These compounds tend to adsorb to soils; 

subsequently, the sediment that is eroded from the agricultural fields is 

carried by the irrigation return flow water to the Yakima River. DDT was 

originally deposited in the irrigated soils decades ago when it was commonly 

used in agriculture. Recent water quality data have shown that the greatest 

concentrations of DDT and dieldrin have occurred at sites that also have the 

largest suspended sediment concentrations. This relation suggests that reducing 

suspended sediment concentrations in the drains would result in reduced 

concentrations of DDT and other pesticides in the Yakima River (Reclamation, 

1999). TMDL effectiveness monitoring conducted by Ecology in 2003 showed 

turbidity has been reduced dramatically (Johnson, 2007). USGS has reported a 

corresponding decrease in total DDT levels in water samples from 1992 compared 

to 2000 (Fuhrer et al., 2004; Johnson, 2007). For example, in the Moxee Drain, 

maximum concentrations of suspended sediment decreased sharply from more 

than 600 mg/L in 1988-89 to about 200 mg/L in 1999-2000. The Granger Drain 

4-65 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

had similar results; the total DDT concentration for a given concentration of 

suspended sediment decreased by a factor of three or more from 1988-89 to 1999­

2000 (Fuhrer et al., 2004). 

Phosphorus and Nitrogen 

Nutrient (phosphorus and nitrogen) concentrations are conducive to 

eutrophication in the lower Yakima River. Eutrophication is the process by 

which a body of water becomes enriched in dissolved nutrients that stimulate 

the growth of aquatic plant life, usually resulting in the depletion of DO. 

Activities upstream of Prosser Diversion Dam, municipal effluent, runoff 

from agriculture and urban sources, and storm runoff affect nutrient loading. 

Although these concentrations are adequate to support aquatic growth, turbidity 

may inhibit the sunlight penetration necessary for that growth. If the turbidity 

were to decrease, eutrophication of the lower Yakima would occur and result in 

unacceptable levels of DO, pH, and aquatic growth (Morace et al., 1999). 

Washington State has not established criteria for phosphorus or nitrates; however 

literature values for the prevention of eutrophication indicate total phosphates 

as phosphorus (P) should not exceed 100 μg/L in any river system; 50 μg/L in 

any stream at the point where it enters any lake, reservoir, or other standing 

water body; or 25 μg/L within the lake, reservoir, or other standing water body. 

EPA water quality criteria for 1986 concur with literature values. EPA has 

established a maximum contaminant level of 10,000 μg/L for nitrates in drinking 

water (EPA, 1986a). 

During irrigation season, most of the water in the lower Yakima River is 

agricultural return flow. Concentrations of nutrients (phosphorus and 

nitrogen) in the river reflect the influx of agricultural chemicals. In August 

1999, concentrations of total phosphorus in the Yakima River increased from 

10 μg/L in the headwaters near Cle Elum to 140 μg/L near the mouth at Kiona. 

The concentrations of phosphorus in 71 percent of the irrigation-season samples 

and 80 percent of the nonirrigation-season samples exceeded the EPA desired 

goal of 100 μg/L to prevent nuisance growth of plants in aquatic systems. Also, 

13 percent of the nonirrigation-season concentrations of nitrate exceeded 

10,000 μg/L, which is the EPA drinking water standard (Fuhrer et al., 2004). 

4.6.2 Environmental Consequences 

4.6.2.1 Methods and Assumptions 

Washington State approved water quality standards were used to assess the status 

of the Columbia and Yakima Rivers and the effects each alternative would have 

on the water quality. 

Effects of the Joint Alternatives were analyzed using data obtained through 

literature reviews, professional judgment, ongoing monitoring, and models 

4-66 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

created by Ecology, USGS, and Reclamation, as discussed below. The indicators 

of temperature, DO, nutrients, total suspended solids, and toxins were selected to 

evaluate water quality. 

Reclamation conducted an assessment of the potential effects the Black Rock 

pumping plant at Priest Rapids Dam would have on water temperature using the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineer’s CE-QUAL-W2 model and the stream segment 

temperature SSTEMP model. Both models have substantial limitations with 

respect to their use for the Storage Study, but no other models were available. 

The results from both were similar with respect to temperature and suggested that 

building a separate model for this study was not warranted (USGS, 2007). 

CE-QUAL-W2 is a water quality and hydrodynamic model that models in two 

dimensions, longitudinally and vertically. It can be used for rivers, estuaries, 

lakes, reservoirs, and river basin systems. It can be used in both stratified and 

nonstratified systems, and it can model a variety of water quality parameters 

including temperature. Its primary limitation with respect to its use for the 

Storage Study is its inability to model lateral reservoir variations. The laterally 

averaged (bank-to-bank average) assumption may be inappropriate for large 

waterbodies exhibiting significant lateral variations in water quality. Because the 

Columbia River is likely well mixed, this is not a critical limitation. Also, 

dynamic branches can be included for large embayments in a CE-QUAL-W2 

model to minimize the limitations of the laterally averaged assumption. Input 

data is most often the most limiting factor in the application or misapplication of 

any model. 

SSTEMP may be used to evaluate alternative reservoir release proposals, analyze 

the effects of changing riparian shade or the physical features of a stream, and 

examine the effects of different stream withdrawals and returns on instream 

temperature. It can model only single stream segments for a single time period 

(e.g., month, week, day) for any given “run.” Initially designed as a training tool, 

SSTEMP may be used satisfactorily for a variety of simple cases that might be 

faced on a day-to-day basis. It is especially useful for performing sensitivity and 

uncertainty analyses (Bartholow, 2007). However, it cannot model flows of more 

than 100,000 cfs, which are routinely exceeded on the Columbia River. As such, 

the modeling had to be performed for flows of less than 100,000 cfs and then 

“scaled up” to higher flows. 

The Department of Ecology developed a model using the QUAL2E software to 

address water quality issues associated with a proposal to increase flows in the 

lower Yakima River by forgoing diversions at Prosser Diversion Dam and, 

instead, diverting from the Columbia River near the mouth of the Yakima River 

(Carroll and Joy, 2001). The model looked at the lower Yakima River between 

RM 47.2 (upstream of Prosser Diversion Dam) and RM 5.6, the backwater of the 

McNary pool. Model input was provided to simulate water temperature; DO; 

biochemical oxygen demand (BOD); chloride; TSS; nitrogen (N) in the forms of 

4-67 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

organic-N, ammonia-N, nitrate-N; phosphorus in the forms of organic-P and 

dissolved P; and chlorophyll a at steady-state conditions. Turbidity could not be 

directly modeled, so a regression relationship between TSS (a model parameter) 

and turbidity for the lower Yakima River was used (Joy and Patterson, 1997). 

Carroll and Joy (2001) have summarized and drawn conclusions from the 

information collected about water quality in the lower Yakima River. The results 

from these earlier model runs were examined in light of the changes in projected 

flows to help estimate water quality under the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River 

Pump Exchange Alternative, which is on a larger scale than the original model. 

The USGS developed a temperature model for the Storage Study. The USGS 

used the SNTEMP model, which was developed to help predict the consequences 

of stream manipulation on water temperatures. Manipulations may include 

reservoir discharge and release temperatures, irrigation diversion, riparian 

shading, channel alteration, or thermal loading. The SNTEMP model has been 

used to help formulate instream flow recommendations, assess the effects of 

altered streamflow regimes, assess the effects of habitat improvement projects, 

and assist in negotiating releases from existing storage projects (USGS, 2007). 

Input values correlated air and water temperature for the period 1984-2003 for the 

Yakima River from Roza Diversion Dam to Prosser Diversion Dam and at the 

mouth of the Naches River. The time period used for data collection of water 

temperatures was April through October, which corresponds to irrigation season 

(Voss, 2007). 

CE-QUAL-W2 modeling of Wymer reservoir was also performed. Wet (1997), 

average (1991), and dry (1994) years were evaluated to determine the effects of 

Wymer dam releases on Yakima River temperatures just downstream from 

Wymer reservoir releases and upstream of the Roza Diversion Dam pool. 

4.6.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts under the No Action Alternative would be considered under 

separate NEPA evaluation as discussed in chapter 2. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no effect, either adverse or 

beneficial, on Columbia River water quality. No diversions would be made from 

the Columbia River, and there would be no additional influx of contaminants. 

Based on the modeling done by Carroll and Joy (2001) for the lower Yakima 

River, the relatively modest, reach-specific difference in flow are not expected to 

affect water quality in the Yakima River. Carroll and Joy looked at changes in 

flows downstream from Prosser Diversion Dam on the order of 628 to 980 cfs in 

the Prosser Diversion Dam to Chandler reach, and from 1,344 to 2,010 cfs from 

4-68 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Chandler to the mouth of the Yakima. They noted virtually no change in the 

water quality parameters modeled when flows were increased. The water 

conservation projects included in this alternative would create flow improvements 

of not more than a few hundred cfs, so similar effects to water quality would be 

anticipated. 

Nutrient concentrations in the drains and wasteways would likely be greater under 

this alternative. The amount of nutrients that enter the drains and wasteways as a 

result of surface and subsurface runoff is a function of the amount of water 

applied for irrigation. Conservation measures would not reduce the amount of 

water applied but, instead, would reduce the amount that seeps or is discharged 

from the canals and laterals. Nutrient concentrations would increase as the 

amount of nutrients discharged to the drains and wasteways stays constant, but the 

amount of the total discharge in the drain or wasteway, which can dilute their 

concentrations, would decline. 

4.6.2.3 Black Rock Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

There would be short-term impacts to water quality from instream and nearstream construction activities for the Black Rock pumping plant on the Columbia 

River. The required instream work may cause local, temporary increases in 

turbidity during installation and removal of coffer dams. These increases would 

likely be most intense near the construction activity itself and would decrease 

over time and distance. Given the slow-moving nature of the river at this 

location, turbidity would be expected to be confined near the site of the 

construction. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Under the Black Rock Alternative, there would be no effect, either adverse or 

beneficial, on the water quality in the Columbia River, excluding the Hanford Site 

contaminants. The water quality modeling performed for the pumping station just 

upstream of Priest Rapids Dam that would lift water into the Black Rock reservoir 

indicates no measurable difference in the water temperature prediction with or 

without withdrawal. Both models, discussed previously, have shortcomings with 

respect to their use for the Storage Study, but both indicated there would be no 

effect. This appears to be a reasonable conclusion given the size of the 

withdrawal relative to flows in the Columbia River. At the time of modeling, the 

withdrawal by the Black Rock pumping plant was assumed to be 6,000 cfs. That 

amount has since been reduced to 3,500 cfs. Also note that water would be 

pumped from the Columbia River for Black Rock reservoir primarily during fall 

and winter, when the flows are low, and the temperatures are declining. For these 

reasons, a new model was not constructed for the study, and the results of the two 

models available were determined to be adequate to address this issue. 

4-69 
August 

Absolute change in simulated maximum water temperature compared to No Action Alternative 

-2.0 

-1.5 

-1.0 

-0.5 

0.0 

0.5 

1.0 

1.5 

220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60

river kilometers 

water temperature C 

Wymer Only Wymer Pump Exchange Black Rock 

Figure 4.12 Modeled August absolute change in maximum water temperatures for Wymer Dam 

and Reservoir, Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange, and Black Rock Alternatives 

compared to the No Action Alternative. Note: 1 °C = 1.8 °F. 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

In the Yakima River, USGS model results (Voss, 2007) indicate there would be 

no significant changes in water temperatures under this alternative compared to 

the No Action Alternative (figure 4.12), which is consistent with previous 

temperature modeling conducted for the Yakima River (Vaccaro, 1986). 

Higher flows during summer in the lower river should provide improved water 

quality conditions relative to nutrients, DO, and DDT. The water used to augment 

flows would come from reservoir releases higher in the valley where water quality 

is better. At the Parker gage, flows would be 3 to 4 times higher, so a water 

quality improvement would be expected. Lower in the river, the flows would also 

be increased; therefore, concentrations of nutrients could possibly be reduced. 

The western boundary of the Hanford Site is approximately 5 miles from the 

proposed Black Rock reservoir. From 1943 to 1989, Hanford’s principal mission 

was the production of weapons-grade plutonium. To produce this material, 

uranium metal was irradiated in production reactors. The uranium metal was 

cooled, and then treated through chemical separations in a reprocessing plant. 

From this process, a large amount of waste was produced and stored in tanks, or 

disposed of in cribs and trenches. In some cases, chemicals and radionuclides 

from this material have leaked or were discharged to the ground. The cleanup of 

the contamination present at the site is being done under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act or Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation 

and Liability Act, depending on the particular process or unit being addressed. 

The proposed Black Rock reservoir could affect the existing groundwater 

contamination at the Hanford Site in a number of ways. For example, seepage 

from the Black Rock reservoir would increase the groundwater flow in the aquifer 

under the reservation. Increased groundwater flow has the potential to increase 

4-70 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

the movement of contaminants from the central part of the site, referred to as the 

Central Plateau. Such an increase in groundwater flow has the potential to change 

containment plume shapes, travel times, and peak concentrations. The hydraulic 

conductivity distribution is different beneath the eastern and western portions of 

the Central Plateau, so it is likely that an increase in groundwater flow would 

have a differential impact across the site. 

Seepage from Black Rock reservoir also has the potential to raise the water 

table level beneath the Hanford Site. Raising the water table would have the 

potential to mobilize contaminants currently in the soil, as well as shorten the 

travel time of contaminants through the vadose zone. The Department of Energy 

is investigating this contaminant mobilization at the Hanford Site, along with 

contaminant travel time toward the river. At present, it appears that there could 

be impacts to deep vadose zone contamination at a minimum, and those 

remediation technologies and programs either currently implemented or under 

development at the Hanford Site could be significantly impacted by seepage from 

the Black Rock reservoir. 

DOE issued a Notice of Intent (Federal Register, 2006) for the Tank Closure and 

Waste Management EIS, which is evaluating treatment, storage and closure 

options for tanks and other units around the Hanford Site. In this EIS, DOE 

intends to include an analysis of the potential impacts to groundwater beneath the 

Hanford Site as a result of seepage from the Black Rock reservoir. 

4.6.2.4 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

There would be short-term impacts to water quality from instream and nearstream construction activities for the Wymer pumping plant on the Yakima River. 

The required instream work may cause local, temporary increases in turbidity 

during installation and removal of coffer dams. These increases would likely be 

most intense near the construction activity itself and would decrease over time 

and distance. 

Care would also have to be taken with flows in Lumuma Creek during dam 

construction. A coffer dam and one or more temporary bypass channels would 

have to be constructed to route the flowing water away from any construction 

activity. Rerouting the stream to the bypass may create a minor amount of 

sediment that would settle out before it reaches the Yakima River. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Under the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative, there would be no effect, either 

adverse or beneficial, on water quality in the Columbia River. 

In the Yakima River, USGS model results indicate there would be no significant 

changes in water temperatures under this alternative compared to the No Action 

4-71 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Alternative (figure 4.12), which is consistent with previous temperature modeling 

conducted for the Yakima River (Vaccaro, 1986). 

For the proposed Wymer reservoir, CE-QUAL-W2 temperature modeling results 

indicated that during June and July in wet, average, and dry years, Wymer dam 

release temperatures would be cooler than those of the Yakima River. During late 

August in wet and average years, Wymer reservoir releases would approach 

Yakima River temperatures. During late August in dry years, Wymer reservoir 

releases would be warmer than those of the Yakima River. At low Wymer 

reservoir elevations during September, warm surface waters could be discharged 

to the Yakima River. Therefore, minimal discharges are anticipated during 

September in dry years. 

Little change would be expected in other Yakima River water quality parameters 

as a result of releases from Wymer reservoir. During dry years, bottom releases 

from Wymer reservoir could potentially affect Yakima River water quality. 

Therefore, stagnant water quality conditions in the lower layers of Wymer 

reservoir could be minimized by mixing water quality releases from upper outlets 

with potentially poor water quality from the lower outlet. 

4.6.2.5 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts for Wymer reservoir would be the same as for the Wymer 

Dam and Reservoir Alternative. Additionally, there would be short-term impacts 

to water quality from instream and near-stream construction activities for the 

Yakima River pump exchange (pumping plant #1) on the Columbia River. The 

required instream work may cause local, temporary increases in turbidity during 

installation and removal of coffer dams. These increases would likely be most 

intense near the construction activity itself and would decrease over time and 

distance. Given the slow-moving nature of the river at this location, turbidity 

would be expected to be confined near the site of the construction. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Under the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative, there 

would be no effect, either adverse or beneficial, on Columbia River water quality. 

Effects on Wymer reservoir and Yakima River temperatures would be the same as 

under the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative. 

In the mid and lower Yakima River, the higher summer flows at Parker would 

provide water quality improvements as a result of dilution. The flow increase 

is only about two-thirds of that expected under the Black Rock Alternative, 

so while water quality benefits are anticipated, they are not expected to 

be as prevalent as under the Black Rock Alternative. 

4-72 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

4.6.2.6 Mitigation 

Contributing sediment from construction activities (such as staging areas and 

temporary access roads) would need to be prevented. The contractor would be 

required to use silt curtains, settling ponds, and other measures to prevent 

construction site runoff. Waste water associated with construction activities, such 

as dewatering excavations, washing equipment or wet sawing, would be kept 

from directly discharging into surface waterways. Complying with State and 

local water quality permits would provide the necessary water quality protection. 

As mitigation for warm-water releases from Wymer reservoir, releases would be 

maximized and made as early as possible in a dry water year to minimize the 

potential for warm water releases later in the summer when the Yakima River and 

Wymer reservoir would be warmer. 

4.6.2.7 Cumulative Impacts 

Planned development in the basin could have an adverse effect on water quality. 

The additional development would result in more water use and the returns of 

more used water could impact the area’s streams and river. While some of the 

return flows would come through municipal water treatments facilities, they 

would add pollutants to the system. This increase in wastewater from residential 

and other developments could offset some of the benefits expected under the 

Black Rock and Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternatives. 

Because there are no expected water quality impacts associated with the No 

Action or Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternatives, there would be no cumulative 

impacts. 

4.7 Vegetation and Wildlife 

4.7.1 Affected Environment 

Vegetation issues of concern involve the loss of shrub-steppe associated with the 

development of facilities under some of the alternatives and effects to riparian and 

wetland habitat along the river corridor as a result of changes in flows. The loss 

of shrub-steppe is also an issue for wildlife, as it could be affected by its loss. 

Movement corridors for some species may also be affected with the development 

of some of the facilities. 

Shrub-steppe communities were historically a dominant vegetation type in eastern 

Washington, and have been extensively studied (Yakima Subbasin Fish and 

Wildlife Planning Board, 2004). The shrub-steppe vegetation type is a mixture of 

woody shrubs, grasses, and forbs generally dominated by Wyoming big sagebrush 

and bluebunch wheatgrass in east-central Washington (Daubenmire, 1970). 

Environmental factors such as elevation, aspect, soil type, proximity to water, and 

others contribute to an individual site’s vegetation diversity potential. For 

example, at higher elevations and on north-facing slopes, three-tip sagebrush and 

4-73 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Idaho fescue may dominate, while on ridge tops with shallow soils, rigid sagebrush and Sandberg’s bluegrass and/or bluebunch wheatgrass may dominate 

(Yakima Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Planning Board, 2004). Rabbitbrush may be 

common on recently burned sites. Other grasses and shrubs that may be scattered 

throughout dominant stands of Wyoming big sagebrush and bluebunch wheatgrass include needle and thread, Thurber’s needle grass, Indian rice grass, 

squirreltail, Cusick’s bluegrass, short-spine horsebrush, antelope bitterbrush, 

spiny hopsage, and basin sagebrush (Crawford and Kagan, 2001). More alkaline 

sites may support black greasewood, basin wild rye, and inland saltgrass 

(Daubenmire, 1970). Estimates of historic vegetation cover on undisturbed sites 

range from 5- to 30-percent shrub cover and from 69- to 100-percent bunchgrass 

cover. 

Agricultural, residential, and urban development over the past century have 

changed the landscape drastically, resulting in large losses of shrub-steppe habitat. 

Approximately 40 percent of the estimated 10.4 million acres of the shrub-steppe 

vegetation type that existed in Washington before the 1800s remains today 

(Dobler et al., 1996). This residual habitat continues to be threatened by 

continued loss/conversion of habitat; declines in vegetative diversity; reduction of 

microbiotic crusts, which are an indicator of undisturbed habitat and prevent the 

influx of exotic species (i.e., cheatgrass); and isolation of habitat (Service, 2007b). 

The further loss of habitat and the degradation of remaining shrub-steppe can be 

attributed to increased fragmentation, varying fire management practices, 

competition with exotic and invasive species, overgrazing from livestock, offroad vehicle use, and overall conversion and development (Crawford and Kagan, 

2001). In the Yakima River basin, three large properties remain that continue to 

support large blocks of shrub-steppe: the YTC, a portion of the Yakama 

Reservation, and the Fitzner-Eberhardt Arid Lands Ecology (ALE) Reserve 

located on Hanford Reach National Monument, managed by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Yakima Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Planning Board, 2004). 

Table 4.19 presents the shrub-steppe acreage under each alternative area (Service, 

2007b). More detailed treatment of this vegetation type is found in the Yakima 

Subbasin Plan (Yakima Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Planning Board, 2004), and 

the numerous references cited within that report. 

Table 4.19 Shrub-steppe habitat at major facility sites (acres) 

Location Shrub-steppe habitat 

Black Rock site 3,539 acres 

Wymer site 1,055 acres 

Other facilities – SR-24 Road relocation and 330 acres 

access road to Priest Rapids to pumping plant 

Total affected area 4,924 acres 

4-74 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

4.7.1.1 Wildlife 

Several wildlife species utilize and exist within the remaining shrub-steppe 

habitats. The affected areas for these species and their habitat includes not only 

the footprint of the proposed Black Rock and Wymer dams and reservoirs but also 

the ancillary facilities, i.e., pipeline construction and alignment; pumping plants; 

access roads; staging areas; realignment of SR-24 and utilities; and potential 

recreational development in adjacent areas where they occur in shrub-steppe 

(Reclamation, 2004e). 

The following section provides a general analysis of wildlife known to occur or 

have the potential to occur within the affected areas of both Black Rock and 

Wymer dam and reservoir sites. 

An abundance of diverse wildlife inhabits and utilizes shrub-steppe communities 

in the region. Table 4.20 presents a list of the known wildlife species within the 

affected areas (both Black Rock and Wymer dam and reservoir sites), as well as a 

partial list of potential wildlife species that may occur. 

Both habitat generalists and shrub-steppe obligates occupy the Black Rock and 

Wymer dam and reservoir sites. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists core 

habitat for the following species within the Black Rock site: short-eared owls 

(Asio flammeus), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), long-billed curlew 

(Numenius americanus), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), loggerhead shrike 

(Lanius ludovicianus), sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus), greater sage-grouse 

(Centrocerus urophasianus), Townsend ground squirrel (Citellus townsendi), 

black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), Merriam’s shrew (Sorex merriami), 

mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) and smallfooted myotis (Myotis subulatus) (Reclamation, 2007b). Peripheral habitat exists 

for the white-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus townsendii) and Rocky Mountain elk 

(Cervus canadensis). 

The Wymer site provides core habitat for bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis), 

Townsend ground squirrel, golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), ferruginous hawk, 

short-eared owl, long-billed curlew, loggerhead shrike, sage sparrow (Amphispiza 

belli), brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri), sage thrasher, greater sage-grouse, 

black-tailed jackrabbit, Merriam’s’ shrew, mule deer, pallid bat, and small-footed 

myotis. Peripheral habitat exists for the white-tailed jackrabbit. Other species 

that may live in the diverse habitats within the affected areas include the coyote 

(Canus latrans), badger (Taxidea taxus), western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), 

western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), 

western rattlesnake (Crotalus virdis), Great Basin spadefoot toad (Spea 

intermontana), and northern sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciosus) (Service, 

2007). 

4-75 
 

 

 

 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table 4.20 Known and potential wildlife species within affected shrub-steppe habitats 

Federal ESA 

Candidate 

Species, 

State-listed 

(Threatened) 

“Species of 

Concern” by 

Washington 

State 

Known to 

exist/ 

utilize 

shrubsteppe: 

Black Rock 

site 

Have 

potential to 

exist/utilize 

shrubsteppe: 

Black Rock 

site 

Known 

to exist/ 

utilize 

shrubsteppe: 

Wymer 

site 

Have 

potential to 

exist/ 

utilize 

shrubsteppe: 

Wymer site 

Birds 

Greater sage-grouse 

Brewer's sparrow 

Ferruginous hawk 

Burrowing owl 

Prairie falcon 

Golden eagle 

Short-eared owl 

Long-billed curlew 

Red-tailed hawk 

Sage sparrow 

Chukar 

Loggerhead shrike 

Northern shrike 

Sharp-tailed grouse 

Western kingbird 

Grasshopper sparrow 

Sage thrasher 

Northern harrier 

Swainson hawk 

Rough-legged hawk 

American kestrel 

Common nighthawk 

Common poorwill 

Western meadowlark 

Vesper sparrow 

Lark sparrow 

Mourning dove 

x 

State-listed 

only 

x 

x 

x 

Candidate 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

Mammals 

Townsend's ground 

squirrel 

Black-tailed jackrabbit 

White-tailed jackrabbit 

Mule deer 

Bighorn sheep 

Coyote 

Merriam’s shrew 

American badger 

Rocky Mountain elk 

Pallid bat 

Small-footed myotis 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

n/a 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

n/a 

x 

x 

Reptiles and amphibians 

Northern sagebrush 

lizard 

Western rattlesnake 

Great Basin 

spadefoot toad 

x x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

4-76 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

4.7.1.2 Movement Corridors 

Valleys are often used as movement corridors for numerous land animals. This is 

especially true for species with relatively large home ranges such as deer and elk. 

This section addresses the issue of movement corridors in the area. 

Movement corridors are crucial to wildlife and may be seasonal, depending 

on the species. The primary function of a corridor is to connect two areas of 

habitat and encourage migration and dispersal into these areas. Wildlife 

movement is essential to healthy wildlife populations because it does the 

following: provides connectivity and, thereby, genetic variation and biodiversity 

between differing populations and habitats; connects isolated habitats and may 

allow recolonization of extirpated species; provides varying habitats for migration 

patterns, e.g., foraging, nesting, brood-rearing, wintering, and mating; encourages 

plant propagation; allows populations to move in response to habitat changes, 

e.g., fires; and can provide habitat for “corridor dwellers,” species that live within 

corridors for extended periods (Beier and Loe, 1992). 

The loss of movement corridors would further isolate and fragment vegetative and 

wildlife species’ populations, as well as substantially decrease and/or eliminate 

suitable habitats. A large reservoir can be a major barrier for some species 

including elk, deer, and greater sage-grouse in the Yakima River basin. 

Evidence has shown that elk have historically occupied the shrub-steppe habitats 

of the Columbia River Basin (McCorquodale, 1985). In recent times, elk were 

first observed in the Rattlesnake Hills in 1972 and are believed to come from the 

Yakima elk herd west of the Hanford Reach National Monument (McCorquodale 

et al., 1988; Eberhardt et al., 1996). The Rattlesnake Hills elk herd utilizes the 

Fitzner-Eberhardt ALE Reserve within the Hanford Site and has grown 

considerably throughout its history. 

The ALE Reserve encompasses more than 127 square miles and is designated a 

Research Natural Area and a National Environmental Research Park. The 

majority of the Rattlesnake Hills elk are found within the ALE year-round, but 

some have moved to adjacent areas as the population has grown and disturbance 

to habitat from fire has pushed them westward. Most of the land surrounding the 

ALE Reserve is privately owned, but also includes the Saddle Mountain Wildlife 

Refuge, Wahluke Wildlife Area, and the YTC. The population has grown 

extensively over the years. Presently, elk are being managed by the Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife through hunting, trapping, and relocations 

because of crop damage complaints from private landowners (Tsukamoto, 2000). 

The Rattlesnake Hills elk herd demonstrates distinct seasonal migration patterns 

and is concentrated within two areas, the Hanford ALE Reserve and the YTC. 

The elk usually winter in the ALE Reserve and then move out into adjacent lands 

in the spring and summer. The Cold Creek Valley within the ALE Reserve is the 

main area of distribution and runs along State Route 240. Elk are frequently 

4-77 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

observed next to the western and southern boundaries of the ALE, on the 

Rattlesnake Hills and Yakima Ridge, and onto the southeastern portion of the 

YTC (Tsukamoto, 2000). They also move across the Columbia River towards the 

Saddle Mountain Wildlife Refuge and Wahluke Wildlife Area. 

The YTC supports a small population of elk that migrate northwest from the 

ALE Reserve and south from the Colockum and Quilomene Wildlife Areas. The 

geography indicates that the Rattlesnake Hills elk probably cross the Black Rock 

Valley or move along the Yakima Ridge into the YTC (Tsukamoto, 2000). 

Neither the Yakima nor the Colockum herds have been observed within the 

Wymer area or in the areas directly east of the Yakima River (Stephenson, 2007). 

4.7.1.3 Black Cottonwoods 

Cottonwood reproduction has been identified as a key issue for the Yakima River 

basin by many recent studies and documents, mainly because black cottonwoods 

(Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocaepa) are the dominant plant species in lowland 

riparian forests of the Yakima River basin and are considered essential to the 

integrity of Yakima River riparian systems (Jaimeson and Braatne, 2001; Biology 

Technical Work Group, 2004; Braatne et al., 2007; Reclamation, 2002a; Yakima 

Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Board, 2004). As a dominant riparian plant species, 

black cottonwoods interact with other river system components, both physical 

and biological (Fierke and Kauffman, 2005). While hydrologic and sedimentary 

processes drive the creation and destruction of cottonwood habitat, the trees, 

in turn, modify physical river processes through increased channel and 

floodplain roughness, increased bank stability, and inputs of large woody 

debris (Montgomery, et al., 2003). Black cottonwoods also influence 

aquatic ecosystems through exchanges of nutrients, species, and energy. 

Because dominant riparian species such as black cottonwoods can be seen 

as integral components of the river system, it follows that changes in cottonwood 

recruitment can affect salmonid species both directly and indirectly in both the 

short and long terms (Naiman and Latterell, 2005). 

Black cottonwoods range from northern California to the timberline in Alaska and 

grow mostly in riparian zones (DeBell, 1990). Their reproduction, growth, and 

mortality are closely linked to river processes (Auble and Scott, 1998). Other 

processes, such as grazing by native ungulates and cattle, fire, insect predation, 

and disease, have also been linked to black cottonwood ecology. 

Seedling reproduction in black cottonwoods is thought to be the usual means of 

new stand establishment, and occurs in periodic pulses on many Western rivers. 

Black cottonwoods can also reproduce extensively by root sprouting and other 

clonal means; however, the relationship between riverflows and asexual 

reproduction is not well understood. Therefore, only sexual reproduction is 

considered here. 

4-78 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Mortality appears to be driven by floods, which undercut trees by sediment scour 

during channel avulsions and migration (Lytle and Merritt, 2004). Rapid declines 

in water table levels have also been shown to cause early mortality in 

cottonwoods (Rood, et al., 1995). 

River Flows and Cottonwood Seedling Reproduction 

The life history of riparian cottonwoods is tightly bound to riverflow dynamics. 

Much research has been conducted on the relationship between riverflow and 

cottonwood seedling reproduction, and several models have been published that 

describe this relationship for the semiarid Western United States (Lytle and 

Merritt, 2004; Mahoney and Rood, 1998). In general, a sequence of events 

spanning several years is thought to be necessary for abundant seedling 

production, beginning with a flood of at least a 5-year recurrence interval 

that scours or deposits sediments to produce bare, open sites. Also required is a 

1.5-to-2-year recurrence (bank full flow) spring snowmelt flood that coincides 

with the June seed release period of cottonwoods on the Yakima River. This 

flow level moistens the surface of bare nursery sites and recharges shallow 

groundwater. Wind- and water-borne seeds, produced in vast quantities, then land 

on these sites and germinate. A gradual recession of the snowmelt flood, at a rate 

not more than about 1 inch of river stage per day, allows growing seedling roots 

to keep in contact with the capillary fringe of the groundwater. Survival after 

recession is favored by adequate summer base flows. Finally, a period of 2 to 

5 years with low to moderate flows enables seedlings and juveniles to avoid being 

scoured or buried as would happen in large floods. These particular flow 

sequences occur episodically and result in a punctuated, rather than continuous, 

cohort recruitment process for cottonwoods. See figure 4.13. 

Current Conditions 

Large areas of cottonwood forest are found on alluvial segments of the Yakima 

River and the Naches River. These include the Easton, Cle Elum, Kittitas, Union 

Gap, Lower Naches, and Wapato floodplains. For the sake of brevity, the Easton, 

Cle Elum, and Umtanum floodplains are considered as a group and termed the 

upper reaches or floodplains, while the Union Gap, Lower Naches, and Wapato 

floodplains are considered individually. Several observations apply to all 

floodplains. The most general effect of current river operations is to reduce the 

volume of total annual discharge; simply put, the Yakima River has become a 

smaller stream. On average, smaller flows would reduce the potential size of 

riparian forests. Current Yakima Project operations also affect cottonwood 

reproduction most directly through the attenuation of fall and spring floods, which 

reduces the potential spatial extent of cohort recruitment. Indeed, several studies 

have documented a river-wide paucity of young cottonwood stands on the 

Yakima River. The identified causes of the poor reproduction are altered 

riverflows in addition to physical changes to floodplains such as levees, 

channelization, and gravel mining. These physical impediments to cottonwood 

reproduction would have to be addressed to realize the full potential of any 

4-79 
Figure 4.13 Conceptual model of flows for successful black cottonwood reproduction 

by seed (Braatne et al., 2007). 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

benefits associated with the Joint Alternatives. The Wapato and Union Gap 

floodplains have been identified as having greater restoration potential because of 

greater floodplain connectivity and complexity; hydrologic improvement might be 

expected to show relatively better results in these areas (Stanford et al., 2002). 

Upper Floodplains (Easton, Cle Elum, and Kittitas).—River operations for the 

Yakima Project create reduced spring flows and very high summer base flows. 

As a result, cottonwood seedlings of the year are probably scoured each summer 

and relatively few young cottonwoods occur. However, some forest stands 

remain, most likely because of periodic large spring floods that provide 

recruitment sites beyond the reach of summer flow levels. 

Lower Naches.—This floodplain has a flow pattern that is fairly close to natural 

flow, with the exception of fall high water caused by the flip-flop operation. 

Spring flows average substantially greater than the flip-flop surge, meaning that 

some seedlings most likely establish at high enough elevations to avoid being 

scoured in the fall. In general, seedling reproduction is probably occurring at 

higher rates on this reach than on mainstem Yakima River floodplains. 

Union Gap.—Spring flows are reduced and summer flows are somewhat elevated 

in this reach. These flow alterations are not nearly as dramatic as those in the 

4-80 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

upper floodplains, however, and periodic spring floods still generate pulses of 

cottonwood reproduction. High summer flows may raise the lower elevational 

limit of establishment, but most likely do not scour the bulk of seedlings of the 

year. 

Wapato.—Cottonwood reproduction on this floodplain is limited by flow 

regulation. Spring flows are substantially reduced, spring recession rates are 

extremely rapid, and summer base flows average less than half of estimated 

natural flow. The combined effect of these conditions is limited opportunities for 

germination and high mortality of seedlings that do establish. 

4.7.1.4 Wetlands 

The single feature that most wetlands share is soil or substrate that is at least 

periodically saturated or covered with water. The National Wetlands Inventory 

(NWI) classification system (Cowardin et al., 1979) identifies wetlands and 

deepwater habitats. The NWI had identified 43,695 acres of wetlands within the 

Yakima River basin, including 20,040 acres of herbaceous wetlands, 20,044 acres 

of scrub-shrub and forested wetlands, and 3,611 acres of unvegetated wetlands. 

Because of the affected area’s semiarid environment, wetlands are extremely 

important to many species of wildlife as they provide some of the best vegetative 

growth for food and cover, invertebrate production and water. Recognition of the 

value of wetlands has historically focused on waterfowl populations. The Service 

(2007b) estimated that up to 300,000 ducks wintered on the Yakama Indian 

Reservation in the 1960s. Tens of thousands of waterfowl can still be found in the 

lower basin in winter and during migration. Several species of waterfowl also use 

these wetlands for nesting and brood rearing. Sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis) 

and swans (Cygnus species) historically nested in the basin, and could return if 

wetland restoration and enhancement efforts were to continue (Service, 2007b). 

Wetlands in the affected area provide functions beyond fish and wildlife habitat. 

They provide both consumptive and nonconsumptive recreational uses, 

groundwater recharge, flood control (i.e., floodwater storage) and improvement of 

water quality as important functions. Wetlands in Washington have declined 

30 percent, with the loss of freshwater wetlands estimated at 25 percent (Service, 

2007b). Losses have been attributed to agriculture conversion; filling for solid 

waste disposal; road construction and commercial, residential, and urban 

development; construction of dikes, levees, and dams for flood control, water 

supply, and irrigation; discharges of materials; hydrologic alteration by canals, 

drains, spoil banks, roads and other structures; and groundwater withdrawal. 

Aside from direct loss of wetland, many wetlands have been reduced in quality 

from the above factors. 

4-81 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Black Rock Reservoir Site 

Analysis of wetlands at the Black Rock site was confined to that area found 

within the footprint of the proposed dam, impounded reservoir (at maximum pool 

elevation) site and the indirect impact area around the perimeter of the dam and 

reservoir (0.31 mile [1/2 kilometer] wide). The Black Rock Valley is located in a 

semiarid environment; the primary drainage in the affected area is considered an 

intermittent/ephemeral watercourse tributary to the lower Yakima River subbasin. 

Although the plant community has been altered for agricultural purposes, it is 

unlikely that there were any wetlands historically found in the affected area. In 

fact, the only wetlands identified through analysis are relatively small in area 

(0.9 acre) and created by an impounded pond. They are not considered a natural 

occurrence (Reclamation, 2007b). 

Wymer Reservoir Site 

Wetlands in the Wymer reservoir site are found exclusively in the riparian zone in 

both Lmuma Creek and an unnamed tributary in the proposed impoundment area. 

Seeps were observed in the riparian corridor of Lmuma Creek. The riparian/ 

wetland plant community has been significantly degraded due to extensive past 

and ongoing livestock grazing; as such, these provide minimal value functioning 

habitat for wildlife. Remnant vegetation in the riparian/wetlands area included 

some cottonwood, willow, and black hawthorn. Some emergent vegetation was 

also observed. Even though the flow of Lmuma Creek is not regulated, there was 

no evidence of cottonwood recruitment, apparently a result of livestock grazing 

(Service, 2007b). 

Wymer Reservoir Site Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange 

Wetland and riverine habitats at the reservoir site are described above. Wetlands 

that may be present along the alignment for the pump exchange/pipeline were not 

included in this analysis due to lack of spatial data. They may be present at the 

site of the Yakima River siphon and at crossings of any irrigation delivery or 

drainage features along the pipeline through the irrigated portions of the valley. 

4.7.2 Environmental Consequences 

4.7.2.1 Methods and Assumptions 

Shrub-Steppe Habitat 

Many wildlife species dependent on shrub-steppe habitat would potentially be 

affected by the Black Rock, Wymer Dam and Reservoir, and Wymer Dam Plus 

Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternatives. This assessment is limited to the 

footprint and directly adjacent areas of the proposed reservoirs and ancillary 

facilities. 

4-82 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Shrub-steppe vegetation and wildlife impacts, species identification, and habitat 

requirements were based upon and evaluated using available literature and 

personal communication. 

An assessment of the quality of the shrub-steppe habitat at the Black Rock and 

Wymer dam and reservoir sites was also performed using the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP). HEP uses habitat units 

(HU) as the currency for addressing ecological losses or gains associated with any 

project development and implementation. HUs for a given species are the product 

of habitat quantity (acres) and habitat quality estimates. Habitat quality estimates 

are provided by a Habitat Suitability Index (HSI). HSI values range from 0.0 to 

1.0 and are a projection of a given habitat parcel’s ability to provide the life 

requisites of a given species. An HSI = 1.0 indicates essentially optimum habitat 

condition for the species in question. HSI values for a given species are 

determined on the basis of quantifiable habitat features (e.g., vegetation height, 

tree canopy cover, distance to water), which are known to be required for the 

success of that species. For this study, the Brewer’s sparrow was used to estimate 

the quality of the habitat for shrub-steppe species. 

Habitat and associated wildlife were first evaluated by identifying the areas that 

would be directly and indirectly affected by each storage alternative. Wildlife 

impacts are based on documented utilization by wildlife and estimated changes in 

their habitats. 

Shrub-steppe habitat and wildlife assessments were based on the following 

premise: 

•	 Impacts related to any loss of shrub-steppe habitat and subsequent habitat 

fragmentation would adversely affect shrub-steppe wildlife species and 

vegetation. 

Habitat fragmentation can be defined as “the discontinuity, resulting from a given 

set of mechanisms, in the spatial distribution of resources and conditions present 

in an area at a given scale that affects occupancy, reproduction, or survival in a 

particular species” (Franklin et al., 2002). In this analysis the fragmentation of 

habitat for elk and deer is measured by reduced habitat area and presence of 

barriers for migration/dispersal. This, in turn, may lead to habitat isolation 

(Davidson, 1998). 

Movement Corridors 

Movement corridors are important aspects of resident and migratory wildlife and 

vegetation (Beier and Loe, 1992). This analysis specifically evaluated the Rocky 

Mountain elk as species that could be affected by the construction of the proposed 

dams and reservoirs. 

4-83 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Movement corridor delineation for Rocky Mountain elk is based upon the 

information provided in The Rattlesnake Hills (Hanford) Elk Strategic Management Plan (Tsukamoto, 2000); telemetry data and observations from the Hanford 

ALE Reserve regarding movement off the reserve; personal communication with 

elk biologist Jim Stephenson of the Yakama Nation; occurrence of shrub-steppe 

vegetation from aerial photographs; and topography of ridgelines and valleys 

where elk have been observed to frequent and move through. 

Black Cottonwoods 

Riverflows in the semiarid Western United States tend to follow strong seasonal 

patterns, and their hydrographs can be dissected into yearly repeating elements 

known as hydrograph components (Trush, McBain, and Leopold, 2000). For 

example, the Yakima River reliably experiences a small-to-moderate spring flood 

caused by melting snow in April through June, which gradually recedes to a stable 

summer base flow from July through September. Large floods may happen in the 

spring because of high snowmelt volume but more often occur following fall or 

winter storms (Reclamation, 2002). In turn, cottonwoods have evolved life 

history adaptations that are tightly linked to these recurring patterns, collectively 

termed the natural flow regime (Karrenberg et al., 2002; Lytle and Poff, 2004). 

Those hydrograph components important to cottonwood reproduction are the 

spring snowmelt flood, snowmelt recession, summer base flow, and fall/winter 

floods. They can be analyzed to assess the effects of the proposed alternatives on 

cottonwood recruitment, a procedure termed hydrograph components analysis 

(RMC Water and Environment and McBain & Trush, 2007). See table 4.21 for 

the biological relevance of each selected hydrograph component. In addition to 

focusing on individual components of hydrographs, a key aspect of the 

hydrograph components analysis is that different classes of water years have 

different functions. Thus, the same hydrograph component in a wet versus a dry 

year might provide a different function for cottonwood seed reproduction. 

Hydrograph components used were fall/winter flood peaks, spring snowmelt flood 

peaks and timing, and summer base flow average stage. Snowmelt flood 

recession, while important to cottonwood seed reproduction, was not used 

because of limitations in the modeled flow data. 

After hydrograph components were defined and extracted from Yak-RW output, 

the data were summarized for each alternative at each floodplain. For example, 

the median value for the fall/winter flood peak during the period of study (water 

years 1981 to 2005) was calculated for each alternative. The absolute value of the 

difference between these median values and the median value for the modeled 

unregulated flow was then calculated, giving the percent difference from 

estimated unimpaired riverflow conditions. This process was repeated for each 

hydrograph component for each floodplain under each alternative. Because of 

model errors and errors in the underlying streamflow measurements, this method 

can only provide a rough estimate of the differences between alternatives in 

relation to cottonwood seeding reproduction success. See table 4.21. 

4-84 
 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Table 4.21 Significance of hydrograph components for cottonwood reproduction for water 

year types 

Hydrograph 

component Timing 

Water year 

type 

Biological function for cottonwood 

recruitment 

Fall/winter flood NovemberMarch Wet 

Average 

Dry 

Creates large bare nursery sites for 

seedlings by major scouring or deposition; 

causes channel avulsion. Woody debris 

recruited from floodplains provides 

sheltered nursery sites on bars. 

Minor scour and deposition create small 

nursery sites. 

No scour of seedlings allows for survival of 

seedlings from previous years. 

Spring snowmelt peak 

flow 

April-June Wet 

Average 

Dry 

Scour and deposition; broad wetted band 

on bare sites allows for potentially large 

numbers of cottonwood seedlings to 

germinate. 

Some bare sites wetted, moderate to small 

numbers of seedlings germinate. 

No scour of seedlings allows for survival of 

seedlings from previous years. No 

recruitment of seedlings of the year. 

Spring snowmelt June- Wet Gradual recession far into summer allows 

recession August 

Average 

Dry 

growing seedling roots to maintain contact 

with receding capillary fringe; large 

numbers survive the first summer. 

Gradual recession ends mid-summer, 

some seedlings of the year survive. 

Recession ends early in the summer, no 

same year seedling survival. Seedlings 

from previous years survive. 

Spring snowmelt timing June Wet 

Average 

Dry 

Needs to be synchronized with seed 

release in order for seeds to land on moist 

nursery sites. 

Needs to be synchronized with seed 

release in order for seeds to land on moist 

nursery sites. 

Not important since no seedling of the year 

survival is expected. 

Summer base flow AugustOctober Wet 

Average 

Dry 

High base flow promotes high survival of 

seedlings of year, growing season may be 

prolonged. 

Moderate base flow allows some survival 

of seedlings of year, prevents stress to 

existing seedlings and juveniles. 

Low base flow prevents survival of 

seedlings of the year, causes drought 

stress and mortality for established 

seedlings and juveniles. 

Adapted from RMC Water and Environment and McBain & Trush, 2007. 

4-85 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Wetlands 

Wetlands were evaluated using the wetland delineations that were available for 

the construction and impoundment sites. Where wetlands existed within the 

construction or impoundment footprint, they were presumed to be lost with 

implementation of the alternative. 

Flows were also evaluated to determine if wetlands associated with the river 

corridor would be affected by the flow changes. If spring or summer flows were 

to decline, it was assumed that wetlands associated with the river would be 

adversely impacted. If those flows were to increase, benefits were assumed. 

Impacts to black cottonwoods were also examined to determine if the effects were 

negative or positive. Impacts to wetlands were assumed to have the same trend. 

4.7.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts under the No Action Alternative would be considered under 

separate NEPA evaluation as discussed in chapter 2. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Shrub-Steppe Habitat.—Under the No Action Alternative, existing management 

and recovery efforts for shrub-steppe habitat and existing wildlife would continue. 

Some shrub-steppe habitat would continue to suffer degradation from grazing, 

conversion to agriculture, or development. The susceptibility for fire and 

subsequent invasion of exotic species (i.e., cheatgrass) would also be a major 

concern. 

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed in 2006 among Federal, 

Tribal, State, and private agencies within Yakima, Benton, Grant, and Kittitas 

Counties to establish a partnership dedicated to conserve shrub-steppe and 

rangelands surrounding and connecting the YTC, Hanford Reach National 

Monument, the Yakama Reservation, and the Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife’s Wildlife Areas (MOU, 2006). To date, the partnership, named the 

South-Central Washington Shrub Steppe/Rangeland Conservation Partnership, is 

acquiring a conservation easement for a property located within the Rattlesnake 

Hills, south of Moxee (Burkepile, 2007). This partnership would have the ability 

to work with landowners to protect shrub-steppe habitat and potentially restore 

these areas. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates there are 6,591 acres of 

shrub-steppe and 5,059 acres of grassland (including Conservation Reserve 

Program lands) within the Black Rock footprint and .31 mile (0.5 kilometer) 

buffer that have the potential to be protected from future degradation and 

development. The Wymer footprint and buffer consists of 3,634 acres of shrubsteppe and 996 acres of grassland that have the potential for restoration and 

protection. 

4-86 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Movement Corridors.—Existing movement corridors and habitat would continue 

to be used by shrub-steppe wildlife. This alternative would coincide with the 

South Central Washington Shrub Steppe/Rangeland Conservation Partnership 

objectives and recovery efforts for the greater sage-grouse, to decrease 

fragmentation of populations and habitat. It would also allow for potential reintroductions and larger species dispersal into surrounding shrub-steppe habitat. 

Other wildlife, such as the Rattlesnake Hills elk herd, would also be able to utilize 

existing corridors along the Black Rock Valley and Yakima Ridge to reach the 

YTC from the Hanford ALE Reserve. 

Black Cottonwoods.—Under the No Action Alternative, negligible changes in 

cottonwood reproduction would occur in comparison to the current condition. 

Flows in the upper reaches and the Union Gap reach would remain lower in the 

spring and higher in the summer than estimated unregulated conditions. In the 

Lower Naches River, the flip-flop surge would remain, and in the Wapato 

floodplain, spring floods are truncated and summer base flow, while marginally 

higher, would not be expected to increase seedling survival. 

Wetlands.—In the event that this alternative is selected, water conservation 

measures would continue to be researched and implemented as part of the Yakima 

River Basin Water Enhancement Project authorized by Congress with Public 

Law 96-162 on December 28, 1979 (Reclamation, 1996). Water conservation 

measures may have an adverse impact on existing wetlands in the area because, as 

water delivery systems are made to be more efficient, wetlands that have been 

created by seepage from existing delivery systems would likely be reduced, or dry 

up all together. 

4.7.2.3 Black Rock Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Wildlife would be most affected by noise and increased traffic caused by 

construction and maintenance concentrated primarily at the damsite. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Shrub-Steppe Habitat.—The Black Rock Alternative would affect, both directly 

and indirectly, shrub-steppe habitat within the Black Rock Valley and adjacent 

lands. These impacts would result from the construction and use of the dam, 

reservoir, access roads, State Route 24 realignment, and recreational 

development. The proposed reservoir includes the following approximate habitat 

acreage: 3,539 acres of shrub-steppe, 113 acres of grassland, 3,771 acres of 

Conservation Reserve Program lands, 1,126 acres of agricultural croplands, 

113 acres of developed land (i.e., residential), and some acreage of other habitat 

types (Service, 2007a). 

After conducting a HEP analysis using the Brewer’s sparrow as a model, it was 

determined that 1,692 habitat units for the sparrow would be completely lost in 

4-87 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

the footprint of the reservoir and dam. The total area to be lost to reservoir 

inundation and the dam is about 8,700 acres. The relatively low number of 

habitat units for Brewer’s sparrow at the site, relative to the number of acres, 

suggests it provides marginal habitat for the sparrow and other shrub-steppe 

species that it was intended to represent. If the entire site is used to estimate the 

number of habitat units, then the average value of the habitat, on a scale from 

0.0 to 1.0, is about 0.2. If the agricultural and developed lands are omitted, then 

the value is slightly higher at about 0.23. This indicates that the lands within the 

reservoir and dam footprint are of relatively low value for shrub-steppe species. 

This may be largely due to the fact that less than half of the site is actually in 

shrub-steppe. 

Indirect impacts could also occur at the site as a result of some increase in activity 

associated with operations and maintenance and recreation. Indirect adverse 

effects could include degradation of habitat adjacent to the site through 

introduction of nonnative invasive plants, increased development in the areas 

adjacent to the proposed reservoir, and increased fire danger. Given the modest 

level of recreational enhancement proposed and the disturbed nature of much of 

the site today, these indirect impacts are not expected to be significant. 

This alternative would not significantly affect migration of the Rattlesnake Hills 

elk herd because they still have the potential to move from Hanford’s 

ALE Reserve into the YTC along the Yakima Ridge, northeast of the reservoir. 

Elk have been observed within the Rattlesnake Hills and may be most affected by 

the southern realignment of the highway and utilities, as well as the associated 

recreational development. 

Black Cottonwoods.—This alternative would improve cottonwood reproduction 

by seed in several, but not all, reaches as compared to the No Action Alternative. 

In the upper reaches, few changes would occur because summer flow remains 

high; thus, recruitment would continue at current low levels. In the Union Gap 

reach, spring flows would be higher, which would spur increased germination; 

late summer flows, however, are not much reduced, so the risk of scour remains. 

Thus, reproduction would increase moderately. The Wapato reach hydrograph 

shows both higher spring flows and much higher summer base flows, however, 

moving it closer to estimated natural conditions. These changes would be 

expected to lead to more frequent and larger (more seedlings) recruitment events. 

For the Naches River reach, a small reduction in the September flow surge caused 

by the flip-flop operation may spare some newly established seedlings from 

scouring, but would most likely not change reproduction dynamics. Even though 

cottonwood reproduction would be noticeably improved on only the Wapato and 

Union Gap floodplains, this would be a large overall improvement in cottonwood 

forest trends because these two river segments currently support the largest stands 

of cottonwood forest in the Yakima River basin. 

4-88 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Wetlands.—During an average water year, water releases associated with the 

Black Rock Alternative would increase flow and availability of water in the 

Yakima River (Wapato reach) during the mid-summer growing season. In some 

cases, this would double or triple the flows available under the No Action 

Alternative, but not reaching the peak flows that occur under the natural flow 

regime. These flows would probably result in the redistribution and a slight or 

moderate increase in area of palustrine emergent (PEM) and palustrine scrubshrub (PSS) wetlands in the Wapato reach. Higher up in the basin, in the Cle 

Elum reach, releases from Cle Elum Lake would be less under this alternative, 

reducing scour of wetlands during the mid-summer growing season. PSS and 

PEM class wetlands would probably benefit under this alternative (Reclamation, 

2007b). 

The 0.9 acre of palustrine wetlands would be inundated by the proposed reservoir 

and permanently lost as habitat (Service, 2007b). Seepage from Black Rock 

reservoir and dam would provide subsurface and possibly surface flows that 

would likely create a wetland plant community in the presently intermittent Dry 

Creek downstream from the dam. This would create several miles of riparian and 

wetland habitat along the creek. If not managed specifically for wildlife habitat 

(i.e., to provide a plant community with native plant species), this area would 

likely attract invasive plant species such as Russian olive and other nonnative 

wetland vegetation with minimal habitat value. Fluctuations in the water level in 

Black Rock reservoir would not be conducive to growth of water-dependent 

shoreline plant community. The reservoir would generally be full or nearly so 

through the early part or the growing season, but the water surface elevation 

would decline rapidly in July and August. The west end of the reservoir pool has 

a very shallow slope, and a portion of this slope would likely become vegetated 

with some kind of wetland or riparian vegetation. In the upper end of Potholes 

Reservoir, near Moses Lake, which also has an extensive summer drawdown, an 

extensive area of shrub-scrub and forested wetlands exists. It is difficult to 

predict how much of the upper end of Black Rock reservoir would be vegetated. 

4.7.2.4 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Similar to the Black Rock Alternative, wildlife would be most affected by noise 

and increased traffic caused by construction and maintenance of the reservoir and 

dam. However, the dam would be located near SR-821, which already creates 

some disturbance related to traffic in the area. Bighorn sheep may also avoid the 

area during the winter if construction occurs at that time. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Shrub-Steppe Habitat.—The Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative would have 

direct and indirect impacts on shrub-steppe vegetation and wildlife within the 

Lmuma Creek drainage. Many of the impacts would be similar to those described 

4-89 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

for the Black Rock Alternative and include: inundation of shrub-steppe habitat; 

impacts to movement corridors; possible exotic plant species invasion; possible 

increase in fire susceptibility; and indirect impacts associated with the 

construction of facilities. 

Habitat acreage within the footprint includes the following: 1,055 acres shrubsteppe habitat; 167 acres grassland; 62 acres barren land; 50 acres riparian area; 

30 acres of cliff/canyon; 11 acres of agricultural cropland; 7 acres developed land; 

6 acres forest habitat; 4 acres wetlands (Service, 2007b). Wildlife species known 

or that have the potential to use this area are included in table 4.20. 

The HEP conducted at this site using Brewer’s sparrow as the indicator species 

found that 378 habitat units that exist within the footprint of the reservoir and dam 

would be lost. The total area to be lost to reservoir inundation and the dam is 

about 1,400 acres. Of this total, about 1,200 provide habitat suitable for Brewer’s 

sparrow. The relatively low number of habitat units for Brewer’s sparrow at the 

site, relative to the number of acres, suggests it provides marginal habitat for the 

sparrow and other shrub-steppe species that it was intended to represent. If the 

entire site is used to estimate the number of habitat units, then the average value 

of the habitat, on a scale from 0.0 to 1.0, is about 0.27. If the lands not suitable 

for Brewer’s sparrow are omitted, then the value is slightly higher—about 0.32. 

This indicates that the lands within the reservoir and dam footprint are of 

relatively low value for shrub-steppe species. 

Indirect impacts could also occur at the site as a result of some increase in activity 

associated with operations and maintenance and recreation. Indirect adverse 

effects could include degradation of habitat adjacent to the site through 

introduction of nonnative invasive plants, increased development in the areas 

adjacent to the proposed reservoir, and increased fire danger. Currently, there is a 

fairly high level of recreational use occurring in the Yakima River Canyon just 

downstream from the damsite. Given the modest level of recreational 

enhancement proposed, the disturbed nature of much of the reservoir area today, 

and the existing level of recreational use in the area, these indirect impacts are not 

expected to be significant. 

Elk movements within the Wymer reservoir vicinity would not be affected. Elk 

that are west of the Yakima River do not usually cross over, and the Rattlesnake 

Hills elk herd tends to stay in the YTC’s southeastern portion or move north on 

the eastern side. There is migration southward from the Colockum and 

Quilomene elk herds, but there is little evidence that these herds move into the 

Wymer area. 

Black Cottonwoods.—The Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative would result 

in only negligible changes in the floodplain flow patterns and would not have an 

effect on cottonwood reproduction as compared to the No Action Alternative. 

4-90 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Wetlands.—Under the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative, flows in the 

Wapato reach would continue as under existing conditions. PEM and PSS class 

wetlands would not be affected; however, the degradation of palustrine forested 

(PFO) wetlands would continue due to the continuing lack of cottonwood 

recruitment. Eighty-three acres of palustrine (unclassified) wetlands would be 

inundated by the reservoir and permanently lost as habitat (Service, 2007b). 

Seepage from Wymer reservoir and dam would provide subsurface and possible 

surface flows that would likely expand the riparian and wetland plant community 

in Lmuma Creek downstream from the dam. Fluctuation in the water level in 

Wymer reservoir would not be conducive to the growth of water dependent 

shoreline plant community. Thus, no viable lakeshore fringe habitat value can be 

expected around the perimeter of the reservoir. 

4.7.2.5 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts for Wymer reservoir would be the same as for the Wymer 

Dam and Reservoir Alternative. In addition, there would be effects associated 

with the construction of the pump exchange system and location of the pipeline 

and pumping plants. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Shrub-Steppe Habitat.—The direct and indirect impacts regarding this alternative 

generally would be similar to those described for the Wymer Dam and Reservoir 

Alternative. Some additional losses of shrub-steppe habitat may occur if the 

buried steel pipeline and two of the pumping stations are located in such habitat. 

Based on the location described for the pipeline at this time, the losses would be 

very minor. 

Movement Corridors.—Elk movement corridors would not be affected beyond 

the impacts discussed for the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative. 

Black Cottonwoods.—The pump exchange component of this alternative would 

have very similar effects on floodplain hydrographs and, thus, similar effects on 

cottonwood reproduction as under the Black Rock Alternative. Recruitment 

would be expected to increase moderately in the Union Gap reach and 

substantially on the Wapato floodplain, while no large changes would occur in 

other floodplains. This would be an overall improvement for cottonwood forests 

on the Yakima River because of the large spatial extent of cottonwood stands on 

the Union Gap and Wapato floodplains. 

Wetlands.—Under the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange 

Alternative, summer flows downstream from Parker would be significantly higher 

than under the No Action Alternative. This flow scenario would probably result 

in the redistribution and a slight increase in area of PEM and PSS wetlands in the 

Wapato reach. Similar to the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative, 83 acres of 

4-91 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

palustrine (unclassified) wetlands would be inundated by the reservoir and lost 

(Service, 2007b). Seepage from Wymer reservoir and dam would provide 

subsurface and possibly surface flows that would likely expand the riparian and 

wetland plant community in Lmuma Creek downstream from the dam. At 

present, overgrazing by livestock is the most detrimental effect to the riparian 

plant community. Fluctuation in the water level in Wymer reservoir would not be 

conducive to the growth of water dependent shoreline plant community. Thus, no 

viable fringe habitat value can be expected around the perimeter of the reservoir. 

4.7.2.6 Mitigation 

Potential mitigation measures for either the Black Rock or Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir Alternative include the following: 

•	 Create wetland and riparian habitats. This would entail constructing dikes 

in shallow water areas within the reservoir and maintaining adequate water 

levels for the production of wetland/riparian vegetation. 

•	 Establish a wildlife management area adjacent to the reservoir in areas that 

would be able to provide suitable wildlife habitat. 

•	 Install artificial perches on selected areas adjacent to the new reservoir to 

provide perches for raptors. 

•	 Create, restore, and/or protect the amount of shrub-steppe habitat that 

would lead to production of a similar number of habitat units elsewhere 

within the Yakima River basin. 

•	 Conduct plant surveys for threatened and endangered species, and protect 

any species discovered. 

In addition to these mitigation measures, potential mitigation measures for the 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative could include the 

following: 

•	 Bury pipelines underground and restore native vegetation along the 

pipeline corridor. Develop a vegetation maintenance and monitoring plan. 

•	 Locate any aboveground structures in areas that would cause minimal 

disturbance to wildlife and associated habitats. 

4.7.2.7 Cumulative Impacts 

Shrub-Steppe Habitat and Wildlife Movement Corridors 

Shrub-steppe habitat in eastern Washington has been significantly altered by 

agricultural, residential, and urban development over the past century. There are 

three large areas of shrub-steppe remaining in the Yakima River basin, two are on 

4-92 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

public lands, the YTC and the Hanford Reach National Monument, and the third 

is on the Yakama Reservation. These large blocks are protected from future 

residential and urban development. Management efforts are occurring or in the 

process of being implemented at these three remaining sites to preserve, restore, 

and increase shrub-steppe habitat and connectivity. Both the South Central 

Washington Shrub Steppe/Rangeland Conservation Partnership and Washington’s 

Greater Sage-Grouse Recovery Plan seek to implement these objectives for the 

remaining tracts of shrub-steppe (Stinson et al., 2004). Currently, the partnership 

is acquiring a conservation easement for a private property located within the 

Rattlesnake Hills, south of Moxee (Burkepile, 2007). 

Outside of these areas, the residual habitat and the wildlife that subsists within it 

continue to be threatened by urban and residential development and habitat 

fragmentation where shrub-steppe occurs on private land. While development to 

date has been primarily in the valley bottom where irrigated agriculture is 

dominant, shrub-steppe habitat is being lost to development in some places such 

as the north slope of the Moxee Valley, the north end of the Yakima River canyon 

south of Ellensburg, and near Richland and Kennewick. Losses of shrub-steppe 

habitat at either the Black Rock or Wymer sites would exacerbate these ongoing 

losses. 

Black Cottonwoods 

Riparian vegetation in alluvial basins in the Storage Study area has been 

significantly changed by human actions since at least the mid 19th century. Both 

upland and lowland watersheds have been dramatically altered by logging, 

infrastructure development, land clearance for agriculture, urban development, 

changing fire regimes, and beaver trapping (Eitemiller et al., 2000; McIntosh et 

al., 2000; Ring and Watson, 1999; Wissmar et al., 1994). Furthermore, direct 

changes to floodplains and channels have been dramatic since the early 1900s. 

Irrigation diversions, storage dams, and channel confinement have altered interannual and seasonal flow patterns, reduced total annual discharge, severed the 

connections between channel and floodplain, and changed geomorphic processes 

(Snyder et al., 2002). These direct changes have had negative consequences for 

cottonwood seed reproduction (Braatne et al., 2007). Overall, cottonwood forests 

have a diminished extent, older age structure, reduced diversity, less frequent 

stand recruitment, and altered species composition as compared to pre-European 

conditions. 

Future actions that have the potential to affect black cottonwood recruitment 

include the Wapato Irrigation Project (WIP) conservation measures, planned 

growth in the Yakima River basin, and some Washington Department of 

Transportation (WDOT) projects. 

The WIP conservation measures will add to instream flow levels in the Wapato 

reach of the Yakima River during summer months (irrigation season). Increased 

4-93 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

summer base flows would benefit cottonwood reproduction as already explained. 

The volume to be added by the WIP conservation measures is likely to be small, 

perhaps on the order of 50 to 100 cfs during an average irrigation season (Crane, 

2007). Such a small change would not significantly affect reproduction dynamics 

from the effects already described for each alternative. Growth in population 

and water demand has been forecast and incorporated in the modeled flow data; 

therefore, it has already been accounted for in the analysis. WDOT projects may 

have localized affects on flow but are not expected to affect flow or cottonwood 

reproduction dynamics over a river reach or valley segment scale. In summary, 

none of the reasonably foreseeable future actions would likely have any 

significant effect on cottonwood forest dynamics. 

Wetlands 

Cumulative impacts from other projects would most likely be beneficial or 

insignificant. The water conservation projects that increase flows in the rivers 

would benefit vegetative growth in the wetlands. Any projects that would have an 

impact to wetlands would be mitigated in order to minimize impacts by State and 

Federal agencies. 

4.8 Anadromous Fish 

4.8.1 Affected Environment 

4.8.1.1 Columbia River 

Extent of Affected Area 

The areas of interest include the lower Priest Rapids Lake and the downstream 

segment of the Columbia River, including the Hanford reach, and extending to 

include the confluence of the Yakima River with the Columbia River (figure 2.2 

in chapter 2). 

Priest Rapids Dam is located at RM 397 on the Columbia River. The lake behind 

the dam is approximately 18 river miles long. The 7 river miles immediately 

upstream of the dam is like a lake, with slower currents and deeper water depths, 

while the uppermost 11 river miles of the pool is more like a river, with a faster 

current and shallower water depths. 

The Hanford reach of the Columbia River extends approximately 62 river miles 

from the mouth of the Yakima River (RM 335) to Priest Rapids Dam (RM 397). 

The Hanford reach is the last remaining free-flowing portion of the Columbia 

River within the United States; however, flows are subject to daily fluctuations 

resulting from hydroelectric power generation at Priest Rapids Dam. 

A more indepth description of the Hanford reach and Priest Rapids Lake can be 

found in Grant County PUD’s Final Environmental Impact Statement, Priest 

Rapids Hydroelectric Project, Washington (FERC, 2006). 

4-94 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Status and Distribution 

Spring and summer Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho (O. kisutch), 

steelhead (O. mykiss) and sockeye salmon (O. nerka) migrate through the Hanford 

reach and downstream from Priest Rapids Dam, destined to upriver subbasins 

(i.e., Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow, and Okanogan); fall Chinook spawn, rear, and 

begin their seaward migration within Hanford reach and, to some extent, in Priest 

Rapids Lake (FERC, 2006). 

Anadromous Salmonids Status 

Table 4.22 shows the 10-year average (1997-2006) of anadromous salmonid adult 

counts downstream from Priest Rapids Dam. 

Table 4.22 10-year anadromous salmonid adult counts downstream 

from Priest Rapids Dam (1997-2006) 

Species 

10-year average fish 

count (1997-2006) 

10-year range in fish 

counts (1997-2006) 

Spring Chinook 17,852 4,186 - 52,120 

Summer Chinook 50,400 13,922 - 96,167 

Fall Chinook 33,702 11,266 - 54,453 

Coho 2,896 19 - 11,186 

Sockeye 55,683 10,769-124,943 

Steelhead 12,838 5,837-29,963 

Peak migration for adult anadromous salmonids through the Hanford reach and 

Priest Rapids Dam is April through November, while juveniles migrate 

downstream April through August though peak migration occurs April through 

June (table 4.23) (FERC, 2006). 

Table 4.23 Summary of the upstream (adults) and downstream 

(juveniles) migration timing for anadromous salmonids in the 

Hanford reach and at Priest Rapids Dam. 

Species/run 

Upstream migration 

timing 

Downstream 

migration timing 

Spring Chinook Upstream migration 

timing 

April through June 

Summer Chinook Mid-May to midAugust June through August 

Fall Chinook Mid-June to midAugust June through August 

Coho Mid-August through 

November 

April through June 

Steelhead September through 

November 

April through June 

Sockeye July through 

November 

April through June 

4-95 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

4.8.1.2 Yakima River 

Extent of Affected Area 

The areas of interest include the existing and proposed reservoirs within the basin 

and the mainstem of the Yakima, Naches, and Tieton Rivers from headwater 

reservoirs to the confluence of the Yakima River with the Columbia River 

(figure 2.1 in chapter 2). 

Distribution of Steelhead and Salmon 

Spring and fall Chinook, coho, and steelhead currently reside in the Yakima River 

basin, while summer Chinook and sockeye have been extirpated. Coho were 

extirpated in the 1970s but were reintroduced in the mid-1980s. Spring Chinook 

spawn and rear as juveniles in the Bumping, American, upper Yakima, and 

Naches Rivers. Fall Chinook generally spawn and rear as juveniles in the Yakima 

River downstream from the Naches River to the mouth of the Yakima River. 

Steelhead spawn and rear as juveniles in many of the tributaries to the Yakima 

and Naches Rivers, including the mainstem of the Naches and upper Yakima 

(upstream of Roza Diversion Dam) Rivers. Coho (reintroduced) spawn and rear 

primarily in the Wapato and Ellensburg reaches of the Yakima River and in the 

lower Naches River downstream from the Tieton River. Some coho spawning 

and rearing is known to occur in Ahtanum, Cowiche, Taneum, Wilson, Reecer, 

and Big Creeks in the Yakima River; and Nile as well as Pileup Creeks and the 

North Fork of the Little Naches River in the Naches subbasin. 

Anadromous Fish Status 

The discussion of anadromous salmonid life histories is limited to spring Chinook 

and steelhead in this section. See an indepth discussion of spring and fall 

Chinook, coho and steelhead, their life history, and demographics in the Habitat 

Limiting Factors, Yakima River Watershed Final Report Haring (2001). 

Table 4.24 provides annual Yakima salmon and steelhead adult counts at Prosser 

Diversion Dam. 

Table 4.24 Annual Yakima salmon and steelhead adult counts at Prosser Diversion Dam 

(RM 47) 

Year 

Spring 

Chinook Fall Chinook Coho Year Steelhead 

1997 

1998 

1999 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

3,173 

1,903 

2,781 

19,101 

23,265 

15,099 

6,957 

15,289 

8,758 

6,314 

1,120 

1,148 

1,896 

2,293 

4,311 

6,241 

4,875 

2,947 

1,942 

1,528 

1,312 

4,679 

3,943 

6,216 

5,046 

818 

2,354 

2,389 

3,115 

4,510 

1997-98 

1998-99 

1999-00 

2000-01 

2001-02 

2002-03 

2003-04 

2004-05 

2005-06 

2006-07 

1,113 

1,070 

1,611 

3,089 

4,525 

2,235 

2,755 

3,451 

2,005 

1,537 

10-year 

average 

10,264 2,830 3,438 10-year 

average 

2,339 

4-96 
 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Salmon and steelhead were once abundant in the Yakima River basin, but native 

populations of sockeye, coho, and summer Chinook have been extirpated. 

Sockeye were historically present in many natural lakes within the basin, 

including Keechelus, Kachess, Cle Elum, and the smaller lakes upstream of 

Cle Elum and Bumping Lakes (Reclamation, 1999). Sockeye disappeared from 

the Yakima River basin with the construction of dams for storage reservoirs. 

Anadromous fish currently using the basin include steelhead, spring and fall 

Chinook, and coho (reintroduced). Anadromous fish spawn and the resulting 

young fish rear in the basin, juvenile fish migrate to the ocean to become 

adults, and adults return to spawn. While there are differences in the resource 

requirements for various species and life stages, there are also similarities, and the 

summer steelhead is used below to represent the general habitat requirements of 

anadromous fish in the Yakima River basin. Spring Chinook, because of the 

interest in the flip-flop operation, is also addressed. 

Steelhead.—Steelhead are found in greatest abundance in Satus, Toppenish, 

Naches, and upper Yakima, and Ahtanum watersheds. Steelhead enter the 

Yakima River in greatest numbers September through November and then again 

in February through April (Haring, 2001). The majority of adults spend the 

winter months holding in deep, slow pools in the Yakima River in the vicinity of 

Satus Creek, though some move into the Naches and upper Yakima Rivers. 

Adults spawn March through June, with early spawning occurring in Satus and 

Toppenish watersheds and late spawning occurring in the Naches and upper 

Yakima watersheds. The majority of spawning occurs in tributaries rather than 

the mainstem of the Naches and upper Yakima Rivers. Similar to other salmon 

species, steelhead require small gravels free of fine sediment for successful egg 

incubation and hatching. Fry emerge from the gravel from May into July, with 

Satus and Toppenish fry emerging beginning in May, and Naches and upper 

Yakima fry emerging in June and July. Like all salmon species, emergent 

steelhead fry require shallow and very slow-velocity water, preferably with 

associated cover to avoid predators. As young steelhead grow in size, they seek 

deep and faster velocity water with associated cover that provides both protection 

from predators and resting areas. Yakima River basin steelhead spend from 

1 to 3 years living in freshwater before they begin their seaward migration. April 

is the peak outmigration month at the Chandler Juvenile Monitoring Facility 

located at Prosser Diversion Dam (RM 47). As with other salmon species, 

steelhead rely on spring freshets to successfully move them downriver through the 

Yakima River into the Columbia River. 

Spring Chinook.—The upper Yakima, Naches River subbasin, and American 

River spawning groups comprise the Yakima River basin spring Chinook 

population. About 60-70 percent of the population returns to the upper Yakima 

(Keechelus Dam to Ellensburg) and Cle Elum Rivers annually. Adult spring 

Chinook return to the Yakima River beginning in late April through June and 

swim upstream to their spawning areas. However, spawning does not occur 

4-97 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

until August (American River) and September (Naches and upper Yakima). 

Pre-spawning adults require deep holding pools with adequate overhead cover 

and water that is cool and well oxygenated. Females typically build their 

spawning nests near the streambank, close to cover, in water 12 to 30 inches 

deep with moderate velocities. Successful egg incubation and fry emergence 

requires spawning gravels that are relatively free from fine sediments which can 

impede water percolation through the spawning nest and entomb emergent fry. 

Emergent spring Chinook fry seek out quiet, shallow waters with instream cover 

near the shoreline, which afford a hospitable rearing environment. As the 

juveniles increase in size, they move into deeper, faster water—preferably 

with instream cover such as a log jam or overhanging vegetation along the 

bank margin. The combination of faster water with resting areas created by 

the instream cover allows juveniles to dart into the current to capture drifting 

insects and then return to the area of low velocity. A portion of the juveniles 

will slowly move downstream from the time of emergence throughout the 

summer. With onset of cooler water temperatures in the fall, a more pronounced 

downstream movement of juveniles begins in late September and can extend 

through the winter. It is thought that most of these fall-winter moving juveniles 

spend the winter in deep, quiet water with overhead cover in the lower Naches 

and Yakima (upstream of Prosser Diversion Dam) Rivers. After spending 1 year 

in fresh water, spring Chinook begin their seaward migration, with the majority 

passing Prosser Diversion Dam (RM 47) in April. Returning adults can spend 

from 1 to 3 years in the ocean before returning as a spawning adult to the Yakima 

River basin. 

4.8.1.3 Habitat Conditions for Anadromous Fish 

Habitat is defined as “. . . the combination of resources (like food, cover, water) 

and the environmental conditions (temperature, precipitation, presence or absence 

of predators and competitors) that promotes occupancy by individuals of a given 

species (or population) and allows those individuals to survive and reproduce. . .” 

(Morrison et al., 1978). 

Numerous instream and floodplain elements of habitat (e.g., substrate, large 

woody debris [LWD], pool frequency and quality, off-channel areas, and refugia) 

combine to produce habitat heterogeneity and are vital to the production and 

maintenance of native fish assemblages (Everest et al., 1985; Bjornn and Reiser, 

1991; Karr, 1991; Spence et al., 1996; National Research Council [NRC], 1996; 

NOAA Fisheries, 1996). The interaction of these habitat elements, combined 

with streamflow and other physicochemical determinants, produce a complex 

mosaic under which native aquatic species assemblages evolved and live. 

Flow/Hydrology 

The results of other studies suggest that the natural, unregulated flow regime of 

the Yakima River and its tributaries was the master variable that nourished the 

distribution and abundance of riverine species and sustained the ecological 

4-98 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

integrity of the ecosystem via physicochemical processes that provide riverine 

structure and function (Leopold et al., 1964; Schlosser, 1985; Resh et al., 1988; 

Allan, 1995; Power et al., 1995; Stanford et al., 1996; Poff et al., 1997). 

Flow variability provides ecological benefits to floodplain ecosystems and the 

terrestrial and aquatic organisms that depend upon them (Williams and Hynes, 

1977; Chapman et al., 1982; Poff and Ward, 1989; Closs and Lake, 1996). The 

natural timing of variable flows provides numerous environmental cues for fish to 

spawn, hatch eggs, rear, move to off-channel floodplain habitats for feeding or 

reproduction, and migrate upstream or downstream, etc. (Seegrist and Gard, 1972; 

Montgomery et al., 1983; Nesler et al., 1988; Junk et al., 1989; Welcomme, 1992; 

Naesje et al., 1995; Sparks, 1995; Trepanier et al., 1996, Poff et al., 1997). 

Under the current condition, riverflows are substantially altered as a result of 

storing water in the reservoirs in the winter and diverting water in the spring, 

summer, and fall to meet entitlements, primarily for irrigation. Flow regimes that 

deviate substantially from the natural condition, as is currently the case in the 

Yakima River basin, are well understood to produce a diverse array of ecological 

consequences (Hill et al., 1991; Ligon et al., 1995; Richter et al., 1996; Stanford 

et al., 1996). While a range of flows is vital to the structure and function of 

aquatic ecosystems, stable base flows are important in supporting high growth 

rates for fish that are timed with periods of high ecosystem production (i.e., late 

spring through early fall; Binns and Eiserman, 1979; Poff and Ward, 1989; 

Stanford et al., 1996). 

Thus, natural streamflow variability has a controlling effect on the biology of 

native aquatic species assemblages, and the physical and chemical ecosystem 

attributes upon which they depend for survival. Current conditions have inverted 

and truncated the natural flow regime, producing river systems that are out of 

phase with their natural runoff regimes. 

Temperature 

Perhaps no other environmental factor has a more pervasive influence on 

salmonids and other aquatic biota than temperature (Brett, 1956; Hynes, 1970; 

Spence et al., 1996). Temperature influences all aspects of fish life, as well as 

those of the macroinvertebrates (Sweeney and Vannote, 1986; Bjornn and Reiser, 

1991) and primary producers (algae, bacteria, etc.) that dwell within the stream 

and serve as food for fish (Hynes, 1970). The majority of aquatic organisms are 

cold-blooded, meaning that their body temperatures and metabolic demands are 

determined by the temperature of the environment in which they live. 

Slight changes in stream temperatures that differ from the natural condition can 

alter the processes listed above, and most often adversely affect native aquatic 

species assemblages (Groot et al., 1995; Spence et al., 1996; McCullough, 1999). 

Quantitatively defining the effects of temperature on key biological functions is 

essential for understanding how temperature contributes to fish success, how it 

4-99 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

places species at risk, and how moderating and controlling the thermal regime can 

contribute to recovering impaired populations (McCullough, 1999; Sullivan et al., 

2000). However, it is a widely held view that high water temperatures are one of 

the most harmful environmental variables affecting salmonid extent, biomass, and 

survival (Spence et al., 1996). 

Dams, riparian vegetation removal, water withdrawal and regulation, irrigated 

agriculture, channel engineering (e.g., straightening, channelization, diking, 

revetments, etc.), urbanization, increasing impervious surfaces, and floodplain 

development alter the factors that drive stream temperature (Poole and Berman, 

2001). All of these factors occur in the Yakima River basin to some extent and 

have altered the temperature regime from the predevelopment, natural condition. 

Water temperature, especially in the lower Yakima River, has consistently been 

acknowledged as a factor affecting salmonids, especially during some life stages. 

High temperatures at the mouth of the Yakima River may affect anadromous fish, 

including migrating smolts and adults. In the upper parts of the basin, bottom 

draw release structures like those used at Keechelus, Kachess, Cle Elum, 

Rimrock, and Bumping Dams provide thermally homogeneous, cold discharge to 

the Yakima, Kachess, Cle Elum, Tieton, and Bumping Rivers, which may 

interfere with certain aspects of salmonid ecology in the Yakima River basin (e.g., 

migration cues, spawn timing, and growth). 

Sediment 

Suspended sediment is a naturally variable phenomenon in riverine ecosystems, 

and increased concentrations above background levels are most strongly 

correlated with erosional processes and elevated discharge observed during spring 

runoff, or discrete precipitation events. Heavy loads of suspended sediments 

directly impact salmonids through their avoidance of impacted habitats, mortality 

(in extreme cases), a skewed distribution of prey species within the habitat, 

reduced feeding and growth, and reduced tolerance to disease (Waters, 1995). 

Sediment and bedload movement occur naturally. It is acknowledged that 

sediment (fine sediments to cobble) transport is beneficial to the ecological health 

of a river system (Poff et al., 1997). However, irrigated agricultural activities 

have altered the timing, volume, and magnitude of sediment movement in the 

river by modifying the magnitude and timing of riverflows. 

Large Woody Debris 

In recent years, the relationship between LWD (loosely defined as trees greater 

than 4 inches in diameter, greater than 6 feet long, with or without the root wad 

attached), riparian vegetation, and fish habitat has received much emphasis in the 

Pacific Northwest. Flow regime alteration by impoundment and diversion can 

affect the cycling of organic and inorganic materials, including LWD. Numerous 

authors have described the interactions between LWD and stream ecosystems 

(Bisson et al., 1987; Sedell et al., 1988; Bilby and Bisson, 1998). Additionally, 

the influence of LWD on channel morphology (Keller and Swanson, 1979; Lisle, 

4-100 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

1986; Bilby and Ward, 1991; Montgomery et al., 1996) and its importance to the 

ecology of native aquatic species assemblages in the Pacific Northwest (Abbe and 

Montgomery, 1996; Naiman et al., 1992; 1998; McIntosh et al., 1994; Naiman 

and Décamps, 1997) has also been documented and analyzed. LWD is an 

important element in the creation of complex habitats and pools. 

Recruitment of LWD has likely been affected by many human activities in the 

Yakima River basin. First, headwater source areas were removed from the river 

continuum by construction of the storage dam embankments on the Yakima, 

Kachess, Cle Elum, Tieton, and Bumping Rivers. Natural lakes on all these 

streams, except the Tieton, may have acted to some extent as LWD “traps” before 

the dams were built. Farther down the system, diversion structures may impede 

the transport of LWD though, to large extent, LWD is simply passed over these 

structures as part of operations. Secondly, flow regulation and extraction has 

contributed to impaired floodplain function along alluvial reaches of the river 

(Snyder and Stanford, 2001). Cottonwoods (Populus spp.) are a primary species 

along the alluvial floodplain reaches of the Yakima River basin. Their growth 

and survival are important to the aquatic ecosystem. The status of cottonwoods in 

the Yakima River basin is discussed further in the “Vegetation and Wildlife” 

section of this chapter. 

Channel Condition and Dynamics 

Truncation of flood peaks by capturing them in reservoirs reduces the duration, 

magnitude, and spatial extent of floodplain inundation. This not only alters the 

quantity, quality, and timing of groundwater discharge to the river but also 

diminishes the availability, extent, and temporal duration of off-channel habitats 

for anadromous and resident fish. Among the myriad habitat attributes of these 

floodplain ecosystems, off-channel areas provide complex, diverse habitats for 

cold water fishes. Flood flows form and maintain the channel network including 

side channels. In turn, side channels and sloughs provide a large area of edge 

habitat and slower water velocities favored by early salmonid life stages (Pringle 

et al., 1988; Naiman et al., 1988; Stanford and Ward, 1993; Arscott et al., 2001). 

Spring brooks receiving discharging groundwater provide low-velocity, thermally 

moderate, food-rich habitat for juvenile fish. For salmonids in the Yakima River 

basin, these side-channel complexes likely help to increase productivity, carrying 

capacity, and life history diversity by providing suitable habitat for all life stages 

in close physical proximity (Ring and Watson, 1999; Snyder and Stanford, 2001). 

Floodplain disconnection combined with flow regulation has reduced river 

floodplain interactions in the Yakima River basin. Of particular importance has 

been the loss of habitat complexity, including connectivity between off-channel 

and mainstream habitats, which directly relates to the ability of the ecosystem to 

support salmonid populations, including steelhead and bull trout. Flood control 

dikes and levees and railroad and highway construction have disrupted the lateral 

connectivity between wetted areas that occurred historically (Eitemiller et al., 

4-101 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

2002). This deprivation of lateral connectivity has resulted in loss of habitat, 

reduced vertical connectivity, loss of or changes in nutrient flux, and reduction in 

the tempering affect of groundwater on stream temperature. The result has been a 

significant loss, compared to pristine conditions, of horizontal and vertical 

connectivity, diminished habitat heterogeneity through the loss of off-channel 

habitat, and a general loss of ecosystem function. 

Habitat Alterations 

Alterations in the aquatic ecosystem have affected the habitat of anadromous fish 

in the Yakima River basin. In its most basic form, regulation alters streamflow 

volume, sediment transport, floodplain connectivity, and water temperature. 

The Yakima River basin has experienced well over 100 years of Euro American 

development, with a marked increase seen after the advent of storage reservoirs 

and watercourse (e.g., canals, drains, ditches, laterals) development in the early 

twentieth century. Consequently, there is a long history of forest practices and 

floodplain development for irrigated agriculture, urban centers, roadways, 

railways, and housing (McIntosh et al., 1994; Reclamation, 2000). As 

development progressed, so did the magnitude and extent of floodplain 

revetments (e.g., levees, road and railway prisms, riprap, etc.) intended to protect 

local infrastructure. However, floodplain activities and revetments have armored, 

shortened, realigned, and simplified many miles of mainstem and tributary habitat 

in the Yakima River basin (Dunne and Leopold, 1978; Snyder and Stanford, 

2001; Braatne and Jamieson, 2001). Consequently, channel form and processes 

have been altered (Leopold et al., 1964), and the potential for normal riparian 

processes (e.g., shading, bank stabilization, and LWD recruitment) to occur is 

diminished (Ralph et al., 1994; Young et al., 1994; Fausch et al., 1994; Dykaar 

and Wigington, 2000). Ultimately, the once diverse and extensive assemblage of 

riparian and aquatic habitats in the Yakima River and its tributaries has become 

simplified (Stanford et al., 1996; Ring and Watson, 1999). 

As a result of irrigation development in the Yakima River basin, including 

development of the Yakima Project, runoff in the system has become highly 

regulated for multiple purposes. Regulation of streamflow—whether that 

regulation is for flood control, irrigation, or for some other purpose—alters the 

physical environment of the system (Collier et al., 1996; Stanford et al., 1996; 

Poff et al., 1997; Friedman et al., 1998). 

4.8.2 Environmental Consequences 

As discussed, flow is an important variable affecting many aspects of habitat 

suitability for anadromous fish. Consequently, the various alternatives being 

considered could affect anadromous fish primarily by altering habitat quantity 

4-102 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

and quality as a consequence of changing the flow regime in various parts of 

the basin and at various times. These flow changes drive most of the following 

anadromous fish effects analysis. 

Two of the alternatives also change the source of the water for some of the basin’s 

irrigation. This potentially affects the homing of anadromous fish into the 

Yakima River basin and is also an important part of this analysis. 

4.8.2.1 Methods and Assumptions 

Columbia River 

An issue identified by the Biology Technical Work Group (2004) was the 

potential effects of water withdrawal from Priest Rapids Lake to fill Black 

Rock reservoir on anadromous fish spawning and rearing habitat, fry and 

juvenile stranding, and passage and migration. 

The report by Anglin et al. (2006) discussing the effects of hydropower operations 

on the Hanford reach fall Chinook population was used to assess the potential 

effects of water withdrawal from Priest Rapids Lake on anadromous fish 

spawning, rearing and stranding. Specifically, Anglin et al. (2004) provide 

information on changes in fall Chinook spawning and rearing habitat and in 

juvenile stranding as a function of river discharge. 

The Assessment of the Effects of the Yakima Basin Storage Study on Columbia 

River Fish Proximate to the Proposed Intake Locations (Reclamation, 2008b) 

examined the effects of the Black Rock pumping station located at Priest Rapids 

Lake on anadromous and resident fishes residing in or migrating through the pool. 

The report also provides a list of fish species documented to reside in or migrate 

through the Priest Rapids Lake. 

Yakima River 

RiverWare and Flow Data—Most of the indicators for anadromous fish link at 

some point to the flow data generated from the Yak-RW model. Results at 

critical locations in the river system are discussed in the “Water Resources” 

section. The Yak-RW model is a riverflow model used to estimate daily average 

streamflow at several locations throughout the Yakima River basin, plus estimate 

daily irrigation diversions and estimate daily reservoir storage volume by 

reservoir for each alternative. A detailed description of the Yak-RW model is 

found in the System Operations Technical Document (Reclamation, 2008c). 

Temperature.—There were no substantial differences in water temperature 

between the Joint Alternatives and the No Action Alternative for the Yakima 

River stream reaches between Roza and Prosser Diversion Dams, which was the 

modeled reach, as shown in the “Water Quality” section. Because there were no 

substantive differences in water temperature between alternatives, this topic is not 

4-103 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

discussed further for the Black Rock, Wymer Dam and Reservoir, and Wymer 

Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternatives. 

Indicator 1: Summer Rearing Habitat in the Easton and Ellensburg Reaches 

for Spring Chinook and Steelhead Fry and Yearlings.— 

 Description.—Typically, in unregulated streams, low streamflows 

occur in the summer after the spring snowmelt, resulting in the creation of 

more pool habitat preferred by juvenile salmonids. In the upper Yakima 

River, storage releases for irrigation delivery result in high flow levels 

and associated water velocities which reduce the amount of suitable 

rearing habitat. This results in fish occupying unfavorable habitats that 

decrease juvenile survival. Consequently, the river environment is not 

capable of supporting a larger fish population. 

This indicator quantifies the difference in the amount (acres) and percent in 

juvenile spring Chinook and steelhead summer rearing habitat relative to the 

No Action Alternative for the Easton and Ellensburg reaches, which represent 

the upper Yakima River where high summer flows occur in important salmonid 

rearing areas. Of the five reaches that were modeled to describe the flow to 

fish habitat relationship, these two reaches were selected for this indicator 

because they are located in the upper Yakima River where high summer 

flows occur. 

Method.—The DSS model for the Easton and Ellensburg reaches was 

used to estimate the amount (acres) and difference in summer rearing habitat for 

the spring Chinook and steelhead fry and yearling life stages for each of the three 

alternatives compared to the No Action Alternative. 

Estimated daily average streamflows for each alternative are supplied as output 

from the Yak-RW model. The relationship between habitat quantity and 

streamflow for each species and lifestage requires output from the twodimensional hydraulic flow models that were developed for the Easton, 

Ellensburg, Union Gap, Wapato, and lower Naches River reaches. 

A detailed description of the DSS model and its development for the Yakima 

River basin is found in the USGS draft Open File Report 2008 (forthcoming) 

(Bovee et al., 2008). 

Two-Dimensional Hydraulic Model Description.—This study used 

the SRH-W (formerly GSTAR-W) and the River2D two-dimensional hydraulic 

models to characterize the riverflow conditions over a range of streamflows in the 

Easton, Ellensburg, Union Gap, Wapato, and lower Naches River reaches. A 

description of the SRH-W model is found on Reclamation’s Web site at: 

http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/sediment/model/srh2d/index.html and a description of 

for the University of Alberta’s River2D model is found at: 

http://www.river2d.ualberta.ca/description.htm. 

4-104 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Hydraulic models are physical models that describe how flow moves through a 

channel based on its configuration, slope and the amount of discharge. For this 

analysis, the river channel bathymetry (the three-dimensional contour of the 

wetted river channel) was measured primarily using an aerial topography mapping 

system (LIDAR) supplemented in some locations with traditional surveys and 

hydroacoustic mapping. Using the channel shape data, the two-dimensional 

hydraulic model estimates channel width, water depth and velocity, and water 

surface elevation at points throughout the modeled reach arranged in a grid 

pattern. These physical parameters were later used to characterize fishery habitat 

(e.g., pool, riffle, glide). 

Development of the two-dimensional hydraulic model for the Easton, Ellensburg 

and lower Naches River reaches is discussed by Hilldale and Mooney (2007e) in 

Technical Series No. TS-YSS-12. Development of the two-dimensional 

hydraulic model for the Union Gap and Wapato reaches is discussed in Appendix 

1 of Bovee et al. (2008). 

Indicator 2: Flip-Flop in Both the Upper Yakima and Naches Rivers for 

Yearling Steelhead and Spring Chinook.— 

 Description.—Unnatural and relatively sudden changes in streamflow and 

elevation can disrupt the habitats of both fishes and aquatic insects. 

The first measurement for this indicator is the average rate of change in daily 

streamflow between pre- and post-flip-flop for the Easton, Ellensburg, and 

lower Naches River reaches. This measurement provides a method to determine 

how significant the average rate of change in daily streamflow might be in 

terms of spatial change in habitats for juvenile salmonids. The greater the rate 

of change in average daily streamflow, the greater the potential for habitat 

disruption. 

The second measurement for this indicator is the pre- and post-flip-flop average 

median streamflows for the Easton, Ellensburg, and lower Naches River reaches. 

This measurement provides some context for what the daily streamflows were just 

prior to and after flip-flop and the absolute change in magnitude in streamflows 

pre- and post-flip-flop. 

Method.—The Yak-RW model was used to estimate the daily median 

streamflow for the Easton, Ellensburg, and lower Naches River reaches for each 

alternative. These flows were used to calculate the average rate of change in 

streamflow and the absolute change in the magnitude of flows between pre- and 

post-flip-flop. 

The average rate of change in daily streamflow between pre- and post-flip-flop 

was calculated by taking the difference in the average median flow for the pre 

(August 1-15) and post (September 14-28) flip-flop periods. The difference in 

average median flow between pre- and post-flip-flop was divided by 30 days, the 

4-105 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

numbers of days from the start to the completion of the flip-flop operation, 

to determine the average daily rate of change in flow during the flip-flop 

operation. 

The change in the magnitude of streamflows for the Easton, Ellensburg, and lower 

Naches River reaches was calculated as the difference between the average 

median streamflows for pre- and post-flip-flop. The pre- and post-flip-flop 

periods were August 1-15 and September 14-28, respectively. 

Indicator 3: Spring Flow Downstream from the Parker Gage.— 

 Description.—The reduction in the magnitude, frequency, and 

runoff pattern of spring freshets that smolts rely on for their seaward 

migration causes increased migration time and exposure to predators, an 

environment more conducive for predators, and body chemistry issues 

related to delayed migration into saltwater. This decreases survival rates to 

the Columbia River. 

Method.—This indicator measures the volume (acre-feet) of water that 

flows downstream from the Parker gage during the spring season of March 

through June based on average daily flows generated by the Yak-RW model. For 

the No Action Alternative, the spring season water volume is compared to the 

desired target volume and is expressed as a percentage how much it is above or 

below the target volume. The three Joint Alternatives are compared to the No 

Action Alternative in a similar fashion. 

The spring freshet runoff pattern, as opposed to the runoff quantity, for the Black 

Rock, Wymer Dam and Reservoir, and Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

Exchange Alternatives is qualitatively compared to the No Action Alternative and 

is ranked as “no change” or “improved.” 

This indicator provides a way to gauge what the potential change in smolt 

survival might be by comparing the percent change in spring flows under an 

alternative to the No Action Alternative. 

Indicator 4: July-September Flow Downstream from the Parker Gage.— 

 Description.—Reduced summer flows in the Wapato floodplain, 

considered some of the best salmonid habitat that remains in the basin, is 

an issue because of reduced availability of summer rearing habitat. Of concern 

is the loss of off-channel and side-channel habitat. 

Method.—The indicator is the amount of coho summer yearling habitat 

(acres) in the Wapato reach. The DSS model was used to estimate the average 

amount of habitat in the Wapato reach for the summer period of July through 

September. Total habitat quantity and how it compares to the No Action 

Alternative was recorded. The coho summer yearling life stage was selected 

4-106 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

because juvenile coho are present in the Wapato reach during the summer and 

readily use pool and side-channel habitat for summer rearing. 

Indicator 5: Estimated Anadromous Fish Population Size.—

 Description.—The projected numerical response of the anadromous fish 

populations to the three alternatives compared to the No Action Alternative 

provides a way to estimate the anadromous fishery benefits. 

Method.—The EDT model provides estimates of population size and 

productivity for salmon and steelhead based on the quantity and quality of 

habitat within a watershed. On the basis of the quantity and quality of habitat, 

the EDT model tracks population survival by life stage. Survival rates remain 

static across alternatives for all lifestages that occur outside of the Yakima 

River basin (e.g., lower Columbia River, Columbia River estuary, and ocean). 

Therefore, any observed differences in population size between alternatives 

are due to differences in habitat quantity and quality within the Yakima River 

basin specific to each alternative. 

Output from the Yak-RW (daily flow) and the two-dimensional hydraulic 

habitat models provided input for the EDT flow and habitat attributes for 

each alternative. Information pertaining to the relative change in daily 

maximum water temperature between alternatives generated by the USGSTacoma’s water temperature model was used for stream reaches from Roza 

to Prosser Diversion Dams. (See the “Water Quality” section for a model 

description.) 

This analysis used the EDT model in conjunction with the AHA model to 

compare change in average annual escapement of steelhead and spring Chinook 

between alternatives based on a 100-year simulation which takes into account 

fluctuations in ocean survival. Fish escapement numbers are inclusive of both 

natural and hatchery fish populations. 

A disparity occurs in the escapement numbers for coho between observed 

(table 4.25) and those estimated by the EDT and AHA models. This 

disparity occurs because the EDT model estimates population equilibrium 

abundance; meaning the population is approaching full capacity for current 

habitat conditions. The Yakima coho population is relatively new, being 

reintroduced in the mid-1980s and has not fully expanded into all potential 

reaches in the basin. 

Indicator 6: False Attraction.— 

 Description.—Because the Storage Study is currently in a planning 

feasibility phase, it was deemed prudent to initially address the issue of false 

attraction through a literature review and expert opinion. Reclamation’s 

Technical Service Center secured the expertise of Dr. Andrew Dittman with 

NOAA Fisheries, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, and Dr. Thomas Quinn, 

4-107 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

University of Washington, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, to assist in 

assessing the possible outcomes of false attraction associated with the Storage 

Study. A complete discussion of their work can be found in Technical Series 

No. TS-YSS-13 entitled, Assessment of the Effects of the Yakima Basin Storage 

Study on Columbia River Fish Proximate to the Proposed Intake Locations 

(Reclamation, 2008b). 

Method.—Dittman and Quinn identified four primary questions to be 

evaluated regarding the issue of false attraction for the Storage Study: For both 

the Yakima and Columbia Rivers, how does the infusion of Columbia River water 

into the Yakima River affect the homing/straying patterns of: 

•	 Salmon that migrated to sea before the diversion was completed and thus 

were not exposed to an admixture of Yakima-Columbia River water prior 

to returning as adults? 

•	 Salmon that migrated to sea after the diversion was completed and thus 

were exposed to an admixture of Yakima-Columbia river water prior to 

returning as adults? 

They identified two issues that could influence the effect of Columbia River water 

entering the Yakima River on Yakima returning adult salmon. These issues were: 

the proportion of Columbia River water entering the Yakima River through the 

irrigation system; and to what extent is the chemical signature of the Columbia 

River water lessened as it is exchanged through seepage through the soil? 

Dittman and Quinn had no way to quantify this influence. In general, it is 

assumed that both a smaller proportion of Columbia River water and/or increased 

exposure of this water to Yakima River basin soils will decrease the risk of false 

attraction for Yakima returning adult salmon. 

They suggest there is likely to be a decreased risk of false attraction for Yakima 

returning adult salmon that, as juveniles, were incubated, hatched, and reared on 

Yakima River water after the diversion of Columbia River water commenced 

(termed first-generation fish), as opposed to returning adults that, as juveniles, 

incubated, hatched, and reared on Yakima River water prior to the influence of 

Columbia River water (termed second-generation fish), but return after the 

diversion of Columbia River water commenced. 

For salmon returning to rivers upstream of the Yakima River confluence 

(i.e., Wenatchee and Methow) for both before and after the release of Columbia 

River water into the Yakima River basin, Dittman and Quinn suggest that the risk 

of false attraction by these salmon populations would be less than compared to the 

false attraction risk for Yakima returning adults to the Yakima River described 

above. Their rationale was that Columbia River water entering the Columbia 

River at the Yakima River confluence would be sufficiently modified in terms of 

4-108 
 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

the chemical signature that returning adults would be seeking as a homing queue. 

They suggest the greatest risk would be to the first-generation fish compared to 

the second-generation fish. 

4.8.2.2 Summary of Impacts 

Columbia River 

The amount of change in fall Chinook spawning habitat in the Hanford reach due 

to power generation is expected to be much greater than that which may result 

from the maximum withdrawal of 3,500 cfs from Priest Rapids Lake to fill Black 

Rock reservoir. For example, riverflows on the Hanford reach in 2004 measured 

at White Bluffs (RM 370) during the peak fall Chinook spawning period 

(November 4-14) fluctuated from a low of approximately 50,000 cfs to a high of 

160,000 cfs (Anglin et al., 2006), which is several times greater than the water 

withdrawal associated with the filling of Black Rock reservoir. In addition, the 

water withdrawal pumping schedule adheres to the spawning flow requirements 

dictated by the Vernita Bar Agreement approved by FERC in 1980. 

Nugent et al. (2002a, 2002b, 2002c) report that during the period of fall Chinook 

emergence and rearing, the Priest Rapids Dam tailrace can fluctuate up to 6.9 feet 

(2.1 meters) per hour and 13.1 feet (4 meters) per day in a 24-hour period. 

Fluctuations in river stage occur in the Hanford reach year-round as a result of 

power generation. The effect on habitat for juvenile anadromous salmonids and 

stranding would likely overshadow the small decrease in the amount of available 

habitat in the Hanford reach as a consequence of pumping 3,500 cfs from the 

Priest Rapids Lake based on the juvenile fall Chinook habitat to river discharge 

relationship defined by Anglin et al. (2006). Furthermore, pumping from Priest 

Rapids Lake occurs only when there is water available above the established flow 

targets downstream from Priest Rapids Dam. In conclusion, water withdrawal 

from the Priest Rapids Lake is not expected to have a substantive change in 

habitat availability or a change in the risk for stranding for juvenile anadromous 

salmonids residing in the Hanford reach. 

In all likelihood, the Priest Rapids Lake elevation would remain unchanged to 

maintain optimal pool elevation for power generation. Therefore, there are no 

anticipated impacts to anadromous fish residing in the lake. 

If river outflow at Priest Rapids Dam is reduced by the amount of water 

withdrawn by pumping into Black Rock reservoir (maximum 3,500 cfs) to 

maintain pool elevation, it is not expected to affect anadromous adult fish 

migrating downstream from Priest Rapids Dam. 

The maximum amount of water that is pumped from the Priest Rapids Lake is 

3,500 cfs. This amount of pumping equates to approximately 2.2 percent of the 

riverflows in September and October to 4.7 percent in June. The quantity of 

water pumped on a monthly basis is presented in chapter 2. The greatest pumping 

4-109 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

occurs in September, October, and June, and the least amount occurs in February, 

March, and December. The pump intake channel (depicted in chapter 2) is 

approximately 3,600 feet upstream of the dam on the right bank and is 

approximately 2,400 feet long before reaching the fish screens and fish bypass 

system. The screens are designed to meet Washington State Department of Fish 

and Wildlife screen criteria. 

It is not likely that many anadromous salmonid smolts would become entrained 

into the pump intake channel because their outmigration behavior is to follow the 

thalwag where the river current is the fastest. Typically, smolts do not outmigrate 

near shore where the current is slow, which is where the entrance to the pump 

intake channel is located. Additionally, the approximate average monthly percent 

of water being pumped from the Columbia River is April, 0.2 percent; May, 

0.2 percent; and June, 1.2 percent. 

Similarly, entrainment of juvenile salmonids rearing in the lake is expected to be 

minimal because of their preference for habitat that consists of a shear zone 

(slow-moving water that transitions to faster moving water that provides both 

resting and drift insect feeding habitat) that would be nonexistent in the pump 

intake channel. Furthermore, no water withdrawal occurs in July and August, and 

the approximate average monthly percent of water being pumped in September is 

5 percent. 

No significant mortality is expected of juvenile anadromous salmonids in 

association with the fish screens because the State’s fish screening criteria are 

designed to safely pass juvenile salmonids. However, the potential exists for 

increased predation of juvenile salmonids that are entrained into the pump intake 

channel and use the fish bypass system back into the Columbia River where 

predators typically congregate. 

Yakima River 

Table 4.25 summarizes the effects of the alternatives on the selected indicators for 

spring Chinook and steelhead. 

4.8.2.3 No Action Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts under the No Action Alternative would be considered under 

separate NEPA evaluation as discussed in chapter 2. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Under the No Action Alternative, the flow regime is about the same as under the 

current condition. Winter and spring flows throughout the systems are essentially 

unchanged as a result of water conservation. Summer flows increase slightly in 

some reaches, mostly downstream from Parker, as water that currently is released 

4-110 
 

 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Table 4.25 Summary of impacts on the selected indicators for spring Chinook and steelhead 

Resource indicator 

No Action 

Alternative 

Black Rock 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam 

Plus Yakima 

River Pump 

Exchange 

Alternative 

Area 

(acres) 

Area (acres) and percent change relative to the No 

Action Alternative 

High summer flows in the upper Yakima and Cle Elum Rivers (acres of available habitat) 

Easton reach 

Steelhead fry habitat 

Steelhead yearling 

habitat 

Spring Chinook fry 

habitat 

Spring Chinook 

yearling habitat 

4.1 

57.9 

2.5 

47.9 

4.4 

7.3% 

63.9 

10.4% 

2.4 

-4.0% 

52.6 

9.8% 

4.4 

7.3% 

58.6 

1.7% 

2.5 

0.0% 

49.3 

2.9% 

4.3 

5.5% 

58.7 

1.3% 

2.5 

0.0% 

49.0 

2.3% 

Ellensburg reach 

Steelhead fry habitat 

Steelhead yearling 

habitat 

Spring Chinook fry 

habitat 

Spring Chinook 

yearling habitat 

2.2 

20.2 

1.7 

14.9 

2.1 

-4.5% 

26.1 

29.2% 

1.8 

5.9% 

14.6 

-2.0% 

2.1 

-4.5% 

20.5 

1.5% 

1.8 

5.9% 

13.8 

-7.4% 

2.1 

-4.5% 

20.6 

2.3% 

1.8 

4.5% 

14.5 

-2.4% 

Rate of change flip-flop (average cfs per day August 15 to September 14) 

Easton reach 

Ellensburg reach 

Lower Naches River 

reach 

-8 cfs 

-78 cfs 

34 cfs 

-4 cfs 

-51 cfs 

20 cfs 

-7 cfs 

-58 cfs 

37 cfs 

-6 cfs 

-57 cfs 

36 cfs 

Reduced spring freshets downstream from the Parker gage (percentage difference in spring 

season flow between the alternative and flow objective; if >=0 then target flow reached) 

Stream runoff timing -7% 

Not applicable 

29% 

Improved 

-10% 

No change 

11% 

No change 

Summer flows downstream from the Parker gage (acres of available habitat) 

Coho yearling habitat 

Total 63.7 64.7 

1.5% 

63.7 

-0.1% 

66.4 

4.1% 

Mainstem 56.7 44.2 

-22.0% 

56.7 

-0.2% 

41.8 

-26.2% 

 Side channel 7.0 19.8 

184.9% 

7.0 

0.6% 

23.6 

239.7% 

Average annual fish escapement (includes harvest) numbers (natural + hatchery) 

Spring Chinook 

Fall Chinook 

Coho

Steelhead 

7,189 

6,893 

8,475 

2,700 

9,066 

11,128 

10,242 

4,067 

7,294 

7,112 

8,591 

2,724 

8,428 

9,321 

9,392 

3,338 

4-111 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

from storage and diverted downstream for irrigation remains instream to meet the 

higher flow objectives. Because the conservation is achieved by improving 

efficiency, which reduces return flow, the effects are limited to the reaches where 

conservation occurs. Downstream from those reaches, there is no effect. The 

magnitude of the streamflow changes varies by reach. At the Parker gage, the 

increase is estimated at 136 cfs in average or wet years and about 90 cfs in dry 

years. Because the flow regimes under this alternative are essentially the same as 

under the current condition, the indicators linked to flows generally reflect 

conditions that currently exist. 

Indicator 1: Summer Rearing Habitat in the Easton and Ellensburg Reaches 

for Spring Chinook and Steelhead Fry and Yearlings.—The habitat quantity 

amounts for each reach and species/life stage are presented in table 4.25. These 

values are essentially the same as under the current condition. Only habitat 

changes near or greater than 10 percent are discussed in the text, but all values are 

presented in table 4.25. 

Indicator 2: Flip-Flop in Both the Upper Yakima and Naches Rivers for 

Yearling Steelhead and Spring Chinook.— Flows decrease in the Easton reach at 

an average rate of 8 cfs per day during the flip-flop period from mid-August to 

mid-September. At the same time, flows in the Ellensburg reach decrease at an 

average rate of 78 cfs per day, while flows in the lower Naches River increase at 

an average rate of 34 cfs per day (table 4.25). 

The average difference in flow between pre- and post-flip-flop is Easton: 

-245 cfs; Umtanum: -2,354 cfs; and lower Naches: +1,016 cfs. 

Indicator 3: Spring Flow Downstream from the Parker Gage.—Median spring 

season (March-June) flow downstream from the Parker gage under the No Action 

Alternative is 2,274 cfs, or 291 cfs greater than under the current condition 

(1,983 cfs). This greater spring flows downstream from the Parker gage is 

considered beneficial because it could improve anadromous salmon smolt 

outmigration survival through the middle and lower Yakima River. 

The spring seasonal flow volume is 7 percent below the flow volume objective 

(chapter 2), and the stream runoff pattern is the same as under the current 

condition. 

Indicator 4: July-September Flow Downstream from the Parker Gage.— The 

median July through September flow downstream from the Parker gage under 

the No Action Alternative is 642 cfs, or 333 cfs greater than under the current 

condition (309 cfs). However, based on the flow-to-habitat relationship for 

coho yearlings, the result is a net decrease of approximately 4.8 acres in the 

amount of available summer rearing habitat (figure 4.14). This decrease is the 

result of habitat loss in the main channel (7.9 acres) as channel velocity increases 

and as a result of increased flow that is not compensated for by an equal increase 

4-112 
Figure 4.14 Relationship of coho summer yearling habitat amount to flow for the 

Wapato reach. 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

in side-channel habitat (3.1 acres) because the flow threshold that results in the 

watering-up of side channels has not been realized. Overall, the amount of habitat 

begins to increase again at 750 cfs; and the amount of habitat (73 acres) at 300 cfs 

is nearly the same as at 2,000 cfs (72.5 acres). However, the percent of sidechannel habitat increases from approximately 4 percent at 300 cfs to 44 percent at 

2,000 cfs. This may suggest that overall habitat quality is improved since 

presumably side-channel habitat is of greater quality than mainstem habitat for 

juvenile rearing salmonids. 

Indicator 5: Estimated Anadromous Fish Population Size.—A summary of the 

average annual escapement for spring and fall Chinook, coho, and steelhead under 

the No Action Alternative is presented in table 4.26. These escapement estimates 

include the contribution of hatchery produced fish. The EDT and AHA models 

estimated average annual escapement under the No Action Alternative as follows: 

• Spring Chinook: 7,189 

• Fall Chinook: 6,893 

• Coho: 8,475 

• Steelhead: 2,700 

4-113 
Table 4.26 Estimates of average annual spring Chinook, fall Chinook, coho, and steelhead total 

recruitment, harvest, escapement, and percent increase in total escapement under Joint 

Alternatives compared to No Action Alternative based on results from the All H Analyzer model. 

Estimates include both natural and hatchery produced fish based on a 100-year model simulation. 

Resource 

indicator 

No Action 

Alternative 

Black Rock 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam 

and Reservoir 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam 

Plus Yakima 

River Pump Exchange 

Alternative 

Spring Chinook 

Total recruitment 

 Absolute estimate 9,591 12,048 9,729 11,209 

Change compared to 

No Action Alternative 

2,457 138 1,618 

Harvest 

 Absolute estimate 2,402 2,982 2,435 2,781 

Change compared to 

No Action Alternative 

580 33 379 

Escapement 

 Absolute estimate 7,189 9,066 7,294 8,428 

Change compared to 

No Action Alternative 

1,877 105 1,239 

Percent increase in total escapement compared to No Action Alternative 

26 2 17

Fall Chinook 

Total recruitment 

 Absolute estimate 11,093 17,908 11,445 15,000 

Change compared to 

No Action Alternative 

6,815 352 3,907 

Harvest 

 Absolute estimate 4,200 6,780 4,334 5,680 

Change compared to 

No Action Alternative 

2,580 133 1,479 

Escapement 

 Absolute estimate 6,893 11,128 7,112 9,321 

Change compared to 

No Action Alternative 

4,235 219 2,428 

Percent increase in total escapement compared to No Action Alternative 

 61 3 35 

Coho 

Total recruitment 

 Absolute estimate 11,461 13,850 11,618 12,702 

Change compared to 

No Action Alternative 

2,389 157 1,241 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

4-114 
 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Table 4.26 Estimates of average annual spring Chinook, fall Chinook, coho, and steelhead 

total recruitment, harvest, escapement, and percent increase in total escapement under 

Joint Alternatives compared to No Action Alternative based on results from the All H 

Analyzer model. (continued) 

Resource 

indicator 

No Action 

Alternative 

Black Rock 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam 

and Reservoir 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam 

Plus Yakima 

River Pump 

Exchange 

Alternative 

Coho (continued) 

Harvest 

 Absolute estimate 

Change compared to 

No Action Alternative 

2,986 3,608 

623 

3,027 

41 

3,309 

323 

Escapement 

 Absolute estimate 

Change compared to 

No Action Alternative 

8,475 10,242 

1,767 

8,591 

116 

9,392 

918 

Percent increase in total escapement compared to No Action Alternative 

21 1 21 

Steelhead 

Total recruitment 

 Absolute estimate 

Change compared to 

No Action Alternative 

3,096 4,663 

1,567 

3,124 

28 

3,827 

731 

Harvest 

Absolute estimate 

Change compared to 

No Action Alternative 

396 596 

200 

399 

4 

489 

94 

Escapement 

 Absolute estimate 

Change compared to 

No Action Alternative 

2,700 4,067 

1,367 

2,724 

24 

3,338 

638 

Percent increase in total escapement compared to No Action Alternative 

51 1 24 

Indicator 6: False Attraction.—The existing Yakima River water supply would 

be used under the No Action Alternative; therefore, no false attraction issue is 

associated with an out-of-basin water supply mixing with Yakima River water. 

4.8.2.4 Black Rock Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts to fishery resources would occur during the construction of 

the intake to Priest Rapids pumping plant and the fish bypass pipe outlet, but the 

4-115 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

overall impact is anticipated to be minor relative to the quality and amount of 

aquatic habitat found within the Columbia River. Impacts resulting from 

construction activities (installation and removal of coffer dams and dewatering the 

coffer dams) may also alter aquatic conditions by temporarily increasing 

sedimentation (turbidity), but these impacts are anticipated to be temporary. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Differences in flow in the Yakima River under the Black Rock Alternative 

(compared to the No Action Alternative) are the greatest of any Joint Alternative. 

Spring flows are greater throughout the system, while summer flows in the midand lower Yakima River are significantly greater as a result of being able to meet 

higher flow objectives at the Parker gage because of an increase in available water 

supply for instream flow augmentation. Summer and early fall flows in the upper 

Yakima River basin are less, as water previously released for diversion by Roza 

and Sunnyside Irrigation Districts is now provided from Black Rock reservoir. 

Winter flows are also higher throughout the basin as a result of improved 

carryover and a reduced volume that needs to be stored each winter. These 

changes in the flow regime generally would benefit anadromous fish. 

Indicator 1: Summer Rearing Habitat in the Easton and Ellensburg Reaches 

for Spring Chinook and Steelhead Fry and Yearlings.—In the Easton reach, 

steelhead and spring Chinook yearling habitat are 10.4 percent and 9.8 percent 

greater, respectively, than under the No Action Alternative (table 4.25). In the 

Ellensburg reach, the amount of steelhead yearling habitat is 29.2 percent greater 

than under the No Action Alternative. 

Of the three alternatives, the Black Rock Alternative provides the greatest amount 

of steelhead and spring Chinook summer rearing habitat in the Easton reach, 

which would potentially equate to an improvement in juvenile survival and the 

ability to accommodate more summer rearing fish. For similar reasons, of the 

three Joint Alternatives, the Black Rock Alternative appears most beneficial to 

steelhead yearlings in the Ellensburg reach. 

Indicator 2: Flip-Flop in Both the Upper Yakima and Naches Rivers for 

Yearling Steelhead and Spring Chinook.—The average rate of change in daily 

flow during the flip-flop operation in the Easton reach is -4 cfs; the average rate 

of change in daily flow is -51 cfs in the Ellensburg reach and +20 cfs in the lower 

Naches River (table 4.25). 

Thus, for the Easton reach, there is essentially no change in the average rate of 

change in daily flow during the flip-flop operation compared to the No Action 

Alternative. For the Ellensburg reach, the average rate of change in daily flow is 

35 percent less, the best of the three Joint Alternatives. For the lower Naches 

River reach, the rate of increase in flow is 41 percent less than under the No 

Action Alternative, the best of the three Joint Alternatives. 

4-116 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

These differences represent an improvement in both the Ellensburg and lower 

Naches River reaches for fish compared to the No Action Alternative. While 

the specific biological implications are difficult to measure, the reduction in 

the rates of change should translate into less stranding of both fish and aquatic 

invertebrates in the Ellensburg reach that need to move to adjust to the change, 

and less spatial disruption to desired habitat (i.e., the change in location of desired 

habitat in a relatively short period of time) in the lower Naches River reach. 

Indicator 3: Spring Flow Downstream from the Parker Gage.—The spring 

seasonal flow is 29 percent above the flow volume objective, while the No Action 

Alternative is 7 percent below the flow volume objective (table 4.25). These 

results represent a more than 500-percent improvement in the spring seasonal 

flow compared to the No Action Alternative. There is also an improvement in the 

stream runoff pattern compared to the No Action Alternative, as the high flows 

continue into April, May, and June when most smolt migration is occurring, 

which should increase overall smolt outmigration survival. 

Indicator 4: July-September Flow Downstream from the Parker Gage.—The 

median July-September flow past Parker for Black Rock is 1,301 cfs compared to 

642 cfs under the No Action Alternative. These greater flows would result in 

1.5 percent more total coho summer yearling habitat (64.7 acres under the Black 

Rock Alternative compared to 63.7 acres under the No Action Alternative) 

(figure 4.14). The reduction in mainstem habitat is nearly equal to the increase in 

side-channel habitat. 

Indicator 5: Estimated Anadromous Fish Population Size.—The EDT and 

AHA models estimated average annual escapement under the Black Rock 

Alternative as follows: 

• Spring Chinook: 9,066 

• Fall Chinook: 11,128 

• Coho: 10,242 

• Steelhead: 4,067 

Rationale for Flow Versus Fish Abundance 

The fishery models (EDT and AHA) estimated increases of approximately 20 to 

60 percent in anadromous fish population sizes under the Black Rock Alternative 

compared to the No Action Alternative. Of all the Joint Alternatives, the Black 

Rock Alternative results in the greatest modification of the current flow regime in 

the Yakima River basin. One finding suggests that, in many cases, there was not 

a significant change (increase or decrease) in the amount of fishery habitat even 

when flow differences were fairly substantial. For example, for the Ellensburg 

floodplain, there is generally not a substantial change in the amount of spring 

4-117 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Chinook and steelhead fry and summer rearing habitat between the Black Rock 

Alternative and the No Action Alternative (table 4.27). 

Table 4.27 Summary of spring Chinook and steelhead fry and summer rearing habitat area 

(acres) in the Ellensburg floodplain and the July and August median flow for the No Action 

and Black Rock Alternatives 

No Action 

Species/Lifestage Alternative Black Rock Alternative 

Spring Chinook fry habitat (acres) 1.7 1.8 (5.9% increase) 

Spring Chinook summer rearing habitat (acres) 14.9 14.6 (2.0% decrease) 

Steelhead fry habitat (acres) 2.2 2.1 (4.5% decrease) 

Steelhead summer rearing habitat (acres) 20.2 26.1 (29.2% increase) 

July median flow (cfs) 3,500 2,700 (23% decrease) 

August median flow (cfs) 3,960 2,500 (37% decrease) 

It is important to recognize that the Joint Alternatives do not increase or improve 

the existing habitat conditions in the basin, but only modify how the existing 

habitat is utilized by changes to the flow regime. Furthermore, the effects of the 

Joint Alternatives are limited to the stream reaches downstream from the five 

major storage reservoirs and would not affect habitat conditions in the tributaries. 

On a much larger geographic scale, fisheries habitat conditions have significantly 

changed through decades of development, both within the Yakima basin and 

downstream, that preclude achieving near historic anadromous fish populations 

through actions provided by the Joint Alternatives or any other suite of realistic 

actions. For example, Eitemiller et al. (2002) investigated the historic size of the 

seven largest floodplains in the Yakima River basin (i.e., Easton, Cle Elum of the 

Yakima River, Kittitas, Selah, lower Naches, Union Gap and Wapato) and 

concluded that approximately 15 to 43 percent habitat remains, depending on the 

floodplain. Changes in habitat conditions (e.g., hydropower development and loss 

of estuary habitat) in the Columbia River have reduced smolt and adult migration 

survival from historic levels which further reduce the potential to achieve near 

historic anadromous fish run sizes in the Yakima River basin. 

Indicator 6: False Attraction.—Under the Black Rock Alternative, Columbia 

River water would be pumped from the Priest Rapids Lake into the Black Rock 

reservoir and released into Roza and Sunnyside Canals during the irrigation 

season. In wet years, the amount of water put into Sunnyside canal is less 

(median = 847 cfs) than in average and dry water years (median = 928 cfs). 

The monthly median amount of operational spill of Black Rock reservoir water 

from Roza and Sunnyside Canals ranges from 2.2 cfs in March to 30.4 cfs in 

August. The percent of Black Rock reservoir water mixed in the Yakima River 

water at the Kiona-Benton gage (RM 29.9) ranges from 0.05 to 1.6 percent 

(table 4.28). 

4-118 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Table 4.28 Percent of Black Rock reservoir water mixed with Yakima River water at the 

Kiona Benton gage (RM 29.9) by month during the irrigation season as a result of direct 

operational spill from Roza and Sunnyside Canals 

Month 

Kiona-Benton Gage 

Monthly Median 

Flow (cfs) 

Total monthly 

median Roza and 

Sunnyside Canal 

operational spill of 

Black Rock reservoir 

water (cfs) 

Percent of Black 

Rock reservoir water 

mixed with Yakima 

River water (cfs) at 

Kiona-Benton Gage 

March 4,507 2.2 0.049 

April 5,162 17.5 0.34 

May 4,933 24.4 0.49 

June 4,428 29.0 0.65 

July 1,932 30.1 1.53 

August 1,845 30.4 1.62 

September 1,939 24.5 1.25 

October 2,206 20.9 0.94 

Under laboratory conditions, Fretwell (1989) investigated the behavioral response 

of sockeye salmon to their home water source in comparison to their home water 

source mixed with an increasing percent of a nonhome water source. He found 

that if the home water source were made up of more than 10 percent of a 

nonhome water source, fish began to discriminate between the two water sources 

and selected their home water source more frequently than the water source 

comprised of both water sources. This study suggests that the sockeye did not 

discriminate between the home and nonhome water sources based on the 

behavioral response to a water source preference. 

Most adult anadromous fish migration into the Yakima River basin occurs outside 

of the summer months—between September and June—when the amount of 

Black Rock reservoir water mixed in the Yakima River water is generally 1 

percent or less. Based on these findings, the potential for false attraction resulting 

from direct operational spill of mixed Yakima and Black Rock reservoir water 

appears to be minimal. 

4.8.2.5 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts to fishery resources would occur during the construction of 

the intake to Wymer pumping plant and fish bypass pipe outlet (installation and 

removal of coffer dams and dewatering the coffer dams), but the overall impact is 

anticipated to be minor relative to the quality and amount of aquatic habitat found 

within the Yakima River system. Impacts resulting from construction activities 

(installation and removal of coffer dam and dewatering the coffer dam) in and 

around Lmuma Creek may also alter aquatic conditions in Lmuma Creek and the 

Yakima River by temporarily increasing sedimentation (turbidity), but these 

impacts are anticipated to be temporary. 

4-119 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Long-Term Impacts 

Winter flows from Cle Elum Lake to the Wymer site are greater under this 

alternative as winter flows are “bypassed” through Cle Elum Lake to be stored in 

Wymer reservoir. This “bypass” more than doubles flows in the Cle Elum River. 

During the summer months, flows in the upper Yakima River are lower, as some 

of the irrigation needs in the middle basin are met by releases from Wymer 

reservoir. Summer flows are about 600 cfs less. 

Indicator 1: Summer Rearing Habitat in the Easton and Ellensburg Reaches 

for Spring Chinook and Steelhead Fry and Yearlings.—Less summer flows in 

the upper Yakima River basin result in slightly more fry and yearling habitat for 

both steelhead and Spring Chinook than under the No Action Alternative in the 

Easton reach. However, the increases do not exceed 10 percent for either species 

or life stage. In the Ellensburg reach, habitat for steelhead yearlings and spring 

Chinook fry is greater and steelhead fry and spring Chinook yearling habitat is 

less than under the No Action Alternative. Again, all differences are less than 

10 percent (table 4.25). 

Because the percent change in habitat values are all less than 10 percent compared 

to the No Action Alternative, no effect on the biological response of steelhead or 

spring Chinook upper Yakima River population is expected compared to the No 

Action Alternative. 

Indicator 2: Flip-Flop in Both the Upper Yakima and Naches Rivers for 

Yearling Steelhead and Spring Chinook.—The average rate of change in daily 

flow during the flip-flop operation for Easton is -7 cfs. The average rate of 

change in daily flow is -58 cfs in the Ellensburg reach and +37 cfs in the lower 

Naches River reach. These changes represent a decline in the rate of change in 

flow of about 26 percent for the Ellensburg reach, and an increase in the rate of 

change in flow of 9 percent for the lower Naches River reach compared to the No 

Action Alternative (table 4.25). 

These results represent an improvement in the Ellensburg reach (third best) and a 

slight worsening condition in the lower Naches River reach (third best) for fish 

compared to the No Action Alternative. While the specific biological 

implications are difficult to measure, the reduction in the rates of change in flow 

in the Ellensburg reach should translate into less stranding of both fish and 

aquatic invertebrates for reasons similar to those stated under the Black Rock 

Alternative. Even though the rate of change in flow increases somewhat in the 

lower Naches River reach, this is not expected to result in any biological change 

compared to the No Action Alternative for steelhead and spring Chinook in the 

Naches River basin. 

Indicator 3: Spring Flow Downstream from the Parker Gage.—The spring 

seasonal flow is 10 percent below the flow volume objective, or about the same as 

under the No Action Alternative. The stream runoff pattern is the same as under 

4-120 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

the No Action Alternative. No effect on steelhead or spring Chinook smolt 

survival is expected because there is virtually no difference in the flow volume 

objective or in the spring runoff pattern. 

Indicator 4: July-September Flow Downstream from the Parker Gage.—The 

median July-September flow downstream from the Parker gage under the Wymer 

Dam and Reservoir Alternative is 644 cfs, compared to 642 cfs under the No 

Action Alternative. This difference in flow does not result in a significant change 

in the total amount of coho summer yearling habitat compared to the No Action 

Alternative and, therefore, no effect on the survival or rearing capacity for 

anadromous fish in the Wapato reach is expected compared to the No Action 

Alternative. 

Indicator 5: Estimated Anadromous Fish Population Size.—The EDT and 

AHA models estimated average annual escapement under the Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir Alternative as follows: 

• Spring Chinook: 7,294 

• Fall Chinook: 7,112 

• Coho: 8,591 

• Steelhead: 2,724 

Indicator 6: False Attraction.—A minimal potential exists for false attraction to 

occur at the confluence of Lmuma Creek, which would receive the outflow from 

the Wymer reservoir. The water supply for the reservoir is both skimmed Yakima 

River water, along with Cle Elum Lake water released during the winter months, 

and should have a similar chemical signature as the river water steelhead and 

salmon have imprinted to. In most years (except in prorated water years), 

reservoir releases would occur in July and August, and the number of adult 

steelhead and salmon migrating through this reach of the river would be minimal 

at that time. Some late arriving spring Chinook could be affected. 

4.8.2.6 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

In addition to the construction impacts for Wymer reservoir discussed for the 

Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative, construction impacts to fishery resources 

would occur during construction of the intake to pumping plant #1 and the 

pipeline crossings under the Yakima River and various roads and waterways. 

The impacts of crossing the Yakima River and roads and waterways (installation 

and removal of coffer dams and dewatering the coffer dams) are anticipated to 

be minor relative to the quality and amount of aquatic habitat found within the 

Yakima River system. Impacts resulting from construction activities may 

4-121 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

also alter aquatic conditions by temporarily increasing sedimentation (turbidity), 

but these impacts are anticipated to be temporary. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Winter flows from Cle Elum Lake to Wymer reservoir are greater under this 

alternative as winter flows are “bypassed” through Cle Elum Lake to be stored in 

Wymer reservoir. This “bypass” more than doubles flows in the Cle Elum River. 

In the spring and summer, flows are greater in the middle and lower basin as 

water available for diversion at Roza and Parker is left in the river as some of the 

irrigation demand is met by the exchange. The flow objective at Parker increases 

from about 640 cfs to 1,500 cfs. During the summer months, flows in the upper 

Yakima River are less, as some of the irrigation needs in the middle basin are met 

by releases from Wymer reservoir. Summer flows are about 600 cfs less than 

under the No Action Alternative. 

Indicator 1: Summer Rearing Habitat in the Easton and Ellensburg Reaches 

for Spring Chinook and Steelhead Fry and Yearlings.—There are no significant 

differences (>10 percent change) between this alternative and the No Action 

Alternative for either of the species and life stages for the Easton or Ellensburg 

reaches. As under the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative, habitat is generally 

better for steelhead and spring Chinook in the Easton reach, while results are 

mixed for the Ellensburg reach (table 4.25). 

Indicator 2: Flip-Flop in Both the Upper Yakima and Naches Rivers for 

Yearling Steelhead and Spring Chinook.—The average rate of change in daily 

flow during the flip-flop operation for the Easton reach is -6 cfs. The average rate 

of change in daily flow is -57 cfs in the Ellensburg reach and +36 cfs in the lower 

Naches River reach. In the Ellensburg reach, the rate of change in daily flow is 

about 27 percent less than under the No Action Alternative; in the lower Naches 

River reach, the rate of change is 6 percent greater (table 4.25). 

For the three Joint Alternatives, these results represent the third best improvement 

in the Ellensburg reach (and comparable to the Wymer Dam and Reservoir 

Alternative) of the three Joint Alternatives and the second best improvement in 

the lower Naches River reach (and comparable to the Wymer Dam and Reservoir 

Alternative) compared to the No Action Alternative. While the specific biological 

implications are difficult to measure, the reduction in the rates of change in flow 

in the Ellensburg reaches should translate into less stranding of both fish and 

aquatic invertebrates for reasons similar to those stated under the Black Rock 

Alternative. A reduction in the rate of increase in flow in the lower Naches River 

reach may decrease the potential for juvenile steelhead and salmon to be displaced 

from their rearing habitats. 

Indicator 3: Spring Flow Downstream from the Parker Gage.—The spring 

seasonal flow is 11 percent above the flow volume objective, an improvement 

(19 percent) compared the No Action Alternative, which is 7 percent below the 

4-122 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

objective. The stream runoff pattern is the same as under the No Action 

Alternative. Overall smolt outmigration survival should be better under this 

alternative. 

Indicator 4: July-September Flow Downstream from the Parker Gage.—The 

median July-September flow downstream from the Parker gage under the 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative is 1,505 cfs, 

compared to 642 cfs under the No Action Alternative. These greater flows 

result in a 4.1-percent increase in the amount of coho summer yearling habitat 

compared to the No Action Alternative. The reduction in mainstem habitat 

(14.8 acres) is offset by an increase of 16.7 acres of side-channel habitat. Though 

the overall increase in the amount of habitat is small compared to the No Action 

Alternative, the shift towards a greater percentage in the side channels may be of 

greater habitat quality compared to mainstem habitat. 

Indicator 5: Estimated Anadromous Fish Population Size.—The EDT and 

AHA models estimated average annual escapement under the Wymer Dam Plus 

Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative as follows: 

• Spring Chinook: 8,428 

• Fall Chinook: 9,321 

• Coho: 9,392 

• Steelhead: 3,338 

Indicator 6: False Attraction.—The Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

Exchange Alternative would use Columbia River water pumped in the vicinity of 

the Yakima River confluence, which would occur during the irrigation season and 

would be pumped into the Roza and Sunnyside Canals. A maximum of 1,040 cfs 

of Columbia River water would be exchanged between Roza and Sunnyside 

during the irrigation season. Potential false attraction issues on the Yakima and 

mid-Columbia (upstream of the Yakima River) salmon populations discussed in 

“Methods and Assumptions” would be further reduced because the pumping plant 

would be located immediately downstream from the Yakima River confluence; 

thus, the pumped water would be an admixture of Yakima and Columbia River 

water. 

The monthly median operational spill of Columbia River water from Roza and 

Sunnyside canals ranges between 10.5 cfs in June through August to 13.7 cfs in 

April. The mixture of Columbia River water to Yakima River water at the KionaBenton gage ranges from 0.27 to 0.72 percent (table 4.29). As discussed for the 

Black Rock Alternative, most adult anadromous fish migration into the Yakima 

River basin occurs outside of the summer months—between September and 

June—when the amount of Columbia River water mixed in the Yakima River 

water is generally 1 percent or less. 

4-123 
 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table 4.29 Percent of Columbia River water mixed with Yakima River water at the Kiona 

Benton gage (RM 29.9) by month during the irrigation season as a result of direct 

operational spill from Roza and Sunnyside Canals 

Month 

Kiona-Benton gage 

monthly median 

flow (cfs) 

Total monthly 

median Roza and 

Sunnyside Canal 

operational spill of 

Black Rock reservoir 

water (cfs) 

Percent of Columbia 

River water to 

Yakima River water 

(cfs) at KionaBenton gage 

March 4,507 12.2 0.27 

April 5,162 13.7 0.27 

May 4,933 12.2 0.25 

June 4,428 10.5 0.24 

July 1,932 10.5 0.54 

August 1,845 10.5 0.57 

September 1,939 13.9 0.72 

October 2,206 14.6 0.66 

Based on these findings, the potential for false attraction resulting from direct 

operational spill of mixed Yakima and Columbia River water appears to be 

minimal. 

4.8.2.7 Mitigation 

The following measures will be implemented to reduce short-term impacts of 

construction activities to anadromous fish: 

•	 Implement construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to avoid and 

minimize potential construction impacts, including erosion and 

sedimentation, accidental and incidental discharge of pollutants (Spill 

Prevention, Containment, and Control Plan), and dewatering and 

discharge of dewatering water. 

•	 Prior to complete dewatering of coffer dams, fishery personnel will 

salvage all fishes using the most appropriate capture gear and methods. 

•	 Provide treatment of construction dewatering discharges, such as sediment 

removal or filtration, as necessary, before the release of such water to 

wetlands or streams. 

4.8.2.8 Cumulative Impacts 

While there are some short-term minor adverse impacts to anadromous fish from 

construction activities under the Joint Alternatives, for the most part, the impacts 

under those alternatives are, in the long term, beneficial. Those benefits could be 

diminished by some of the other actions that are reasonably likely to occur. In 

particular, the future growth in the area may affect anadromous fish both directly 

and indirectly. As Lackey et al. (2006) have pointed out, future population 

growth in the Pacific Northwest and the development and use of scarce natural 

4-124 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

resources that accompanies it will diminish populations of wild salmonids. While 

laws and regulations, like the Shorelines Management Act, the Hydraulic Project 

Approval Act, and the Endangered Species Act are in place to try to minimize or 

at least manage some of the direct impacts of development on salmonids and their 

habitat, continued development in the Yakima River basin would likely erode 

some of the benefits of the alternatives considered here. 

Cumulative impacts could also occur from the implementation of fish 

enhancement projects as part of the BPA Fish and Wildlife Program or through 

other fish enhancement programs such as the State of Washington’s Salmon 

Recovery Funding Board. Funds from both of these programs have been used in 

the Yakima River basin to restore and enhance anadromous fish habitat and this is 

expected to continue in the future. In the Yakima Subbasin Plan (Yakima 

Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Planning Board, 2004) estimates of potential 

anadromous fish populations were made using EDT presuming improvements in 

habitat made under the Yakima Subbasin Plan. The estimates were made looking 

forward 30 years with the assumption that funding was not limited but that the 

actions contemplated met some test of reasonableness given current conditions. 

This exercise also took into account future development and actually decreased 

habitat values in areas where development was likely to be focused. Spring 

Chinook abundance estimates increased by about 60 percent over estimates under 

current conditions while fall Chinook and coho abundance estimates increased by 

about 35 percent. The flow improvements contemplated under the Joint 

Alternatives would enhance these projected increases, in some cases in an 

additive fashion but in other cases by multiplying the benefits to be achieved by 

the habitat enhancement projects. For example, by improving flow conditions in 

the basin under the Joint Alternatives they work in concert with the habitat 

enhancements to grow more smolts in the basin and then improve their survival 

out of the basin magnifying the benefit of the habitat enhancement. 

4.9 Resident Fish 

4.9.1 Affected Environment 

4.9.1.1 Columbia River 

The extent of the affected area in the Columbia River for the Storage Study is 

described in the “Anadromous Fish” section. A total of 38 resident species are 

known to reside in the Hanford reach and/or the Priest Rapids Lake (Pfeifer et al., 

2001) and are grouped as native game fish, native nongame fish, introduced 

(nonnative) game fish, and introduced nongame fish. They are listed, along with 

their type and relative abundance, in table 4.30. 

Important resident fish that prey on juvenile salmonids are northern pikeminnow, 

walleye, and small mouth bass. Walleye and small mouth bass are also important 

to recreational fisheries. 

4-125 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table 4.30 Resident fishes sampled in the Priest Rapids Project area during multiple year 

surveys (Source: Pfeifer et al., 2001) 

Common name Scientific name Species category General abundance 

White Sturgeon 

Bull trout native 

Rainbow trout 

Cutthroat trout 

Brown trout 

Mountain whitefish 

Lake whitefish 

Northern pikeminnow 

Peamouth 

Chiselmouth 

Redside shiner 

Longnose dace 

Speckled dace 

Leopard dace 

Carp 

Tench 

Bridgelip sucker 

Largescale sucker 

Longnose sucker 

Channel catfish 

Black bullhead 

Burbot 

Three-spined 

stickleback 

Sandroller 

Largemouth bass 

Smallmouth bass 

Black crappie 

White crappie 

Bluegill 

Pumpkinseed 

Torrent sculpin 

Prickly sculpin 

Walleye 

Yellow perch 

Acipenser 

transmontanus 

Salvelinus confluentus 

Oncorhynchus mykiss 

Oncorhynchus clarki 

Salmo trutta 

Prosopium williamsoni 

Coregonus clupeaformis 

Ptychocheilus 

oregonensis 

Mylocheilus caurinus 

Acrocheilus alutaceus 

Richardsonius balteatus 

Rhinichthys cataractae 

Rhinichthys osculus 

Rhinichthys falcatus 

Cyprinus carpio 

Tinca tinca 

Catostomus 

columbianus 

Catostomus 

macrocheilus 

Catostomus catostomus 

Ictalurus punctatus 

Amiurus melas 

Lota lota 

Gasterosteus aculeatus 

Percopsis transmontana 

Micropterus salmoides 

Micropterus dolomieu 

Pomoxis 

nigromaculatus 

Pomoxis annularis 

Lepomis macrochirus 

Lepomis gibbosus 

Cottus rhotheus 

Cottus asper 

Stizostedion vitreum 

Perca flavescens 

Native game fish 

Game fish 

Native game fish 

Native game fish 

Introduced game fish 

Native game fish 

Native game fish 

Native nongame fish 

Native nongame fish 

Native nongame fish 

Native nongame fish 

Native nongame fish 

Native nongame fish 

Native nongame fish 

Introduced nongame 

fish 

Introduced nongame 

fish 

Native nongame fish 

Native nongame fish 

Native nongame fish 

Introduced game fish 

Introduced game fish 

Native game fish 

Native nongame fish 

Native nongame fish 

Introduced game fish 

Introduced game fish 

Introduced game fish 

Introduced game fish 

Introduced game fish 

Introduced game fish 

Native nongame fish 

Native nongame fish 

Introduced game fish 

Introduced game fish 

Common 

ESA threatened, rare 

Common 

Uncommon 

Uncommon 

Common 

Rare 

Abundant 

Abundant 

Abundant 

Abundant 

Common 

Common 

Rare 

Common 

Uncommon 

Abundant 

Abundant 

Common 

Common 

Uncommon 

Rare 

Abundant 

Rare 

Common 

Common 

Common 

Common 

Uncommon 

Uncommon 

Common 

Common 

Common 

Common 

4-126 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Grant County PUD documented the capture of one juvenile bull trout in 

November during an intensive fishery survey in 1999 (FERC, 2006). 

White sturgeons are known to spawn in July in the tailrace of Wanapum and 

Priest Rapids Dams and farther downstream in the Hanford reach. A total of 

230 fish were sampled between the three locations in a census study conducted in 

2000 (FERC, 2006). 

4.9.1.2 Yakima River 

The areas of interest include the existing and proposed reservoirs within the basin 

and the Yakima, Cle Elum, Naches, Tieton and Bumping Rivers from headwater 

reservoirs to the confluence of the Yakima River with the Columbia River. (See 

frontispiece map.) 

Description and Distribution 

Resident native salmonids that currently exist in streams and lakes of the upper 

Yakima River basin include bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), westslope 

cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki), rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), 

kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka), mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), 

and pygmy whitefish (Prosopium coulteri) (Pearsons et al., 1998; WDFW, 1998). 

Eastern brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), a nonnative (introduced), salmonid is 

also present. Of these species, those of special concern include bull trout 

(federally threatened), westslope cutthroat trout, and pygmy whitefish (State 

sensitive). Although bull trout tend to exhibit several different life history 

strategies, they are included in the resident fish analysis. 

At least in the Yakima River basin, westslope cutthroat appear to be fairly 

abundant and widely distributed, particularly in the upper reaches (higher 

elevations) of tributaries to Keechelus Lake and the Yakima River. Cutthroat, as 

well as other resident salmonid species, provide recreational angling opportunities 

throughout the upper basin. Resident rainbow trout and mountain whitefish 

angling in the upper Yakima River and in the lower reaches of tributary streams is 

extremely popular. In fact, the trout fishery in the upper Yakima River is 

considered one of the best “blue ribbon” catch-and-release fisheries in 

Washington State. 

Thirty-seven resident nonsalmonid species are present in the Yakima River basin 

(Pearsons et al., 1998). The most abundant nonsalmonids in the upper Yakima 

River basin are speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), longnose dace (Rhinichthys 

cataractae), redside shiners (Richardsonius balteaus), northern pikeminnow 

(Ptychocheilus oregonensis), largescale suckers (Catostomus macrocheilus), 

bridgelip suckers (Catostomus columbianus), and several sculpin species, 

including mottled, torrent, piute, and shorthead sculpins (Cottus sp.). Although 

these nonsalmonid species do not receive the notoriety of salmonids (trout, 

salmon, and steelhead) or other lower river nonsalmonid game fish (such as bass 

4-127 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

and catfish) they are nevertheless an important component of the aquatic 

environment. Most serve as forage for other game and food fish. Burbot (Lota 

lota) is an important game fish present in Keechelus Lake. 

Two other species, although not as abundant as those listed above, but important 

due to their status, are the mountain sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus) (a State 

candidate species) and the Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) (a Federal 

species of concern). Mountain suckers occur within the basin, and it is possible 

that lamprey do as well, although few have been observed in the Yakima River. 

Although not listed, numerous fish species inhabiting the mid to lower zones of 

the Yakima River may potentially be impacted by the proposed Black Rock, 

Wymer Dam and Reservoir, and Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

Exchange Alternatives. For a complete fish species list for the Yakima River 

basin, refer to Pearsons et al. (1998). 

Habitat Conditions 

Habitat conditions for native resident fish in the river segments downstream from 

the storage dams are identical to those discussed in the “Anadromous Fish” 

section. Unlike anadromous fish, resident fish are also present in the storage 

reservoirs, which are part of the area affected by the proposed alternatives. 

Reservoir operations may affect resident fish by affecting the productivity of the 

reservoirs for fish and their food base and by affecting access from the reservoir 

to tributary spawning streams. 

Annual drawdown of the basin reservoirs, which is part of the routine operation 

and maintenance of the Yakima Project, could affect reservoir aquatic 

productivity. Existing data suggest that the Yakima River basin reservoirs have 

limited nutrients, especially phosphorus and trace elements (Flagg et al., 2000; 

Hiebert, 1999; Mongillo and Faulconer, 1982). Based on the information 

available, all of the reservoirs are oligotrophic (lacking plant nutrients and usually 

containing plentiful amounts of DO without stratification). Studies by Mongillo 

and Faulconer integrated many limnological factors to determine the fishproducing potential of the reservoirs. The studies were conducted in the presence 

of what would have been routine operations at the time. Their analysis suggested 

that flushing rates may be removing phosphorus from the reservoirs (Mongillo 

and Faulconer, 1982), that there was a significant relationship between 

zooplankton production and fish catch per unit effort, and that lake levels, if held 

higher, might enhance benthic invertebrate production. 

Generally, time is an important factor for the effectiveness of lake processes 

(stratification, sedimentation, population growth, etc.); adequate time under 

relatively stable conditions is required for the ecosystem to function adequately 

(Wetzel, 1990). One common effect of an annual drawdown is to reduce the 

time available to complete population growth (e.g., phytoplankton, zooplankton), 

4-128 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

and this can result in reduced diversity of biota and the favoring of biota 

with broad physiological tolerances (Wetzel, 1990). 

Drawdown also impacts the littoral zone, the area between the high and low water 

marks, which is often important to several aspects of fish production. In 1981, 

Washington Department of Game wrote a report to Reclamation for the Yakima 

River Basin Water Enhancement Project (Washington Department of Game, 

1981). The biologists reported: 

All reservoirs in the basin are seasonally drafted to meet irrigation 

needs. The decrease in reservoir surface area has an adverse impact 

on primary productivity reducing the food supply for fish. The major 

source of productivity in most reservoirs is phytoplankton, which thrive 

in the upper photic zone of the pool. As reservoir levels decrease 

through the summer, primary production and resultant food supplies 

decline. Because of inadequate food supplies, fish populations in 

reservoirs are maintained at artificially low levels. In addition, a low 

water level in fall limits the habitat available for shoal spawning 

species. 

Reservoir elevations may affect the ability of species which rear in the reservoir 

but spawn in the tributaries to move from one to the other. The access problem is 

a function of both tributary streamflow and reservoir elevation and occurs mainly 

in the fall and early winter when reservoirs are low as are flows in the tributaries. 

As the reservoirs are drawn down, the exposed stream channels on the reservoir 

bottoms may be ill-defined as they flow across the exposed sediments. Much of 

what little water is present may seep into the ground because the sediments are 

permeable; consequently, the stream may become too shallow for passage. In 

some years (e.g., 1996), when the reservoir and streamflows were low some 

streams became disconnected completely from the reservoirs. Years when flows 

and reservoir elevations are higher present less of a problem. 

4.9.2 Environmental Consequences 

4.9.2.1 Methods and Assumptions 

Columbia River 

The Biology Technical Work Group (2004) identified two issues that pertain to 

resident fish in the affected area of the Columbia River. The first issue is the 

potential effects of water withdrawal from Priest Rapids Lake to fill Black Rock 

reservoir on the spawning and rearing habitat of resident fish. 

The relationship between the Hanford reach juvenile fall Chinook habitat area to 

river discharge (Anglin et al., 2006) was used as an indicator to evaluate the 

potential affects of pumping Columbia River water from Priest Rapids Lake on 

resident fish residing in the Hanford reach. Because of the large number of 

4-129 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

resident fish that reside in the affected area and lack information pertaining to the 

relationship of habitat area to river discharge specific to these resident species, the 

habitat-area-to-river-discharge relationship for juvenile fall Chinook was used as 

a surrogate. 

The second issue was to evaluate the potential effects on resident fish mortality at 

the pump intake site of pumping Columbia River water from Priest Rapids Lake 

to fill Black Rock reservoir. 

This issue was evaluated in qualitative terms, factoring in the pump intake 

location, screen design, pumping schedule, and quantity of water pumped, as was 

discussed for anadromous fish. 

Yakima River 

There was no appreciable change in water temperature in the modeled reach 

(Roza Diversion Dam to Prosser Diversion Dam) during the irrigation season 

between the Joint Alternatives and the No Action Alternative (“Anadromous 

Fish” section). Thus, no change is expected in the biological consequence of 

water temperatures to resident fishes for the Joint Alternatives compared to the 

No Action Alternative. 

Indicator 1: Summer Rearing Habitat in the Easton, Ellensburg, and Lower 

Naches River Reaches for Rainbow Trout and Bull Trout 

See the “Anadromous Fish” section for a complete description of this indicator. 

The methods and assumptions are the same, except that the fry and subyearling 

life stage time periods for rainbow trout and bull trout differ from the steelhead 

and spring Chinook because of differences in their life cycles. Few records exist 

of bull trout spawning or fry/juvenile rearing in the three reaches evaluated for 

this indicator. The lifestage time periods used to estimate the amount of fry and 

subyearling habitat in the Easton, Ellensburg, and lower Naches River reaches 

were as follows: 

• Rainbow trout fry - July 1 through August 30 

• Rainbow trout subyearling - September 1 through September 30 

• Bull trout subyearling - June 1 through September 30 

Indicator 2: Flip-Flop in Both the Upper Yakima and Naches Rivers 

This indicator applies similarly to anadromous and resident fishes. A complete 

description of this indicator is discussed in the “Anadromous Fish” section. 

Indicator 3: Reservoir Operations 

The reservoir operations indicator applies to bull trout spawners in Kachess, 

Keechelus, and Rimrock Lakes. This indicator has two components. The first 

component counts the average annual number of days access from the reservoir to 

spawning tributary is impeded for bull trout spawners due to low reservoir 

4-130 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

volume. Critical passage due to reservoir volume is influenced by the amount 

(cfs) of tributary inflow. For the same reservoir volume, bull trout passage 

generally improves as tributary inflow increases. To account for this tributary 

influence on passage (Thomas and Bovee, 2007) lookup tables were developed 

for each of the three reservoirs that were used in the DSS model to track this 

indicator. These lookup tables are based on multiple field observations by 

Thomas and Bovee (2007) spanning several years, where the number of spawning 

nests (redds) in the reservoir tributaries were counted and loosely correlated to 

reservoir volume and the amount of tributary inflow. 

The critical bull trout spawner migration time period was defined as July 15­

September 15 (Thomas and Bovee, 2007). 

The second component is a measure of the median Kachess, Keechelus, and 

Rimrock Lake elevation during the bull trout spawning migration period of 

July 15 - September 15 when they migrate from the reservoirs into the tributaries. 

The first component of the reservoir operations indicator is calculated by the 

DSS model with input of daily reservoir elevation from the Yak-RW model for 

the hydrologic period of 1981-2005. The DSS model counts the number of days 

for each year in the hydrologic period that reservoir elevation is below the critical 

threshold volume for each of the three reservoirs from July 15-September 15 and 

is recorded as the average number of days annually the critical threshold volume 

is not exceeded. This indicator was calculated for all four alternatives; the percent 

difference between each Joint Alternative and the No Action Alternative was also 

calculated. 

The second component of the reservoir operations indicator calculates the 

median reservoir elevation for Kachess, Keechelus, and Rimrock Lakes based 

on estimated daily reservoir elevations for the 1981-2005 hydrologic period 

provided as output from the Yak-RW model. 

4.9.2.2 Summary of Impacts 

Columbia River 

Much of the discussion for anadromous fish in section 4.8 applies to resident 

fish and is not discussed further here. The only difference identified was the 

potential for entrainment of newly emergent resident fry through the fish screens; 

this potential does not exist for anadromous salmonids. The State’s criterion is 

a 3/32-inch mesh size opening for all screens designed to preclude entrainment 

of juvenile salmonids. Many of the resident warm water species have fry that 

hatch at approximately 15 millimeters or less in length (salmon and steelhead 

fry are approximately 20-25 millimeters at emergence), which would result in 

entrainment into the intake pipe to Black Rock reservoir until they grow to a size 

comparable to anadromous salmonids. While some fish would be actively drawn 

into the Priest Rapids pumping plant, intake screening would restrict entrainment. 

4-131 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Yakima River 

Table 4.31 summarizes the effects of the alternatives on the selected indicators for 

rainbow trout and bull trout. 

Table 4.31 Summary of impacts on the selected indicators for rainbow trout and bull trout 

Resource 

Indicator 

No Action 

Alternative 

Black Rock 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam Plus 

Yakima River 

Pump Exchange 

Alternative 

Summer flows in the upper Yakima and lower Naches Rivers (acres of available habitat) 

Easton reach 

Rainbow trout fry 

habitat 

Rainbow trout 

yearling habitat 

Bull trout yearling 

habitat 

5.2 

57.2 

61.9 

5.5 

5.8% 

63.2 

10.5% 

66.1 

6.8% 

5.4 

3.8% 

57.9 

-3.8% 

62.9 

1.6% 

5.5 

5.8% 

54.6 

-4.5% 

62.8 

1.5% 

Ellensburg reach 

Rainbow trout fry 

habitat 

Rainbow trout 

yearling habitat 

Bull trout yearling 

habitat 

2.5 

19.9 

20.5 

2.4 

-4.0% 

25.7 

28.9% 

20.3 

-1.0% 

2.4 

-4.0% 

20.3 

-20.1% 

20.3 

-1.0% 

2.4 

-4.0% 

17.0 

-9.5% 

2.3 

-1.0% 

Lower Naches River reach 

Rainbow trout fry 

habitat 

Rainbow trout 

yearling habitat 

Bull trout yearling 

habitat 

4.3 

45.9 

64.8 

4.2 

-0.8 

47.2 

2.9% 

65.0 

0.3% 

4.3 

0.0% 

48.1 

0.2% 

64.8 

0.0% 

4.3 

0.0% 

46.0 

0.1% 

64.6 

-0.3% 

Bull trout spawner upmigration at reservoirs (inseason days impeded) 

Kachess Lake 18 15 

-16.7% 

18 

0.0 

17 

-5.5% 

Keechelus Lake 37 38 

2.7% 

37 

0.0% 

37 

2.7% 

Rimrock Lake 3 3 

0.0% 

1 

-66.6% 

1 

-66.6% 

Average minimum and maximum reservoir elevation during bull trout spawning migration: 

July 15 – September 15 (feet) 

Kachess Lake 

Keechelus Lake 

Rimrock Lake 

2,248.4 

2,202.4 - 2,262.0 

2,467.3 

2,427.5 - 2,513.3 

2,909.9 

2,869.8 - 2,927.8 

2,253.1 

2,206.0 - 2,262.0 

2,466.6 

2,427.6 - 2,514.4 

2,906.2 

2,839.8 - 2,927.7 

2,249.3 

2,201.0 - 2,262.0 

2,467.6 

2,427.5 - 2,514.9 

2,912.3 

2,872.4 - 2,927.8 

2,249.7 

2,202.4 - 2,262.0 

2,468.0 

2,427.5 - 2,514.9 

2,911.7 

2,868.0 - 2,927.8 

4-132 
 

 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

4.9.2.3 No Action Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts under the No Action Alternative would be considered under 

separate NEPA evaluation as discussed in chapter 2. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Indicator 1: Resident Fish Impacts.—The habitat quantity amounts for each 

reach and species/life stage are presented in table 4.31. These values are 

essentially the same as under the current condition.6 

Only habitat changes near or greater than 10 percent are discussed in the text, 

but all values are reported in table 4.31. 

Indicator 2: Flip-Flop in Both the Upper Yakima and Naches Rivers.—The 

results are the same as discussed for anadromous fish, and results are shown in 

table 4.25. 

No change is expected in the biological consequence to resident rainbow trout and 

bull trout under the No Action Alternative compared to the current condition. 

Indicator 3: Reservoir Operations.—The average annual number of days with a 

critical threshold reservoir volume for bull trout spawners under the No Action 

Alternative is Kachess Lake, 18 days; Keechelus Lake, 37 days; and Rimrock 

Lake, 3 days (table 4.31). 

The average reservoir elevations for the period coinciding with bull trout spawner 

migration for all the alternatives are presented in table 4.31. The average 

reservoir elevation for the No Action Alternative are Kachess Lake, 2,248.4 feet; 

Keechelus Lake, 2,467.3 feet; and Rimrock 2,909.9 feet. 

4.9.2.4 Black Rock Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts would be the same as discussed in the “Anadromous Fish” 

section. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Indicator 1: Resident Fish Impacts.—Compared to the No Action Alternative, 

flows changes in the Yakima River are the greatest under this alternative. Spring 

flows are greater throughout the system, while summer flows in the mid- and 

lower Yakima River are significantly greater as a result of a higher flow objective 

6

 The DSS model was not run for the RiverWare current flows; therefore, the only way to 

compare and thus make this statement is by comparison of flows between the current condition 

and No Action Alternative. 

4-133 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

at the Parker gage. Summer and early fall flows in the upper Yakima River basin 

are less, as water previously released for diversion by Roza and Sunnyside 

Irrigation Districts is now provided from Black Rock reservoir. Winter flows are 

also higher throughout the basin as a result of improved carryover and a reduced 

volume that needs to be stored each winter. 

Generally there is no substantive difference in the amount of fry and yearling 

habitat between the Black Rock and the No Action Alternatives in the Easton 

reach (table 4.31). The only exception is an increase (10.5 percent) in the amount 

of rainbow trout yearling habitat. In the Ellensburg reach, the only substantive 

change in habitat quantity is the nearly 30-percent increase in rainbow trout 

yearling habitat compared to the No Action Alternative. There are no changes 

10 percent or greater in the lower Naches River reach. 

Indicator 2: Flip-Flop in Both the Upper Yakima and Naches Rivers.—The 

results are the same as discussed for anadromous fish, and results are shown in 

table 4.25. 

The results represent an improvement in both the Ellensburg and lower Naches 

River reaches for fish compared to the No Action Alternative. While the specific 

biological implications are difficult to measure, the reduction in the rates of 

change should translate into less stranding of both fish and aquatic invertebrates 

in the Ellensburg reach that need to move to adjust to the change, and less spatial 

disruption to desired habitat (i.e., the change in location of desired habitat in a 

relatively short period of time) in the lower Naches River reach. 

Indicator 3: Reservoir Operations.—The average annual number of days with a 

critical threshold reservoir volume for bull trout spawners under the Black Rock 

Alternative is Kachess Lake, 15 days; Keechelus Lake, 38 days; and Rimrock 

Lake, 3 days; compared to 18, 37, and 3 days, respectively, under the No Action 

Alternative (table 4.31). 

The average reservoir elevations under the Black Rock Alternative are Kachess 

Lake, 2,255.3 feet; Keechelus Lake, 2,466.6 feet; and Rimrock Lake, 2,906.2 feet 

(table 4.31). Average reservoir elevation is higher in Kachess Lake (+4.7 feet) 

and lower in Keechelus Lake (-0.7 feet) and Rimrock Lake (-3.7 feet) than under 

the No Action Alternative. No effects on bull trout spawner migration are 

expected as a result of these differences in average reservoir elevations compared 

to the No Action Alternative. 

4.9.2.5 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts would be the same as discussed in the “Anadromous Fish” 

section. 

4-134 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Long-Term Impacts 

Indicator 1: Resident Fish Impacts.—Winter flows from Cle Elum Lake down 

to the Wymer site are greater under this alternative as winter flows are “bypassed” 

through Cle Elum Lake to be stored in Wymer reservoir. This “bypass” more 

than doubles flows in the Cle Elum River. During the summer months, flows in 

the upper Yakima River are lower as some of the irrigation needs in the middle 

basin are met by releases from Wymer reservoir. Summer flows are about 500­

600 cfs less. 

There are no substantive differences of 10 percent or greater in the amount of 

rainbow trout and bull trout habitat between the Wymer Dam and Reservoir and 

the No Action Alternatives in the Easton reach (table 4.31). 

Indicator 2: Flip-Flop in Both the Upper Yakima and Naches Rivers.—The 

results are the same as discussed for anadromous fish, and the results are 

presented in table 4.25. 

The results represent an improvement in the Ellensburg reach (third best) and a 

slight worsening condition in the lower Naches River reach (third best) for fish 

compared to the No Action Alternative. While the specific biological 

implications are difficult to measure, the reduction in the rates of change in flow 

in the Ellensburg reach should translate into less stranding of both fish and 

aquatic invertebrates for reasons similar to those presented for the Black Rock 

Alternative. Even though the rate of change in flow is somewhat greater in the 

lower Naches River reach, it is anticipated this would not result in any biological 

change compared to the No Action Alternative for rainbow trout and bull trout in 

the Naches River basin. 

Indicator 3: Reservoir Operations.—The average annual number of days with a 

critical threshold reservoir volume for bull trout spawners is Kachess Lake, 

18 days; Keechelus Lake, 37 days; and Rimrock Lake, 1 day (table 4.31). Under 

this alternative, the number of critical passage days is the same for Kachess and 

Keechelus Lakes and two days less for Rimrock Lake than under the No Action 

Alternative. 

The average reservoir elevation is Kachess Lake, 2,249.3 feet; Keechelus Lake, 

2,467.6 feet; and Rimrock Lake, 2,912.3 feet (table 4.31). Average reservoir 

elevation is higher in Kachess Lake (+0.9 feet), Keechelus Lake (+0.3 feet), and 

Rimrock Lake (+1.8 feet) than under the No Action Alternative. No effects on 

bull trout spawner migration are expected as a result of these differences in 

average reservoir elevations compared to the No Action Alternative. 

4-135 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

4.9.2.6 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts would be the same as discussed in the “Anadromous Fish” 

section. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Indicator 1: Resident Fish Impacts.—Winter flows from Cle Elum Lake to the 

Wymer site improve under this alternative as winter flows are “bypassed” through 

Cle Elum Lake to be stored in Wymer reservoir. This “bypass” more than 

doubles flows in the Cle Elum River. In the spring and summer, flows are greater 

in the middle and lower basin as water available for diversion at Roza and Parker 

is left in the river as some of the irrigation demand is met by the exchange. The 

flow objective at the Parker gage increases from about 640 cfs to 1,500 cfs. 

During the summer months, flows in the upper Yakima River are lower as some 

of the irrigation needs in the middle basin are met by releases from Wymer 

reservoir. Summer flows are about 1,000 cfs less. 

There are no substantive changes of 10 percent or greater in the amount of 

rainbow trout and bull trout habitat between this alternative and the No Action 

Alternative in the Easton reach (table 4.31). 

Indicator 2: Flip-Flop in Both the Upper Yakima and Naches Rivers.—The 

results are the same as discussed for anadromous fish, and the results are shown in 

table 4.25. 

For the three Joint Alternatives, these results represent the third best improvement 

in the Ellensburg reach (and comparable to the Wymer Dam and Reservoir 

Alternative) and the second best improvement in the lower Naches River reach 

(and comparable to the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative) compared to the 

No Action Alternative. While the specific biological implications are difficult to 

measure, the reduction in the rates of change in flow in the Ellensburg reaches 

should translate into less stranding of both fish and aquatic invertebrates for 

reasons similar to those presented for the Black Rock Alternative. A reduction in 

the rate of increase in flow in the lower Naches River reach may decrease the 

potential for juvenile rainbow trout and bull trout to be displaced from their 

rearing habitats. 

Indicator 3: Reservoir Operations.—The average annual number of days with a 

critical threshold reservoir volume for bull trout spawners is nearly the same as 

under the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative. 

The average reservoir elevation for Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative is 

Kachess Lake, 2,249.7 feet; Keechelus Lake, 2,468.0 feet; and Rimrock Lake, 

2,911.7 feet (table 4.31). Average reservoir elevation is higher in Kachess Lake 

(+1.3 feet), Keechelus Lake (+0.7 feet), and Rimrock Lake (+1.8 feet) than under 

4-136 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

the No Action Alternative. No effects on bull trout spawner migration are 

expected as a result of these differences in average reservoir elevations compared 

to the No Action Alternative. 

4.9.2.7 Mitigation 

Mitigation would be the same as discussed in the “Anadromous Fish” section. 

4.9.2.8 Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts on resident fish would be similar to those described for 

anadromous fish. Future growth and development in the basin will likely 

diminish the benefits of the Joint Alternatives for resident fish in the affected 

stream reaches. The benefits foreseen at the reservoirs as a result of higher 

reservoir elevations would not likely be diminished by growth. Most of the land 

surrounding the reservoirs is public land and not subject to the same development 

pressures as private lands located elsewhere in the basin. 

Implementation of habitat enhancement projects for anadromous fish would also 

benefit native resident fish. The EDT modeling done for anadromous fish as part 

of the subbasin planning process (Yakima Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Planning 

Board, 2004) also included steelhead. Because of difficulties using the 

EDT model to evaluate only steelhead, the modeling was done for both steelhead 

and rainbow trout (the nonanadromous form of steelhead) combined. This 

analysis indicated a better then four-fold increase in abundance for 

steelhead/rainbow over the current condition. As with anadromous fish, the 

improvements under the Joint Alternatives would work in concert with these 

habitat improvements to further boost resident fish numbers. 

4.10 Aquatic Invertebrates 

4.10.1 Affected Environment 

Invertebrate responses to regulated river systems are often complex and variable. 

Invertebrates are a major part of the food resource for fishes, and changes in 

invertebrate communities may result in changes in condition of fish communities 

(Waters, 1982; Bowlby and Roff, 1986; Wilzbach et al., 1986). Invertebrates, like 

other aquatic organisms, respond to changes in water quality, food abundance, 

and other habitat parameters (Ward, 1976; Armitage, 1984; Armitage et al., 

1987). Many habitat parameters affecting the distribution and/or abundance of 

aquatic invertebrates are affected by flow regime (Statzner et al., 1988), and the 

effects of change in flow are thus the focus of this resources assessment. 

This analysis of aquatic invertebrate communities is based on studies from other 

river systems and site-specific sampling within the Yakima River basin. Sites 

sampled in 2002-04 include areas downstream from storage reservoirs: 

4-137 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Keechelus, Kachess, Cle Elum, Bumping, Clear, and Rimrock (Tieton) Lakes; 

downstream from diversion dams (Easton and Roza); and in unregulated 

tributaries (Bumping, Cle Elum, Cooper, Gold Creek, Deep Creek, Indian Creek, 

South Fork Tieton Creek, and Waptus) (Nelson, 2004; Nelson, 2005). Sampling 

in the lower portion of the Yakima River was conducted in 2006 in the Union 

Gap/Wapato reach. Study results are summarized in the following sections, and 

additional details are in Nelson (2004). 

4.10.1.1 Flow Magnitude and Timing 

Aquatic invertebrates appear to be adapted to flow fluctuations within a range of 

what can be considered normal conditions. For example, Morgan et al. (1991) 

found that invertebrate density doubled if flows were generally held within a 

range of about one to three times the base flow. However, under extreme flood 

conditions—28 to 60 times the base flows—benthic biomass can be reduced 

between 75 to 95 percent within the first few miles downstream and a reduction of 

between 40 to 60 percent (compared to undisturbed areas) can be detected 12 to 

25 miles downstream (Moog, 1993). In general, flood flows need to exceed about 

20 times the median flow to have significant effects on invertebrate abundance 

and taxonomic richness 3 to 4 weeks after a flood event (Quinn and Hickey, 

1994). 

However, artificially high flows at unseasonable times may have a major effect on 

benthic composition. The length of time that biota are exposed to high flows also 

likely plays a role in the amount of community resiliency that is exhibited, with 

short-term (pulse) alterations less damaging than long-term (press) alterations. 

This may explain some of the variance in invertebrate assemblages downstream 

from Yakima Project reservoirs and may play a role in the low richness values 

relative to other Reclamation reservoirs (Nelson, 2004). Macroinvertebrate 

communities downstream from Cle Elum Lake and Bumping Lake appeared, 

however, to recover relatively quickly, with distance and time, from dam-induced 

impacts (Nelson, 2004). 

Arango (2001) determined that the flip-flop operation affected the insect 

community in an upper Yakima River riffle near the town of Ellensburg. It 

appeared that some insects were stranded as the water level was lowered in the 

Yakima River, while other insects entered the drift. Standing crop, however, 

doubled in samples collected in the river. The study suggested that a major 

portion of the invertebrate community is successful in moving down the drying 

bank and back into the wetted area. 

4.10.1.2 Recovery from Regulation 

The benthic communities downstream from Cle Elum Lake and Bumping Lake 

appeared to recover from dam-induced impacts within a relatively short distance 

(1.5 to 5.9 miles) downstream from dams (Nelson, 2004). However, the 

4-138 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

hyporheic invertebrate community may be more impacted by river regulation than 

macroinvertebrates associated with surface substrates (Nelson and Bowen, 2004), 

and the recovery distances downstream from dams for this portion of the 

macroinvertebrate community remains unstudied. 

4.10.1.3 Lateral Connectivity/Backwater Effects 

Backwaters in natural systems often function as macroinvertebrate refugia from 

extreme flows. Backwaters accumulate macroinvertebrates during spates, and 

lateral heterogeneity of stream channels is an important element of stream 

restoration (Negishi et al., 2002). Floodplain production of invertebrates can be 

orders of magnitude higher than that produced in the river channel (Gladden and 

Smock, 1990) and result in enhanced growth and survival of salmonids (Sommer 

et al., 2001). However, this may not always be the case, and Naches River 

invertebrate drift biomass and the abundance of benthos preferred by salmonids 

decreased in a season with higher flows, suggesting that invertebrates may have 

been flushed out of backwaters (Reclamation, unpublished data). Differences 

between studies may be the result of variable responses to differences in flow 

duration (e.g., pulse vs. press disturbances). 

Stanford et al. (2002) emphasized the importance of flow for maintaining offchannel environments in the Yakima River system, and it was suggested that 

these areas are often dewatered because of reduced base flows. Productivity 

decreases in benthic invertebrates caused by flow alterations likely to impact the 

quality of salmonid food resources. Presence of coarse-particulate-organic-matter 

(CPOM) has been found to be positively correlated with aquatic invertebrate 

biomass in upstream portions of the Yakima River basin (Nelson, 2005) and 

CPOM is associated, to a large degree, with riparian trees. Leaf fall in the autumn 

provides a large input of CPOM, with much of this linked to black cottonwoods, 

which then enters the main channel directly through leaf fall and via connection 

with side channels and floodplain inundation. 

4.10.1.4 Relationship to Discharge and Project Facilities 

It is likely that aquatic invertebrate distribution in the Yakima Project area is 

related to discharge, and, therefore, the potential for community changes resulting 

from altered flows is high. Alternatives that shift flows from what were the 

historic normative flows should have the greatest adverse effect on 

macroinvertebrate communities. However, despite some of the extreme 

alterations already present in the system, there is a great diversity and abundance 

of macroinvertebrates at some sites downstream from dams in the Yakima Project 

area. 

Yakima Project facilities and their operations have variable effects on aquatic 

invertebrates, with variability likely related to the degree of resulting flow 

alteration as compared to the natural flow regime. For example, taxa richness 

4-139 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

values downstream from diversion dams were similar to those obtained from 

unregulated tributaries, and much higher than those obtained below storage 

reservoirs (Nelson, 2004). Macroinvertebrate communities downstream from 

Cle Elum Lake and Bumping Lake appear to recover from dam-induced effects 

with distance downstream and season. 

4.10.2 Environmental Consequences 

As discussed in detail in this section, the analysis of alternatives based on 

hydrology suggests that the Black Rock Alternative would result in major positive 

changes in macroinvertebrate assemblages in the Wapato reach of the Yakima 

River and major changes of an indeterminate nature in the Cle Elum River. It 

appears that the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative would have few effects, 

and that the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative may 

result in only minor to moderate positive changes in the Wapato reach. 

4.10.2.1 Methods and Assumptions 

Impact assessment for aquatic invertebrate communities that may be affected by 

the proposed alternatives was based on studies from other river systems and sitespecific sampling within the Yakima River basin. Study results are summarized 

in the following sections and additional details can be found in Nelson (2004), 

and in the “Aquatic Ecosystem Evaluation” report developed for the Storage 

Study (Reclamation, 2008a). 

Reclamation scientists have been sampling aquatic invertebrates at Yakima 

River basin sites for several years, but this has occurred mostly in the upper 

part of the basin. Sites sampled in 2002-04 include areas downstream from 

storage reservoirs (Keechelus, Kachess, Cle Elum, Bumping, Clear, and Rimrock 

[Tieton] Lakes); downstream from diversion dams (Easton and Roza); and in 

unregulated tributaries (Bumping, Cle Elum, Cooper, Gold Creek, Deep Creek, 

Indian Creek, South Fork Tieton Creek, and Waptus) (Nelson, 2004; Nelson, 

2005). Sampling was conducted in 2006 at six sites in the Union Gap and Wapato 

reaches using the same methods as presented in Nelson (2004). These data 

indicated that Ephemeroptera Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPT) and taxa richness 

were similar between Union Gap/Wapato sites (EPT = 12.5 + 1.5 [95-percent 

confidence interval]), taxa richness = 23.3 + 6.0 (95-percent confidence interval) 

and unregulated tributaries (n = 30) (EPT = 15.3 + 1.8 (95-percent confidence 

interval), taxa richness = 22.7 + 2.4 (95-percent confidence interval) and 

abundance values were higher at sites in the lower reaches (lower reach 

abundance = 504 + 315 [95-percent confidence interval]) individuals/sample, 

unregulated tributaries abundance = 252 + 90 (95-percent confidence interval) 

individuals/sample, but had overlapping confidence intervals. Taxa richness 

refers to the total number of taxa sampled at sites, while EPT richness depends on 

the number of taxa within the disturbance sensitive insect orders of 

Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera. 

4-140 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Yakima River basin reservoirs/diversions were compared to 15 other Reclamation 

reservoirs with similar water quality parameters through a percentile ranking 

mechanism based on taxa (same classification level) and EPT richness (Nelson, 

2004). Richness scores from the 15 Reclamation reservoirs are categorized from 

low to high value and Yakima sites compared based on percentiles: ≥ 75 percent 

is high; > 50 to 75 percent is moderately high; > 25 to 50 percent is moderately 

low; and ≤ 25 percent is low. 

The focus in this analysis is largely on three reaches and includes the Cle Elum 

River, Kittitas (Ellensburg) and Wapato (Parker) reaches of the Yakima River. 

Hydrographs for these reaches are presented in chapter 2. Changes in 

macroinvertebrate assemblages are likely to occur under conditions that alter the 

timing and/or magnitude of flows, and these alterations may vary in different 

reaches of the same river. Macroinvertebrate data are relatively common for the 

Cle Elum River, largely absent for the Kittitas reach, and limited for the Wapato 

reach. A variety of metrics, including EPT and taxa richness along with 

macroinvertebrate functional feeding groups, were used to estimate effects related 

to hydrographs for these three reaches. It should be recognized that hydrological 

responses and macroinvertebrates to a river section may be variable under similar 

flows and the conclusions are not intended to be very specific. 

4.10.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts under the No Action Alternative would be considered under 

separate NEPA evaluation as discussed in chapter 2. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Under the No Action Alternative, flows are little changed from the current 

condition. Yakima Project facilities and their operations have variable effects 

on aquatic invertebrates under the No Action Alternative, with variability likely 

related to the degree of resulting flow alteration as compared to the natural flow 

regime. For example, taxa richness values downstream from diversion dams 

were similar to those obtained from unregulated tributaries and much higher 

than those obtained downstream from storage reservoirs (Nelson, 2004). Flows 

from diversions typically resemble run-of-the-riverflows and may thus be more 

similar to historic hydrology. Clear Lake and Rimrock Lake differed from other 

reservoirs by exhibiting high taxa richness values. Clear Lake flows are similar 

to natural flows and are typically surface withdrawals, while large substrate 

downstream from Rimrock Lake may provide a more stable habitat for 

invertebrates. It should also be noted that sampling at Rimrock Lake occurred in 

August, almost a year after—and before—the initiation of annual high flows 

associated with flip-flop operations. Macroinvertebrate communities downstream 

from Cle Elum Lake and Bumping Lake appear to recover from dam-induced 

effects with distance downstream and season. 

4-141 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

When compared among themselves based on aquatic invertebrate richness, 

Yakima River basin reservoirs and diversions can be ranked from highest to 

lowest as: Rimrock = Roza = Clear Lake = Easton > Kachess = Bumping > 

Cle Elum = Keechelus (Nelson, 2004). The high late-summer flows from 

Cle Elum Lake (chapter 2) are likely responsible for the low macroinvertebrate 

rankings downstream from this reservoir in August/September. 

Despite alterations in the basin, there is a great diversity and abundance of 

macroinvertebrates at some sites downstream from dams in the Yakima
 

Project area. For example, high-quality resilient invertebrate communities exist 

in the upper Yakima River basin under the altered flow regimes associated with 

flip-flop operations (Cuffney et al., 1997; Stanford et al., 2002; Nelson, 2004; 

Reclamation, unpublished data). Limited data appear to indicate some
 

impairment to aquatic invertebrates in downstream sites. Cuffney et al. (1997) 

describe sites along the mainstem Yakima River between Umtanum and Parker 

as containing moderately impaired communities. Conditions that may have 

influenced the macroinvertebrate communities included municipal wastewater 

discharges, irrigation return flows, and hydrological alterations caused by water 

diversions. Water diversions in conjunction with enrichment from wastewater 

discharges may result in major alterations of invertebrate communities (Suren 

et al., 2003). It is possible that, in the lower portion of the Yakima Project area, 

water diversions result in more easily detected consequences on the invertebrate 

community than the alterations in flow timing that presently occur in the upper 

part of the project under flip-flop operations. However, recent data collection 

indicates that metrics from macroinvertebrate samples collected from the Union 

Gap and Wapato reaches have values similar to those from unregulated 

tributaries. It should be noted that some investigators (Paller et al., 2006) have 

found that macroinvertebrate taxa richness increases with growing stream width. 

This appears not to be the case at Union Gap and Wapato, and taxa richness 

equivalent to upstream sites may be indicative of impacts. 

Differences in flow objectives (table 2.7) for the No Action Alternative (similar to 

current flows) suggest that upstream reaches during spring flows at Kittitas 

(decreased by 8 percent) are less altered than those in the Wapato reach, which 

are decreased by 38 percent. This alteration from unregulated flow would be 

expected to affect in-channel invertebrates, but would also affect floodplain 

aquatic invertebrates and CPOM production from black cottonwoods. The 

No Action Alternative would likely result in diminished production of CPOM 

over time because of the low cottonwood seedling recruitment that presently 

occurs on some of the reaches. 

4-142 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

4.10.2.3 Black Rock Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction-related impacts are anticipated to be minimal and isolated to areas 

adjacent to or immediately downstream from any new intake or outlet structures. 

Long-Term Impacts 

The Black Rock Alternative appears to result in the most normative/unregulated 

flow regime (chapter 2) at the three reaches. In the Cle Elum River, the Black 

Rock Alternative would shift high flows from summer to early spring (chapter 2). 

These high flows, however, would be much lower than unregulated flows 

(chapter 2) and even lower than the current high flows (around 13 times lower in 

some cases). At present, the macroinvertebrate community recovers from the 

impacts of regulation at about 6 miles downstream from the dam, and, in the 

absence of large flows in July-September, this recovery distance may decrease 

and result in community assemblages found immediately downstream from the 

dam becoming more like those found at downstream stations (Nelson, 2004), at 

least in the short term. Because of the presence of Cle Elum Lake, communities 

would still be altered with a larger presence of collector-filterers closer to the 

reservoir. Collector-filterers are animals with anatomical structures (setae or 

fans) or secretions that sieve particulate matter from suspension. In the absence 

of near normative high flows at any time of the year, there is a concern that finer 

substrates may become more common in the Cle Elum River downstream from 

the dam. This could have a large impact on the macroinvertebrate community 

because fine sediment deposition has been correlated with lower benthos 

abundance and changes in composition from EPT to burrowing midges and 

oligochaetes (Waters, 1995). The overall lower flows that would occur under the 

Black Rock Alternative would also likely result in the retention of more CPOM in 

the Cle Elum River. This could result in an abundance of shredders (organisms 

that process large pieces of decomposing plant matter) and collector-gatherers 

(organisms that feed primarily on deposited fine particulate organic matter) in 

what would become a largely low-flow environment with larger amounts of 

CPOM. 

In the Ellensburg reach of the Yakima River, summer flows would still be 

relatively high under the Black Rock Alternative, but would become more like 

unregulated conditions during spring runoff. Because of the high summer flows, 

it is likely that the macroinvertebrate community would be mostly unchanged in 

this reach under the Black Rock Alternative. 

The Wapato reach shows higher spring and summer flows (around 4-5 times 

greater than under the No Action Alternative) under the Black Rock Alternative, 

which results in a flow regime more similar to unregulated conditions. Despite 

these current alterations, the macroinvertebrate community in this reach and the 

Union Gap reach just upstream contain assemblages that have richness and 

abundance values similar to those in upstream unregulated tributaries (“Methods 

4-143 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

and Assumptions”). The higher summer base flows may expand the river 

channel area and increase channel production for a given reach. The Black 

Rock Alternative, because of higher spring flows, may result in more floodplain 

inundation for a longer period of time. This could have a large impact on 

invertebrate production in these areas. It has also been suggested that there 

would be an improvement in cottonwood forest trends in this reach of the 

Yakima River (“Vegetation and Wildlife”) which could maintain or increase 

CPOM production. It is unclear whether the increased (relative to the No 

Action Alternative) winter time flows under this alternative would flush 

CPOM from this reach. 

Abundance of hyporheic invertebrates in sample wells in the Wapato reach 

was low relative to other sites in the Yakima River basin (Stanford et al., 2002). 

It is possible that the greater base flow under the Black Rock Alternative could 

increase the interaction between surface water and groundwater in this reach, 

resulting in increased invertebrate production in the hyporheic. Much of this 

invertebrate biomass would eventually make its way back to the main channel, 

resulting in increased productivity under the Black Rock Alternative. 

4.10.2.4 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction-related impacts are anticipated to be minimal and isolated to areas 

adjacent to or immediately downstream from any new intake or outlet structures. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Hydrology under the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative is grossly similar 

to the No Action Alternative for the Cle Elum River (chapter 2), with the 

exception of slightly greater (< 2 times) winter flows. Thus, major effects 

on macroinvertebrate assemblages are unlikely. The major impact from the 

high late season flows would be the likely driver under this alternative. 

Changes in hydrology in the Ellensburg reach under the Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir Alternative would also be limited and would still retain the 

flattened spring runoff peak and summertime maximum flows. It would 

be expected that macroinvertebrate assemblages would be similar to those 

under the No Action Alternative. 

The Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative hydrology in the Wapato reach 

appears to be similar to the No Action Alternative and, therefore, it is not 

expected that there would be any observable effects on the macroinvertebrate 

community. 

4-144 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

4.10.2.5 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction-related impacts are anticipated to be minimal and isolated to areas 

adjacent to or immediately downstream from any new intake or outlet structures. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Hydrology under the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange 

Alternative is grossly similar to the No Action Alternative for the Cle Elum 

River (chapter 2) and thus would be unlikely to result in major effects on 

the macroinvertebrate assemblages. The timing of flows late in the season 

would be largely unchanged from the No Action Alternative. 

Changes in hydrology in the Ellensburg reach under this alternative would also be 

limited and would still retain the flattened/depressed spring runoff peak and 

summertime maximum flows. It would be expected that macroinvertebrate 

assemblages would be similar to those under the No Action Alternative. 

The Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative would result in 

greater base flows in the late summer and early fall in the Wapato reach. Spring 

flows are approximately 2 times greater, which may result in some increased 

flooding of the riparian area. Effects on the macroinvertebrate community 

under this alternative would be less than those expected under the Black Rock 

Alternative but could be expected to be altered in the direction of the Black Rock 

Alternative. This would include changes caused by increased channels width, 

hyporheic exchange, and CPOM introduction to the reach from black 

cottonwoods. 

4.10.2.6 Mitigation 

No mitigation would be required because impacts to aquatic invertebrate 

populations are anticipated to be minor or, in the long term, potentially beneficial. 

4.10.2.7 Cumulative Impacts 

Impacts to aquatic invertebrates under the Joint Alternatives are largely 

beneficial, except for potential minor impacts associated with short-term 

construction activities. The beneficial impacts associated with the Joint 

Alternatives to a large extent stem from changes in the flow regime, modifying it 

to more closely resemble the natural flow regime. None of the actions that are 

reasonably foreseeable would significantly alter the flow regime, so they should 

not offset the benefits to aquatic invertebrates that are projected under the Joint 

Alternatives. Some of the fisheries enhancement projects to be carried out under 

the BPA Fish and Wildlife Program or through other fish enhancement programs 

such as the State of Washington’s Salmon Recovery Funding Board could provide 

very localized improvements in aquatic invertebrate populations, but, from a 

basinwide perspective, they would not be significant. 

4-145 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

4.11 Threatened and Endangered Species 

4.11.1 Affected Environment 

Reclamation evaluated special status species potentially occupying or using the 

Storage Study area. Columbia River species selection was confined to the river 

channel only within Priest Rapids Lake and the Hanford reach downstream. In 

the Yakima River basin, only Benton, Kittitas, and Yakima Counties were 

addressed. Although the basin includes a narrow strip of northern Klickitat 

County (including the headwaters of Status Creek), no facilities would be 

constructed and/or operated that would affect resources in Klickitat County. 

As in other sections addressing both Columbia River and Yakima River basin 

locations, the Columbia River is addressed first, followed by Yakima River 

species. Anadromous fish are treated first, followed by other species. 

4.11.1.1 Columbia River 

Four anadromous salmonids inhabit or migrate through the Columbia River 

reaches that may be affected by the Joint Alternatives. These species include: 

spring, summer, and fall Chinook; summer steelhead; coho; and sockeye. Only 

fall Chinook are known to spawn in the Columbia River reaches within the study 

area (FERC, 2006). Upper Columbia River steelhead and Upper Columbia River 

spring Chinook migrate through this area and are federally listed species under 

ESA. 

Upper Columbia River Steelhead (O. mykiss) 

The Upper Columbia River steelhead was listed as endangered on June 13, 2007, 

by court decision. Critical habitat for the Upper Columbia River steelhead was 

designated on September 2, 2005 (Federal Register, 2005). Upper Columbia 

River steelhead include fish from the mainstem Columbia River and its tributaries 

upstream of the confluence of the Columbia and Yakima Rivers. 

Steelhead life history and ecological considerations are discussed under Middle 

Columbia River steelhead, and are not repeated here. Steelhead do not spawn in 

the Columbia River reaches potentially affected by the proposed alternatives, but 

do migrate through the reaches as adults on their way to spawning streams, and as 

juveniles on their way to the Pacific Ocean (FERC, 2006). Most steelhead adults 

pass Priest Rapids Dam during August and September, while most smolts migrate 

downstream from Priest Rapids Dam in May (range is late April through early 

June). 

The average number of adult steelhead passing Priest Rapids Dam from 1960 to 

2004 was 11,379 fish (range from 2,462 in 1975, to 34,589 in 1985; FERC, 2006). 

Prior to 1960, steelhead were counted upstream at Rock Island Dam. Counts 

from 1933 to 1959 ranged between 2,600 and 3,700 fish. Hatchery production in 

4-146 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

the 1960s increased run size to about 6,700 fish. Adult steelhead counts at Priest 

Rapids for the period 2003-2005 were 17,652; 18,727; and 13,449, respectively 

(FERC, 2006). 

Upper Columbia River Spring Run Chinook Salmon 

Three different runs of adult Chinook salmon pass Priest Rapids Dam. Adult 

Chinook returning from April 17 through June 13 are “spring” Chinook, adults 

returning from June 14 through August 13 are “summer” Chinook, and adults 

returning from August 14 through November 15 are “fall” Chinook (FERC, 

2006). Only spring Chinook are federally listed under ESA. The Upper 

Columbia River spring Chinook salmon, a State candidate species, was federally 

listed as endangered June 28, 2005 (Federal Register, 2005). Critical habitat for 

this species was designated on September 2, 2005 (Federal Register, 2005). 

Spring Chinook life history and ecological considerations are discussed in the 

“Anadromous Fish” section under “Middle Columbia River Spring Run Chinook” 

and are not repeated here. Spring Chinook do not spawn in the Columbia River 

reaches potentially affected by the proposed alternatives, but do migrate through 

the reaches as adults on their way to spawning streams, and as juveniles on their 

way to the Pacific Ocean (FERC, 2006). 

The average annual return of spring Chinook for the period 1960 to 2004 is 

13,067 fish (with a range from 51,133 in 2001 to 1,130 fish in 1995; FERC, 

2006). Adult spring Chinook counts at Priest Rapids in 2004 and 2005 were 

14,541 and 14,663, respectively. 

Spring Chinook juveniles outmigrate through the Middle Columbia River in April 

through June, with peak numbers passing Wanapum and Priest Rapids Dams in 

mid- to late-May (FERC, 2006). 

Additional detail on the affected environment of anadromous fish is found in the 

“Anadromous Fish” section. 

Bull Trout 

The bull trout, a State candidate species, was federally listed as threatened in the 

Columbia and Klamath River basins in 1998. 

Bull trout exhibit four life history types in Washington: anadromous, adfluvial 

(downstream migration to lakes), fluvial (downstream migration to larger rivers), 

and resident (Wydoski and Whitney, 2003). The resident, fluvial, and adfluvial 

forms occur in the study area. Resident fish complete their entire life cycle in the 

streams (or nearby) in which they spawn and rear, while fluvial forms mature in 

their natal streams, but then move to large streams and rivers after maturation. 

Adfluvial bull trout rear from 1 to 4 years in their natal stream then migrate to 

lakes, but return to natal streams to spawn. 

4-147 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Bull trout are native to the Pacific Northwest and are found from the CaliforniaOregon border east to Nevada, north through western Montana and western 

Alberta, westward through British Columbia, and north to at least 60 degrees 

north latitude in Alaska (Wydoski and Whitney, 2003). Bull trout occur in the 

Yukon River drainage and may occur further north. In the mid-Columbia River 

region of Washington, some 16 subpopulations of bull trout occur in the Yakima, 

Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow River basins (FERC, 2006). Historically, 

subpopulations were more numerous and distribution covered a larger area and 

included the Columbia River mainstem. Information for the mainstem is limited. 

However, bull trout are believed to be extirpated from the Hanford reach and are 

exceedingly rare in the Priest Rapids and Wanapum Lakes. 

4.11.1.2 Yakima River Basin 

The initial group of federally threatened or endangered species from the threecounty Yakima River basin and State-listed threatened or endangered species 

identified as being potentially affected by the proposed project include the gray 

wolf, Canada lynx, grizzly bear, marbled murrelet, and northern spotted owl. 

These species are associated with forest resources high in the basin on lands 

that may be in proximity to Reclamation’s storage reservoirs or other Yakima 

Project facilities. In 2000, Reclamation concluded—in another study—that 

operations of project facilities would not result in alterations to habitat resources 

important to these species (Reclamation, 2000). Reclamation believes that similar 

circumstances exist with this study, i.e., habitat resources potentially used by 

these species would not be affected, and these species are not considered further. 

Four additional species—the pygmy rabbit, the greater sandhill crane, the mardon 

skipper, and the basalt daisy—have historically occurred, or currently occur, 

within the three-county study area, but are unlikely to be affected by the proposed 

alternatives. These four species are briefly addressed but are not carried into the 

analyses. 

Middle Columbia River Steelhead (O. mykiss) 

Spawning Habitat.—Within the Yakima River basin, wild adult steelhead returns 

have averaged 1,818 fish (range 505 to 4,491) over brood years 1985-2006 as 

monitored at Prosser Diversion Dam (RM 47.1; brood year 2006 data from 

Yakima-Klickitat Fisheries Program (Yakama Nation, 2006). The relative 

number and timing of wild adult steelhead returning during the fall and winterspring migration periods varies from year to year (Reclamation, 2000; NPPC, 

2001). 

Minimal numbers of adult steelhead pass Prosser Diversion Dam during July and 

August, with numbers beginning to increase in September. Peak passage timing 

upstream of Prosser Diversion Dam occurs in October and November when a 

combined 50 percent of the steelhead run occurs at this location. Steelhead 

abundance over Prosser Diversion Dam declines slightly in December and earlyJanuary due to the onset of cold water temperatures. However, adult migration 

4-148 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

resumes in February through April, coincident with the spawning run. Adult 

steelhead migration is essentially completed at Prosser Diversion Dam by early 

April. 

Most adult steelhead over-winter in the Yakima River between Prosser (RM 47.1) 

and Sunnyside Diversion Dams (RM 103.8) before moving upstream into 

tributary or mainstem spawning areas (Hockersmith et al., 1995). The Yakima 

River upstream of Prosser Diversion Dam is known to be occupied by steelhead 

as well as resident rainbow trout and provides important habitat for adult 

steelhead migration and holding, as well as for juvenile rearing for this species. 

In addition, the upper sections of the Yakima River and the entire Naches River 

basin contains important spawning habitat for steelhead and rainbow trout 

(Campton and Johnson, 1985; NPPC, 2001). 

Hockersmith et al. (1995) identified the following spawning populations 

within the Yakima River basin: upper Yakima River upstream of Ellensburg, 

Teanaway River, Swauk Creek, Taneum Creek, Roza Canyon, mainstem Yakima 

River between the Naches River and Roza Diversion Dam, Little Naches River, 

Bumping River, Naches River, Rattlesnake Creek, Toppenish Creek, Marion 

Drain, and Satus Creek. Of 105 radio-tagged fish observed from 1990 to 1992, 

Hockersmith et al. (1995) found that well over half of the spawning occurred in 

Satus and Toppenish Creeks (59 percent), with a smaller proportion in the Naches 

River drainage (32 percent), and the remainder in the mainstem Yakima River 

downstream from Wapato Dam (4 percent), mainstem Yakima River upstream 

of Roza Diversion Dam (3 percent), and Marion Drain (2 percent), a Wapato 

Irrigation Project drain tributary to the Yakima River. Yakima River basin 

steelhead spawn in intermittent streams, mainstem and side-channel areas 

of larger rivers, and in perennial streams up to relatively steep gradients 

(Hockersmith et al., 1995; Pearsons et al., 1996). Within the Naches River 

basin, most steelhead spawning (85 percent) occurred in the Naches River 

mainstem, primarily from RM 2.7 (Cowiche Creek confluence) to the Little 

Naches River, with the remainder distributed in lower reaches of the Bumping 

River, Little Naches River, and Rattlesnake Creek (Cramer et al., 2003). 

Electrophoretic analyses have identified four genetically distinct spawning 

populations of wild steelhead in the Yakima River basin: the Naches, Satus, 

Toppenish, and upper Yakima stocks (Phelps et al., 2000). 

Typically, steelhead spawn earlier at lower, warmer elevations than higher, 

colder waters. Overall, most spawning is completed from January through 

May (Hockersmith et al. 1995), although steelhead have been observed 

spawning in the Teanaway River (RM 176.1), a tributary to the upper Yakima 

River into July (Pearsons, 2007). From radio tagging data and records of the 

first observations of steelhead fry, steelhead spawn in the lower Naches (below 

Tieton) and its tributaries from early March through mid-May. In the upper 

Naches, the spawning period is from late March through late May. In the higher 

4-149 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

elevation tributaries of the upper Naches (the Little Naches River, Bumping 

River, Rattlesnake Creek), spawning occurs from late April through late May, 

peaking in early May. 

Hatching and Rearing Habitat.—Steelhead eggs take about 30 days to hatch at 

50 °F and another 2 to 3 weeks before fry emerge from the gravel. However, time 

required for incubation varies significantly with water temperature. Fry 

emergence typically occurs between mid- to late May and early July, depending 

on time of spawning and water temperature during incubation. 

Juvenile steelhead use tributary and mainstem reaches throughout the 

Yakima and Naches River basins as rearing habitat until they begin to smolt 

and emigrate from the basin. Smolt emigration begins in November, peaking 

between mid-April and May. Busack et al. (1991) analyzed scale samples 

from smolts and adult steelhead and found that the smolt transformation 

typically occurs after 2 years in the Yakima system, with a few fish maturing 

after 3 years and an even smaller proportion reaching the smolt stage after 1 year. 

Steelhead Distribution.—The Yakima River upstream of Roza Diversion Dam is 

known to be occupied by steelhead as well as resident rainbow trout and provides 

important habitat for migration and spawning, as well as for juvenile rearing for 

this species. Although adult run sizes upstream of Roza Diversion Dam are not 

large, they constitute an important part of the overall Middle Columbia River 

steelhead ESU. Since 1985, steelhead abundance in the upper Yakima River 

upstream of Roza Diversion Dam has averaged about 85 to 108 returning adults, 

depending on the data source and period of record analyzed (Yakama Nation, 

2006; University of Washington, 2006; Haring 2001). Figure 4.15 shows the total 

steelhead run size for the upper Yakima River stock and the number of adults 

passing Roza Diversion Dam for the years 1985 to 2007 from these various data 

sources. 

Data provided in figure 4.15 indicates some level of inconsistency in data records 

for the upper Yakima River stock abundance and fish ladder counts at Roza 

Diversion Dam. Most of these inconsistencies occurred as a result of inadequate 

monitoring of fish passage at the dam or because of lack of record keeping related 

to steelhead passage. However, the data from 2001 to the present are considered 

to be the most accurate because of more detailed record keeping and specific 

monitoring activities for anadromous steelhead passage at Roza Diversion Dam. 

Specific information regarding steelhead distribution within the upper Yakima 

River has not been well understood in this area, despite the early radio-tracking 

work of Hockersmith et al. (1995). However, recent steelhead radio-tracking 

studies in the upper Yakima River basin (upstream of Roza Diversion Dam), 

conducted by Reclamation and the Yakama Nation have provided detailed 

information on the distribution patterns of adult steelhead (Reclamation, 2003d). 

4-150 
0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

198519871989199119931995199719992001200320052007 

No. of Adult Steelhead 

Upper Yakima Stock Abundance (mean =108 fish) Steelhead Passing Roza Dam (mean=88 fish) 

Figure 4.15 Abundance of the Upper Yakima River stock and total number of steelhead passing 

Roza Diversion Dam between 1985 and 2007. 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Sources: University of Washington (2006) and Haring (2001). 

These recently completed studies show that tagged steelhead are migrating to and 

spawning in the Yakima River mainstem as well as major tributary systems of the 

upper Yakima River (Reclamation, 2003d; Reclamation, 2005). 

In 2002-2003, approximately 34 of 75 (45 percent of the total) radio-tagged wild 

steelhead remained in the mainstem Yakima River between Roza Diversion Dam 

and Easton, while 24 (32 percent) migrated into the Teanaway River, 

9 (12 percent) were tracked into Swauk Creek, and 1 (2 percent) moved about 

2.5 miles up Taneum Creek. The remaining seven fish (9 percent) tagged in 

2002-2003 were tracked to other Yakima River tributaries (Reclamation, 2003d). 

Results of steelhead radio tracking in 2003/2004 indicate that 51 percent of tagged 

steelhead remained in the mainstem river between Roza Diversion Dam and 

Easton, while 38 (32 percent), 9 (7 percent), and 7 (6 percent) used the Teanaway 

River, Swauk Creek, and Taneum Creek, respectively (Reclamation, 2005). 

Critical Habitat.—The final rule designating critical habitat for 12 evolutionarily 

significant units (ESUs) of west coast salmon and steelhead in Washington, 

Oregon, and Idaho was published in the Federal Register on September 2, 2005, 

and became effective on January 2, 2006 (Federal Register, 2006). Critical 

habitat designated for Middle Columbia River steelhead in the Yakima River 

4-151 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

basin included the entire mainstem Yakima River from the confluence with the 

Columbia River to the upstream limits of migration at storage dams or tributary 

headwater streams. 

Critical habitat for steelhead in the Yakima River and tributaries consists of 

primary constituent elements (PCE) that support steelhead spawning, freshwater 

rearing, and migration habitat (NOAA Fisheries, 2004; Federal Register, 2005). 

NOAA Fisheries has determined that critical habitat PCEs for steelhead 

spawning, rearing, and migration exist in the upper Yakima and Naches Rivers 

as well as several tributaries, and that these PCEs are currently providing an 

acceptable level of protection that will contribute to the conservation of steelhead 

populations in this area (NOAA Fisheries, 2004). 

Bull Trout 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified 22 recovery units within the 

Columbia River Distinct Population Segment (Service, 2002). The Yakima River 

basin was designated as the Middle Columbia River recovery unit. For recovery 

purposes, the Service has identified a single core area (Yakima River basin) 

within the Middle Columbia Recovery unit encompassing a majority of the basin 

and its tributaries. 

Bull trout have some of the most demanding habitat requirements of any native 

trout species mainly because they require water that is especially cold and clean. 

As a result, water temperature is a critical habitat characteristic for bull trout. 

Bull trout have demonstrated a unique adaptation for spawning, incubating, and 

rearing in colder water than salmon and steelhead. This adaptation has allowed 

this species to survive in habitat areas that may be unsuitable for most other 

species of fish. Ratliff and Howell (1992) note that in many of the cold streams 

where bull trout spawn, they are the only fish present. McPhail and Murray 

(1979) demonstrated that survival of bull trout eggs was 80-95 percent to hatching 

at temperatures of 36-40 °F (2-4 oC) and dropped to 0-20 percent at temperatures 

of 46-50 °F (8-10 oC). Buchanan et al. (1997) report observations from 

throughout Oregon and the published literature, and conclude that, while optimum 

temperatures for juvenile growth are between 40-50 °F (4-10 oC), the optimum for 

adult bull trout is near 54-59 °F (12-15 oC). Temperatures above 59  ̊F (15 oC) 

exceed bull trout physiological preferences and are, therefore, thought to limit 

their distribution (Fraley and Shepard, 1989). 

Bull trout reach sexual maturity after 4 or more years and live up to 10-12 years. 

They typically spawn during September through November, in relatively cold 

streams that are clean and free of sediment. The incubation period for bull trout is 

extremely long, and young fry may take up to 225 days to emerge from the gravel 

(Craig, 1997; Service, 1998; Federal Register, 1998). Because of this long 

incubation period, eggs are particularly vulnerable to siltation problems and bed 

load movement in rivers and streams where spawning occurs. Any activity that 

4-152 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

causes erosion, increases siltation, removes stream cover, or affects water flow or 

temperature affects the number of bull trout that hatch and their ability to survive 

to maturity (Knowles and Gumtow, 1996). 

Bull trout exhibit both migrant and resident life history strategies. After 

rearing as juveniles for 2-4 years in their natal streams (Meehan and Bjornn, 

1991), migrant bull trout emigrate to larger rivers or lakes, whereas resident fish 

complete their entire life cycle within their natal stream. Migrant forms, both 

fluvial and adfluvial, grow rapidly, often reaching over 20 inches in length and 

2 pounds by the time they are 5-6 years old. Migratory bull trout live several 

years in larger rivers or lakes, where they grow to a much larger size than resident 

forms before returning to tributaries to spawn. Growth differs little between 

forms during their first years of life in headwater streams, but diverges as 

migratory fish move into larger and more productive waters (Rieman and 

McIntyre, 1993). 

Yakima River basin studies indicate that bull trout typically occur in the upper 

reaches of several tributaries, in small populations that are mostly isolated from 

each other (Goetz, 1994; Wissmar and Craig, 1998; WDFW, 1998). Studies have 

indicated that bull trout are most likely to occur, and to be strong in cold, high 

elevation, low- to mid-order watersheds with low road density (Rieman et al., 

1997; Goetz, 1994; MacDonald et al., 1996). 

In the 1998 final listing rule (Federal Register, 1998), the Service identified 

eight bull trout subpopulations in the Yakima River basin: (1) Ahtanum Creek, 

(2) Naches River, (3) Rimrock Lake, (4) Bumping Lake, (5) North Fork 

Teanaway River, (6) Cle Elum Lake, (7) Kachess Lake; and (8) Keechelus Lake. 

At the time of listing, only the Rimrock Lake subpopulation was considered 

stable. The remaining subpopulations were classified as depressed and declining. 

The population status for the Naches River subpopulation was classified as 

unknown. With the exceptions of Rimrock Lake and the Naches River, the 

remaining subpopulations were considered to be at risk of extirpation. 

The WDFW recognizes nine bull trout stocks in the Yakima River basin. Eight of 

these stocks are consistent with the subpopulations identified by the Service in the 

final listing rule. However, they also include one (Yakima River) that was not 

recognized by the Service at the time of listing. The Service now concurs with 

the presence of nine populations. Redd counts for some of these stocks have been 

conducted annually since 1984 (table 4.32). 

One or more local populations may exist within each stock (WDFW, 1998). A 

local population represents a group of bull trout that spawn within a particular 

stream or portion of a stream system. Thus, a local population is considered the 

smallest group of fish that represent an interacting reproductive unit. Gene flow 

may occur between local populations but is assumed to be infrequent compared to 

that among individuals within a local population. There are presently 13 local 

4-153 
 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table 4.32 Annual redd counts since 1993 for eight local bull trout populations in the Yakima 

River basin (data from WDFW). The average number of redds counted in the index areas 

along with the standard deviation (SD) is given at the bottom. 

South Fork Box 

Survey 

year 

Ahtanum 

Creek 

Rattlesnake 

Creek 

American 

River 

Tieton 

River 

Indian 

Creek 

Deep 

Creek 

Canyon 

Creek 

Gold 

Creek 

1993 9 38 140 45 4 11 

1994 14 4 167 179 12 11 16 

1995 6 26 95 201 101 4 13 

1996 5 38 25 233 193 46 8 51 

1997 7 46 24 177 193 126 10 31 

1998 5 53 31 142 212 98 16 36 

1999 7 44 30 161 205 107 17 40 

2000 11 45 44 144 226 147 10 19 

2001 20 57 36 158 117 51 14 15 

2002 17 69 27 141 100 120 15 31 

2003 12 54 30 190 101 57 8 9 

2004 8 32 40 180 50 97 19 20 

2005 6 15 35 205 91 73 8 7 

2006 7 40 55 189 106 95 8 8 

Avg. 9.6 40.2 34.3 158.6 151.0 83.9 10.8 21.9 

SD. 4.7 17.7 9.2 47.9 56.3 37.6 4.7 13.6 

populations that have been identified in the Yakama River basin (WDFW, 1998; 

Service, 2002). Other local populations may exist that are as yet unrecognized. 

For example, as recently as 2002, a juvenile bull trout was captured by Yakama 

Nation fisheries personnel in a tributary to Cowiche Creek (Anderson, 2002) and 

13 bull trout were observed in the North Fork Tieton River during a 

comprehensive snorkel census in 2004. 

The main migration period for fluvial adult bull trout in the Naches River occurs 

between May and October, with peak upstream movement occurring in July, and 

peak downstream movement occurring in September to October (Mizell, 2006). 

The early part of this time period is coincident with both water temperature and 

day length increases and with the early onset and preparation for spawning by 

adult fish. The later part of this active migration period relates to the downstream 

movement of post-spawn adults as they return to winter and spring holding 

habitats in the mainstem of the Naches River. Subadult bull trout are also known 

to have increased migration activity during this late-spring to early-summer 

period; however, this behavior is not related to spawning. Adult bull trout that 

have been radio-tagged as part of the WDFW bull trout telemetry study in the 

Yakima River basin have been tracked throughout the Naches River mainstem 

during the active migration period. However, the majority of radio-tagged bull 

trout have remained near the city of Naches and have only occasionally migrated 

as far as the city of Yakima. A few fish have migrated into the Yakima River 

where they have held in suitable habitat for a short time (a few days to weeks) 

4-154 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

before migrating back to the mainstem Naches River. Prior to the onset of 

spawning, adult bull trout in the mainstem Naches migrate upstream to spawning 

areas in several tributaries of the upper Naches River basin. 

During the winter and spring periods (roughly November through May), adult 

and subadult bull trout hold or overwinter in the mainstem Naches River. The 

winter and spring is characterized by a period of relative inactivity by bull trout. 

Overwintering adults and subadults tend to congregate in highly selective pool 

habitats that may be used year after year by the same fish (Mizell, 2006). 

Preferred pool overwintering habitats that are used by radio-tagged bull trout 

occur in the mainstem Naches River from the Wapatox Diversion Dam 

(RM 17) to the town of Cliffdell (RM 36) (Mizell, 2006). 

Greater Sage-Grouse 

The greater sage-grouse is State-listed as threatened and is a Federal candidate for 

listing under the ESA. The current range of the greater sage-grouse includes 

portions of eastern Montana, Wyoming, northwestern Colorado, Utah, southern 

Idaho, northeastern California, southeastern Oregon, and central Washington. In 

Washington, sage-grouse formerly ranged from the Columbia River north to 

Oroville, west to the foothills of the Cascades, and east to the Spokane River. 

Sage-grouse in Washington are currently restricted to three isolated populations. 

The largest population (estimated at about 600 birds) is located on mostly private 

land in Douglas and Grant Counties. A second population of 300-400 birds 

occurs on the YTC in Kittitas and Yakima Counties (Schroeder and Vander 

Haegen, 2006), and a third population of 25-30 birds occurs within the Yakama 

Indian Reservation (Shroeder et al., 2000; Burkepile, 2007). Data from radiotagged sage-grouse show that they use habitat in the Black Rock and Wymer 

reservoir sites (Livingston, 2007). See figures 4.16 and 4.17. Habitat 

fragmentation in the area has adversely impacted the species as have loss of 

shrub-steppe habitat from fires, overgrazing, military practices in the YTC, 

conversion to cropland, invasion of exotic species, and additional development 

(Stinson, et al., 2004). 

The Washington Sage-Grouse working group, an interagency technical group, has 

developed recovery objectives and delineated management units for the sagegrouse. The Black Rock site lies within the Rattlesnake Hills Management Unit, 

and the Wymer site lies within the Umtanum Ridge Management Unit. Telemetry 

data indicates these units are utilized by greater sage-grouse from the YTC. The 

Rattlesnake Hills Unit is designated as both a potential corridor and habitat for 

future reintroductions. The northeastern section may allow greater sage-grouse 

movement between the YTC and the Hanford ALE Reserve (located within the 

Hanford Management Unit). Sage-grouse were probably extirpated from the 

Hanford Management Unit due to catastrophic fires in 1981 and 1984, although 

there has been telemetry data of individual birds since 1998 indicating movement 

out of the YTC (Stinson et al., 2004). The possible use area and movement 

4-155 
Figure 4.16 Greater sage-grouse locations, dates, and movement corridors 

within the Black Rock reservoir vicinity. 

Figure 4.17 Greater sage-grouse locations, dates, and movement corridors 

within the Wymer site vicinity. 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

corridor for greater sage-grouse extends from shrub-steppe lands east of the 

Columbia River, along Priest Rapids Lake and the Hanford reach, west across the 

Hanford Site, ALE, and the YTC, to the upper end of the Moxee Valley and the 

shrub-steppe-covered hills west of the Yakima River in the Wenas, Umtanum, 

and Manastash Creek drainages. To the north, it extends up to the irrigated lands 

in the Ellensburg Valley. Along the southern edge, it extends from the 

Rattlesnake Hills west along Ahtanum Ridge, across the Yakima River, and along 

the ridge to shrub-steppe lands on the Yakama Nation. 

Ferruginous Hawk 

The ferruginous hawk is a State threatened species and a species of concern under 

ESA. This species breeds from southeastern Alberta, southern Saskatchewan, and 

southwestern Manitoba south through eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, and 

Nevada to Arizona and New Mexico. The range also extends eastward into Utah, 

Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, the Dakotas, and western Nebraska, 

Oklahoma, and Texas. 

In Washington, the range of the ferruginous hawk coincides with the remaining 

shrub-steppe communities in the eastern part of the State. This species is believed 

to depend on native prairie systems of the Great Plains and Great Basin. The 

decline of shrub-steppe prey, such as black-tailed jackrabbits and Washington 

ground squirrels, has likely contributed to the listing of the ferruginous hawk as 

threatened in Washington (Watson and Pierce, 2000). 

Ferruginous hawks use open grasslands for both nesting and hunting prey. In 

winter (September through February), this species leaves Washington and 

generally moves east in search of more abundant prey (Watson and Pierce, 2000). 

Small- to medium-sized mammals comprise 80-90 percent of their prey. The 

YTC, Hanford Reach National Monument, and sage-brush-dominated areas on 

the Yakama Nation lands provide potential habitat resources for this species. 

Ute Ladies’-tresses 

Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis), a perennial orchid, was federally listed 

as threatened in 1992 (Service, 1992). It is also a State threatened species. In 

1996, a population was found along the upper Snake River in southeastern Idaho. 

In 1997, another population was found in Okanogan County, the only known 

population in Washington (Service, 2007c). Prior to these discoveries, it was 

known only from a few locations in Montana, Colorado, Wyoming, and 

Nebraska. Ute ladies’-tresses is a wetland and riparian species found in springs, 

wet meadows, river meanders, and floodplains from 1,500 to 7,000 feet elevation 

(Service, 1995). 

This species has not been found in the Yakima Project, though no formal surveys 

have been conducted with the exception of a wetland site downstream from 

Keechelus Reservoir in the upper river (Reclamation, 1999). 

4-157 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

This species occurs in full sunlight to partially shaded sites in early- to mid-seral 

communities subject to flooding or periodic inundation. Beaked spikerush 

(Eleocharis rostellata) appears to be the dominant species in habitat occupied by 

Ute ladies’-tresses and is a good indicator throughout its range. Other species 

commonly associated with the orchid include creeping bentgrass (Agrostis 

stolonifera), Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), long-styled rush (Juncus longistylis), 

and scouring rush (Equisetum laevigatus). Other common associates include 

rushes (Juncus spp.), paint-brushes (Castilleja spp.), thinleaf alder saplings (Alnus 

incana), narrowleaf cottonwood saplings (Populus angustifolia), sweet clover 

(Melilotus spp), willow saplings (Salix spp.), sedges (Carex spp.), red clover 

(Trifolium praetense), and western goldenrod (Solidago spp). 

Umtanum Wild Buckwheat 

Umtanum wild buckwheat is a State endangered species and a Federal candidate 

species. This species is endemic to a very narrow range in Benton County. It is 

currently only known from one ridgeline in the Columbia Basin physiographic 

province, most of which recently burned in a wildfire (WDNR et al., 1997). The 

only known population occurs at elevations ranging from 1,100 to 1,320 feet on 

flat to gently sloping microsites near the top of the steep, north-facing basalt cliffs 

overlooking the Columbia River. It is apparently restricted to the exposed top of 

one particular basalt flow (the Lolo Flow). Approximately 5,000 plants grow 

interruptedly in a narrow band 1.6 miles long and less than 98 feet wide in the 

Hanford Site. This species’ restriction to exposures of one particular basalt flow 

may suggest a dependent relationship with the chemical composition of that flow. 

The relatively high water-holding capacity of the substrate has also been 

suggested as an important factor. The overall vegetation cover is quite low. 

The area occupied is being considered for a change in ownership or management 

responsibility. Public access could accompany such a change. Off-road vehicle 

use, livestock grazing, and increased risk of wildfire are potentially significant 

threats (Reveal et al., 1995). 

Pygmy Rabbit - Greater Sandhill Crane - Mardon Skipper - Basalt Daisy 

The pygmy rabbit, the greater sandhill crane, the mardon skipper, and the basalt 

daisy have historically occurred, or currently occur, within the three-county study 

area, but are unlikely to be affected by the proposed alternatives. These four 

species are briefly addressed below but are not carried into the analyses. 

The pygmy rabbit is a species with endangered status in the State of Washington, 

and under ESA and was initially evaluated for potential effects from the proposed 

action. The pygmy rabbit was thought to have been extirpated from Washington 

in the mid-1900s, but some small populations were relocated in 1979. Extensive 

surveys in 1987 and 1988 located five small populations in southern Douglas 

County (WDFW, 1995). A sixth population was located in 1997, but between 

1997 and 2000, five of the six populations disappeared (Hays, 2001). The 

4-158 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife initiated a pygmy rabbit captive 

breeding program in 2001 and released captive-bred rabbits at a Douglas County 

site in the spring of 2007. No animals have been detected since 2004, indicating 

that the pygmy rabbit in Washington may be extirpated from the wild (Service, 

2007a). This species is not considered further. 

The sandhill crane has been listed as endangered in Washington since 1981 

(Littlefield and Ivey, 2001), but there is no listing status for sandhill cranes under 

ESA. This species was also initially evaluated for potential effects from the 

proposed project. A small number of greater sandhill cranes nest in Klickitat and 

Yakima Counties, and 20,000 plus lesser sandhill cranes stop in eastern 

Washington during migration. Sandhill cranes that breed in the study area 

(Yakima County) are part of the Central Valley population that winters in 

California’s Central Valley and nests in California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, 

and British Columbia (Littlefield and Ivey, 2001). The lesser sandhill cranes that 

stop in eastern Washington during migration belong to the Pacific Flyway 

population. Cranes that breed in Yakima County use an area some distance from 

project facilities and would not be affected by any proposed operation changes. 

Therefore, habitat resources potentially used by this species would not be 

affected, and greater sandhill cranes are not considered further. 

The mardon skipper is a small northwestern butterfly currently found at only four 

small geographically distinct areas in Washington, Oregon, and California. This 

species is federally listed as endangered and is a State candidate for listing. In 

Washington, the mardon skipper occurs in a small number of sites in the Puget 

Prairie and South Cascades (Potter et al., 1999). Active sites within the South 

Cascades are known from southwestern Yakima and northwestern Klickitat 

Counties. In the South Cascades, mardon skippers are found in open grassland 

sites within the Ponderosa pine savanna woodland at elevations ranging from 

1,900 to 5,100 feet. All known occupied sites are on U.S. Forest Service or 

Yakama Nation lands. Mardon skippers are closely associated with sites 

supporting native bunch grass such as Idaho fescue. Skippers that occur in 

Yakima County use areas some distance from project facilities and would not be 

affected by any proposed operation changes. Therefore, habitat resources 

potentially used by this species would not be affected, and mardon skippers are 

not considered further. 

The basalt daisy is State-listed as threatened and as a candidate for Federal listing 

under the ESA. The basalt daisy, a small daisy, is found in the steep cliffs above 

Selah Creek and within the Yakima River Canyon. It is unlikely that habitat 

resources potentially used by this species would be affected by the proposed 

alternatives, and the basalt daisy is not considered further. 

The bald eagle was removed from Federal Endangered Species protection on 

June 28, 2007, but the species remains protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and remains State-listed as 

4-159 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

threatened. Bald eagles occur in the Yakima River basin along the shores of 

lakes, reservoirs, and streams. Suitable habitat includes areas that are close to 

water and provide a suitable food resource such as anadromous or resident fish, 

waterfowl, or carrion. Three nests have been reported in the Yakima River basin 

that are at, or near, Reclamation facilities: one at Cle Elum Lake, one at Rimrock 

Lake, and one in the Yakima River Canyon near Roza Diversion Dam 

(Reclamation, 2000). 

Bald eagle wintering sites typically occur in the vicinity of concentrated food 

resources such as anadromous fish spawning areas, waterfowl concentration 

areas, or sources of mammalian carrion such as ungulate winter ranges. Other 

important wintering habitat features include perch sites and communal roost sites. 

The birds do not arrive until late December or, more typically, early January. 

Mid-winter bald eagle surveys were conducted in Washington, including the 

Yakima River area, from the winter of 1981-82 to the winter of 1988-89 (Stinson 

et al., 2001). During this period, the Yakima River counts varied from a high of 

39 to a low of 3 with a mean of 23.9 (Stinson et al., 2001). The 2002 Christmas 

Bird Count for the Tri-Cities tallied 16 bald eagles, compared to 34 in 2001. The 

overall trend for these counts is quite erratic from year to year (Audubon Society, 

2002). 

The Hanford reach of the Columbia River has been monitored for wintering bald 

eagles since 1960 (Caldwell et al., 2000). Wintering bald eagles have generally 

increased during the early study period, reaching a high in 1989 of 58. The 

number of eagles declined through the 1990s. In 2000, 26 eagles were counted 

wintering along the Hanford reach. Caldwell et al. (2000) indicate that the bald 

eagle numbers generally track changes in the number of returning fall Chinook 

salmon, a major fall and winter food source. Fall Chinook redds counted in the 

Hanford reach increased during the 1960s through 1980s until reaching a high of 

about 9,000 in 1989. Redd counts dropped during the early 1990s to about onethird of the 1989 peak. In 2000, about 5,507 redds were counted. It is likely that 

bald eagle use in the nearby lower Yakima River would follow a similar trend. 

Due to its removal from Federal Endangered Species protection the bald eagle is 

not discussed further. 

The remaining seven species (table 4.33) are addressed below or in other sections 

of this Draft PR/EIS. 

4.11.2 Environmental Consequences 

4.11.2.1 Methods and Assumptions 

The issues, indicators, methods, and assumptions previously described in 

the “Anadromous Fish” and “Resident Fish” sections are the same for 

the threatened and endangered salmonids: threatened and endangered stocks 

4-160 
 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Table 4.33 State and federally listed endangered or threatened species that may occur 

within the Yakima River basin, and may be affected by the project 

Species State of Washington status Federal ESA status 

Upper Columbia River 

steelhead 

Species of Concern Endangered 

Upper Columbia River spring 

Chinook 

Species of Concern Endangered 

Middle Columbia River 

Steelhead 

Bull trout 

Candidate for Listing 

Candidate for Listing 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Greater sage-grouse 

Ferruginous hawk 

Threatened 

Threatened 

Candidate for Listing 

Species of Concern 

Ute Ladies’-tresses 

Umtanum wild buckwheat 

Not Listed 

Candidate for Listing 

Threatened 

Endangered 

of steelhead and Chinook salmon and bull trout. The following is a summary 

of the indicators and methods used in the analysis of impacts. 

•	 Early life-stage survival as measured by a difference (acres and percent) 

in steelhead summer rearing habitat compared to the No Action 

Alternative for the Easton and Ellensburg reaches. The DSS, SRH-W, 

and River2D models were used to quantify these changes. 

•	 Restoration of more natural flows as measured by a comparison of the 

average median streamflows and rate of change in daily flow in the 

Easton, Ellensburg, and the lower Naches River reaches for pre- and postflip-flop operations. The Yak-RW model was used to estimate the daily 

median streamflows for the Easton, Ellensburg, and lower Naches River 

reaches. 

•	 Success of seaward migration as measured by the volume of water (March 

through June) measured at the Parker gage. The spring freshet runoff for 

the Black Rock, Wymer Dam and Reservoir, and Wymer Dam Plus 

Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternatives was qualitatively compared to 

the No Action Alternative and ranked as “worse,” no change,” or 

“improved.” 

•	 Fish population: The EDT, Yak-RW, and USGS temperature models were 

used to estimate limiting factors and fish population numbers by species. 

•	 False attraction of spawning runs caused by the diversion of Columbia 

River water to the Yakima River. The methods were derived from the 

Technical Series No. TS-YSS-13 entitled, Assessment of the Effects of the 

Yakima Basin Storage Study on Columbia River Fish Proximate to the 

Proposed Intake Locations (Reclamation, 2008b). The analysis is based 

on the timing of the fishes’ interaction prior to or post diversion, the 

4-161 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

percentage of native versus diverted flows, and the chemical signature of 

the diverted flows after seepage through Yakima River basin soils. 

•	 The ability of bull trout, residing in reservoirs, to access spawning 

streams. The first component of this indicator is the average annual 

number of days access from the reservoir to spawning tributary is impeded 

by low reservoir volume and tributary inflows. The second component is 

the average pool elevation in Kachess, Keechelus, and Rimrock Lakes 

during bull trout spawning migration (July 15-September 15). This 

indicator is described in detail in the “Resident Fish” section. 

The greater sage-grouse analysis focuses on changes in acres of shrub-steppe 

habitat, movement corridors, and exposure to West Nile virus. Movement 

corridor delineation for the greater sage-grouse was evaluated based on the 

following: telemetry data of collared birds off of the YTC; topography of area 

dependent on ridgelines and valleys where greater sage-grouse are most likely 

to occur or travel through; and occurrence of shrub-steppe vegetation based 

upon aerial photographs, which excludes agricultural and residential lands. Sagegrouse do not usually occur within or along riparian zones. The methodology for 

evaluating the risk of West Nile virus is described in detail in the “Public Health” 

section. The analysis of movement corridors is described in the “Vegetation and 

Wildlife” section. 

The Ute Ladies’-tresses analysis is based on instream flows and riparian flooding 

discussed in the black cottonwood reproduction section. Both black cottonwood 

and Ute Ladies’- tresses reproduction are assumed to benefit from the early 

succession conditions created by riparian flooding. 

The ferruginous hawk and Umtanum wild buckwheat analysis is based on 

changes in acreage to shrub-steppe habitat. 

4.11.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts under the No Action Alternative would be considered under 

separate NEPA evaluation as discussed in chapter 2. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Middle Columbia River Steelhead and Bull Trout in the Yakima River.—The 

flow regime under the No Action Alternative is about the same as under the 

current condition, suggesting the indicators linked to flow generally reflect 

conditions that currently exist. The EDT and AHA models estimated average 

annual escapement of 2,362 for steelhead under the No Action Alternative. 

4-162 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

The average annual number of days with a critical threshold reservoir volume for 

bull trout spawners under the No Action Alternative is Kachess Lake, 18 days; 

Keechelus Lake, 37 days; and Rimrock Lake, 3 days. 

Median reservoir elevations under the No Action Alternative are Kachess Lake, 

2,248.4 feet; Keechelus Lake, 2,467.3 feet; and Rimrock Lake, 2,909.9 feet. 

Additional detail is provided in the “Anadromous Fish” and “Resident Fish” 

sections. 

Greater Sage-Grouse, Ferruginous Hawk, and Umtanum Wild Buckwheat.— 

These protected species have been combined in the analysis because they would 

be impacted by the same habitat and disturbance issues associated with the Joint 

Alternatives. The No Action Alternative would have no impact on greater sagegrouse, ferruginous hawk, and Umtanum wild buckwheat because the quality and 

quantity of their primary habitat would be unaltered. Existing management and 

recovery efforts for shrub-steppe habitat and existing wildlife would continue, 

including the Washington State Recovery Plan for the Greater Sage-Grouse 

(Stinson, et al., 2004), the Conservation Reserve Program conservation of habitat 

(Vander Haegen et al., 2004); and possible reintroductions. 

Ute Ladies’-tresses.—Greater instream flows would improve riparian habitat 

associated with Ute Ladies’-tresses. However, the unknown presence of the plant 

in the study area and the small increase in overbank flooding associated with 

greater instream flows suggest a negligible improvement for the species. 

4.11.2.3 Black Rock Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

The greatest construction impacts would be for greater sage-grouse because they 

tend to be in the Black Rock Valley area for foraging from July-September, 

although most of the grouse located by radio telemetry were not near the damsite. 

Relocating SR-24 could result in sage-grouse leaving the site during construction 

(Burkepile, 2007.) 

Construction of the Black Rock pumping plant on the Priest Rapids Lake would 

have minor effects to upper Columbia River steelhead and spring Chinook. A 

small area of the pool would be isolated during construction and migrating smolts 

or returning adults would not have access to that area. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Middle Columbia River Steelhead and Bull Trout in the Yakima River.—Flow 

changes in the Yakima River (compared to the No Action Alternative) are the 

greatest of any Joint Alternative. These changes in the flow regime are generally 

beneficial to anadromous fish. 

4-163 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Early Life-Stage Survival.—In the Easton reach, habitat for steelhead is 

10.4 percent greater than under the No Action Alternative. In the Ellensburg 

reach, the amount of steelhead yearling habitat is 29.2 percent greater than under 

the No Action Alternative. 

Restoration of More Natural Flows.—The Black Rock Alternative 

provides greater natural flows and better habitat than the No Action Alternative. 

The lower average rates of change in daily flow would result in less fish and 

aquatic invertebrate stranding and more stable desired habitat. 

Success of Seaward Migration.—Spring seasonal flows are 29 percent 

above the target flows, compared to 7 percent below the target flows under the No 

Action Alternative (table 4.25), which represents a more than 500-percent 

improvement in the spring seasonal flow compared to the No Action Alternative. 

The stream runoff pattern also is better than under the No Action Alternative, as 

the high flows continue into April, May, and June when most smolt migration is 

occurring. These greater flows should increase overall smolt outmigration 

survival. 

 Fish Population.—The EDT and AHA models estimated average annual 

escapement of 4,067 for steelhead under the Black Rock Alternative, compared to 

2,700 under the No Action Alternative, or a 50.6-percent increase. 

 False Attraction.—Under the Black Rock Alternative, Columbia River 

water would be pumped from the Priest Rapids Lake into the Black Rock 

reservoir and released into Roza and Sunnyside Canals during the irrigation 

season. 

The monthly median amount of operational spill of Black Rock reservoir water 

from Roza and Sunnyside Canals ranges from 2.2 cfs in March to 30.4 cfs in 

August, and the percent of Black Rock reservoir water mixed in the Yakima River 

water at the Kiona-Benton gage (RM 29.9) ranges from 0.049 to 1.62 percent 

(table 4.34). 

Fretwell (1989) investigated, under laboratory conditions, the behavioral response 

of sockeye salmon to their home water source in comparison to their home water 

source mixed with an increasing percent of a nonhome water source. He found 

that when the admixture of nonhome water source exceeded 10 percent, fish 

began to discriminate between the two water sources and selected their home 

water source more frequently. This study suggests that the sockeye did not 

discriminate between the home and nonhome water sources based on the 

behavioral response to a water source preference. As noted previously, the peak 

adult steelhead migration occurs in October and November, with a second run in 

February. Based on these findings, the potential for false attraction resulting from 

direct operational spill of mixed Yakima and Black Rock reservoir water appears 

to be minimal. 

4-164 
 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Table 4.34 Percent of Black Rock reservoir water mixed with Yakima River water at the 

Kiona-Benton gage (RM 29.9) by month during the irrigation season as a result of direct 

operational spill from Roza and Sunnyside Canals 

Month 

Kiona-Benton gage 

monthly median flow 

(cfs) 

Total monthly 

median Roza and 

Sunnyside Canal 

operational spill of 

Black Rock reservoir 

water (cfs) 

Percent of Black 

Rock reservoir 

mixed with Yakima 

River water (cfs) at 

Kiona-Benton gage 

March 4,507 2.2 0.049 

April 5,162 17.5 0.34 

May 4,933 24.4 0.49 

June 4,428 29.0 0.65 

July 1,932 30.1 1.53 

August 1,845 30.4 1.62 

September 1,939 24.5 1.25 

October 2,206 20.9 0.94 

Bull Trout Spawning.—The stream access thresholds and reservoir 

elevations associated with the Black Rock Alternative are about the same as 

those for the No Action Alternative. There is no biologically distinguishable 

difference in bull trout access to streams during the spawning migration between 

the No Action Alternative and the Black Rock Alternative. 

Upper Columbia River Steelhead and Spring Chinook.—Impacts to fish in the 

Columbia River would occur from the pumping plant in the Priest Rapids Lake. 

There should be no impacts to these species from pumping water out of the 

Columbia River as the pump intake would be screened to State specifications to 

prevent entrainment of fish. 

Greater Sage-Grouse.—The issues associated with the Black Rock Alternative as 

they may affect greater sage-grouse include the following: 

•	 Loss of habitat that would adversely impact movement, dispersal, 

reintroduction and feeding 

•	 Exposure to West Nile virus resulting in direct and indirect mortality 

•	 Construction disturbance 

•	 The proposed reservoir includes 3,539 acres of shrub-steppe, 113 acres 

of grassland, and 3,771 acres of Conservation Reserve Program lands, 

considered important for the continued survival of greater sage-grouse in 

central Washington (Service, 2007b). The Black Rock Alternative would 

inundate about 13.5 square miles of the Black Rock Valley, which would 

no longer available as habitat. The highway and utilities relocation south 

of the proposed reservoir would impact a movement and potential 

4-165 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

dispersal corridor considered important for sage-grouse recovery 

(Livingston, 2007). Impacts would include loss of shrub-steppe habitat 

and the potential for greater mortality from vehicles. The location of the 

reservoir in the middle of three localized populations and the small, 

fragmented nature of the central Washington population suggest that the 

habitat losses from the proposed alternative would have an adverse impact 

on greater sage-grouse. 

Inundation by the reservoir would impact the greater sage-grouse population in 

the YTC by reducing available shrub-steppe habitat and placing an impediment 

to their dispersal and movement in the Black Rock Valley. Currently, greater 

sage-grouse can move through a “corridor” that stretches in an arc about 27 miles 

from the head of the Moxee Valley through the Black Rock Valley to the 

Columbia River near the SR-24 Vernita Bridge (figure 4.16). This area provides 

a potentially important corridor between the Hanford Site, the YTC, and 

Rattlesnake Hills, which are the largest remaining shrub-steppe habitats left in 

Washington. The existing corridor extends in a general east-west direction, 

and the long axis of the approximately 9-mile-long Black Rock reservoir would 

be oriented the same way. Presuming that greater sage-grouse could not fly 

over the reservoir, which would be more than a mile wide in places, it would 

block about one-third of the existing corridor. There would still be a corridor 

about 21⁄2-3 miles wide at the west end of the reservoir, and one about 14 miles 

wide at the east end where habitat suitable for movement would exist. For 

comparison purposes, the identified corridor connecting the Rattlesnake Hills to 

Ahtanum Ridge is less than a mile wide in some spots and, for several miles, only 

about 2 miles wide. Black Rock reservoir and dam then would not prevent 

greater sage-grouse from moving from the YTC to the ALE and Rattlesnake Hills, 

but it would be a significant impediment. Birds approaching the reservoir from 

the YTC would have to move east or west to get around it. 

Greater sage-grouse are susceptible to mortality from West Nile virus (Walker 

et al., 2007; Naugle et al., 2004). Research has shown West Nile virus reduced 

survival by an average of 25 percent and put small fragmented populations, like 

those in the study area, at risk of extinction (Naugle et al., 2004). Black Rock 

reservoir’s proximity to the YTC, Yakama Nation, and Hanford sage-grouse 

populations increases their risk of exposure to West Nile virus. The effect of this 

exposure risk is unknown because of the climate, water management, and 

epidemiology variables that affect mosquito vector introduction, reproduction, 

and dispersion. These factors are discussed in detail in the “Public Health” 

section. Research recommends “...eliminating mosquito breeding habitat in 

anthropogenic water sources ...” (Walker et al., 2007). This alternative would not 

increase the sage-grouse’s susceptibility to West Nile virus more than the current 

condition because the population of the mosquito-carrying the virus would not 

increase. Also see the “Public Health” section. The direct and indirect loss and 

4-166 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

disturbance of habitat and mortality resulting from exposure to West Nile virus 

suggest that the impact of the Black Rock Alternative would be moderate. 

Ferruginous Hawk and Umtanum Wild Buckwheat.—The issues associated 

with the Black Rock Alternative as they may affect ferruginous hawk and 

Umtanum wild buckwheat include the following: 

• Loss of shrub-steppe habitat 

• Construction disturbance 

The proposed reservoir includes 3,539 acres of shrub-steppe (Service, 2007b), 

inundating about 13.5 square miles of the Black Rock Valley. The highway and 

utilities relocation south of the proposed reservoir and land use changes 

associated with development surrounding the reservoir would also reduce 

available habitat and make the remaining habitat more susceptible to potential 

invasion of exotic species and fire. The unlikely occurrence of buckwheat in the 

area and the ranging ability of the ferruginous hawk would suggest insignificant 

impacts. Construction noise, increased traffic, and ground disturbance would 

have a short-term adverse impact on the ferruginous hawk. The risk to Umtanum 

wild buckwheat is low because it is unlikely to occur in the study area because of 

its specialized basalt flow, ridge-top habitat. 

The direct and indirect loss of habitat and construction disturbance on ferruginous 

hawk and Umtanum wild buckwheat would be low. 

Ute Ladies’-tresses.—Impacts under this alternative would be largely confined to 

those associated with changes in Yakima River flows. The Black Rock site is 

currently shrub-steppe and does not provide suitable habitat for this species. 

The change in riverflows to a more unregulated-like pattern would generally be 

beneficial to this species. As discussed in the “Vegetation and Wildlife” section 

relative to black cottonwood reproduction, the higher spring flows on floodplains 

in the middle reaches of the river would create more seasonally flooded habitat 

where Ute Ladies’-tresses might survive. As with black cottonwoods, the 

potential increase in habitat would be confined to the Wapatox, Union Gap, and 

lower Naches River reaches. This possible benefit is tempered by the fact that the 

known populations of Ute-Ladies’-tresses have been found at elevations several 

hundred feet higher than elevations in the middle reaches of the Yakima River. 

4.11.2.4 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction activities would disturb sensitive fauna and potentially alter sagegrouse movement corridors. Construction noise and increased traffic would have 

short-term adverse impacts on sage-grouse foraging from July-September 

(Burkepile, 2007). 

4-167 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Long-Term Impacts 

Middle Columbia River Steelhead and Bull Trout in the Yakima River.— 

Early Life-Stage Survival.—The Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

would increase fry and yearling habitat in the upper Yakima River basin 

compared to the No Action Alternative. However, these improvements are below 

the threshold of biological response (table 4.33). 

Restoration of More Natural Flows.—The average rate of change in 

daily flows is better in the Ellensburg reach and slightly worse in the lower 

Naches River reach under this alternative than under the No Action Alternative. 

As a result, fish and aquatic invertebrate stranding would be reduced in the 

Ellensburg reach. Changes in the lower Naches River are below the threshold of 

biological response and would not result in any adverse change compared to the 

No Action Alternative. 

Success of Seaward Migration.—Spring seasonal flows under this 

alternative are essentially the same as under No Action Alternative (table 4.25). 

No effect on steelhead smolt survival is expected because there is virtually no 

difference in target flows or in the spring runoff pattern.

 Fish Population.—The EDT and AHA models estimated average annual 

escapement of 2,724 for steelhead under the Wymer Dam and Reservoir 

Alternative, compared to 2,700 under the No Action Alternative, or a 0.9-percent 

increase. 

 False Attraction.—The potential of false attraction at the confluence of 

Lmuma Creek is minimal, because in most years (except in prorated water years) 

July and August reservoir releases would occur when the number of migrating 

adult steelhead in this reach is minimal. 

Bull Trout Spawning.—The stream access thresholds and reservoir 

elevations associated with the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative are about 

the same as under the No Action Alternative. There is no biologically 

distinguishable difference in bull trout access to streams during the spawning 

migration under the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative and the No Action 

Alternative. 

Greater Sage-Grouse.—The issues associated with the Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir Alternative as they may affect greater sage-grouse include the 

following: 

•	 Loss of habitat that would adversely impact movement, dispersal, 

reintroduction, and feeding 

•	 Exposure to West Nile virus resulting in direct and indirect mortality 

4-168 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

The proposed reservoir includes 1,055 acres of shrub-steppe habitat; 167 acres of 

grassland; 62 acres of barren land; 50 acres of riparian area; 30 acres of 

cliff/canyon; 11 acres of agricultural cropland; 7 acres of developed land; 6 acres 

of forest habitat; 4 acres of wetlands (Service, 2007b). The location of the 

reservoir in the movement corridor of the local populations and the small, 

fragmented nature of the Central Washington population suggests that the habitat 

losses from the proposed alternative would have an adverse impact on the greater 

sage-grouse. 

Movement corridors and habitat for the greater sage-grouse would be directly 

affected by the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative (figure 4.17). The 

corridor through the Yakima River Canyon is about 14 miles wide, north to south. 

The long axis of the reservoir is oriented east and west so it obstructs very little of 

the corridor. Greater sage-grouse moving from the YTC to the west or back could 

easily circumvent the reservoir by moving either north or south. 

As discussed for the environmental consequences of the Black Rock 

Alternative, greater sage-grouse are susceptible to mortality from West Nile 

virus (Walker et al., 2007 and Naugle et al., 2004). The construction of Wymer 

reservoir in proximity to the YTC, Yakama Nation, and Hanford sage-grouse 

populations would increase their risk of exposure to West Nile virus. The 

impact of this increased exposure risk is unknown because of the climate, 

water management, and epidemiology variables that affect mosquito vector 

introduction, reproduction, and dispersion. These factors are discussed in detail 

in the “Public Health” section. 

Ferruginous Hawk and Umtanum Wild Buckwheat.—These two protected 

species have been combined in the analysis because they are impacted by the 

same habitat and disturbance issues associated with the Joint Alternatives. 

Neither species is likely to occur in the study area because of its steep slopes and 

canyon habitats. The Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative is unlikely to affect 

either the ferruginous hawk or Umtanum wild buckwheat. 

Ute Ladies’-tresses.—This alternative would not significantly affect the 

frequency or extent of riparian flooding in the study area. Lmuma Creek is 

generally incised and the area is grazed. There is little riparian zone and few, 

if any, seasonally flooded areas that might provide habitat for this species. 

Therefore, the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative is unlikely to impact 

Ute Ladies’-tresses. 

4.11.2.5 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts to fish in the Columbia River would be the same as for the 

Black Rock Alternative, except the area disturbed by pumping plant construction 

4-169 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

would be in the McNary pool near the mouth of the Yakima River. Impacts to 

greater sage-grouse would be the same as for the Wymer Dam and Reservoir 

Alternative. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Upper Columbia River Steelhead, Upper Columbia River Spring Run Chinook 

Salmon, and Bull Trout in the Columbia River.—Impacts to fish in the 

Columbia River would occur from the pumping plant on the river. There should 

be no impacts to these species from pumping water out of the Columbia River as 

the pump intake would be screened to State specifications to prevent entrainment 

of fish. 

Middle Columbia River Steelhead and Bull Trout in the Yakima River.—There 

are no substantive differences (10 percent or greater) between this alternative and 

No Action Alternative for either species. As under the Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir Alternative, habitat for steelhead in the Easton reach is generally better, 

while results are mixed in the Ellensburg reach. 

Restoration of More Natural Flows.—The Wymer Dam Plus Yakima 

River Pump Exchange Alternative represents the best improvement in the 

Ellensburg reach of the Joint Alternatives and the second best improvement in the 

lower Naches River reach compared to the No Action Alternative. This is 

expected to reduce fish and aquatic invertebrate stranding in the Ellensburg reach 

and improve juvenile steelhead rearing habitats. 

Success of Seaward Migration.—Spring seasonal flows are 11 percent 

above the target flows, compared to 7 percent below the target flows under the No 

Action Alternative (table 4.25), which represents a more than 250-percent 

improvement in the spring seasonal flow compared to the No Action Alternative. 

The stream runoff pattern is similar to the No Action Alternative. Though the 

stream runoff pattern remains unchanged, the increase in spring flows should 

increase overall smolt outmigration survival. 

 Fish Population.—The EDT and AHA models estimated average annual 

escapement of 3,338 for steelhead under the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River 

Pump Exchange Alternative compared to 2,700 under the No Action Alternative, 

or a 23.6-percent increase. 

 False Attraction.—Under the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

Exchange Alternative, Columbia River water in the vicinity of the Yakima River 

confluence would be pumped during the irrigation season into the Roza and 

Sunnyside Canals. A maximum of 1,040 cfs Columbia River water would be 

exchanged between the Roza and Sunnyside Irrigation Districts during the 

irrigation season. The pumping plant would be located immediately downstream 

from the Yakima River confluence; thus, the pumped water would be an 

admixture of Yakima and Columbia River water. 

4-170 
 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

On a monthly median basis, the amount of operational spill of Columbia River 

water from Roza and Sunnyside Canals ranges from 10.5 cfs in June-August to 

13.7 cfs in April. The mixture of Columbia River water to Yakima River water at 

the Kiona-Benton gage ranges from 0.27 to 0.72 percent (table 4.35). 

Table 4.35 Percent of Columbia River water mixed with Yakima River water at the Kiona 

Benton gage (RM 29.9) by month during the irrigation season as a result of direct 

operational spill from Roza and Sunnyside Canals 

Month 

Kiona-Benton gage 

monthly median 

flow (cfs) 

Total monthly 

median Roza and 

Sunnyside Canal 

operational spill of 

Black Rock reservoir 

water (cfs) 

Percent of Columbia 

River water to 

Yakima River water 

(cfs) at KionaBenton gage 

March 4,507 12.2 0.27 

April 5,162 13.7 0.27 

May 4,933 12.2 0.25 

June 4,428 10.5 0.24 

July 1,932 10.5 0.54 

August 1,845 10.5 0.57 

September 1,939 13.9 0.72 

October 2,206 14.6 0.66 

Based on these findings and the fact that the bulk of the adult steelhead migration 

occurs from October through February, the potential for false attraction resulting 

from direct operational spill of mixed Yakima and Columbia River water appears 

to be minimal. 

Bull Trout Spawning.—The stream access thresholds and reservoir 

elevations associated with the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange 

Alternative are about the same as under the No Action Alternative. There is no 

biologically distinguishable difference in bull trout access to streams during the 

spawning migration between the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

Exchange Alternative and the No Action Alternative. 

Greater Sage-Grouse.—The type, magnitude, and duration of the impacts 

associated with this alternative are the same as under the Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir Alternative. The steep topography of Wymer reservoir suggests that 

mosquito populations carrying the West Nile virus would not become established 

and become a risk to greater sage-grouse. Habitat loss, disturbance of movement 

and risk of exposure to the West Nile virus suggest that the impact of the Wymer 

Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative would be slight. 

Ferruginous Hawk and Umtanum Wild Buckwheat.—These two protected 

species have been combined in the analysis because they are impacted by the 

same habitat and disturbance issues associated with the Joint Alternatives. 

4-171 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Neither species is likely to occur in the study area because of its steep slopes and 

canyon habitats. The Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange 

Alternative is unlikely to affect either the ferruginous hawk or Umtanum wild 

buckwheat. 

Ute Ladies’-tresses.—The Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange 

Alternative would not significantly change the frequency or extent of riparian 

flooding in the study area. Therefore, the alternative is unlikely to affect Ute 

Ladies’-tresses. 

4.11.2.6 Mitigation 

Black Rock Alternative 

Mitigation measures under the Black Rock Alternative could include the 

following: 

•	 Perform botanical surveys in areas proposed for disturbance and relocation 

of sensitive species. 

•	 Establish a wildlife management area adjacent to the reservoir. 

•	 Bury pipelines underground and restore native vegetation along the 

corridor. 

•	 Compensate for shrub-steppe losses by converting agricultural lands to 

shrub-steppe or enhancing degraded shrub-steppe habitat adjacent to the 

study area or at an offsite location where it would be more beneficial. 

•	 Control nonnative invasive plant species. 

Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Mitigation measures under the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative would be 

the same as under the Black Rock Alternative. 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

Mitigation measures under the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange 

Alternative would be the same as under the Black Rock Alternative. 

4.11.2.7 Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts with respect to bull trout and steelhead would be similar to 

those described in the “Anadromous Fish” section. Cumulative impacts for 

terrestrial species would be similar to those discussed in the “Vegetation and 

Wildlife” section. 

4-172 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

4.12 Recreational Resources 

4.12.1 Affected Environment 

4.12.1.1 Recreation Setting 

Washington provides a diverse array of recreation settings from designated 

wilderness areas to urban greenways. Within the Yakima River basin, the 

recreation opportunities are largely found in developed and rural natural settings. 

Recreationists are attracted to the basin by the quality of the scenery, water, and 

recreation opportunities. Primary recreation activities include fishing the 

reservoirs and rivers for cold-water species; whitewater boating and kayaking; 

motorized boating; and other related activities such as camping, hiking, 

picnicking, and wildlife viewing. 

All six reservoirs within the study area—Bumping, Rimrock, Cle Elum, Kachess, 

Keechelus, and Clear Lakes—are located on the eastern slopes of the Cascade 

Mountains (figure 4.18). The rugged mountain terrain and coniferous forests 

create magnificent scenic settings. Camping, swimming, boating, picnicking, and 

fishing are available at all reservoirs. Picnic sites and campgrounds are close to, 

or exceed, capacity on summer weekends and exceed capacity on holiday 

weekends (Novitsky, 2005). 

The Easton Diversion Dam area has a State park with facilities for camping, 

swimming, and boat launching and mooring. Recreational use is heavy. The 

reservoir also has a good fishery. 

The five primary rivers within the basin that supply recreation opportunities 

are the Tieton, Naches, Cle Elum, Bumping, and Yakima Rivers. Although 

there are other smaller flat-water lakes and rivers in the basin that offer similar 

types of water-based recreation activities, the only water bodies discussed in this 

section and this report are the ones specifically mentioned above. 

The Yakima River has a national reputation for its high-quality fly fishing, one of 

the fastest growing activities on the river. The Yakima River is also considered a 

“blue ribbon” trout stream (Yakima Valley Visitors and Convention Bureau, 

2005). The prime periods for fishing the river are February through May and 

September and October, although fishing occurs on the river throughout the year. 

The Naches and Tieton Rivers do not provide the quality of fishing found in the 

Yakima River. The Naches does not because of limited access, and the Tieton 

does not because of its small stream size, swift water, woody debris, and cloudiness of the water. The Tieton River has regionally acclaimed whitewater rafting 

during a 3-week period (flip-flop) in September. The rapids during that time are 

rated as Class III (Fairfield, 2005). There is very little rafting on the Naches 

River, because of limited access due to private land ownership on adjacent lands. 

4-173 
Figure 4.18 Yakima River basin recreation access points and recreation areas. 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

The Yakima River basin also has a Pacific Northwest regional reputation for 

motorized recreation opportunities associated with trail bikes, all-terrain vehicles 

(ATV), jeeps, and snowmobiles, primarily on U.S. Forest Service lands on the 

west side of the basin. 

4-174 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

4.12.1.2 Current Recreation Visitation 

Table 4.36 presents the estimated visitation to the key reservoirs and rivers in the 

Yakima River basin. 

Table 4.36 Estimated 2006 annual visitation to key 

reservoirs and rivers in the Yakima River basin 

Reservoir Number of annual visitors 

Keechelus Lake 660 

Kachess Lake 17,292 

Cle Elum Lake 6,996 

Rimrock Lake 10,824 

Clear Lake 4,620 

Bumping Lake 7,524 

Lake Easton 19,260 

River Number of annual visitors 

Yakima River 18,000 

Tieton River 8,844 

Naches River 3,696 

Bumping River 5,016 

Cle Elum River 5,280 

4.12.2 Environmental Consequences 

This section describes the effects of implementation of the Joint Alternatives on 

recreation, including drawdown and recreation use at proposed reservoirs. This 

section also describes effects on recreation at existing reservoirs and on rivers. 

See chapter 2 for details of estimated changes in recreation under the Joint 

Alternatives. 

4.12.2.1 Methods and Assumptions 

The following assumptions were used in assessing the effects of all Joint 

Alternatives on recreation. 

The likely future recreation situation for the Wymer Dam and Reservoir 

Alternative and Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

would be the same. 

Recreation visitation was estimated on the basis of (1) current visitation at the 

existing reservoirs in the basin, (2) current visitation to three State parks in 

comparable settings near Yakima, and (3) the findings reported in the Recreation 

Demand and User Preference Analysis (Reclamation, 2007f) which includes 

projected changes in population and demographics. 

4-175 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

A recreation managing partner would enter into a cooperative agreement with 

Reclamation for the design, development, and management of recreation 

facilities. It is expected that these managing partners would add facilities, 

programs, and services, which would meet the demand of the recreating public 

and attract more visitation. 

Likely managing partners include the Washington State Parks Commission or 

counties where the reservoirs would be located. 

Local, county, and State tourism organizations are expected to promote and 

market the availability of any new reservoir site as a new recreation opportunity. 

The recreation situation described is confined to Reclamation’s geographical 

boundaries and does not describe nearby future land use changes or residential 

and commercial development that may occur. 

A fish-stocking program (for the new reservoirs) would be prepared and 

implemented by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Drawdown can change the type, amount, and quality of recreation opportunities. 

It is recognized that as one type of recreation opportunity may be displaced by a 

certain water level, another opportunity may be afforded or enhanced. 

At the existing reservoirs, changes which could affect recreation were only 

projected to occur at Cle Elum and Kachess Lakes. 

4.12.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts under the No Action Alternative would be considered under 

separate NEPA evaluation, as discussed in chapter 2. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Effects on recreation at Cle Elum, Bumping, Rimrock, Keechelus, Kachess, 

Easton, and Clear Lakes and on riverine recreation would be the same as under 

current conditions. 

4.12.2.3 Black Rock Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

There would be no construction impacts to existing recreation resources under the 

Black Rock Alternative. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Black Rock reservoir would be approximately 8,720 water surface acres at full 

pool (13.6 square miles), about 10 miles long, and more than 1 mile wide at its 

4-176 
 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

widest point. The west end of Black Rock reservoir would be within 20 miles of 

Yakima, while the east end would almost reach the Benton County line. Access 

would be from State Routes 24 and 241. Ten miles of SR-24 would be 

submerged and, thus, provide boat ramp access from the west. 

The reservoir would be elongated, open, and have few coves or arms. The south 

and southeast side of the Black Rock reservoir would be steep with tall hillsides, 

providing good vistas of the lake and surrounding landscape but with limited or 

no safe access. The north and west sides of the reservoir would be a rolling, flat 

terrain of dryland grasses and few trees. 

The open exposure of the reservoir along with westerly winds coming down the 

valley would make for cool breezes for some recreationists but dangerous winds 

and wave-action for others. 

Table 4.37 presents the recreation setting for Black Rock reservoir, including 

the startup years and the long-term operation. It is assumed that a managing 

partner would assume recreation management from Reclamation and provide 

the recreation facilities, programs and services to meet the public demand. 

Table 4.38 presents projections of recreation use at Black Rock reservoir by 

activity. 

Table 4.37 Recreation setting at Black Rock reservoir 

Recreation setting 

Initial startup (5 years) 

following reservoir 

completion 

Post-initial startup years 

(beyond first 5 years) 

following reservoir 

completion 

Management Reclamation Primary recreation manager 

(e.g., Yakima County Parks, 

Washington State Parks) 

Facilities Day-use 

Minimal facilities for resource 

protection and public safety 

No fees or entrance station 

Minimal security 

Parking lot 

1 boat ramp (old Highway 24) 

Regulatory and directional 

signage 

Vehicular access of 

drawdown shoreline 

Portable toilets 

No utilities 

Day and overnight facilities 

Boat marina (rentals and short 

term slips) 

Concessioned services 

Developed campground, picnic 

area, trails, and toilets 

2 boat ramps 

Fee-based 

Entrance station 

Security 

Utilities 

Interpretive signage 

Controlled shoreline access and 

boating capacity 

Wakeless zones 

Projected annual visitation 250,000 - 304,000 400,000 - 700,000 

Projected annual change in 

visitation 

5-percent increase due to 

new location, marketing and 

media attention, improving 

fishery 

5-percent increase in early 

facility buildout, similar to 

population growth in subsequent 

years 

4-177 
 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table 4.38 Recreation use at Black Rock reservoir 

Primary 

activities 

Primary 

visitation 

period 

Percent of 

total 

annual 

visitation 

Annual 

visitation 

estimate in 

initial startup 

years 

Annual 

visitation 

estimate 

after initial 

startup years 

Additional 

descriptors of 

visitation 

Boat fishing Spring and 25% 62,500­ 100,000­ 50% of boat 

fall 76,000 175,000 fishers are local; 

50% are 

nonlocal 

Shoreline 

fishing 

May-July 10% 25,000­

30,400 

40,000­

70,000 

Predominantly 

local residents; 

popular activities 

among the 

increasing senior 

and Hispanic 

population in 

basin. 

Swimming JuneAugust 15% 37,500­

45,600 

60,000­

105,000 

Picnicking JuneAugust 15% 37,500­

45,600 

60,000­

105,000 

Water skiing, 

wakeboarding, 

jet skiing 

JuneAugust 25% 62,500­

76,000 

100,000­

175,000 

70% local; 30% 

from out of the 

basin 

Walking Spring and 

fall 

3% 7,500-9,100 12,000­

21,000 

Local residents 

Wildlife viewing Spring and 

fall 

3% 7,500-9,100 12,000­

21,000 

Local residents 

Horseback 

riding 

Spring and 

fall 

2% 5,000-6,100 8,000-14,000 Local residents 

OHV riding JulyAugust 2% 5,000- 6,100 8,000-14,000 Local residents

 250,000­ 400,000­ Visitation would 

304,000 700,000 increase 

annual visitors annual visitors approximately 

5% per year for 

the first 10 years 

and then 

stabilize similar 

to the rate of 

population 

growth in the 

Yakima area. 

1

 Annual visitation numbers assume a fish-stocking program for the reservoir. Visitation could be 

substantially lower if no fish-stocking program were implemented. 

2

 A comparison of the recreation setting in the initial years of reservoir completion versus later years is 

provided in table 4.37. 

Effects on Reservoir Recreation.— 

Drawdown of Black Rock Reservoir.—Black Rock reservoir would 

reach full pool in February-March and low pool in August. There would be about 

a 20-percent reduction in the available water surface acres for recreationists as a 

result of this drawdown. Conversely, this drawdown would provide considerable 

shoreline acreage for associated land-based activities later in the summer months, 

such as off-highway vehicle (OHV) and ATV use on the north and west shores. 

4-178 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

 Kachess Lake.—At Kachess Lake, a water level below 2,256 feet could 

affect recreation. In wet years, the Black Rock Alternative would have little 

effect compared to the No Action Alternative, while in average water years, the 

only effect occurs in August when the elevation of Kachess Lake remains at or 

above 2,256 feet, improving recreation in that month. The biggest effect occurs 

early in the recreation season (June, July) in dry years when Kachess water levels 

are higher than under the No Action Alternative. Under these conditions, 

recreation needs would be better met and would result in 17,220 more visitor days 

in dry years. Also in dry years, the Black Rock Alternative would allow boat 

launching for approximately 2.5 months or approximately 75 days from mid-May 

through July, whereas the No Action Alternative would allow boat launching for 

only a few days in mid-June. 

Cle Elum Lake.—Cle Elum Lake recreation visitors, on average, prefer 

medium to high water levels, somewhere between an elevation of 2,200 and 

2,237 feet. Water levels generally fall within the range under both the Black 

Rock and No Action Alternatives. In dry years, however, July and May water 

levels fall below that range under the Black Rock Alternative. 

Effects on Riverine Recreation.— 

 Yakima River.—Under this alternative, Yakima River flows are within 

or close to the preferred medium flow range for recreation. In average water 

years, these flows would result in about 7,260 more visitor days from July to 

mid-August and October than under the No Action Alternative. These estimates 

are based on the average monthly visitation and visitor projections of increased 

visits if users’ preferred flows were met. 

Tieton River.—For the Tieton River, flows under the Black Rock 

Alternative range from about 1,000 to 1,250 cfs, which are at the lower end 

of, but still within, visitors’ preferred flows for this river. The effect on recreation 

would occur during flip-flop, when flows would be about 350 cfs less in a wet 

year, 550 cfs less in an average year, and 250 cfs less in a dry year. These lower 

flows would occur at a crucial time for rafters and rafting companies, and would 

affect rafting companies and rafters and kayakers seeking whitewater. More 

importantly, from a visitor-day measurement standpoint, flows for all 

recreationists, including rafters, would be below their desired levels a week earlier 

in late September and early October than under the No Action Alternative. This 

week could represent a potential loss of about 1,000 visitors. 

4.12.2.4 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

There would be no impacts to existing recreation resources during construction of 

the Wymer dam and reservoir. 

4-179 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Long-Term Impacts 

Wymer reservoir would be approximately 1,390 water surface acres at full pool 

(2+ square miles), about 4 miles long, and 1⁄2-mile wide in the dam area. The west 

end of Wymer reservoir would almost abut SR-821, while the east end would 

reach Interstate 82. Access would be from SR-821. There would be no interstate 

access or anticipated signage. 

While Wymer would be a relatively small reservoir, the topography of rolling, 

steep hillsides with canyons would provide with numerous coves and arms for 

recreationists to enjoy. The topography and lake configuration would provide 

water recreationists protection from winds, but shoreline use would be limited by 

the steep terrain and large projected drawdown. 

Table 4.39 provides a description of the recreation setting that is projected at the 

Wymer Reservoir. It is assumed that a managing partner would take over the 

development and management of recreation facilities, programs and services. 

Table 4.40 projects the primary recreation opportunities at Wymer, primary 

season and level of use, and estimated annual visitation. 

Table 4.39 Recreation setting at Wymer reservoir 

Recreation setting 

Initial startup 

(5 years) following 

reservoir completion 

Post-initial startup years 

(beyond first 5 years) 

following reservoir completion 

Management Reclamation Primary recreation manager (e.g., 

Yakima County Parks, city of 

Yakima’s parks and recreation 

department, and Washington Parks 

Commission) 

Facilities Day-use only 

Human-powered boating only 

Minimal facilities for resource 

protection and public safety 

No fees or entrance station 

Minimal security 

Small parking lot 

1 boat ramp 

Shoreline access for nontrailered 

boats 

Regulatory and directional signage 

Portable toilets 

No utilities 

Day-use only 

Human-powered boating only 

Developed picnic and toilet facilities 

Designated trails 

Fee-based 

Entrance station 

Security 

Utilities (water and lighting) 

Small parking lot 

1 boat ramp 

Shoreline access for nontrailered 

boats 

Interpretive signage 

Designated trail 

Projected annual 

visitation 

40,000-45,300 70,000-200,000 

Projected annual change 

in visitation 

Annual increase in visitation would approximate the rate of population 

change in basin (i.e., estimated 3 percent) 

4-180 
 

 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Table 4.40 Recreation use at Wymer reservoir 

Primary 

activities 

Primary 

visitation 

Period 

Percent of 

total 

annual 

visitation 

Annual 

visitation 

estimate in 

initial start-up 

years 

Annual 

visitation 

estimate after 

initial start-up 

years 

Additional 

descriptors of 

visitation 

Canoe, 

kayak, and 

small 

sailboats 

May-July 20% 8,000-9,000 14,000-40,000 Wymer reservoir 

would be a small 

reservoir with 

considerable 

water level 

fluctuation. It 

would be popular 

as a summer 

reservoir for 

locals to enjoy 

human-powered 

recreation 

activities. 

Boat fishing Spring and fall 10% 4,000-4,500 7,000-20,000 

Shoreline 

fishing 

May-July 25% 10,000-11,300 17,500-50,000 

Swimming June- August 15% 6,000- 6,800 10,500-30,000 

Picnicking June-August 15% 6,000- 6,800 10,500-30,000 

Walking Spring and fall 10% 4,000-4,500 7,000-20,000 

Wildlife 

viewing 

Spring and fall 5% 2,000-2,300 3,500-10,000 

40,000-45,200 70,000­ Visitation would 

annual visitors 200,000 increase similar 

annual visitors to the rate of 

population 

growth in the 

Yakima area 

Effects on Reservoir Recreation.— 

Drawdown of Wymer Reservoir.—Wymer reservoir would reach a full 

pool of some 1,300 water surface acres in May-June, and a low pool of 600+ 

water surface acres in August-September. There would be about a 50-percent 

reduction in the available water surface acres for recreationists. Conversely, this 

drawdown would provide more shoreline acreage for associated land-based 

activities later in the summer months, such as OHV and ATV use.

 Kachess Lake.—No impacts to recreation would occur under this 

alternative at Kachess Lake in wet, average or dry conditions. 

Cle Elum Lake.—Effects on recreation use at Cle Elum Lake would be 

relatively slight under this alternative. In wet years, the boat launches at the lake 

would still be useable in August, in contrast to the No Action Alternative. 

Conversely, under the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative in a dry year, the 

elevation of the lake would fall below the preferred elevation range of between 

2,200 and 2,237 feet in June. Under the No Action Alternative, the elevation 

would be within the preferred range. 

Effects on Riverine Recreation.— 

 Yakima River.—Under this alternative, Yakima River flows during the 

recreation season are about the same as under the No Action Alternative, except 

from the end of June to the end of August, when they are about 500 to 1,000 cfs 

4-181 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

lower than under the No Action Alternative. As a result, flows are within or close 

to the preferred medium flow range for recreation and, thus, are better for 

recreation than under the No Action Alternative. These flows would result in 

about 3,631 more visitor days from July to mid-August and October (average 

water years) than under the No Action Alternative. These estimates are based on 

the average monthly visitation and visitor projections of increased visits if users’ 

preferred flows were met.

 Tieton River.—Under this alternative, Tieton River flows are virtually the 

same as under the No Action Alternative; thus, no effect on recreation is 

expected. 

4.12.2.5 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

There would be no impacts to existing recreation resources during construction of 

the Wymer dam and reservoir. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Impacts would be the same as for the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative. 

Opportunities for new recreation would be the same as under the Wymer Dam 

and Reservoir Alternative. 

Effects on Reservoir Recreation.— 

 Drawdown of Wymer Reservoir.—Effects on Wymer reservoir 

drawdown would be the same as under the Wymer Dam and Reservoir 

Alternative.

 Kachess Lake.—There would be no effects on recreation at Kachess 

Lake under this alternative, compared to the No Action Alternative, except in 

dry years. Reservoir elevations are higher in dry years, which would provide a 

better recreation experience in May, June, and July. As a result of these higher 

elevations, the boat launch would be useable for about 50 days in June and July in 

dry years compared to only a few days under the No Action Alternative. The only 

other impact would occur in average years in June, when reservoir elevations are 

higher than under the No Action Alternative, decreasing the quality of the 

recreation experience as less “beach” would be exposed. 

Cle Elum Lake.—As discussed previously, Cle Elum Lake users prefer 

water surface elevations in the range of 2,200 and 2,237 feet. In wet years, 

elevations are within this range in June under this alternative, whereas they are 

below the range under the No Action Alternative. Elevations remain high in wet 

years into August, which would allow boat launching. Under No Action, 

elevations are too low in August for launching in wet years. No other impacts to 

recreation were identified at Cle Elum Lake under other water year types in any 

part of the recreation season. 

4-182 
 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Effects on Riverine Recreation.—Effects on riverine recreation would be the 

same as under the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative. 

4.12.2.6 Mitigation 

No mitigation would be required. 

4.12.2.7 Cumulative Impacts 

Regional, State, and local area population will continue to grow by approximately 

1.5 to 2.5 percent annually. The increase in population within the prime 

recreation market area of the Yakima River basin (i.e., Washington, Oregon, 

Idaho, British Columbia, and California) will be greater than national averages 

and ensure continued increases in outdoor recreation participation on public 

lands and waters. National, State, regional, and local participation rates in 

outdoor recreation will continue to increase among all ages, income, and 

ethnic groups. On average, State park visitation in eastern Washington increased 

2 percent annually from 2000 to 2005. Water resources will continue to be a 

prime attraction for day-use and overnight outdoor recreation participants. 

People will continue to seek opportunities to enjoy the outdoors and to 

experience a natural setting in contrast to their daily work and living 

environments. It is reasonable to project a 2- to 3-percent average annual increase 

in outdoor recreation demand for the Yakima River basin over the next 20 years. 

4.13 Land Use and Shoreline Resources 

This section addresses the following aspects of land use and shoreline resources in 

the study area: 

•	 Land ownership/land status 

•	 Existing land or shoreline uses 

•	 Consistency with relevant city, county, State, or Federal land use and 

shoreline management plans, programs, and policies 

These aspects are addressed relative to the direct physical development and 

operation of facilities associated with the Joint Alternatives, for which specific 

land areas and/or requirements have been identified. 

4.13.1 Affected Environment 

4.13.1.1 No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative includes conservation-oriented system improvements, 

including pumping plants and pipelines, at various locations in the Yakima Valley 

region. These improvements are associated with existing approved programs and 

4-183 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

orient predominantly to existing facilities; none are being or would be constructed 

under the auspices of the Storage Study. To the extent that NEPA or SEPA 

analysis is required for these actions, appropriate documentation of the directly 

affected land/shoreline use environment will be prepared separately, apart from 

the Storage Study process. 

4.13.1.2 Black Rock Alternative 

Dam and Reservoir 

The site of the proposed Black Rock dam and reservoir is the Black Rock Valley, 

located in eastern Yakima County, Washington. Land in the valley is privately 

owned. No substantial State or Federal landholdings exist. The YTC borders the 

valley to the north. The general setting and proposed location of the reservoir (as 

well as appurtenant facilities) is shown in chapter 2. 

The land area that would be affected by the proposed dam and reservoir is held by 

relatively few (approximately 20) landowners, with holdings ranging in size from 

120 to several thousand acres. 

Land use in the Black Rock Valley is primarily open habitat and rangeland, with 

limited areas of irrigated pasture and other crops in the western end of the valley. 

Within the potential area of influence of the reservoir, the only developed land 

uses are three residences and a hunting club in the valley itself, and a roadside 

café and one residence approximately 1 mile east of the damsite. 

Land use planning in the Black Rock Valley is under the jurisdiction of Yakima 

County. All land in and around the proposed Black Rock dam and reservoir site 

is designated “agriculture” in the county’s comprehensive plan and zoning. The 

county’s “Plan 2015” describes the agriculture designation as “lands primarily 

devoted to or important for the long-term commercial production of horticultural, 

viticultural, floricultural, dairy, apiary, vegetable, or animal products...Generally 

lands in Yakima County zoned Exclusive or General Ag can be considered 

resource lands of long-term commercial significance” (Yakima County, 1998a). 

Appurtenant Facilities 

Intake/Inflow System.—The only substantial surface land area associated with 

the Black Rock intake/inflow system would be the site of the intake and fish 

screen facility. An access road (approximately 10 miles) and a new transmission 

line (approximately 6 miles to intake and fish screen facility site) would also be 

necessary. 

The intake and fish screen facility itself would be located on the southwest shore 

of Priest Rapids Lake, approximately 3,600 feet upstream of Priest Rapids Dam. 

The facility would be on land owned by the Grant County PUD as part of the 

Priest Rapids hydroelectric project. The site and surrounding land is currently 

undeveloped except for a small marina facility used by PUD personnel. 

4-184 
 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

The only developed use in the vicinity of the intake and fish screen site, other than 

the industrial facilities of the hydroelectric project, is a small Wanapum village 

approximately 1 mile to the southeast, immediately downstream from Priest 

Rapids Dam, on the south side of the Columbia River. 

The access road to the intake and fish screen facility site would be developed 

on an abandoned railroad right-of-way (ROW) along the south side of the 

Columbia River from SR-24 to the southeast. The transmission line would 

also be constructed on the south side of the river, from the Bonneville Power 

Administration’s Midway Substation located 4 miles west of SR-24. Both the 

access road and transmission line routes pass through predominantly undeveloped 

private land, with isolated instances of irrigated agriculture; involved lands are 

within Yakima and Benton Counties, and are designated/zoned by the counties 

as “agriculture.” Both the access road and the transmission line would also pass 

adjacent to (south of) the Wanapum village noted above. 

Inflow conveyance from the intake and fish screen facility to Black Rock 

reservoir would be a tunnel under land within the YTC. The only surface 

facility associated with this tunnel would be a 22-foot-diameter surge/vent 

shaft connecting the tunnel with the ground surface approximately three-quarters 

of a mile south-southwest of the intake facility. This vent would be on steep 

terrain within the YTC, near the YTC’s easternmost boundary. 

From the standpoint of land use planning and shoreline resources management, 

the site of the intake and fish screen facility is (1) addressed in Grant County 

PUD’s Priest Rapids/Wanapum Land Use Plan, which designates the site as 

wildlife area (Grant County PUD, 1992), and (2) subject to review and permitting 

pursuant to the State Shoreline Management Act (SMA). In the latter regard, all 

lakes and reservoirs in the state over 20 acres in surface area are formally 

designated as “shorelines of the State.” Implementation of the Black Rock intake 

and fish screen facilities would be considered “substantial development” under 

the SMA, and a Substantial Development Permit would be required. SMA 

consistency review and issuance (if appropriate) of a Substantial Development 

Permit would be accomplished by Yakima County.7 Relevant policies/provisions 

of the SMA governing this review and issuance of the required permit include 

(Ecology, 2007d): 

•	 Encourage water-dependent uses: “uses shall be preferred which are 

consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to the 

natural environment, or are unique to or dependent upon use of the states' 

shorelines...” (generally, nonwater/shoreline-dependent uses are to be 

avoided unless there is no feasible alternative). 

7

 In partnership with the State Department of Ecology, local counties and cities implement the 

SMA through required Shoreline Master Programs. 

4-185 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

•	 Protect shoreline natural resources, including: “...the land and its 

vegetation and wildlife, and the waters of the state and their aquatic life...” 

(with an emphasis on restoring priority habitats and species, and specific 

policy of no net loss of ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline 

natural resources). 

•	 Promote public access: “the public’s opportunity to enjoy the physical 

and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved 

to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of 

the state and the people generally.” 

Outflow/Delivery System.—All outflow and delivery facilities would be located 

west of the Black Rock reservoir site on private lands within Yakima County. In 

all cases, except where noted, surface facilities (sites and conveyance routes) 

would involve land currently characterized as large lot ownership, used for 

agricultural production, and designated/zoned “agriculture” by Yakima County. 

(See previous discussion under “Dam and Reservoir.”) 

The following overviews of the land use setting for elements in the 

outflow/delivery system use the proposed location of the Black Rock 

outlet facility as a reference point. This facility would be located on 

the south side of SR-24, east of Moxee, approximately 3,000 feet east of 

Beane Road and immediately east of the Roza Canal. 

Outflow Conveyance.—From the proposed Black Rock reservoir to a 

point approximately 3,000 feet northeast of the Black Rock outlet facility (the 

first distribution element in the delivery system), the outflow conveyance from 

Black Rock reservoir would be via a tunnel. With the exception of a 40-footdiameter surge/vent shaft, this tunnel would not involve surface land 

use/disturbance. The surge/vent shaft would be located approximately 3.4 miles 

northeast of the Black Rock outlet facility on land currently in open 

habitat/rangeland use. The final 3,000 feet of the conveyance would involve a 

buried pipeline passing through agricultural lands. 

Black Rock Outlet Facility and Powerplant (and point of delivery for 

the Roza Division).8

—At present, the site of this facility is in irrigated agriculture. 

All surrounding use is agricultural. 

Sunnyside Powerplant and Bypass.—This facility would be located on 

land currently in orchard use on the north side of the Sunnyside Canal, 

immediately east of its Konnowac Pass Road crossing, approximately 3⁄4 mile 

north of Yakima Valley Highway. All surrounding use is also agricultural. 

8

 Delivery of water to the Roza Division would be accomplished at the site of the Black Rock 

outlet facility, via connection with the adjacent Roza Canal. 

4-186 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Delivery System for Sunnyside Division.—The delivery of water to the 

Sunnyside Division would be via a new pipeline, approximately 6.4 miles long, 

connecting the Black Rock outlet facility with the Sunnyside powerplant and 

bypass facility. The conceptual alignment of this pipeline passes through a 

combination of large-lot agricultural and currently undeveloped land. 

4.13.1.3 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Dam and Reservoir 

The location of the proposed Wymer dam and reservoir is the Lmuma Creek 

watershed/basin, tributary to the Yakima River, located in southern Kittitas 

County, Washington. The site spans the basin from the Yakima River and 

SR-821 on the west to Interstate 82 (I-682) on the east. The general setting and 

proposed location of the reservoir (as well as appurtenant facilities) is shown in 

chapter 2. 

Land in the Lmuma Creek basin is primarily privately owned by one family. 

Approximately 320 acres of State ownership (Departments of Natural Resources 

and Transportation) are located in the northern part of the basin, and Federal 

ownership (YTC) begins in the extreme eastern part of the basin, immediately 

east of I-82. 

Land use in the Lmuma Creek basin is open habitat and rangeland. There are no 

developed uses. 

Land use planning in the area is under the jurisdiction of Kittitas County. All land 

in and around the dam and reservoir site is designated “rural” in the County 

Comprehensive Plan, with a zoning designation of “forest and range.” The forest 

and range zone in intended “to provide for areas of Kittitas County wherein 

natural resource management is the highest priority and where subdivision and 

development of lands for uses and activities incompatible with resource 

management are discouraged” (Kittitas County, 1992). 

Appurtenant Facilities 

The import and export conveyances (pipelines, tunnels, and modified Lmuma 

Creek channel) for the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative follow the Lmuma 

Creek corridor approximately 4,700 feet from the proposed damsite, southwest to 

the site of the pumping plant, air chamber, and switchyard along the Yakima 

River. Land crossed by these conveyances, as well as the land on which the 

pumping plant, air chamber and switchyard would be located next to the river, is 

all privately owned and involves the same family who holds most of the Lmuma 

Creek basin in which the dam and reservoir would be located. Outside of 

privately held land in this area are State (Departments of Natural Resources and 

Fish and Wildlife) and Federal (Bureau of Land Management [BLM]) holdings. 

4-187 
 

 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Current use of the land on which the Wymer facilities would be located 

(conveyances east of SR-821 and the pumping plant west of the highway) is 

primarily irrigated agriculture, with a family residence present in the area east of 

the highway. Surrounding State and Federal lands are open space, habitat areas, 

with no developed recreation or other facilities. 

Land use planning jurisdiction, as well as assigned use designations, for involved 

private land are the same as described for the dam and reservoir (Kittitas County; 

Forest and Range). State and Federal lands are managed as open space, habitat, 

and recreation, as part of the BLM-administered Yakima Canyon Scenic and 

Recreation Highway. 

In addition to the above land-use planning context, the Yakima River in this 

area is formally designated a “shoreline of the State” pursuant to the State’s 

SMA. Similar to the Black Rock intake and fish screen facility discussed 

previously, the Wymer facilities along the river would be considered 

“substantial development,” and an SMA Substantial Development Permit 

would be required. SMA consistency review and issuance (if appropriate) of 

a Substantial Development Permit would be accomplished by Kittitas County.9 

(See discussion under Black Rock appurtenant facilities for further perspective.) 

4.13.1.4 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

The affected environment of the Wymer dam component of this alternative is 

presented in the previous section. The following discussion focuses on the land 

and shoreline use setting for the Yakima River pump exchange component of this 

alternative. 

The 56 miles of underground pipeline comprising the Yakima River pump 

exchange component of this alternative would span portions of five local 

Washington jurisdictions: city of Richland (7 miles), city of Kennewick (1 mile), 

city of West Richland (4 miles), Benton County (24 miles), and Yakima County 

(20 miles). The three pumping plants that are the only major surface facilities 

associated with the alternative would be located in Richland (pumping plant #1), 

Benton County (pumping plant #2), and Yakima County (pumping plant #3). 

Chapter 2 maps illustrate the general locations of pump exchange facilities, 

including the conceptual pipeline alignment and pumping plant sites10. 

With the exception of crossings at State and interstate highways, the Yakima 

River, and elements of the Roza and Sunnyside Irrigation District systems, all 

9

 In partnership with Ecology, local counties and cities implement the SMA through required 

Shoreline Master Programs. 10 More detailed mapping of the conceptual pipeline route and the location of the pumping 

plants is available for review in Reclamation’s Appraisal Assessment of the Yakima River Pump 

Exchange Alternative Delivery System for Roza and Sunnyside Valley Irrigation Districts 

(Reclamation, 2006). 

4-188 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

land in the corridor through which the pump exchange would pass is privately 

owned, with land use planning and shoreline management jurisdiction held by the 

local cities and counties. 

Land use character along the proposed pipeline corridor is urban in the cities of 

Kennewick, Richland, and West Richland, and rural/agricultural in both Benton 

and Yakima Counties. 

Additional perspectives on existing and planned land use along the corridor are 

presented in the following text, by local jurisdiction. 

City of Richland.—The Columbia River intake and pumping plant #1 facilities of 

the Yakima River pump exchange component of this alternative would be located 

in the southwesternmost portion of the city’s Richland Wye Master Plan area. 

The proposed site and immediate surroundings of the intake and pumping plant 

are currently undeveloped, but are designated “commercial recreation” in the Wye 

Master Plan, with a designation of “waterfront” on the overlying Comprehensive 

Plan. In addition, the Columbia River in this area is a designated water of the 

State, pursuant to the SMA. The intake and pumping plant #1 facilities would be 

considered “substantial development” under the SMA, and, thus, would be subject 

to obtaining a Substantial Development Permit. (See discussion of the Black 

Rock appurtenant facilities for further perspective.) 

Outside the Wye area, the proposed pump exchange corridor follows existing 

linear facilities, primarily a railroad ROW and Keene Road. A substantial 

proportion of the land along this corridor is currently undeveloped. However, 

urban development is present on one or both sides of the pipeline corridor. 

Developed uses along the corridor are generally consistent with the city’s 

Comprehensive Plan and include high- and low- density residential, commercial, 

and limited examples of industrial. In terms of relative proportion (both existing 

and planned), low-density residential uses predominate. 

City of Kennewick.—One mile of the pump exchange pipeline, approximately 

1 mile west of pumping plant #1, would pass through land under city of 

Kennewick jurisdiction. This area of Kennewick is predominantly developed in a 

combination of residential and commercial uses. Also relevant is that the city’s 

Columbia Park planning area is immediately southeast of and adjacent to 

Richland’s Wye planning area along the Columbia River shore. Columbia Park 

lands, adjacent to the site of the proposed intake and pumping plant #1 facilities, 

are currently used as a campground, but are designated for future resort hotel, 

public park, and habitat/buffer uses. 

City of West Richland.—The pipeline corridor, centered on Keene Road, would 

pass through the southwest portion of West Richland. Land in the corridor is 

approximately 50-percent developed in a combination of residential and 

commercial uses. The city’s Comprehensive Plan designates lands in the area as 

4-189 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

low-, medium-, and high-density residential; commercial, and light industrial, 

with low- and medium-density residential predominating. 

Benton and Yakima Counties.—Beyond the city of West Richland, the pump 

exchange corridor would predominantly pass through existing irrigated 

agricultural lands, with associated residences and appurtenant structures, in 

Benton and Yakima Counties. The primary exception to this is approximately 

10 miles of open, undeveloped land in Benton County. No substantial instances 

of residential or other urban development are present in the corridor. Both 

counties designate all land in the corridor as “agriculture.” 

Regarding shoreline management, the pipeline would cross the Yakima River in 

Benton County, north of Benton City. The Yakima River in the affected area is a 

designated “water of the State” under the SMA, and the pipeline crossing would 

be considered “substantial development.” Thus, a Substantial Development 

Permit would be required. (See discussion of the Black Rock appurtenant 

facilities for further perspective.) 

4.13.2 Environmental Consequences 

4.13.2.1 Methods and Assumptions 

The land use and shoreline resources impact analysis was conducted using 

existing published information, supplemented by limited field reconnaissance. 

Primary sources of information for existing land ownership and use included 

mapping available at the respective county and city Web sites and available aerial 

photography. 

As discussed previously, the following indicators were selected to evaluate land 

use and shoreline resources impacts: 

•	 Changes in land ownership/land status 

•	 Changes in land or shoreline uses, and compatibility with surrounding 

uses 

•	 Consistency with relevant city, county, State, or Federal land 

use/management plans and policies 

In reviewing the analysis, the following points are of particular relevance: 

•	 The proposed locations of and plans for facilities associated with the 

alternatives, including appurtenant facility development sites and 

conveyance alignments, are derived from Reclamation’s appraisal-level 

assessments. Some facility locations (especially siting of structures) and 

substantial distances of the conveyance alignments are preliminary and 

subject to adjustment based on further study. Thus, the impacts reported 

4-190 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

herein for these facilities should be viewed as illustrative or prototypical, 

with site or alignment adjustments considered an important source of 

mitigation action. Further insight from this perspective is provided where 

relevant on a facility-specific basis. 

•	 No construction plans have been prepared for facilities associated with the 

Joint Alternatives. Given this, potential short-term construction-phase 

impacts on existing land uses during construction (for example, road 

detours, extent of construction ongoing at any given time, or construction 

traffic patterns) cannot be specifically addressed. 

4.13.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts under the No Action Alternative would be considered under 

separate NEPA evaluation as discussed in chapter 2. 

Long-Term Impacts 

As noted previously, conservation-related system improvements associated with 

the No Action Alternative are part of other approved programs and orient 

predominantly to existing facilities; none are being or will be constructed under 

the auspices of the Storage Study. To the extent that NEPA or SEPA analysis is 

required for these actions, appropriate documentation of land ownership changes, 

impacts on existing land use, or conflicts/inconsistencies with relevant land use 

plans or programs will be prepared separately, apart from the Storage Study 

process. 

4.13.2.3 Black Rock Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts would include temporary impacts to existing land uses (for 

example, to agricultural production and/or access). 

Long-Term Impacts 

Dam and Reservoir.—Development of the proposed Black Rock dam and 

reservoir (including necessary borrow and stockpile areas) would involve Federal 

acquisition of approximately 13,000 acres of private land in Black Rock Valley. 

The preliminary boundary of the acquisition area is shown on figure 4.19. This 

acquisition would involve all or a portion of the holdings of approximately 

20 landowners. 

The acquired land would be converted from predominantly open habitat and 

rangeland uses to dam and outlet works, reservoir pool, and shoreline 

management uses. Shoreline management is expected to include reservoiroriented recreation facilities (e.g., day and overnight use sites, boat ramp(s). (See 

the “Recreation” section.) 

4-191 
 

 

 Figure 4.19 Preliminary boundary of acquisition area for the Black Rock Alternative. 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

In terms of impacts on existing developed uses: 

•	 One existing residence and a hunting club location would be displaced 

(inundated by the reservoir). 

•	 Two other residences, associated with agricultural use in the western end 

of the reservoir area, would not be inundated, but a substantial portion of 

the associated landholding would need to be acquired, thus making 

uncertain the viability of continued agricultural operations. 

•	 Two electric transmission lines and one buried fiber optic cable which 

traverse the valley in an east-west direction would require relocation. 

•	 SR-24 would need to be rerouted. (See the “Transportation” section.) 

•	 The roadside café and nearby residence located east of the damsite would 

likely be indirectly impacted by this alternative because of incompatibility 

between these uses and the development and operation of Black Rock 

dam. 

4-192 
 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

From the standpoint of land use planning, the dam and reservoir are not 

anticipated by or consistent with the current Yakima County comprehensive 

plan or zoning. However, development of Black Rock dam and reservoir 

would involve removing associated land from Yakima County jurisdiction; 

thus, county plans and designations for the land would no longer be relevant. 

Appurtenant Facilities.—

 Intake/Import System.—Development of the Priest Rapids intake 

and fish screen facility would require Federal control (fee title or other 

appropriate land interest) of approximately 24 acres of Grant County PUD land 

on the southwest shore of Priest Rapids Lake. Structures above ground surface 

would include a pumping plant 56 feet high and an electrical switchyard with 

towers up to 104 feet high. The facility site would involve approximately 

2,400 feet of shoreline near the dam. Use of this shoreline land would 

change from general wildlife area to developed project facilities. 

This change in use would not be significant. No existing PUD facilities would be 

displaced. The 24 acres withdrawn from wildlife use would be minor in context 

with the overall lake environment, and all new facilities would be compatible in 

character with existing hydroelectric project infrastructure. 

From the standpoint of shoreline management pursuant to the SMA, the intake 

and fish screen facilities are undoubtedly “water dependent.” Beyond this, the 

conceptual nature of facility plans and designs at this point in the planning 

process precludes a detailed assessment of response to SMA policies and 

provisions. (See “Mitigation.”) 

Development of the access road and transmission line to the intake and fish screen 

facility would require acquisition of associated easements/rights-of-way, but 

would not involve (1) direct impact to or displacement of any developed land 

uses

11 or (2) inconsistencies with existing county plans or zoning. 

With one exception, development (boring) of the inflow tunnel from the intake 

facility to the reservoir would not involve changes in land use along the tunnel 

route. Material excavated for the tunnel would be used in the dam embankment. 

The exception to this is the surge/vent shaft, which would require dedication 

of an 80 x 80-foot, fenced site where the shaft reaches the land surface 

in the YTC; this requirement is not expected to have a significant impact 

on YTC uses or activities. 

 Outflow/Delivery System.—The following discussions focus on potential 

long-term impacts from facility development on land ownership and existing land 

use. Also, project facilities would be generally consistent with the intent of the 

11 See the “Transportation” and “Visual Quality” sections for discussions of adjacency 

impacts of the road and transmission line on the existing Wanapum village. 

4-193 
 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Yakima County’s agriculture land use designation, given that the facilities are 

similar to other local and regional irrigation infrastructure on which the region 

depends. 

Outflow Conveyance.—Development and operation of a buried 

pipeline for the westernmost 3,000 feet of the conveyance would involve longterm use impacts to a 150-foot-wide corridor of predominantly agricultural land. 

Reclamation would acquire a ROW or easement along this corridor, and future 

use within it would be restricted. It is likely that agricultural uses could continue 

after construction is completed. However, no permanent structures would be 

permitted, and any permitted use would be subject to disruption in the event of a 

pipeline repair or replacement requirement. 

The preliminary alignment shown in the appraisal assessment report for Black 

Rock would cross several parcels of land at an angle, and not along property lines, 

essentially dividing the parcels into two parts. It would also come in close 

proximity to, if not displace, at least one existing residence. These impacts would 

be locally significant (to individual landowners). 

With one exception, construction (boring) of the outflow tunnel from the reservoir 

to the tunnel portal (at the beginning of the pipeline described above) would not 

involve land use impacts or changes along the tunnel route. All material 

excavated for the tunnel would be used in construction of the dam. The exception 

to this is the surge/vent shaft. Where this shaft reaches the land surface, 

Reclamation would need to acquire and fence an 80 x 80-foot site, as well as 

access to the site for construction, operation, and maintenance. Given that the 

land on which the shaft site would be located and through which the access road 

would be routed is currently undeveloped, open habitat/rangeland, no significant 

impact on existing uses occur. 

Black Rock Outlet Facility and Powerplant (and point of delivery 

to Roza Canal for the Roza Division).—This facility would require Federal 

acquisition of approximately 5.7 acres of private agricultural land; no existing 

residences would be affected. The facility would include a 45-foot-high structure, 

a service yard, and an electrical switchyard with towers up to 104 feet high. The 

overall site would be fenced (7-foot chain link). Power to the facility is expected 

to be provided via a new wood pole transmission line from the existing Roza 

pumping plant #3 switchyard; this line could require acquisition of an easement or 

ROW along existing roads/property lines on private land. (No specific alignment 

studies for this line have been done to date.) 

Overall, the facility would involve introduction of an industrial use in a 

predominantly agricultural area. However, such facilities are not uncommon in 

the area given current irrigation infrastructure. 

4-194 
 

 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Sunnyside Powerplant and Bypass.—This facility would require 

Federal acquisition of approximately 2 acres of private agricultural land. No 

existing residences would be affected. The facility would include powerplant and 

bypass structures (35 and 18 feet high, respectively), a service yard, and an 

electrical switchyard with towers up to 104 feet high. The overall site would be 

fenced (7-foot chain link). Power to the facility is expected to be provided via a 

new wood-pole line from the BPA line about 1 mile to the southwest. This line 

could require acquisition of an easement or ROW along existing roads/property 

lines on private land. (No specific alignment studies for this line have been done 

to date.) 

The general impacts of the facility would be the same as that described for the 

Black Rock outlet facility. 

Delivery System for Sunnyside Division.—Development and 

operation of 6.4 miles of buried pipeline connecting the Black Rock outlet facility 

with the Sunnyside powerplant and bypass facility would involve long-term use 

impacts to a 120-foot-wide corridor of predominantly agricultural land. 

Reclamation would acquire a ROW or easement along this corridor, and future 

use within it would be restricted. It is likely that agricultural uses could continue 

after construction is completed. However, no permanent structures would be 

permitted, and any permitted use would be subject to disruption in the event of a 

pipeline repair or replacement requirement. 

Preliminary alignment studies show the pipeline facility would cross several 

agricultural parcels at an angle and/or not along property lines, thus dividing the 

parcels into two parts, and come close to, if not displacing, at least one residence. 

These impacts would be locally significant (to individual landowners). 

4.13.2.4 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts would include temporary impacts to existing land uses (for 

example, to agricultural production and/or access). 

Long-Term Impacts 

Dam and Reservoir.—Development of Wymer dam and reservoir would involve 

Federal acquisition of approximately 4,000 acres of private land in the Lmuma 

Creek basin. The preliminary boundary of the acquisition area is shown on 

figure 4.20. This acquisition would involve two members of the same family. 

The land would be converted from open habitat and rangeland uses to dam and 

outlet works, reservoir pool, and shoreline management uses. Shoreline 

management is expected to include reservoir-oriented recreation facilities (e.g., 

day use sites, boat ramp(s). (See the “Recreation” section.) At the easternmost 

extent of the reservoir, the high water line would extend approximately 2,500 feet 

4-195 
Figure 4.20 Preliminary boundary of acquisition area for Wymer Dam and Reservoir 

Alternative. 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

into the YTC; appropriate coordination among Federal agencies would be 

required, but no major incompatibilities would be created. No other landowners 

(private or public) and no developed uses would be affected. 

From the standpoint of land use planning, it is uncertain whether Kittitas County 

would consider the dam and reservoir consistent with the intent of the Forest and 

Range zoning designation. However, development of Wymer dam and reservoir 

would involve removing associated land from Kittitas County jurisdiction, thus 

making county plans and designations for the land no longer relevant. 

Appurtenant Facilities.—Development of appurtenant facilities would require the 

following: 

•	 Pumping plant, air chamber, and switchyard: Federal acquisition of 

approximately 6.8 acres of private agricultural land along the Yakima 

River, including approximately 100 feet of shoreline. 

•	 Import conveyance (pipeline): Federal control of (via acquisition, 

easement, or ROW) and construction within a 100-foot-wide corridor 

4-196 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

of agricultural land approximately 4,700 feet long from the dam to 

the pumping plant, and crossing SR-821. 

•	 Outlet conveyance: Federal control and modification of the Lmuma Creek 

channel from the dam to the Yakima River. 

•	 Electric transmission line: Federal control of (via acquisition, easement, 

or ROW) and construction of a transmission line within a 100-foot-wide 

corridor of land approximately 5 miles long from the pumping plant to an 

existing Bonneville Power Administration transmission line located to the 

west. No routing studies for this line have been conducted to date. 

With the exception of the SR-821 ROW (State Department of Transportation) and 

transmission line ROW (route and associated land ownership not determined), all 

land on which appurtenant facilities would be located is owned by one family. 

The import conveyances would be underground, and the transmission line would 

be above ground; thus, long-term use of associated land could include continued 

agriculture with appropriate restrictions and conditions related to the potential for 

repair/replacement access. Whether the landowner’s residence in the area 

immediately east of SR-821 would need to be relocated has not been determined. 

Use of the land on which the pumping plant, air chamber, and switchyard would 

be constructed would be changed from irrigated agriculture to project facilities. 

These changes in use could be locally significant (especially if the landowner’s 

residence would be displaced), but would not be significant in the broader context 

of Yakima Canyon. In the latter regard, the commercial/industrial nature of the 

pumping plant, air chamber, and switchyard facilities would be similar to those 

associated with Roza Diversion Dam approximately 5 miles to the south and 

private commercial uses one mile to the north. 

From the standpoint of land use planning, it is uncertain whether Kittitas County 

would consider project facilities consistent with the intent of the Forest and Range 

zoning designation in the area, or if the BLM would consider these facilities 

compatible with the Scenic and Recreational Highway. However, as noted above, 

the Wymer facilities would be similar in nature to existing development upstream 

and downstream along the river. 

From the standpoint of shoreline management (pursuant to the SMA), the Yakima 

River intake, pumping plant, and outlet facilities are undoubtedly “water 

dependent.” Beyond this, the conceptual nature of facility plans and designs at 

this point in the planning process precludes a meaningful assessment of response 

to SMA policies and provisions. (See “Mitigation.”) 

4-197 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

4.13.2.5 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

In addition to the construction impacts described for the Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir Alternative, impacts would occur all along the pipeline route, impacting 

existing land uses and requiring significant under-crossings of waterways and 

roads. 

Long-Term Impacts 

The environmental consequences of the Wymer dam component of this 

alternative are the same as for the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative. This 

section discusses the Yakima River pump exchange component of the alternative. 

Development of the pump exchange component of this alternative would require 

Reclamation to acquire the following land interests from private owners: 

•	 Pipeline: Approximately 56 miles of easement or ROW would need to be 

acquired. This easement or ROW would typically be 200 feet wide. Land 

use within the easement/ROW would be restricted for the life of the 

project. It is likely that agricultural, recreational, or other nonstructural 

uses could continue after construction is completed. However, existing 

structures would be removed, no new permanent structures would be 

permitted, and any permitted use would be subject to disruption in the 

event of a pipeline repair or replacement requirement. 

•	 Pumping Plants: Fee title to required lands for development of project 

surface facilities would need to be acquired. Approximate land area 

requirements are: 

o	 Intake and pumping plant #1: 16 acres 

o	 Pumping plant #2: 53 acres (16 for structures and yard; 37 for 

overflow reservoir 

o	 Pumping plant #3: 40 acres (12 for structures and yard; 28 for 

overflow reservoir) 

•	 Transmission Lines to Pumping Plants: Easement or ROW (width not 

specified to date) for new transmission lines to supply power to the 

pumping plants. Land use within this easement/ROW would be restricted 

for the life of the project (in similar fashion to that described above for the 

pipeline). Preliminary studies specify the following requirements: 

o	 Intake and pumping plant #1: One-half mile of 500-kV line 

o	 Pumping plant #2: 1.5 miles of 230-kV line 

o	 Pumping plant #3: 3 miles of 115-kV line 

4-198 
 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Also, the pipeline would require numerous crossings of other infrastructure 

facilities and waterways, necessitating coordination and permitting from involved 

State and/or Federal agencies. Required crossings include, but are not limited to, 

those presented in table 4.41 (based on preliminary inventory of major facilities, 

and not including utility lines, other pipelines, minor waterways/drainages, etc.). 

Table 4.41 Pump exchange pipeline crossings of rivers, waterways, highways, and roads 

Feature Crossings 

Rivers and waterways 

- Yakima River 1 

 - Roza ID wasteway 1 

 - Sunnyside Canal 3 

 - Other waterways 6 

Highways and roads 

 - Interstate highways (I-182 in Richland) 1 

 - State Routes (240, 224, 225 and 241) 4 

 - Arterial highways (in Richland) 4 

 - Local roads 45-50 

Overall, this alternative would have significant impacts on land use within the 

required easements/ROW and on surface facility sites. Long-term impacts would 

include restriction of allowable uses within the pipeline easement/ROW and 

changes in land use at the pumping plant sites. 

From the standpoint of shoreline management (pursuant to the SMA), both the 

intake and pumping plant #1 facilities on the Columbia River and the Yakima 

River pipeline crossing can certainly by considered “water dependent” given the 

purpose of the project/alternative. Beyond this, the conceptual nature of facility 

plans and designs at this point in the planning process precludes a meaningful 

assessment of response to SMA policies and provisions. (See “Mitigation.”) 

Overviews of potentially significant long-term impact on land use within affected 

jurisdictions are provided below. 

City of Richland.—Approximately 16 acres (including approximately 200 feet of 

Columbia River/McNary pool shoreline) designated “commercial recreation” in 

the city’s Wye Master Plan would be used instead for the industrial facilities 

associated with intake and pumping plant #1. Project facilities may also have a 

wider impact because of incompatibilities with planned commercial recreation 

uses in the surrounding area; this is especially the case with the transmission line 

necessary to supply the pumping plant. 

Beyond the Wye area, after the I-182 crossing near Columbia Center Boulevard, a 

substantial proportion of the land along the proposed pipeline corridor is currently 

4-199 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

undeveloped, especially on the north side of Keene Road (where the preliminary 

alignment of the pipeline has been shown). However, there are several instances 

of residential subdivisions abutting the pipeline route. There is at least one 

instance of high-density development built across the preliminary pipeline route. 

There are several crossings through commercial development, especially near 

roadway intersections. It is likely that at least some residential and/or commercial 

land uses would be displaced by pipeline construction. 

City of Kennewick.—Most land along the proposed pipeline route through 

Kennewick (1 mile long) is developed, with residential uses on the north and 

commercial uses on the south. Construction here would likely result in 

displacement of structures. 

Another potential impact on Kennewick is incompatibility between the intake and 

pumping plant #1 facilities and both existing (campground) and park/resort hotel 

(planned) uses in the city’s Columbia Park, immediately to the southeast. 

City of West Richland.—Land along the proposed pipeline route within West 

Richland is more than 50 percent developed, primarily in low-density residential 

uses. It is unlikely that the pipeline could be implemented without some 

displacement of existing residences. 

Benton and Yakima Counties.—The preliminary route shown for the pipeline 

primarily follows existing roads through irrigated agricultural areas in these two 

counties. As such, there are many instances of existing residences within 200 feet 

of the roads. These residences would be displaced if the pipeline were developed 

according to the preliminary alignment. 

Land on which pumping plant # 2 and pumping plant # 3 and their associated 

overflow reservoirs and transmission lines would be located is currently in 

agricultural use. This use would be displaced by project facilities. 

4.13.2.6 Mitigation 

Black Rock Alternative 

Land acquisition requirements and associated land use impacts associated with 

Black Rock dam and reservoir would be long-term and unavoidable. Mitigation 

would focus exclusively on (1) compensating impacted landowners at fair market 

value according to established Federal regulations, guidelines, and procedures and 

(2) relocating/rerouting existing utility and transportation infrastructure. In the 

latter regard, as shown conceptually in chapter 2 and described further in the 

“Transportation” section, SR-24 is proposed to be rerouted along the south side of 

the reservoir. The impacted transmission lines and fiber optic cable would be 

relocated/reconstructed along the new SR-24 alignment. 

4-200 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Land and easement/ROW acquisition, as well as short- and long-term land use 

impacts associated with appurtenant facilities of the Black Rock Alternative, 

would be largely unavoidable. Mitigation would focus primarily on 

compensating impacted landowners at fair market value according to established 

Federal guidelines, standards, and procedures. Additional mitigation potential, to 

be explored during more detailed studies (especially for conveyance routes), 

would include the following: 

•	 Minimize construction-phase disruption to existing land uses (especially 

related to construction duration and access/circulation). 

•	 Avoid dislocation of or significant proximity impacts on existing 

residences or other major structures to the maximum extent feasible. 

•	 Align conveyances along existing roads and/or property lines to the 

maximum extent feasible. 

•	 In response to SMA policies and as part of obtaining the required 

Substantial Development Permit, design shoreline facilities at Priest Rapid 

Lake to (1) protect shoreline natural resources (including response to the 

no net loss policy) and (2) promote public access to the maximum extent 

feasible. 

Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Land use impacts associated with Wymer dam and reservoir would be long-term 

and unavoidable. Mitigation would focus exclusively on compensating impacted 

landowners at fair market value according to established Federal regulations, 

standards, and procedures 

Land and easement/ROW acquisition, as well and use impacts associated with 

appurtenant facilities of the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative, would be 

largely unavoidable. Mitigation would focus primarily on compensating the 

impacted private landowners at fair market value according to established Federal 

guidelines, standards, and procedures. Additional mitigation potential, to be 

explored during more detailed studies would include the following: 

•	 Avoid dislocation of the existing residence east of the State highway, if 

feasible. 

•	 Work with the landowner to accommodate agriculture in conveyance and 

transmission corridors, if desired. 

•	 In response to SMA policies and as part of obtaining the required 

Substantial Development Permit, design shoreline facilities to (1) protect 

shoreline natural resources (including response to the no net loss policy) 

and (2) promote public access to the maximum extent feasible. 

4-201 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

• Use architectural treatments and landscape screening to blend facilities 

with the surrounding landscape. (See the “Visual Quality” section.) 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

Land and easement/ROW acquisition, and associated short- and long-term land 

use impacts from pipeline, pumping plant and transmission line facilities of the 

Yakima River pump exchange component would be largely unavoidable. 

However, more detailed studies of pipeline and transmission line routing options 

should explore opportunities for avoiding direct, dislocation impacts on existing 

residences and business to the maximum extent feasible. For example, in the 

rural/agricultural lands of Benton and Yakima Counties, routing of the pipeline 

on/near property lines or on quarter- or half-section lines (rather than immediately 

along roads) in some areas may offer the opportunity to avoid dislocation impacts 

to residences and minimize construction-phase access disruptions. Such detailed 

routing studies should also seek opportunities to minimize long-term impacts on 

existing developed uses in the urban environments of Richland, Kennewick, and 

West Richland. 

•	 Beyond such site/alignment adjustments during detailed planning, 

mitigation for land use and ownership impacts would focus primarily on 

compensating impacted landowners at fair market value according to 

established Federal guidelines, standards and procedures. 

•	 Regarding shoreline resources, siting and design of the intake and 

pumping plant #1 facilities and the Yakima River pipeline crossing should 

seek to (1) protect shoreline natural resources (including response to the 

no net loss policy) and (2) promote public access to the maximum extent 

feasible. Consideration and adoption of potential responses in these 

regards would be part of the Substantial Development Permit process. 

4.13.2.7 Cumulative Impacts 

The Black Rock Alternative would have only minor cumulative impacts relative 

to local- or county-scale land ownership, existing land uses, or applicable land use 

plans and policies. Cumulative impacts would be associated predominantly with 

appurtenant facilities and would take the form of an incremental addition in the 

number of industrial/infrastructure facilities present in the context of rural 

environments. In the area of the intake facilities near Priest Rapids Dam, this 

change would primarily be an addition to already existing facilities and uses 

(i.e., no other, similar facilities are planned). In the area of the outlet and 

distribution facilities (rural Yakima County) it can be expected that continuing 

urban development will also bring instances of this type of development over 

time. 

The appurtenant facilities (pumping plant, switchyard, etc.) of the Wymer Dam 

and Reservoir Alternative would add cumulatively to the number of locations 

4-202 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

within Yakima Canyon where developed industrial/commercial land uses occur in 

the context of a primarily undeveloped river canyon, a canyon environment 

designated as “rural” by Kittitas County. This cumulative “land use 

compatibility” impact will be in relation to existing developed facilities such as 

Roza Diversion Dam; no additional, similar types of development are known to 

be planned within the canyon. 

The Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative would have 

only minor cumulative impacts relative to local- or county-scale land ownership, 

existing land uses or applicable land use plans and policies. Cumulative impacts 

would be associated predominantly with pumping plant # 2 and pumping plant # 3 

and would take the form of an incremental addition in the number of industrial/ 

infrastructure facilities present in the context of rural environments in Benton and 

Yakima Counties. This change would primarily be an addition to already existing 

facilities and uses (i.e., no other, similar facilities are known to be planned in the 

locally affected environment). 

4.14 Socioeconomics (Regional Economy) 

This section presents estimates of the regional economic impacts resulting 

from changes in construction expenditures, gross farm income, and recreational 

expenditures for each Joint Alternative as compared to the No Action Alternative. 

The regional economic impact analysis comprises the RED account. The 

NED account compares the alternatives from a national perspective, while the 

RED account measures the effect of the alternatives on the region’s local 

economy. 

The RED analysis includes not only the initial or direct impact on the primary 

affected industries, but also the secondary impacts resulting from those industries 

providing inputs to the directly affected industries as well. This analysis also 

includes the changes in economic activity stemming from household spending of 

income earned by those employed in the sectors of the economy impacted either 

directly or indirectly. These secondary impacts are often referred to as “multiplier 

effects.” 

The NED economic benefits are not used directly in the RED analysis; only the 

physical changes are carried over from the NED analysis. For example, changes 

in agricultural water supply may result in a change in crop acreages, which 

subsequently results in a change in gross farm income. The change in gross farm 

income reflects the direct economic impact in the RED analysis, which after being 

run through the regional economic model, generates the secondary or multiplier 

effects. The NED benefits analysis uses net farm income as defined by the P&Gs 

as the estimate of agricultural benefits. 

4-203 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

See chapter 2 for further explanation on the difference between the NED and 

RED accounts. 

4.14.1 Affected Environment 

The study area encompasses Kittitas, Yakima, Benton, and Franklin Counties. 

Ellensburg, Yakima, and the Tri-Cities (Richland, Pasco, and Kennewick) are the 

largest cities located within the study area. The Yakima River basin includes all 

of these counties except for Franklin County. Franklin County is included 

because the Tri-Cities are located in both Benton and Franklin Counties. 

The common measures of regional economic impacts are output, employment, 

and labor income. Table 4.42 presents these measures for the four-county area for 

the year 2004. These measures are discussed below. 

Table 4.42 Regional employment, output, and labor income, Kittitas, Yakima, Benton, and Franklin 

Counties (2004) 

Sector category 

Output Employment Labor income 

$ million % Total Number of jobs % Total $ million % Total 

Agriculture, forestry, fish and 

hunting 

$2,944 11.1% 39,059 15.8% $1,023 10.7% 

Mining $7 Less than 1 51 Less than 1 $2 Less than 1 

Utilities $173 0.7% 357 0.1% $32 0.3% 

Construction $1,486 5.6% 13,439 5.4% $607 6.4% 

Manufacturing $4,803 18.1% 15,457 6.2% $766 8.0% 

Wholesale trade $877 3.3% 7,745 3.1% $330 3.5% 

Transportation and 

warehousing 

$655 2.5% 6,891 2.8% $283 3.0% 

Retail trade $1,481 5.6% 23,485 9.5% $602 6.3% 

Information $535 2.0% 2,839 1.1% $127 1.3% 

Finance and insurance $736 2.8% 4,831 2.0% $212 2.2% 

Real estate and rental $789 3.0% 5,623 2.3% $157 1.6% 

Professional: scientific and 

technical services 

$1,791 6.8% 15,832 6.4% $1,062 11.1% 

Management of companies $141 0.5% 918 0.4% $61 0.6% 

Administrative and waste 

services 

$2,181 8.2% 13,958 5.6% $832 8.7% 

Educational services $108 0.4% 2,653 1.1% $49 0.5% 

Health and social services $1,772 6.7% 24,411 9.9% $928 9.7% 

Arts: entertainment and 

recreation 

$184 0.7% 4,028 1.6% $65 0.7% 

Accommodation and food 

services 

$697 2.6% 14,835 6.0% $231 2.4% 

Other services $879 3.3% 14,252 5.8% $298 3.1% 

Government $4,29 16.2% 37,020 14.9% $1,874 19.6% 

Total $26,532 100.0% 247,684 100.0% $9,541 100.0% 

Source: 2004 IMPLAN data files, including U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Bureau of Labor, and Census. 

4-204 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

4.14.1.1 Employment 

Employment measures the number of jobs related to the sector of the economy. 

In the study area, activities related to agricultural production generate the largest 

number of jobs (15.8 percent of total regional employment) in the study area. 

Government related jobs rank second in terms of overall number of jobs in the 

study area (14.9 percent of total regional employment). 

4.14.1.2 Output 

Output, or industry output, represents the value of production of goods and 

services produced by business within a sector of the economy. The 

manufacturing sectors produce the highest level of output in the study area 

(18.1 percent of the total regional output). The vast majority of the manufacturing 

output stems from activities in the food processing related industries. The 

government sectors generate the second highest level of output within the study 

area (16.2 percent of total regional output). The agricultural production sectors 

rank third in level output (11.1 percent of the total regional output). 

4.14.1.3 Labor Income 

Labor income is the sum of Employee Compensation and Proprietor Income. The 

government sectors generate the largest portion of labor income in the region 

(19.6 percent of the total regional labor income). The sectors related to providing 

professional related services rank second (11.1 percent of the total regional labor 

income). Ranking third, closely behind professionally related services, are the 

sectors related to agricultural production (10.7 percent of the total labor income). 

4.14.1.4 Irrigated Agriculture 

As discussed previously, activities related to agricultural production contribute the 

largest number of jobs to the region. The agricultural sector ranks third in terms 

of labor income and industry output. These jobs are primarily related to irrigated 

agricultural production, including livestock, and food processing. Production 

agriculture is widely diversified in the region. The area is well known for tree 

fruit (apples, pears, and cherries), vegetable (sweet corn, potatoes, and asparagus), 

grape (wine and juice), as well as hay and grain (timothy hay, alfalfa hay, pasture, 

and wheat) production. 

Table 4.43 presents gross on-farm income for each crop grown on Yakima Project 

lands. Gross on-farm income is calculated by multiplying together acres, yields, 

and prices for each crop. These data are taken from the Yakima Agricultural 

Impact Model discussed in chapter 2. 

The gross on-farm income from crops grown on Yakima Project lands generates 

12,321 total jobs, $391.4 million in labor income, and $1,097.3 million in output 

in the study area. These data are estimated using the IMPLAN modeling package 

discussed in section 4.14.2.1. 

4-205 
Table 4.43 Gross on-farm income by crop 

Crops 

Output 

($ million) 

Vegetables 

Asparagus 

Sweet Corn 

$17

$10 

Potato $3

Fruits 

Cherries $68

Pears $28

Apples $342

Other 

Mint $8

Hops 

Concord Grapes 

Wine Grapes 

Timothy Hay 

Alfalfa 

$86

$36 

$41 

$13 

$32

Silage $9

Grains 

Wheat $7

Total $700

Source: Reclamation’s Yakima Agriculture Impact 

Model. 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

4.14.1.5 Recreation 

Recreation expenditures generate output, labor income, and employment in the 

study area. A recreation survey was conducted to gather information at existing 

reservoir and river sites within the region. Estimates of visitation, nonlocal 

recreator visitation percentages (see “Methods and Assumptions” for a discussion 

of the logic for focusing on nonlocal recreation expenditures), and expenditures 

per visit were obtained from the survey. Because changes in recreation activity 

related to the proposed alternatives were estimated to occur at only four sites 

(i.e., Kachess Lake, Cle Elum Lake, Yakima River, and Tieton River), the 

description of current regional recreation expenditures also focuses on those sites. 

Obviously, the proposed Black Rock and Wymer reservoirs are not part of the 

current condition. 

Table 4.44 presents information on current in-region recreational expenditures by 

nonlocal recreators by site. Summing across all four sites, nearly 70 percent of 

the visitation reflects nonlocal recreators. Average in-region expenditures per 

visit by nonlocal recreators ranges from a low of $49.02 at Kachess Lake to a high 

of $133.09 at Cle Elum Lake. The current total in-region expenditures by 

nonlocals at these sites were estimated at nearly $3 million. 

4-206 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Table 4.44 Current in-region recreation expenditures by nonlocal recreators by site 

Site Visitation 

Nonlocal 

percentage 

Nonlocal 

visitation 

Average inregion 

expenditures 

per visit 

Current total 

in-region 

expenditures 

($ thousands) 

Kachess Lake 

Cle Elum 

Lake 

Yakima River 

Tieton River 

Combined

17,668 

8,976 

18,900 

9,108 

 54,652 

.86 

.663 

.5 

.78 

15,194 

5,951 

9,450 

7,104 

37,699 

$ 49.02 

133.09

88.47 

85.24 

$ 744.8 

792.0 

836.0 

605.5 

$2,978.3 

4.14.2 Environmental Consequences 

At the regional level, all of the alternatives would result in positive economic 

output, as compared to the No Action Alternative. The most significant effect 

would result from construction activities. However, expenditures related to 

OM&R, recreation expenditures, and agricultural production also would affect the 

regional economy. 

4.14.2.1 Methods and Assumptions 

The modeling package used to assess the regional economic effects stemming 

from construction, irrigated agriculture, and recreation for each alternative is 

IMPLAN (IMpact Analysis for PLANning). IMPLAN is an economic inputoutput modeling system that estimates the effects of economic changes in an 

economic region. 

Input-output models measure commodity flows from producers to intermediate 

and final consumers. Purchases for final use (final demand) drive the model. 

Industries produce goods and services for final demand and purchase goods and 

services from other producers. These other producers, in turn, purchase goods 

and services. This buying of goods and services (indirect purchases) continues 

until leakages from the region (imports and value added) stop the cycle. 

These indirect and induced effects (the effects of household spending) can be 

mathematically derived using a set of multipliers. The multipliers describe the 

change of output for each and every regional industry caused by a $1 change in 

final demand for any given industry. 

IMPLAN data files are compiled from a variety of sources for the study area, 

including the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, the U.S. Bureau of Labor, and 

the U.S. Census Bureau. This analysis uses 2004 IMPLAN data for Washington’s 

Benton, Yakima, Kittitas, and Franklin Counties, which comprise the study area 

for the RED analysis. 

4-207 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Construction 

The construction-related expenditures associated with each of the alternatives 

were placed into categories that represent different sectors of production in the 

economy. The construction expenditures that are made inside the study region 

were considered in the regional impact analysis. Construction expenditures made 

outside the four-county area were considered “leakages” and would have no 

impact on the local economy. 

The RED study assumed that the workforce would move to the region and spend 

their wages inside the area during the construction period. This analysis also 

assumed that the vast majority of the construction expenditures will be funded 

from sources outside the four-county study area. Money from outside the region 

that is spent on goods and services within the region would contribute to regional 

economic impacts, while money that originates from within the study region is 

much less likely to generate regional economic impacts. Spending from sources 

within the region represents a redistribution of income and output rather than an 

increase in economic activity. 

For the purpose of the Storage Study, the total construction costs were used to 

measure the overall regional impacts. These overall impacts would be spread 

over the construction period and would vary year-by-year proportionate to actual 

expenditures. 

Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement 

Expenditures that are made inside the study region related to OM&R will also 

generate a positive economic output to the regional economy. Estimating regional 

impacts resulting from OM&R expenditures is difficult because they occur during 

different periods of time. For example, expenditures related to operations and 

maintenance occur annually, whereas replacement expenditures occur periodically 

based on the replacement schedule. 

This analysis quantifies annual impact resulting from annual costs related to 

operation and maintenance. The analysis does not quantify the positive impacts 

resulting from replacement costs given they are spread out over the entire study 

period. Like the construction-related expenditures, O&M expenditures made 

inside the study area associated with each alternative were placed into categories 

related to the each sector of the economy and run through IMPLAN to estimate 

impacts to the regional economy. 

Irrigated Agriculture 

Regional economic impacts are realized in drought years when proration levels 

drop below 70 percent. To estimate the regional impacts in each of these years, 

the YAI model was used to estimate the changes in gross on-farm between the No 

Action Alternative proration level and the proration level achieved by each 

alternative. No regional economic impacts accrue when the proration levels are 

4-208 
 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

above 70 percent for a given alternative. Table 4.45 presents the gross on-farm 

income by IMPLAN sector (incremental to the No Action Alternative) for each 

year the proration levels drop below 70 percent for each alternative. 

Table 4.45 Gross on-farm income (incremental to the No Action 

Alternative) by IMPLAN sector 

Year Grains Other Fruits Vegetables 

Black Rock Alternative 

1987 

1992 

1993 

1994 

2001 

2005 

556,579 

428,138 

685,021 

1,840,993 

1,113,159 

1,070,345 

17,232,110 

13,255,040 

21,206,100 

55,196,340 

34,101,480 

32,796,050 

16,043,770 

12,347,810 

19,804,730 

88,008,910 

43,542,390 

41,392,080 

1,129,626 

868,943 

1,393,283 

4,932,981 

2,964,663 

2,821,306 

Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

1987 

1992 

1993 

1994 

2001 

2005 

171,255 

256,883 

470,952 

85,628 

642,207 

171,255 

5,302,016 

7,953,024 

14,578,580 

2,086,366 

19,520,940 

5,221,744 

4,939,123 

7,408,685 

13,630,830 

6,944,756 

29,959,800 

8,601,246 

347,577 

521,366 

958,812 

32,920 

2,008,826 

573,428 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

1987 

1992 

1993 

1994 

2001 

2005 

171,255 

256,883 

470,952 

85,627 

642,208 

171,255 

5,302,016 

7,953,024 

14,578,580 

2,086,367 

19,520,940 

5,221,744 

4,939,123 

7,408,685 

13,630,830 

6,944,756 

29,959,800 

8,601,246 

347,577 

521,366 

958,812 

32,920 

2,008,828 

573,428 

The change in gross on-farm income summarized in table 4.45 was used in the 

IMPLAN model to estimate total employment, output, and labor income 

associated with the Black Rock, Wymer Dam and Reservoir, and Wymer Dam 

Plus Yakima River Exchange Alternatives. 

This analysis measures regional economic impacts stemming from production 

agricultural. Industries related to production agriculture are not the only 

industries dependent on irrigation in a regional economy. Other industries depend 

on inputs of irrigated crops in their production process, for example the livestock 

and food processing industries. 

4-209 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Recreation 

Regional economic impacts associated with changes in recreation activity within 

the region were estimated for both the proposed reservoirs and existing reservoirs 

and rivers. Estimates of changes in visitation by site were obtained from the 

recreation analysis. Given that the proposed Black Rock and Wymer reservoirs 

are obviously not a part of the No Action Alternative, the estimates of visitation 

for these proposed reservoirs reflect the full change in visitation as compared to 

the No Action Alternative. 

In regional economic impact analyses of recreation, the assumption is typically 

made that the majority of impacts are generated by expenditures made inside 

the region by nonlocal recreators. Local recreators are generally assumed to 

spend the majority of their recreation expenditures within the region, regardless 

of the alternatives under consideration, implying they would generate little 

by way of additional regional economic activity. As a result, the analysis 

focuses on in-region expenditures by nonlocal recreators. 

Given that in-region nonlocal recreator expenditures per visit vary by site, the 

survey was conducted across all the existing reservoirs and rivers within the 

region. Survey questions asked recreators to estimate their total expenditures for 

the current visit, the portion of those expenditures incurred within the local 

region, and the breakdown of expenditures into various expenditure categories 

(e.g., lodging, food, gas, etc.). This later piece of information was necessary to 

help subdivide the expenditures across the economic sectors included in the 

IMPLAN model. These data were used by IMPLAN to estimate output, labor 

income, and employment, relative to the No Action Alternative, stemming from 

recreational expenditures for each alternative. 

4.14.2.2 No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative provides the basis of comparison for changes in 

employment, output, and labor income under the Black Rock, Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir, and Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternatives. 

4.14.2.3 Black Rock Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Regional economic impacts related to construction expenditures, incremental 

to the No Action Alternative, for each Joint Alternative, are presented in 

table 4.46. The employment, output, and income generated from each 

alternative’s expenditures are compared to the overall regional economy. 

The estimated impacts are representative of the entire construction period. 

These impacts would not occur each year; they vary year by year proportionate 

to annual expenditures. The majority of the employment, output, and income 

4-210 
 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Table 4.46 Total regional economic impacts stemming from construction activities 

Regional economy 

Employment1 Output ($ million)2 Income ($ million)3 

Total 

Percent 

of the 

total 

regional 

economy Total 

Percent 

of the 

total 

regional 

economy Total 

Percent 

of the 

total 

regional 

economy 

247,684 $26,532 $9,540 

Black Rock Alternative 18,667 7.5% $2,100 7.9% $710 7.4% 

Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir Alternative 

5,677 2.2% $613 2.3% $216 2.3% 

Wymer Dam Plus 

Yakima River Pump 

Exchange Alternative 

15,539 6.3% $1,732 6.5% $589 6.2% 

1

 Employment is measured in number of jobs. 

2

 Output represents the dollar value of industry production. 

3

 Income is the dollar value of total payroll (including benefits) for each industry in the region plus income 

received by self-employed individuals located within the region. 

impacts are due to the expenditures of the wages earned by the workforce 

involved in the construction project and the construction activities. 

The total number of jobs during the approximate 10-year construction period, 

18,668, includes 8,181 jobs in the construction sector. Thus, assuming a 10-year 

construction period, an average of about 820 of the 1,870 average annual jobs 

would be directly related to construction and include onsite and offsite labor. The 

8,181 direct construction jobs would be about 3 percent of the regional 2004 

employment, while the total number of jobs, 18,668, would be less than 8 percent. 

The average annual direct and average annual total number of jobs, 820 and 

1,870, respectively, would be less than 1 percent of the regional 2004 

employment. 

The 2004 population of the four-county region was estimated to be 475,400. The 

total number of jobs associated with this alternative would be an increase of about 

4 percent, while the direct construction jobs would be an increase of about 

2 percent. The average annual direct and average annual total number of jobs 

would be less than 1⁄2 of 1 percent of the regional population. 

In 2000, the region had a total of 167,696 housing units, of which 7.5 percent or 

12,615 were vacant. The number of housing units in 2006 was estimated to be 

about 185,000, an increase of 17,300 units, with about 14,000 vacant units. The 

housing unit estimates include mobile homes but do not include the numerous 

motels, recreational vehicle (RV) parks, and similar facilities located within the 

four-county region. 

The specific skills and numbers of the construction workforce would change 

during the construction period. It is likely some jobs may last for a few weeks or 

4-211 
 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

months, while others could last for one or more years. A few workers may elect 

to commute to the worksites associated with this alternative from outside the fourcounty region. Others may choose to stay in the region in temporary quarters, 

e.g., motels, RV parks, during the work week and return to their permanent 

residence on weekends. Some may relocate alone or with family to the region, 

renting or purchasing housing. Regardless, adequate housing would likely be 

available within the four-county area. With the construction workforce dispersed 

throughout the four-county area, it is unlikely any community would be 

overwhelmed with an influx of workers. 

Long-Term Impacts 

O&M Activities.—Regional economic impacts stemming from O&M activities, 

incremental to the No Action Alternative for each alternative, are presented in 

table 4.47. The employment, output, and income generated from each 

alternative’s O&M are compared to the overall economy. These impacts are 

assumed to occur on an annual basis. Like the construction impacts, the majority 

of the O&M impacts are due to the expenditures of the wages earned by the 

workforce involved in O&M-related activities. 

Table 4.47 Annual regional economic impacts stemming from O&M activities 

Employment 

(number of jobs) 

Output 

($ millions) 

Income 

($ millions) 

Total 

% of total 

regional 

economy Total 

% of total 

regional 

economy Total 

% of total 

regional 

economy 

Regional Economy 247,684 26,532 9,540 

Black Rock 

Alternative 

33 Less than 1 4 Less than 1 1.1 Less than 1 

Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir 

Alternative 

9 Less than 1 1.1 Less than 1 0.314 Less than 1 

Wymer Dam Plus 

Yakima River 

Pump Exchange 

Alternative 

119 Less than 1 11.8 Less than 1 4.8 Less than 1 

Irrigated Agriculture.—Table 4.48 presents the regional economic impacts for 

the Black Rock Alternative for each year of the 25-year period of record (1981­

2005) that the proration level falls below 70 percent. Also presented in the table 

is a comparison to the total regional impacts stemming from the gross on-farm 

income generated on the Yakima Project lands (table 4.48). 

4-212 
 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Table 4.48 Regional economic inputs stemming from irrigated agriculture 

Percent of Labor Percent of Percent 

Year 

Output ($ 

million) 

Yakima 

Project 

income 

($ million) 

Yakima 

Project 

Employment 

of Yakima 

Project 

Black Rock Alternative 

2005 $121.2 11.1% $42.2 10.8% 1,330 10.8% 

2001 $126.9 11.6% $44.2 11.3% 1,394 11.3% 

1994 $234.1 21.3% $82.6 21.1% 2,608 21.2% 

1993 $66.4 6.1% $22.7 5.8% 716 5.8% 

1992 $41.4 3.8% $14.1 3.6 447 3.6 

1987 $53.9 4.9% $18.4 4.7 580 4.7 

Wymer Dam and Reservoir and 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternatives 

2005 $22.8 2.1% $8.0 2% 254 2.1% 

2001 $81.3 7.4% $28.6 7.3% 902 7.3% 

1994 $14.5 1.3% $5.3 1.4% 169 1.4% 

1993 $45.7 4.2% $15.6 4% 493 4% 

1992 $24.9 2.3% $8.5 2.2% 268 2.2 

1987 $16.8 1.5% $5.7 1.5% 179 1.5 

Recreation.—Recreation expenditures (the expenditures used in IMPLAN 

were incremental to the No Action Alternative) related to the proposed Black 

Rock reservoir stimulate $23.6 million of output, $9.2 million in labor income, 

and 360 jobs annually. Recreation expenditures at existing recreation sites 

generate a small amount of regional economic impacts ($0.14 million of output, 

$0.07 million of labor income, and 2 jobs). The majority of the regional impacts 

stemming from expenditures at the proposed reservoir and existing sites occur in 

the Accommodation and Food Service and the Retail Trade sectors. Table 4.49 

summarizes these results. Also presented in the table is a comparison to the total 

regional impacts stemming from total recreation expenditures from existing sites 

(table 4.49). 

4.14.2.4 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Regional economic impacts related to construction expenditures for the Wymer 

Dam and Reservoir Alternative are presented in table 4.46. 

4-213 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table 4.49 Regional economic impacts stemming from recreation expenditures 

Recreation 

Black 

Rock 

Alternative 

Percent 

of the 

current 

condition 

Wymer 

Dam and 

Reservoir 

Alternative 

Percent 

of the 

current 

condition 

Wymer Dam 

Plus Yakima 

River Pump 

Exchange 

Alternative 

Percent 

of the 

current 

condition 

Existing sites 

Output/sales 

($ million) 

Labor income 

($ million) 

Employment 

$ 0.14 

$ 0.07 

2 

5.2 % 

5.8 % 

4.6 % 

$ 0.05 

$ 0.02 

1 

1.9 % 

1.7 % 

2.3 % 

$ 0.09 

$ 0.04 

1 

3.3 % 

3.3 % 

2.3 % 

Proposed sites 

Output/sales 

($ million) 

Labor income 

($ million) 

Employment 

$ 23.6 

$ 9.2 

360 

Not 

applicable1 

Not 

applicable 

Not 

applicable 

Not 

applicable2 

Not 

applicable 

Not 

applicable 

Not 

applicable 

Not 

applicable 

Not 

applicable 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

Not applicable 

Not 

applicable 

Not 

applicable 

Not 

applicable 

1

 The proposed Black Rock reservoir is not included in the current condition; therefore, no comparisons were made. 

2

 Recreators at Wymer reservoir are assumed to be from the local area; therefore, no regional impacts were 

generated. 

The total number of jobs during the approximate 10-year construction period, 

5,677, includes 2,521 jobs in the construction sector. Thus, assuming a 10-year 

construction period, an average of about 250 of the 570 average annual jobs 

would be directly related to construction and include onsite and offsite labor. The 

2,521 direct construction jobs would be about 1 percent of the regional 

2004 employment, while the total number of jobs, 5,677, would be about 

2 percent. The average annual direct and average annual total number of jobs, 

250 and 570, respectively, would be less than 3/10 of 1 percent of the regional 

2004 employment. 

The total number of jobs associated with this alternative would be an increase in 

regional population of less than 2 percent, while the direct construction jobs 

would be an increase of about 1⁄2 of 1 percent. The average annual direct and 

average annual total number of jobs would be about 1/10 of 1 percent of the 

regional population. Other effects would be as described for the Black Rock 

Alternative. 

Long-Term Impacts 

O&M Activities.—Table 4.47 presents the regional economic impacts stemming 

from O&M activities for the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative. 

4-214 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Irrigated Agriculture.—Table 4.48 presents the regional economic impacts for 

the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative and the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima 

River Pump Exchange Alternative for each year the proration level falls below 

70 percent. 

Recreation.—It was assumed that recreators at the proposed Wymer reservoir are 

residents of the regional study area; thus, their recreational expenditures would 

not create regional economic impacts to the region. The Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir Alternative would generate a small amount of recreation expenditures 

at existing sites, as presented in table 4.49. Regional economic impacts stemming 

from recreational expenditures at existing sites stimulates $0.05 million in output, 

$0.02 million in labor income, and one job. As under the Black Rock Alternative, 

most of the regional impacts occur in the Accommodation and Food Services and 

Retail Trade sectors of the economy. 

4.14.2.5 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Regional economic impacts related to construction expenditures for the Wymer 

Dam Plus Yakima River Exchange Alternative are presented in table 4.46. 

The total number of jobs during the approximate 10-year construction period, 

15,539, includes 6,776 jobs in the construction sector. Thus, assuming a 10-year 

construction period, an average of about 680 of the 1,550 average annual jobs, 

would be directly related to construction and include onsite and offsite labor. The 

6,776 direct construction jobs would be slightly less than 3 percent of the regional 

2004 employment, while the total jobs, 15,539, would be about 6 percent. The 

average annual direct and average annual total number of jobs, 680 and 1,550, 

respectively, would be less than 1 percent of the regional 2004 employment. 

The total number of jobs associated with this alternative would be an increase in 

regional population of about 3 percent, while the direct construction jobs would 

be an increase of about 1 percent. The average annual direct and average annual 

total number of jobs would be less than 1⁄2 of 1 percent of the regional population. 

Other effects would be as described for the Black Rock Alternative. 

Long-Term Impacts 

O&M Activities.—Table 4.47 presents the regional economic impacts stemming 

from O&M activities for the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange 

Alternative. 

Irrigated Agriculture.—The regional economic impacts are the same as for the 

Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative (table 4.48). 

Recreation.—Like the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative, regional economic 

impacts related to the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange 

4-215 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Alternative are related to recreational expenditures at existing recreational sites. 

Regional economic impacts related to recreational expenditures are small 

($0.09 million output, $0.04 million in labor income, and 1.4 jobs). Like both the 

Black Rock and Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternatives, most of the regional 

impacts occur in the Accommodation and Food Services and Retail Trade sectors. 

These results are summarized in table 4.49. 

4.14.2.6 Mitigation 

Mitigation measures may have impacts to the regional economy due to activities 

related to construction. 

4.14.2.7 Cumulative Impacts 

No cumulative impacts are expected. 

4.15 Public Services and Utilities 

This analysis of public services and utilities analysis addresses the affected 

environment and environmental consequences of the Joint Alternatives from the 

perspectives of the following: 

• Public services 

o Law enforcement 

o Fire protection 

o Emergency medical/transportation 

• Utilities 

o Electricity 

o Natural gas 

o Telecommunications 

o Water supply (domestic and irrigation) 

o Wastewater management 

These are addressed from the standpoint of potential for short- or long-term 

impact on local systems (levels of service, response time, access, etc.) and/or 

infrastructure serving populated areas in/near which facilities would be 

developed. For analysis of potential impact to major/regional utility infrastructure 

(such as, high voltage transmission lines, pipelines, and/or cable installations); see 

the “Land Use and Shoreline Resources” section. 

4-216 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

4.15.1 Affected Environment 

4.15.1.1 No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative includes conservation-oriented water supply system 

improvements, including pumping plants and pipelines, at various locations in the 

Yakima Valley region (Kittitas, Yakima, and Benton Counties). These 

improvements are associated with existing approved programs and orient 

predominantly to existing facilities; none are being or would be constructed under 

the auspices of the Storage Study. To the extent that NEPA or SEPA analysis is 

required for these actions, appropriate documentation of the directly affected 

public services and/or utilities environment would be prepared separately, apart 

from the Storage Study process. 

4.15.1.2 Black Rock Alternative 

With only minor exceptions, all facilities associated with the Black Rock 

Alternative would be located in Yakima County, Washington. Public services 

and utilities in the general areas of Yakima County where Black Rock facilities 

would be developed are provided by: 

•	 Law Enforcement: Yakima County Sheriff 

•	 Fire Protection: Local Yakima County Fire Protection Districts 

(multiple) 

•	 Emergency Medical/Transportation: Primarily local Yakima County 

Fire Protection Districts 

•	 Electrical Power: Pacific Power & Light Company and Benton County 

Rural Electric Association 

•	 Natural Gas: Cascade Natural Gas Corporation 

•	 Telecommunications: Several companies, including Qwest 

•	 Water Supply: Domestic supply—predominantly from individual wells; 

irrigation supply—individual wells and local irrigation district surface 

deliveries 

•	 Wastewater Management: Individual septic tank and leach field 

installations
 

4.15.1.3 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

All facilities associated with the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative would be 

located in southern Kittitas County, Washington. Public services and utilities in 

the general area of the county where Wymer facilities would be developed are 

provided by: 

4-217 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

•	 Law Enforcement: Kittitas County Sheriff 

•	 Fire Protection: Kittitas County Fire Department 

•	 Emergency Medical/Transportation: Kittitas County Fire Department 

•	 Electrical Power: Kittitas County Public Utility District 

•	 Natural Gas: No developed system in the study area 

•	 Telecommunications: Several companies, including Qwest 

•	 Water Supply: Domestic supply—individual wells; irrigation supply— 

individual wells and Yakima River 

•	 Wastewater Management: Individual septic tank and leach field 

installations
 

4.15.1.4 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

The affected environment of the Wymer dam component of this alternative is 

presented in the previous section. The following presents the public services and 

utilities setting for the Yakima River pump exchange component of this 

alternative. 

Facilities associated with the Yakima River pump exchange would be located in 

Yakima County, Benton County, and the cities of Richland and West Richland, 

Washington. The general public services and utilities setting for Yakima County 

is presented above (related to the Black Rock Alternative). A comparable 

overview of service and utility provision in Benton County and incorporated 

Richland and West Richland is provided below. 

•	 Law Enforcement: Benton County Sheriff, Richland Police Department, 

West Richland Police Department 

•	 Fire Protection: Benton County Fire Protection Districts (multiple) and 

Richland Fire Department 

•	 Emergency Medical/Transportation: Primarily Benton County Fire 

Protection Districts (multiple), and Richland Fire Department 

•	 Electrical Power: Benton County Public Utility District, Benton Rural 

Electric Association, and City of Richland 

•	 Natural Gas: Cascade Natural Gas Corporation (Richland/West Richland 

area; no service in rural Benton County) 

•	 Telecommunications: Several companies, including Qwest 

4-218 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

•	 Water Supply: Rural Benton County—domestic supply—primarily 

individual wells, with irrigation supply from individual wells and local 

irrigation district surface deliveries; cities of Richland and West 

Richland—all service through city-owned systems 

•	 Wastewater Management: Rural Benton County—individual septic tank 

and leach field installations; cities of Richland and West Richland—cityowned systems 

4.15.2 Environmental Consequences 

4.15.2.1 Methods and Assumptions 

Potential for adverse effects to public services and utilities is based on analysis of 

the following indicators: 

•	 Long-term increases in demand for services or utilities to a point where 

existing capacity (ability to serve) would be exceeded, thus causing 

service shortfalls unless capacity is expanded. This indicator is expressed 

in one or more of the following terms: 

o	 Exceeding established local standards for police, fire, or emergency 

service personnel-to-population ratio (e.g., personnel per 

1,000 population). This measure can also sometimes be expressed in 

terms of vehicles or equipment. 

o	 Exceeding established local standards for police, fire, or emergency 

medical service response time. 

o	 Inability of local utilities/utility systems to provide adequate service to 

proposed facilities (electric power, telecommunications, water supply 

or wastewater management). 

•	 Short-term (construction-phase) disruption of services or utilities to an 

extent that would impose unacceptable health and safety risk or additional 

cost on affected residents/landowners. This indicator is expressed in such 

terms as: 

o	 Blocking/disruption of efficient access by police, fire, or emergency 

service personnel. 

o	 Disruption of electrical, telecommunications, water or sewer service. 

o	 Requirements for relocation of local electrical, telecommunications, 

water or sewer service facilities. 

4-219 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

For this Draft PR/EIS, analysis and discussion of potential for public service and 

utility impacts are generalized and qualitative. Direct consultation with 

potentially affected service/utility providers has not been conducted; instead, such 

consultation is included as a primary mitigation action should any of the 

alternatives be selected for development. This approach is considered appropriate 

for the following reasons: 

•	 With the exception of electrical power, none of the Joint Alternatives 

would introduce a substantial new long-term demand for public service or 

utilities. This is because the Joint Alternatives do not involve increases in 

local population (i.e., the primary source of demand for most services and 

utilities). 

•	 Potential for short-term impacts can only be generally addressed because: 

o	 The proposed locations, plans, and designs for facilities associated 

with the alternatives, especially appurtenant facility development sites 

and conveyance alignments, are derived from Reclamation’s appraisallevel assessments. Some facility locations and substantial distances of 

the conveyance alignments are preliminary and subject to adjustment 

based on further study. Thus, site or alignment adjustments are 

considered an important source of mitigation action during more 

detailed planning. 

o	 No detailed construction plans have been prepared for facilities 

associated with the alternatives. Thus, detailed analysis of potential 

for short-term impacts (as described above) is not possible. Instead, as 

with actual facility location/alignment, avoidance or mitigation of 

potential for short-term service/utility disruptions would be an 

important concern during detailed planning. 

4.15.2.2 No Action Alternative 

As noted previously, conservation-related system improvements associated with 

the No Action Alternative are part of other approved programs and orient 

predominantly to existing facilities; none are being or will be constructed under 

the auspices of the Storage Study. To the extent that NEPA or SEPA analysis is 

required for these actions, appropriate documentation of potential for public 

service and/or utility impacts would be prepared separately, apart from the 

Storage Study process. 

4.15.2.3 Black Rock Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Public Services.—Short-term impacts to these services can be expected in all 

areas involved with facility construction (i.e., intake/inflow facilities, dam and 

4-220 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

reservoir, outflow and distribution facilities); such impacts would be primarily in 

the form of access disruptions. With proper construction-phase planning, these 

impacts are not expected to be significant. (See “Mitigation.”) 

Utilities.—Short-term impacts to local utility services can be expected on 

adjacent/surrounding lands in all areas involved with facility construction, 

especially related to the outlet and distribution facilities located in rural residential 

and agricultural areas. Such impacts would be primarily in the form of temporary 

service interruptions and requirements for infrastructure relocations (e.g., power, 

telecommunications or water supply lines, septic tanks or leach fields). Until 

more detailed construction-phase planning occurs, it is not possible to determine 

if potential for such impacts would be significant. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Public Services.—Development of the Black Rock Alternative would not result in 

a significant long-term increase in demand for police, fire protection, or 

emergency medical/transportation services. 

Utilities.—Development of the Black Rock Alternative would result in a longterm increase in demand for electrical power, specifically associated with 

intake/import facilities at Priest Rapids Lake, and the Black Rock outlet 

facility/pumping plant and Sunnyside pumping plant/bypass in eastern Yakima 

County. In each case, as noted in “Land Use and Shoreline Resources” (section 

4.13), power supply to these facilities is expected to be drawn directly from 

existing Bonneville Power Administration transmission lines, and no constraint on 

the availability of necessary power has been recognized to date. 

Two existing overhead 115-kilovolt powerlines on H frame-type wood poles 

supports and a buried fiber optic line along existing SR-24 would need to be 

relocated along new SR-24 alignment. 

Other perspectives on long-term utility service demand at/from Black Rock 

facilities include: 

•	 Telecommunication system connections would be required at all major 

facility sites. Where land-line connections are not readily available, 

wireless systems could be used. 

•	 Water supply and wastewater management would be provided via 

independent, onsite systems (e.g., water supply wells, septic tank/leach 

field or other independent wastewater management system). 

•	 No connections to natural gas distribution systems would be required. If 

gas energy is needed, onsite systems (i.e., propane) would be used. 

4-221 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

4.15.2.4 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Public Services.—Minor, short-term access disruptions may occur during 

construction (i.e., along SR-821). However, with proper construction-phase 

planning, such impacts can likely be avoided. (See “Mitigation.”) 

Utilities.—Short-term impacts to utility services (e.g., temporary service 

interruptions and requirements for infrastructure relocation) may occur for the one 

local resident in the immediate study area. However, with proper constructionphase planning, such impacts can likely be avoided. (See “Mitigation.”) 

Long-Term Impacts 

Public Services.—Development of the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

would not result in a significant long-term increase in demand for police, fire 

protection, or emergency medical/transportation services. 

Utilities.—Development of the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative would 

result in a long-term increase in demand for electrical power, associated with the 

pumping plant and other intake/outlet facilities along the Yakima River. As noted 

in the “Land Use and Shoreline Resources” section, power supply to these 

facilities is expected to be drawn directly from an existing Bonneville Power 

Administration transmission line, and no constraint on the availability of 

necessary power has been recognized to date. 

Other perspectives on long-term utility service demand at/from Wymer facilities 

include: 

•	 Telecommunication system connections would be required at facility sites. 

Where land-line connections are not readily available, wireless systems 

could be used. 

•	 Water supply and wastewater management would be via independent, 

onsite systems (e.g., water supply wells, septic tank/leach field, or other 

independent wastewater management system). 

•	 If gas energy is needed, onsite systems (i.e., propane) would be used. 

4.15.2.5 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

The environmental consequences of the Wymer dam component of this 

alternative are addressed in the previous section for the Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir Alternative. This section discusses the Yakima River pump exchange 

component of the alternative. 

4-222 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Construction Impacts 

Public Services.—Short-term impacts to these services can be expected in all 

areas involved with facility construction (i.e., pumping plant sites and pipeline 

alignments); such impacts would be primarily in the form of access disruptions. 

With proper construction-phase planning, these impacts are not expected to be 

significant. (See “Mitigation.”) 

Utilities.—Short-term impacts to local utility services can be expected on 

adjacent/surrounding lands in all areas involved with facility construction (i.e., 

pumping plant sites and pipeline alignments). Such impacts would be primarily 

in the form of temporary service interruptions and requirements for infrastructure 

relocations (e.g., power, telecommunications or water supply lines, sewer lines, 

septic tanks or leach fields). Until more detailed construction-phase planning 

occurs, it is not possible to determine if potential for such impacts would be 

significant. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Public Services.—Development of the Yakima River pump exchange would not 

result in a significant long-term increase in demand for police, fire protection, or 

emergency medical/transportation services. 

Utilities.—Development of the Yakima River pump exchange would result in a 

long-term increase in demand for electrical power, associated with pumping 

plants. Power supply to these plants is expected to be drawn from existing 

transmission lines near the facility sites, and no constraint on the availability of 

necessary power has been recognized to date. 

Other perspectives on long-term utility service demand at/from the Yakima River 

pump exchange facilities include: 

•	 Telecommunication system connections would be required at each 

pumping plant site. Where land-line connections are not readily available, 

wireless systems could be used. 

•	 Water supply and wastewater management would be provided (1) at 

pumping plant #1 by the city of Richland, and (2) at pumping plants #2 

and #3 via independent, onsite systems (e.g., water supply wells, septic 

tank/leach field, or other independent wastewater management system). 

•	 If gas energy is needed, pumping plant #1 may be serviced via the local 

Cascade Natural Gas Corporation system. Onsite systems (i.e., propane) 

are an option at all three plant sites. 

4-223 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

4.15.2.6 Mitigation 

Long-term provision of all necessary public services and utilities for project 

facilities can be ensured by proper coordination and planning with involved 

service/utility providers. No significant, residual long-term impacts are expected. 

Mitigation planning related to potential for short-term, construction-phase impacts 

on public services and utilities should also be rooted in close coordination with 

involved service providers, as well as with potentially impacted local 

residents/landowners. In this regard, the following objectives should be met 

during detailed implementation planning (resulting in no significant residual 

impacts): 

•	 Retain appropriate access throughout construction zones and throughout 

the construction period for law enforcement, fire protection, and 

emergency medical/transportation service providers. 

•	 Where local utility system connections/installations would be impacted by 

construction activities, plan for and implement alternative/relocated 

connections and facilities prior to construction (i.e., avoid service 

disruptions). 

•	 Either accomplish the above two measures at no cost to affected service 

providers and/or residents and landowners or provide compensation to 

offset additional costs incurred. 

4.15.2.7 Cumulative Impacts 

There would be no significant cumulative impacts on public service or utilities. 

4.16 Transportation 

Transportation analysis addresses the affected environment and environmental 

consequences of the alternatives from the perspectives of road/highway and 

railroad transportation facilities in and serving the areas where alternative project 

facilities would be located. No air or navigable waterway transportation systems 

or facilities would be involved or impacted by any of the alternatives. 

4.16.1 Affected Environment 

4.16.1.1 No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative includes conservation-oriented system improvements, 

including pumping plants and pipelines, at various locations in the Yakima 

Valley region. These improvements are associated with existing approved 

programs and orient predominantly to existing facilities; none are being or will 

be constructed under the auspices of the Storage Study. To the extent that NEPA 

4-224 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

or SEPA analysis is required for these actions, appropriate documentation of the 

directly affected transportation environment will be prepared separately, apart 

from the Storage Study process. 

4.16.1.2 Black Rock Alternative 

Dam and Reservoir 

The site of the proposed Black Rock dam and reservoir is the Black Rock Valley, 

located in eastern Yakima County, Washington. State Route 24 crosses this 

valley in an east-west direction and is the only paved roadway present. There are 

no rail facilities in the valley. 

SR-24, a two-lane roadway, is a major transportation and shipping link between 

the Yakima Valley (city of Yakima and Moxee City) to the west and the Hanford 

Site to the east, the Tri-Cities area to the southeast, and central Columbia Basin 

towns and cities to the northeast. 

Major SR-24 connections are Interstate Highway 82 in the Yakima Valley to the 

west of Black Rock Valley and SR-240 and 241 east of the valley. 

Within the Black Rock Valley, SR-24 provides access, via unpaved roads, to 

private landholdings north and south of the highway. 

Appurtenant Facilities 

Intake/Inflow Conveyance System.—The Priest Rapids intake and fish screen 

facility and the northern portal for the flow conveyance tunnel to Black Rock 

reservoir would be located on Grant County PUD lands along the southwest 

shore of Priest Rapids Lake approximately 0.7 miles northwest of Priest Rapids 

Dam. Current access to the facility site is via Dam Road (across Priest Rapids 

Dam) from SR-243 east of the lake. On and around the site itself, the only access 

route is an unpaved road used by the PUD. 

New access to the intake and fish screen facility site would be developed as part 

of the Black Rock Alternative. The new access route would be approximately 

10 miles long, from SR-24 to the southeast, along the south side of the Columbia 

River, and connecting with existing access roads southwest of the existing 

Wanapum village and Priest Rapid Dam and leading to the facility site on the 

southwest shore of Priest Rapids Lake. Most of the new route would be built 

within an existing, abandoned railroad ROW through predominantly undeveloped 

land along Midway Substation and Priest Rapids Roads. 

Related to the inflow conveyance tunnel connecting the Priest Rapids intake 

facility with the reservoir, surface access would be required only to the vent 

shaft site, located in the YTC approximately 0.75 mile south/southwest of 

the intake facility. No routing studies for this access have been conducted 

4-225 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

to date; however, it is likely that existing unpaved roads within the Training 

Center can be used for most of the required distance. 

Outflow Conveyance/Delivery System.—All transportation facilities within the 

settings of the Black Rock outflow/delivery system are roads and highways. No 

railroads or railroad rights-of-way would be affected. 

Outflow Conveyance.—The eastern portal of the Black Rock outflow 

conveyance would be located in Black Rock Valley. Access for construction of 

this portal would be from SR-24. (See “Dam and Reservoir” above.) The 

western tunnel portal, vent shaft, and 3,000-foot pipeline components of the 

conveyance in the would be accessed regionally from SR-24 approximately 

3 miles east of Moxee City; several two-lane local roads would also likely be 

used for access to various parts of these western outflow facilities (e.g., Smith, 

Deeringhoff, and Den Beste Roads). 

Black Rock Outlet Facility and Powerplant.—The site of this facility is 

immediately adjacent to (and access to the site would be from) SR-24 east of 

Moxee City, roughly 3,000 feet east of Beane Road. 

Sunnyside Powerplant and Bypass.—This facility would be located 

adjacent to and east of Konnowac Pass Road in Yakima County, approximately 

1 mile north of Yakima Valley Highway. Access to the facility would be via 

Konnowac Pass Road, a two-lane facility that connects with SR-24 on the north 

and the Yakima Valley Highway and I-82 on the south. 

Delivery System for Sunnyside Division.—The 6.4 miles of pipeline 

comprising this conveyance would be routed from the Black Rock outlet facility 

to the Sunnyside powerplant and bypass facility generally paralleling (but not 

adjacent to) (1) the Roza Canal for the northern two thirds of the route and 

(2) Konnowac Pass Road for the southern one third. Access for construction, 

operation, and maintenance would be primarily from two-lane local roads 

(e.g., Beane, Desmarais) in the north, and Konnowac Pass Road in the central 

and southern portions of the route. 

4.16.1.3 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Regional and local access to the proposed Wymer dam and reservoir site, as well 

as sites and alignments of all appurtenant facilities, would be exclusively via 

SR-821, a two-lane roadway in Yakima Canyon, southern Kittitas County. The 

easternmost extent of the reservoir pool at high water would pass under I-82, 

but no access to project facilities is proposed from this location, either for 

construction or long-term operation. There are no public roads present in the 

Lmuma Creek basin, where Wymer dam and reservoir would be built; nor are 

there any rail facilities. The only access present is an unpaved, private ranch 

road. In terms of appurtenant facilities, the pumping plant would be built west 

4-226 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

of and adjacent to SR-821; the subsurface discharge pipelines would cross 

under SR-821 heading eastward to the damsite. 

4.16.1.4 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

The affected transportation environment for the Wymer dam component of this 

alternative was presented under “Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative.” The 

following discussion focuses on transportation setting for the Yakima River pump 

exchange component. 

The transportation environment, through which the 56 miles of underground 

pipeline comprising the Yakima River pump exchange component of this 

alternative would pass, includes (1) the regional highway and local road systems 

in the urban environments of southern Richland and West Richland and (2) the 

main regional highway and the rural road systems of the Yakima Valley in 

Benton and Yakima Counties. An active Union Pacific rail line in southern 

Richland would also be effected (Trumbull, 2007). 

Perspectives on the transportation environment for individual local jurisdictions 

along the project corridor are provided below. 

City of Richland 

Major highway access routes to and around project facilities in Richland include 

(from east to west): SR-240, Columbia Center Boulevard, Leslie Road, Keene 

Road, I-182, and Bombing Range Road. Neighborhood- or development-specific 

local road systems are also present within the general pipeline corridor. 

In terms of specific facility siting and pipeline routing, the intake and pumping 

plant #1 site would likely be accessed via Columbia Center Boulevard, north of 

SR-240. The pipeline from that site would be (1) within or immediately adjacent 

to the ROW of a Union Pacific Railroad line north of Gage Boulevard, from 

Columbia Center Boulevard to Leslie Road and (2) immediately adjacent to 

(conceptually shown on the north side of) Keene Road from Leslie Road to the 

city limits northwest of I-182, near the intersection of Bombing Range Road. In 

the latter regard, access roads to several developed areas connect with Keene 

Road. 

City of Kennewick 

The 1 mile of pipeline though north Kennewick would be within or immediately 

adjacent to railroad ROW noted above for Richland. No major transportation 

facilities in Kennewick would be affected beyond the facilities noted above for 

areas adjacent to Richland (e.g., SR-240). 

City of West Richland 

Regional access to the pipeline route in West Richland would be from I-182 in 

Richland to the south and SR-224 from Benton City to the west. Within West 

4-227 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Richland, the corridor would follow (pipeline conceptually shown on the north 

side of) Keene Road, from the southeast city limits near Kennedy Road to the 

northwest city limits near West Van Giesen Street (SR-224). At present, very few 

local and no major roads intersect Keene Road along this corridor. 

Benton and Yakima Counties 

Through affected portions of Benton and Yakima Counties, from West Richland 

to the pipeline terminus near Sunnyside, regional access is provided by I-82 

connecting the Tri-Cities area with Yakima. All pipeline and pumping plant 

facilities in the two counties would be through the corridor of agricultural land 

north of I-82, and would be accessed primarily by the rural, local road system 

throughout the area. Three State routes intersect the pipeline alignment: SR-224 

and SR-225 near Benton City and SR-241 near Sunnyside. 

4.16.2 Environmental Consequences 

4.16.2.1 Methods and Assumptions 

Transportation impact analysis was conducted using existing published 

information (city and county maps and aerial photography), supplemented by 

limited field reconnaissance. 

The following indicators were selected to evaluate transportation impacts: 

•	 Long-term: Route (road or railroad) closures and/or relocations 

•	 Short-term (construction-phase): 

o	 Route crossings (i.e., traffic disruptions and detours) 

o	 Disruptions to rail traffic during construction within the ROW 

o	 Land parcel access disruption (i.e., where construction parallels 

existing public roads) 

o	 Increased traffic (construction workers and material/equipment 

hauling) 

o	 Increased road repair/maintenance requirements due to increased 

heavy load movements 

Of particular relevance in reviewing the analysis are the following points: 

•	 Given the nature of the facilities associated with the Joint Alternatives, the 

highest potential for significant transportation-related impacts would occur 

during the construction phase (i.e., traffic and transportation requirements/ 

impacts would be relatively minor during project operations and 

maintenance). 

4-228 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

•	 No construction plans have been prepared for facilities associated with the 

alternatives. Consequently, no detailed analysis is possible of 

construction-phase impacts such as material haul routes, construction 

traffic volumes, increased road repair and maintenance requirements, 

frequency and length of detours, etc. Impact analysis is, therefore, general 

and programmatic. 

•	 The locations of and plans for facilities associated with the alternatives 

are derived from Reclamation’s appraisal-level assessments. Many 

appurtenant facility locations (especially siting of structures) and 

substantial distances of the conveyance alignments are preliminary and 

subject to adjustment based on further study. Thus, the transportation 

impacts reported herein should be viewed as illustrative or prototypical, 

with site or alignment adjustments considered an important source of 

mitigation action. Further insight from this perspective is provided where 

relevant on a facility-specific basis. 

4.16.2.2 No Action Alternative 

As noted previously, conservation-related system improvements associated with 

the No Action Alternative are part of other approved programs and orient 

predominantly to existing facilities; none are being or will be constructed under 

the auspices of the Storage Study. To the extent that NEPA or SEPA analysis is 

required for these actions, appropriate documentation of impacts on transportation 

systems and facilities will be prepared separately, apart from the Storage Study 

process. 

4.16.2.3 Black Rock Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Dam and Reservoir.—Construction of Black Rock dam would have significant 

construction-phase impacts on the regional highway system. All materials and 

personnel necessary for construction would use the State routes within and 

surrounding the Black Rock Valley (i.e., SRs 24, 240, and 241). Traffic, 

especially heavy vehicle use, would increase significantly, with corresponding 

increases in highway maintenance requirements. On a localized basis, these 

impacts would be the greatest for the Black Rock Alternative. 

Appurtenant Facilities.—Construction impacts would be short-term and would 

involve (in some cases, significant) increases in material/equipment hauling and 

construction personnel-related traffic, increases in road maintenance and repair 

requirements, and localized detours. 

4-229 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Related to the intake/inflow system: 

•	 Construction-phase impacts would center on the Priest Rapids intake and 

fish screen facility and northern portal of the inflow tunnel. Regionally, 

SRs 24, 240, and 243 would be most impacted, with the highest increases 

in traffic and heavy load movement likely to occur on SRs 240 and 24 

from the Tri-Cities area to the south. Locally, construction traffic would 

use the new access road to the facility site from SR-24; this traffic may 

temporarily disrupt circulation in/around the Wanapum village 

immediately southwest of Priest Rapids Dam, but would otherwise not 

substantially affect local routes or facilities. 

•	 Access to the vent shaft site on the YTC would require coordination 

between agencies, but should not result in any significant disruption of 

existing Training Center access or circulation patterns. 

For the outflow/delivery system, the focus of construction-phase traffic would be 

on (1) SR-24 from Yakima through Moxee City and (2) Konnowac Pass Road 

from SR-24 on the north and Sunnyside (via Yakima Valley Highway) on the 

south. Facility-specific perspectives include: 

•	 Construction traffic impacts would focus on SR-24 from Yakima related 

to the western end of the outflow conveyance (including the vent shaft and 

the 3,000-foot pipeline), the Black Rock outlet facility, and the northern 

half of the Sunnyside delivery pipeline. The outflow pipeline would 

require temporary detour/reroute of SR-24 while the line is installed under 

the highway. Construction traffic impacts and temporary disruptions of 

access routes would also occur on the local road systems adjacent to 

SR-24. 

•	 Construction traffic impacts associated with much of the Sunnyside 

Division pipeline and the Sunnyside powerplant and bypass facility will 

focus on Konnowac Pass Road, which would be crossed twice by the 

pipeline. Local disruption of access to properties and local road detours 

would also occur on both sides of Konnowac Pass Road. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Dam and Reservoir.—Construction of Black Rock dam would involve rerouting 

of an approximately 15-mile stretch of SR-24 in the Black Rock Valley, from a 

point approximately 10 miles east of Moxee City to the current interconnection 

with SR-241 east of the damsite. As shown conceptually in “Land Use and 

Shoreline Resources” (section 4.13), the new alignment is proposed to be on 

higher-elevation terrain on the south side of the valley and would connect with 

SR-241 approximately 4 miles south of the existing SR-24/241 intersection (thus, 

making a approximately 4-mile distance of SR-241 also part of SR-24). 

4-230 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Overall, the new SR-24 route would be approximately 2.5 miles longer than the 

current alignment. It would also involve steeper grades/lower speeds in the 

eastern portion of the route. Preliminary alignment studies for the new route 

indicate that design speed would be 70 miles per hour (mph) for much of the route 

(like the existing highway), but along the easterly 3 miles before the new SR-241 

connection, design speed would be 50 mph, with 7-percent grades. In addition to 

these slower speeds and higher gradients, Washington Department of 

Transportation has noted that the southern alignment for a SR-24 reroute would 

involve slope aspects disadvantageous to winter travel (i.e., reduced exposure to 

the sun and consequent slower snowmelt) when compared with a route along the 

northern part of the valley. For these reasons, WDOT has expressed a preference 

for rerouting SR-24 along the north side of the proposed reservoir (McCartney, 

2007). Current residents in Black Rock Valley have also indicated this northerly 

route preference (Reclamation, 2004a). However, the southerly route is proposed 

by Reclamation primarily due to cost concerns (i.e., a northern route would 

involve bridging several tributary canyons, and recreation facilities requiring 

access at the reservoir would be sited primarily on the southeast shore). 

Appurtenant Facilities.—No long-term road closures or realignments would be 

required as a result of building Black Rock appurtenant facilities. 

4.16.2.4 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Significant construction-phase traffic and repair/maintenance impacts would 

occur along SR-821, which would be the only available route for import of 

materials and equipment and access by construction personnel. It is uncertain 

what proportion of these impacts would occur north of the project site 

(i.e., to/from Ellensburg) compared to south of the site (i.e., to/from the Selah and 

Yakima areas). 

State Route 821 would also be directly affected by construction of the discharge 

pipeline for this alternative, which would pass directly under the highway. Shortterm reroute/detour around a local portion of the highway would likely be 

required while the conveyance under-crossings are constructed. It is unlikely that 

any temporary closures of the highway would be required as this work is 

accomplished. 

As noted in section 4.16.1.3, the easternmost extent of the reservoir at high water 

in this alternative would pass under the I-82 bridges at Lmuma Creek, inundating 

the bridge piers. Preliminary plans for the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

include provision for reinforcement and protection of the bridge piers to avoid any 

significant impact from reservoir inundation. These measures could be 

accomplished without significant disruption to traffic on the highway. 

4-231 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Long-Term Impacts 

Development of the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative would not involve 

long-term relocation or closure of any roadways. 

4.16.2.5 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

The transportation consequences of the Wymer dam component of this alternative 

were addressed previously, under “Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative.” This 

section discusses the Yakima River pump exchange component of the alternative. 

Construction Impacts 

Overall, construction-phase impacts would be greater for this alternative than for 

any other alternative being considered; this conclusion relates specifically to the 

following parameters: 

•	 Level of urban and rural development present within or adjacent to the 

construction corridor (i.e., related to impacts from increased traffic and 

disruptions to circulation and access). See the “Land Use and Shoreline 

Resources” section for an overview of land and development conditions 

along the pipeline route. 

•	 Number and length of highways and other roads impacted. 

•	 Length of rail line disruption (i.e., this is the only alternative that would 

impact rail infrastructure). 

•	 Geographic extent of impact (i.e., 56 miles of construction, overall, in four 

local jurisdictions). 

A preliminary inventory of road crossings necessary in this alternative includes 

the following: 

•	 Interstate 182 in Richland 

•	 State Route 240 in Richland 

•	 State Route 224 west of West Richland 

•	 State Route 225 north of Benton City 

•	 State Route 241 northwest of Sunnyside 

•	 Several arterial roads in Richland, including Columbia Center Boulevard, 

Leslie Road, Queensgate Drive, and Bombing Range Road 

•	 45-50 local roads in Benton and Yakima County 

4-232 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Approximately 2 miles of active rail line would also be disrupted during 

construction within the Union Pacific Railroad ROW. 

In addition, the preliminary alignment for the exchange pipeline shows many 

miles of construction parallel with, and adjacent to, existing roadways, including 

Keene Road in Richland, and many local collector and rural roads in Benton and 

Yakima Counties. While direct impact on existing roads in these “parallel” 

situations would likely be minimal (i.e., construction limited to the construction 

pipeline ROW), temporary disruption of access (e.g., driveways) to adjacent land 

parcels may be widespread. 

As noted previously, no construction phasing plans or specification of 

construction traffic routes have been prepared, nor have specific construction 

methods and techniques been selected for implementation of the pipeline. 

For road crossings, boring methods would be used under major highways, such as 

I-182 and SR-240 in Richland; in such cases, significant facility closures or 

detours would not be necessary. However, most crossings would be constructed 

using cut-and-cover methods, necessitating temporary closures and/or detours. 

Where roads are paralleled, preliminary planning indicates that access would be 

along the construction route, rather than using/impacting the adjacent roadway. 

In all cases, as construction proceeds, increased local traffic would occur and road 

maintenance and repair requirements would increase (especially along equipment 

and material haul routes). 

Long-Term Impacts 

Development of the Yakima River pump exchange component of this alternative 

would not require any long-term relocations or closures of roadways or rail lines. 

All impacts would be during the construction phase. 

4.16.2.6 Mitigation 

Black Rock Alternative 

Long-term impacts associated with relocation of SR-24 and significant 

construction-phase traffic and road impacts are largely unavoidable under this 

alternative. Efforts to mitigate impacts should focus on the following: 

•	 Further discussion with the State Department of Transportation and local 

residents to explore the feasibility of relocating SR-24 to the north versus 

south side of Black Rock Valley, as a means of mitigating design speed, 

gradient, winter travel and local parcel access concerns associated with 

proposed route. 

4-233 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

•	 Potential adjustment of new conveyance pipeline routes to minimize 

necessary road crossings and other disruptions to local traffic patterns and 

access routes. 

•	 Coordination with State and local transportation agencies and potentially 

impacted neighborhoods and landowners, as appropriate, in preparing 

construction transportation management plans. Objectives would include: 

o	 Specifying material haul routes and construction traffic patterns which 

minimize local traffic impacts. 

o	 Phasing construction to minimize the duration of necessary temporary 

road closures and detours. 

Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Significant construction-phase traffic and road impacts to SR-821 are largely 

unavoidable with development of this alternative. More detailed planning should 

address questions of haul route and overall traffic direction and magnitude 

(i.e., east versus west) and, thus, potential traffic and road impacts in Ellensburg, 

Selah, or Yakima. Coordination with the State Department of Transportation 

would be required to properly plan for construction on and any potential traffic 

flow disruptions along SR-821. 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

Significant construction-phase traffic and road impacts are largely unavoidable 

with development of this alternative. Efforts to mitigate impacts should focus on 

the following: 

•	 Close coordination with involved transportation agencies in obtaining 

necessary permits and preparing plans and schedules for crossings of 

highways and roads. 

•	 Close coordination and cooperation with involved railroad companies 

related to construction with the rail ROW. 

•	 Potential adjustment of pipeline route to minimize necessary road 

crossings and other disruptions to local traffic patterns and access routes. 

•	 Coordination with involved transportation agencies and potentially 

impacted neighborhoods and landowners, as appropriate, in preparing 

construction transportation management plans. Objectives would include 

the following: 

o	 Specifying material haul routes and construction traffic patterns which 

minimize local traffic impacts. 

4-234 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

o	 Phasing construction to minimize the duration of necessary temporary 

road closures and detours. 

4.16.2.7 Cumulative Impacts 

Short-term cumulative impacts could occur during construction with any of the 

Joint Alternatives. Specifically, it is possible that construction of proposed 

facilities could occur coincident with other development activities in local areas, 

thus cumulatively increasing the number or intensity of traffic impacts, road 

detours, etc. The potential for this type of short-term cumulative impact would be 

highest (by a wide margin) with the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

Exchange Alternative, given the length of required pipelines through urban, 

suburban and rural development areas (particularly in the urban environments of 

Richland and West Richland). Such impacts could be avoided or mitigated by 

proper coordination among involved government entities. 

None of the alternatives would result in significant long-term cumulative 

transportation impacts. 

4.17 Air Quality 

4.17.1 Affected Environment 

This section describes the area studied for the air quality analysis, as well as the 

regulatory and environmental setting. The regulatory setting is described in terms 

of Federal, State, and local requirements. The environmental setting is described 

in terms of air pollutant sources and existing concentrations. The air quality 

impact analysis evaluates existing conditions and impacts to Kittitas, Benton, and 

Yakima Counties, where the Joint Alternatives would generate emissions. 

The Federal Clean Air Act has set National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) that define levels of air quality that are necessary to protect the public 

health (primary standards) and the public welfare (secondary standards). Areas 

where the measured concentrations of a pollutant are above the primary and 

secondary NAAQS are identified as nonattainment areas. The Clean Air Act 

requires that Federal activities may not cause or contribute to new violations of air 

quality standards, exacerbate existing violations, or interfere with timely 

attainment or required emission reductions towards attainment (40 CFR 93.150). 

In addition to ambient air quality standards, the EPA has established standards for 

the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of air quality. PSD standards 

provide maximum allowable increases in concentrations of pollutants for areas 

already in compliance with NAAQS. Regulated pollutants that most commonly 

lead to source-wide PSD applicability include particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, 

and nitrogen oxides. The PSD standards are expressed in allowable increments in 

atmospheric concentrations of these specific pollutants (40 CFR 52). The EPA 

4-235 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

has established NAAQS for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur 

dioxide, inhalable particulate matter, fine particulate matter, and lead. The 

Federal Clean Air Act requires States to classify air basins as either attainment or 

nonattainment with respect to these air pollutants. Counties or regions designated 

as nonattainment areas for one or more pollutants must prepare a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) that demonstrates how the area will achieve attainment 

by federally mandated deadlines. Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act requires 

any entity of the Federal Government that engages in, supports, or in any way 

provides financial support for, licenses, or permits or approves any activity, to 

demonstrate that the action conforms to the applicable SIP required under 

Section 110(a). According to EPA guidance, before any approval is given for a 

proposed action, the regulating Federal agency must determine the regional 

significance of the action and its general conformity on a pollutant-by-pollutant 

basis. If the emissions are determined to be de minimis, no further analysis is 

required. However, if the conformity regulations apply, then an evaluation must 

be conducted. 

The Washington Department of Ecology (2002b) identified ambient air quality 

standards for total suspended particulates, lead, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, 

carbon monoxide, ozone, and nitrogen dioxide. In 1994, the EPA, the 

Washington Department of Ecology, Benton County, and Franklin County signed 

a Memorandum of Agreement to study the area’s air quality problems and 

develop controls over urban fugitive dust sources (fugitive dust is generally 

defined as particulate matter nominally 10 microns or less” [PM10]). The 

Washington Administrative Code regulates fugitive dust sources. According to 

this regulation, “the owner or operator of a source of fugitive dust shall take 

reasonable precautions to prevent fugitive dust from becoming airborne and shall 

maintain and operate the source to minimize emissions” (Ecology, 2000c). 

Typical construction or water delivery projects are regulated if they emit or have 

the potential to emit at least 250 tons per year of any regulated pollutant (Ecology, 

2003a). The Washington Department of Ecology exempts internal combustion 

engines that propel or power vehicles from PSD emissions regulations (2002b). 

Air quality in Yakima, Kittitas, and Benton Counties in south-central Washington 

are well within most of these standards for pollutants. Air quality in the study 

area occasionally exceeds the 24-hour PM10 standard (Mann, 2003). Most 

exceedances are from windblown dust from area agricultural fields (BCAA, 1996) 

followed by windblown dust from open lands, outdoor and agricultural burning, 

woodburning stoves and fireplaces, wildfires, industrial sources, and motor 

vehicles (BCAA, 2003). Local air pollutant emissions are limited to windblown 

dust from agricultural operations and tailpipe emissions from vehicular traffic 

along State highways and local roads. Between 1993 and 2002, the PM10 

standard was exceeded in the Tri-Cities area 11 times, or about an average of once 

a year (Mann, 2003). In the eight occurrences since 1998, five were agricultural 

4-236 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

dust, two were wildfire smoke and ash, and one was construction dust. The 

Washington Department of Ecology has identified the study area as having 

attainment status. 

Dust originating from the Black Rock and Wymer reservoir drawdown zones is a 

concern for air quality and public health. Dispersion of dust into the atmosphere 

is a function of wind speed, duration and direction of wind, intensity of 

atmospheric turbulence, and mixing depth. Conditions likely to increase 

dispersion are most common in the summer when the reservoir pool is declining 

and an unstable atmosphere exists, about 56 percent of the time. Atmospheric 

conditions in summer are favorable to dispersion. Less-favorable conditions 

occur in all seasons from about sunset to about an hour after sunrise as a result of 

temperature inversions and shallow mixing layers. Occasionally, in winter 

months, poor dispersion conditions are associated with stagnant air in stationary 

high-pressure systems. The prevailing surface winds in the area are from the 

northwest and occur most frequently during the winter and summer. Winds from 

the southwest also occur frequently. During the spring and fall, there is an 

increase in winds from the southwest and a corresponding decrease in winds from 

the northwest. Though data for the presence of fine-grain sediments in the Black 

Rock and Wymer reservoir drawdown zone and site-specific wind data are 

lacking, the Hanford data (Neitzel, 2005) suggests that the conditions (wind 

speed, duration, direction, and atmospheric turbulence) favor dust dispersion that 

would be problematic for public health and air quality. 

4.17.2 Environmental Consequences 

4.17.2.1 Methods and Assumptions 

This section describes the methodology used to develop the emission inventories 

and comparison of the analysis results to the significance and conformity 

thresholds. Construction emissions are not available for the Draft PR/EIS. In 

general, they are estimated from emission models and spreadsheet calculations, 

depending on the source type and data availability. Dispersion models are also 

used to estimate the dissipation and movement of emissions. The following 

sources and activities are typically analyzed for emissions, demolition, drilling 

and blasting; grading; onsite and offsite construction equipment and haul truck 

emissions; onsite processing and concrete batch plants; asphalt paving; and offsite 

worker vehicle trips to and from the site. 

Long-term air quality impacts associated with emissions known to contribute to 

global warming are evaluated qualitatively. 

4-237 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

4.17.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts under the No Action Alternative would be considered under 

separate NEPA evaluation, as discussed in chapter 2. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Population growth in the Tri-Cities and Yakima areas would increase air pollution 

associated with tailpipe emissions, but these emissions would not likely endanger 

Benton, Yakima, Kittitas and Franklin Counties’ attainment status. Overall, there 

would likely be little or no effect on air quality in the study area. Area 

agricultural activities and natural events such as wildfires would continue to cause 

occasional exceedances in fugitive dust ambient air quality standards at a rate of 

about one per year. 

4.17.2.3 Joint Alternatives 

Construction Impacts 

Vehicle emissions and dust associated with either Black Rock or Wymer reservoir 

construction would result in short-term impacts ranging from moderate to severe. 

A comparison of alternatives would need to consider the amount of material 

moved and the number of pieces of equipment used in the peak day and peak year 

of construction activity. The major sources of volatile organic compounds 

(VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions are expected 

to be the onsite construction equipment and haul trucks with nonroad equipment 

engines, which are not subject to stationary source permitting requirements. The 

various Joint Alternatives would require varying levels of construction with heavy 

machinery and equipment. Typical construction activities would include 

excavation, earthwork, trenching, tunneling, boring, and jacking. Most trenching 

work would involve very little stationary equipment and would be complete at 

any one location within a few weeks. Some trenching activities would occur very 

near residential areas. 

Air quality impacts associated with the constructing the proposed pumping 

facilities, pipelines, and reservoir would vary. The primary type of air pollution 

during construction would be combustible pollutants from equipment exhaust and 

fugitive dust particles from disturbed soils becoming airborne. Any adverse 

impacts from combustible pollutants and fugitive dust (PM10) would be 

temporary in nature and minor. The construction activity best management 

practices would help maintain PM10 emissions compliance with the 24-hour 

average criterion. 

4-238 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Long-Term Impacts 

Dust and other airborne particulates originating from the drawdown zone of the 

reservoirs may be a chronic contribution to PM10 levels, particularly at the Black 

Rock site which is expected to be more susceptible to wind. 

4.17.2.4 Mitigation 

Emissions from offroad construction equipment and particulate concentrations are 

expected to exceed the general conformity de minimis thresholds for each year of 

construction. Therefore, additional mitigation would need to be applied to the 

emission sources. Such mitigation would include: 

•	 Use of emulsified or aqueous diesel fuel. 

•	 Use of equipment with engines that incorporate exhaust gas recirculation 

systems. 

•	 Installation of a lean NOx catalyst in the engine exhaust system. 

•	 Wet suppression and soil stabilization. 

•	 Wind fencing around the active area. 

•	 Paving onsite roadways. 

•	 Truck wheel washing facilities at site exits on public roadways. 

•	 Maintaining minimal truck bed freeboard or covering haul truck beds. 

•	 Compliance with all local, State and Federal air quality regulations. 

4.17.2.5 Cumulative Impacts 

All the reasonably foreseeable projects could affect air quality. Each project 

would be expected to incorporate all feasible mitigation measures recommended 

by local regulatory agencies in proportion to the severity of the impact to reduce 

project-specific construction or operation effects. 

4.18 Noise 

4.18.1 Affected Environment 

Noise has long been accepted as a byproduct of urbanization but only recently 

has it received much social attention as a potential environmental hazard. Noise 

is generally defined as unwanted or objectionable sound. Excessive or sustained 

noise can contribute to both temporary and permanent physical impairments, 

4-239 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

such as hearing loss and increased fatigue, as well as stress, annoyance, 

anxiety, and other psychological reactions in humans. 

4.18.1.1 Noise Measurement Scales 

Noise levels are measured on a logarithmic scale because of physical 

characteristics of sound transmission and reception. Noise energy is typically 

reported in units of decibels (dB). Noise levels diminish, or attenuate, as distance 

to the source increases. 

Community noise levels are typically measured in terms of the A-weighted 

decibel (dBA), which measures the noise energy emitted from a noise source. 

The A-weighted frequency scale correlates noise or sound to the hearing range of 

the human ear, and ranges from 1.0 dBA at the threshold of hearing to 140 dBA at 

the threshold of pain. Table 4.50 provides examples of common noise levels and 

their effects on the human ear. Table 4.51 provides the recommended noise levels 

of various land use types. 

Table 4.50 Common noise levels and their effects on the human ear (EPA, 1986) 

Source 

Decibel level 

(dBA) Exposure concern 

Soft whisper 

Quiet office 

Average home 

Conversational speech 

30 

40 

50 

66 

Normal safe levels. 

Busy traffic 

Noisy restaurant 

Average factory 

75 

80 

80 to 90 

May affect hearing in some individuals 

depending on sensitivity, exposure length, 

etc. 

Pneumatic drill 

Automobile horn 

100 

120 

Continued exposure to noise over 90 dB 

may eventually cause hearing impairment. 

Jet plane or gunshot blast 140 Noises at or over 140 dB may cause pain. 

Table 4.51 Recommended land use noise levels (Housing and Urban Development [HUD], 1991) 

Land use category 

Noise Levels (dBA) 

Clearly 

acceptable 

Normally 

acceptable 

Normally 

unacceptable 

Clearly 

unacceptable 

Residential 

Commercial, retail 

Commercial, wholesale 

Manufacturing 

Agricultural, farming 

Natural recreation areas 

Schools 

Playgrounds 

< 60 

< 65 

< 70 

< 55 

< 75 

< 60 

< 60 

< 55 

60 - 65 

65 - 75 

70 - 80 

55 - 70 

> 75 

60 - 75 

60 - 65 

55 - 65 

65 - 75 

75 - 80 

80 - 85 

70 - 80 

N/A 

75 - 85 

65 - 75 

65 - 75 

> 75 

> 85 

> 85 

> 80 

N/A 

> 85 

> 75 

> 75 

4-240 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

4.18.1.2 Current Noise Environment 

The study area for noise is defined as the immediate vicinity of the proposed 

pumping plant locations, the proposed pipeline alignment, and the proposed 

reservoir locations. These areas include the project construction area as well as 

nearby agricultural, commercial, industrial, recreational, and residential areas. 

Currently, existing noise levels are attributable to motor vehicles, industrial and 

commercial operations, railroad transportation, and agricultural operations. 

4.18.1.3 Applicable Laws, Ordinances, Regulations, and Standards 

The construction and operation of new facilities under the Joint Alternatives are 

outside the city limits and their jurisdiction. The sites are not regulated by any 

county ordinances, regulations or standards. Further, construction activities are 

excluded from Washington Department of Ecology noise ordinances (Ecology, 

2000). 

4.18.1.4 Ambient Noise Levels 

Vehicular Noise 

The primary noise source in the study area is motor vehicle traffic on highways 

and major arterials. The interstate highway produces the loudest noise in the area. 

Other arteries that pass through and adjacent to some of the pipeline alignment 

also generate moderate noise levels during daytime hours. 

Railroad Traffic Noise 

Railroad traffic constitutes an occasional but less intrusive element to the noise 

environment. 

Stationary Source Noise 

Stationary noise sources in the area include grading and construction activity, 

power tools, and mechanical equipment, such as heating and air conditioning 

units, fans, and compressors. Industrial noise in the area includes loading and 

transfer noise, outdoor warehousing operations, and unscreened commercial and 

industrial activities. 

4.18.2 Environmental Consequences 

Noise impacts were derived by identifying features of the various alternatives that 

would create noise at each of the project sites and by evaluating the sites’ 

proximity to and effect on identified sensitive receptors. Noise impacts from 

construction, operation, and maintenance of the Joint Alternatives would be 

localized, most often in remote areas, and temporary in nature. During reservoir 

construction, use of the area by wildlife would be disrupted. 

4-241 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

4.18.2.1 Methods and Assumptions 

The degree to which noise affects the human environment depends on the affected 

area’s land use category, the A-weighted decibel of the noise, and the 

corresponding recommended land use noise levels. This study used the 

categories, assignments, and acceptability ratings to determine potential impacts 

in the study area. 

4.18.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts under the No Action Alternative would be considered under 

separate NEPA evaluation, as discussed in chapter 2. 

Long-Term Impacts 

The cities of Richland and Kennewick would likely continue to experience 

population growth and urbanization. Traffic on major highways and arterials 

would continue to increase and produce additional noise. The current commercial 

and industrial growth in and around the cities of Kennewick and Richland would 

also increase localized noise levels. 

4.18.2.3 Black Rock Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

There would be noise during construction; however, the construction areas are 

localized in remote areas. Wildlife use of the area would be disrupted. 

Long-Term Impacts 

The Black Rock pumping plant at Priest Rapids Dam would be located in an 

unpopulated area with few receptors and an existing background noise level. 

4.18.2.4 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

There would be noise during construction; however, the construction areas are 

localized in remote areas. Wildlife use of the area would be disrupted. 

Long-Term Impacts 

The Wymer pumping plant would be located in an area with minimal background 

noise and is frequented by summer recreators. The pumping plant has been 

designed below ground with low profile pumps in order to minimize disturbance. 

4-242 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

4.18.2.5 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

There would be noise during construction; however, the construction areas are 

located in developed or remote areas. Wildlife use of the area would be disrupted. 

Long-Term Impacts 

The pumping plants for the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange 

Alternative would be located in an areas with existing background noise from 

highways, railroads, and urban development. 

4.18.2.6 Mitigation 

The project would comply with all local, State, and Federal noise regulations. 

4.18.2.7 Cumulative Impacts 

All the reasonably foreseeable projects could affect noise quality. However, all 

noise impacts are expected to be short term and in compliance with all county 

noise abatement regulations. 

4.19 Visual Resources 

4.19.1 Affected Environment 

4.19.1.1 No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative includes conservation-oriented system improvements, 

including pumping plants and pipelines, at various locations in the Yakima 

Valley region. These improvements are associated with existing approved 

programs and orient predominantly to existing facilities; none are being or 

would be constructed under the auspices of the Storage Study. To the extent 

that NEPA or SEPA analysis would be required for these actions, appropriate 

documentation of the directly affected visual environment would be prepared 

separately, apart from the Storage Study process. 

4.19.1.2 Black Rock Alternative 

The visual setting for the Black Rock Alternative is characterized by three 

geographically distinct landscapes, associated with the three major elements of 

the alternative: 

•	 Priest Rapids Lake and Dam area and downstream Columbia River 

corridor (proposed location of the intake, fish screen and inflow tunnel 

portal and vent facilities and the access road and transmission line serving 

these facilities) 

4-243 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

•	 Black Rock Valley and the surrounding area (proposed location of the 

dam and reservoir) 

•	 Rural/agricultural Yakima County, generally north, east, and south of 

Moxee City (proposed location of the project outflow and distribution 

facilities) 

Priest Rapids Lake and Dam Area and Downstream Columbia River 

The proposed site of the Black Rock intake and fish screen facility and 

northern inflow tunnel portal is on the southwest shore of Priest Rapids Lake, 

approximately 0.7 mile upstream and northwest of Priest Rapids Dam. Public 

views of the site are generally from (1) from SR-243, Orchard Drive, and the 

small community of Desert Aire to the northeast, at a distance of approximately 

2 miles, (2) Dam Road on the approach to Priest Rapids Dam from SR-243, and 

(3) the lake surface (i.e., while boating on the lake). 

From these viewpoints, the visual setting of the facility site is characterized as a 

narrow, gently sloping, and sparsely vegetated bench of open land along the 

southwest lakeshore, with steeply rising mountains as a backdrop. The site is part 

of a broad vista, undeveloped except for the Priest Rapids hydroelectric project 

facilities to the south. Within this vista, with the exception of the more proximate 

views available to boaters and those approaching the dam, the site is seen from 

across the lake and at a distance, with desert scrubland or agricultural fields along 

the northeast shore of the lake in the foreground. 

The vent shaft site required along the inflow tunnel alignment would be located 

approximately 3⁄4 mile beyond, and in the mountains that represent the backdrop 

to, the intake and fish screen facility. If this site is visible to the public (uncertain 

given the small size and low height of the facility, the absence of specific site 

location data and the steep/rough nature of the terrain), the viewpoints would be 

the same as those described above for the intake and fish screen facility. 

The access road and transmission line serving the intake and fish screen facility 

would be sited on the south side of the Columbia River west of SR-24. The 

primary views of the corridor through which these facilities would be routed are 

(1) from SR-243, at distances ranging from 0.8 to 2 miles, and (2) the Wanapum 

village south of Priest Rapids Dam, with the corridor immediately adjacent. The 

visual setting of the corridor from SR-243 viewpoints consists of a steep mountain 

backdrop, with a combination of river shore, river channel, and open desert 

scrubland in fore- and middle-ground. Several instances of irrigated agriculture 

and existing power system facilities (e.g., transmission lines and the BPA Midway 

Substations) also are present in middle-ground views. The setting from 

viewpoints in the Wanapum village includes the proposed road and transmission 

line corridor in the immediate foreground with a steep mountain backdrop rising 

from as close as 1,000 feet beyond. 

4-244 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Black Rock Valley 

Black Rock Valley, where Black Rock dam, reservoir and associated facilities 

(including recreation) would be located, is a broad, east-west oriented desert 

valley. It is characterized predominantly by an open scrubland/grassland valley 

floor flanked by basalt mountains and hills along the northern and southern 

margins. With the exception of SR-24, which traverses the center of the valley, 

and a few farms/ranches in the west, the setting provides a perceived “natural” 

landscape, with a relatively limited built environment. 

Public views of Black Rock Valley are predominantly from SR-24. All other 

access within the valley is via unpaved roads, typically used by the few residents 

and other landowners. 

Externally, the eastern end of the valley (proposed location of Black Rock dam) is 

visible from farms and ranches in the Dry Creek Valley to the southeast and from 

a roadside café and residence immediately to the east. 

Rural/Agricultural Yakima County 

The setting of the proposed outlet and distribution facilities/systems of the Black 

Rock Alternative is characterized largely by irrigated agriculture and other large 

lot rural development (e.g., rural residential). Local agriculture includes a 

mixture of orchards, vineyards, and row/field crops. Agricultural infrastructure 

(canals and appurtenant facilities) is strongly in evidence. Structures are 

generally residential and farm-oriented. 

Public viewpoints from which the locations of Black Rock facilities would be 

visible are generally along the local road system, especially SR-24 and Konnowac 

Pass Road. Facility sites and alignments would also be visible from numerous 

private residences in the area. 

4.19.1.3 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

From visual resources standpoint, the affected environment for the Wymer Dam 

and Reservoir Alternative is primarily Yakima Canyon, along SR-821, north of 

Selah and south of Ellensburg. It is only within Yakima Canyon where facilities 

associated with this alternative would be visible to the public. While the dam and 

reservoir would be located in the Lmuma Creek basin (tributary to Yakima 

Canyon to the east), that entire basin is privately owned, with no public access, no 

existing residents, and very limited public viewpoints from surrounding areas. 

The only other location from which portions of this alternative would be seen is 

from I-82, where the narrow, easternmost arm of the reservoir pool would be 

crossed by the highway and would be visible to motorists. 

Yakima Canyon is generally narrow and meandering, with the Yakima River 

corridor dominating the canyon bottom and steep-to-gently-rolling basalt hills 

rising high on both sides. Much of the canyon is undeveloped, presenting a 

4-245 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

natural desert canyon landscape, with riparian vegetation along the river and lowgrowing scrubland/grassland on the hillsides. Evidence of human development is 

present, however, including Roza Diversion Dam and associated infrastructure, 

instances of irrigated agriculture (with associated residences and other buildings) 

and canyon-oriented recreational sites and businesses (for example, a river rafting 

company) where the canyon widens. SR-821 through the canyon is designated a 

State Scenic Byway and BLM Scenic and Recreational Highway. 

Public viewpoints in the canyon are from the highway and the river (i.e., rafters 

and kayakers). 

4.19.1.4 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

The affected environment of the Wymer dam component of this alternative was 

presented under “Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative.” The following 

discussion focuses on the visual setting for the Yakima River pump exchange 

component of this alternative. 

The visual setting of the 56 miles of underground pipeline and three pumping 

plants comprising the Yakima River pump exchange component of this alternative 

is characterized by two broad landscape categories: 

•	 Urban/suburban environments of Richland and West Richland, and 

•	 Open and agricultural landscapes in rural Benton and Yakima Counties, 

north of I-82, between West Richland and Sunnyside 

Urban/Suburban Richland and West Richland 

The visual setting in Richland and West Richland is typical of small to moderate 

sized cities. The “cityscapes” where pump exchange facilities would be located 

include residential developments of varying densities, commercial sites and 

complexes, limited industrial development, and associated infrastructure (e.g., 

road systems, utility lines). Where the pipeline would be routed through this 

setting, public views of the facility corridor are generally short-range, from 

adjacent roadways, residences and businesses. 

The intake and pumping plant #1 facilities of this alternative would be located 

along the Columbia River shore in a partially developed, flatland linear park 

between the river to the north and SR-240 to the south. The area immediately 

west of the facility site is undeveloped, with commercial development occurring 

1/4 to 1/2 mile further west. The area east of the facility site is currently 

developed park with a campground. Public views of the facility site are from 

SR-240 along the southern site boundary, from the river and West Pasco to the 

north, and from within the shoreline park. 

4-246 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Rural Benton and Yakima Counties 

West of the Richland/West Richland, the landscape through which the pump 

exchange pipeline would be routed and within which pumping plants #2 and #3 

would be sited is characterized largely by irrigated agriculture and other large lot 

rural development (e.g., rural residential). The agriculture is a mixture of 

orchards, vineyards, and row/field crops. Agricultural infrastructure (canals and 

appurtenant facilities) is strongly in evidence. Structures are generally residential 

and farm-oriented. Limited instances of open desert hillsides also occur along the 

pipeline route in Benton County. 

Public viewpoints from which the pipeline route and the sites of the pumping 

plants would be seen are the local roads, residences, and farms along the facility 

corridor. Relevant views in this setting are generally dominated by surrounding 

agriculture, often with open hillsides as a backdrop. 

4.19.2 Environmental Consequences 

4.19.2.1 Methods and Assumptions 

Visual resources impact analysis focuses on (1) the extent to which facilities and 

actions of the alternatives would result in a long-term change in the visual 

character of landscapes/locations in which they would be located (e.g., landscape 

form, line, color, and/or texture) and (2) the extent to which these changes would 

be visible to/experienced by the general public or existing residents. 

For the purpose of this Draft PR/EIS, the primary visual resources indicator is a 

distinct, fundamental, and/or widespread change in the visual character of the 

subject landscape, with this change visible to the general public or local residents. 

Significant visual quality effects can be either positive (e.g., restoration of a 

damaged natural landscape) or adverse (e.g., major introduction of contrasting, 

developed facilities in an otherwise natural landscape). This analysis focuses on 

identifying the potential for significant adverse visual resources impacts. 

4.19.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts under the No Action Alternative would be considered under 

separate NEPA evaluation, as discussed in chapter 2. 

Long-Term Impacts 

As noted previously, conservation-related system improvements associated with 

the No Action Alternative are part of other approved programs and orient 

predominantly to existing facilities; none are being or would be constructed under 

the auspices of the Storage Study. To the extent that NEPA or SEPA analysis 

would be required for these actions, appropriate documentation of visual impacts 

would be prepared separately, apart from the Storage Study process. 

4-247 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

4.19.2.3 Black Rock Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

No construction-related impacts to visual resources are anticipated under this 

alternative. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Priest Rapids Lake and Dam Area and Downstream Columbia River.— 

Development of the intake and fish screen facility and northern inflow tunnel 

portal along the southwest shore of Priest Rapids Lake would introduce a 

substantial new industrial facility in the context of the existing Priest Rapids Dam 

hydroelectric project. Development would include a large pumping plant 

structure 56 feet high and an electric switchyard complex with towers up to 

104 feet high. Although these facilities would be visibly separate from the 

existing Priest Rapids hydroelectric facilities, they would be consistent in 

character with the existing development. Considering this similarity in 

appearance with existing structures and the fact that the overall complex of 

facilities would be viewed predominantly from 2 miles or more away (e.g., the 

SR-243 corridor), the overall long-term visual resources impact is not expected to 

be significant. 

As noted in discussion of the affected environment, it is uncertain whether the 

vent shaft along the inflow tunnel alignment beyond the intake and fish screen 

facility would be visible from public viewpoints. Thus, the potential for visual 

impact from this facility cannot be determined. 

With one exception, development of the access road and transmission line serving 

the intake and fish screen facility would not represent a significant visual impact. 

For the most part (i.e., from SR-243 viewpoints), the new facilities would be 

introduced into a visual environment already containing several similar facilities. 

The exception to this would be at the location of the Wanapum village. While 

this village is located in a setting containing hydroelectric facilities, including 

existing roads and transmission lines, the new, large transmission line (500 kV) 

would be placed immediately adjacent to the village, and would intervene 

between village residences and the nearby mountain face. This impact would be 

locally significant. 

Black Rock Valley.—Introduction of the Black Rock dam and reservoir would 

significantly and irrevocably affect the visual character of the Black Rock Valley. 

Within the valley itself, and along the rerouted SR-24 in the hills south of the 

valley floor (“Transportation”), the landscape would change from one dominated 

by open desert scrub/range land to one dominated by a working reservoir. This 

change would be perceived as either neutral or positive by some and as adverse 

by others. The degree of positive versus negative viewer reaction would likely 

vary by perceived opportunity (e.g., access for various types of recreation and 

4-248 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

similar pursuits), as well as by season, as the reservoir is drawn down (revealing 

large expanses of barren mudflats) and refilled. 

External to the Black Rock Valley, construction of the Black Rock dam would 

have a significant adverse impact on the visual environment from viewpoints 

immediately east of the dam (i.e., the café and residence); the view westward 

from these viewpoints would change from an open valley landscape to the face of 

the dam and associated outlet works. A limited number of existing farm residents 

in the Dry Creek Valley to the southeast would also see the dam as a significant 

new feature in the local visual environment. 

Rural/Agricultural Yakima County.—Most of the outlet and distribution 

facilities of the Black Rock Alternative would be underground pipelines, with the 

only surface manifestation being management of land use and land cover within 

the associated easement or ROW. Management of the easement/ROW corridor 

would include prohibition of permanent structures, but landscape plantings, 

agriculture in some form, and/or restored natural vegetation (as appropriate to the 

environment along the route) would characterize the corridor after construction. 

Given the open, agricultural and otherwise sparsely developed character of the 

landscape through which these pipelines would be routed, their long-term visual 

impact would be minimal. 

Exceptions to the above are the Black Rock outlet and powerplant and the 

Sunnyside powerplant and bypass facilities. Both of these facilities would be 

industrial in character, involving relatively large structures, an electrical 

switchyard, other work yards, and a new electric transmission line serving the 

facility site. 

Structures at the Black Rock outlet and powerplant facility would include a 

45-foot-high building and switchyard towers up to 104 feet in height. The overall 

site would be fenced (7-foot chain link). Power to the facility is expected to be 

provided via a new wood pole transmission line from the existing Roza 

powerplant switchyard. 

At the Sunnyside powerplant and bypass site, structures would include buildings 

18 and 35 feet high, with switchyard towers up to 104 feet high. The overall site 

would be fenced (7-foot chain link). Power to the facility is expected to be 

provided via a new wood pole transmission line from an existing BPA line 1 mile 

to the southwest. 

The visual impact of these facilities may be significant on a local scale (i.e., to 

existing residents in the immediate vicinity of the sites and along the transmission 

line routes). At this scale, the facilities would be generally out of character with 

the rural, agricultural, residential nature of the local areas, and could interfere 

with view corridors or vistas from local residences. 

4-249 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Outside of this local perspective, however, major structures/facility sites would all 

be located along existing major roads, in a broader environment containing 

numerous other examples of similar infrastructure associated with irrigated 

agriculture and power transmission; in this context, the long-term visual impact 

would not be significant. 

4.19.2.4 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

No construction-related impacts to visual resources are anticipated under this 

alternative. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Construction of the pumping plant, power system (switchyard and transmission 

line), air chamber, and other facilities, as well as the outlet channel would 

introduce substantial new manmade facilities/features in predominantly 

undeveloped Yakima Canyon. The most prominent of the facilities would 

include the pumping plant (39 feet high) and the switchyard (which would 

include 80-foot-high towers). These facilities would be on a site currently in 

irrigated (center-pivot system) agriculture between SR-821 and the river. 

The outlet channel from the dam would be a constructed/engineered conveyance 

with several drop structures, replacing the existing Lmuma Creek channel and 

crossing under SR-821 to the Yakima River. 

These facilities, at least prior to mitigation, would represent a significant visual 

impact in the context of the largely undeveloped, scenic Yakima Canyon corridor. 

While the new facilities may be somewhat similar in character to those at Roza 

Diversion Dam (located 5 miles to the south) and not unlike the buildings and 

outdoor equipment storage of the river boating business one mile to the north, 

they would be more prominent, visible, and concentrated. 

Related to the dam and reservoir, the top of Wymer Dam would be visible to 

motorists along an approximately one half mile stretch of SR-821; the saddle dike 

north of the dam would not be visible from the highway. The view of the dam 

would be fleeting (available for less than a minute) and would only be noticed if 

motorists look eastward up Lmuma Creek immediately opposite the site of the 

pumping plant complex. Nonetheless, this visibility of the dam would add to the 

significance of impact from this alternative on the Yakima Canyon corridor. 

Other relevant perspectives on potential visual impacts of this alternative include 

the following: 

•	 The import conveyance of the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

would be underground between the dam and pumping plant and, thus, 

would not affect the visual environment. 

4-250 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

•	 Where I-82 crosses the easternmost arm of the reservoir, motorists would 

see the reservoir at high water for a matter of seconds. When reservoir 

storage is being used, this view would be of the drawdown zone. Overall, 

this change from an intermittent drainage channel to the narrow upper arm 

of an active reservoir would not be significant. 

4.19.2.5 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

No construction-related impacts to visual resources are anticipated under this 

alternative. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Visual resource impacts of the Wymer dam component of this alternative were 

discussed under “Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative.” The following 

discussion focuses on the Yakima River pump exchange component of this 

alternative. 

With the exception of the three pumping plant sites and the transmission lines 

associated with them, this alternative is comprised of underground pipelines; the 

only surface manifestation would be a managed corridor of land along the 

easement or ROW. Management of the easement/ROW corridor would include 

prohibition of permanent structures, but landscape plantings, agriculture in some 

form, and/or restored natural vegetation (as appropriate to the environment along 

the route) would characterize the corridor after construction. Given the open, 

agricultural, and otherwise sparsely developed character of the landscape through 

which these pipelines would be routed, their long-term visual impact would be 

minimal. 

At the sites of each of the three pumping plants, a new industrial facility would be 

introduced. In the generally urban environment of Richland where 

pumping plant #1 would be located, this addition to the visual environment would 

not be significant, except for users of the shoreline park immediate adjacent (both 

existing and planned). See the “Land Use and Shoreline Resources” section. 

Pumping plants #2 and #3, however, would be located in agricultural settings and, 

without mitigation, would represent significant visual impact to their local 

surroundings. The facilities would each involve relatively large structures, an 

electrical switchyard, air chambers, an overflow reservoir, and a new electric 

transmission line. 

At pumping plant #2, facilities would include buildings of 20 and 40 feet in 

height, switchyard towers 80 feet high, and six 40-foot-high air chambers. 

Overall site size would be 53 acres, with 16 used for the above facilities and 

37 acres used for the overflow reservoir. A new 1.5-mile 230-kV transmission 

line would also be needed. 

4-251 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

At pumping plant #3, facilities would be somewhat smaller, with structures up to 

20 and 40 feet high, 50-foot towers in the switchyard, and 25-foot-high air 

chambers. Site size would be 40 acres, with 12 acres used for the above facilities 

and 28 acres used for the overflow reservoir. Three miles of new 115-kV 

transmission line would be needed. 

4.19.2.6 Mitigation 

Black Rock Alternative 

Available mitigation for visual impacts of Black Rock facilities focuses on 

(1) architectural treatments and landscape screening at the intake and fish screen, 

Black Rock outlet/powerplant and Sunnyside powerplant/bypass facilities, and 

(2) vegetation restoration and management in the pipeline and transmission line 

easements/ROW. 

In the first regard, selection of building exterior colors that blend with the 

surrounding environment and planting of appropriate landscape screening could 

substantially reduce the contrast of the facility to the surrounding landscape. 

Such measures could reduce long-term visual impacts to an insignificant level. 

The same mitigation measures may also be applicable to outlet works and other 

appurtenant facilities at Black Rock dam. 

In the pipeline and transmission line easements/ROW, restoration and long-term 

maintenance of vegetation consistent with the surrounding environment would 

serve to minimize adverse visual impact. 

However, some visual impacts associated with this alternative are not subject to 

mitigation. Most significantly, the impact of Black Rock dam and reservoir on 

the Black Rock Valley and the impact of Black Rock dam on viewpoints from the 

east and southeast are not mitigable. It is also unlikely that any meaningful 

mitigation is available for the visual impact of the required 500-kV transmission 

line on the Wanapum village near Priest Rapids Dam. 

Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Available mitigation for visual impacts of the Wymer Dam and Reservoir 

Alternative focuses on architectural treatment and landscape screening at the 

pumping plant facility complex and potential for landscape screening along the 

outlet channel. Selection of building/structure exterior color(s) that blend with the 

surrounding environment and planting of appropriate landscape screening could 

substantially reduce the contrast of the facility with the surrounding landscape. It 

is uncertain whether such measures could reduce the level of visual impact overall 

to an insignificant level. 

4-252 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

As with similar facilities associated with the Black Rock and Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir Alternatives, available mitigation would focus on architectural 

treatments and landscape screening at the pumping plant facility sites. Dependent 

of the proximity of proposed facilities to existing residences and the effectiveness 

of mitigation measures, impact could be reduced to insignificant levels (i.e., if 

new facilities are not close to existing residences, do not block important vistas or 

sight lines, and screening is implemented that provides sufficient height and 

density). 

In the pipeline and transmission line easements/ROW, restoration and long-term 

maintenance of vegetation consistent with the surrounding environment would 

serve to minimize adverse visual impact. 

4.19.2.7 Cumulative Impacts 

Appurtenant facilities of the Black Rock Alternative would add cumulatively to 

the number of industrial/infrastructure facilities present in the context of rural 

environments. In the area of the intake facilities near Priest Rapids Dam, this 

change would primarily be an addition to already existing facilities and uses (i.e., 

no other, similar facilities are planned). In the area of the outlet and distribution 

facilities (rural Yakima County) it can be expected that continuing urban 

development would also bring instances of this type of development over time. 

For the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative, the appurtenant facilities 

(pumping plant, switchyard, etc.) would add cumulatively to the number of 

industrial/commercial elements present in the primarily natural, undeveloped 

visual context of Yakima Canyon. This cumulative visual impact would be in 

relation to existing developed facilities such as Roza Diversion Dam and 

commercial recreation businesses; no additional, similar types of development are 

known to be planned within the Canyon. 

For the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative, pumping 

plants #2 and #3 would represent incremental/cumulative additions to the number 

of industrial/infrastructure facilities present in the context of rural environments in 

Benton and Yakima Counties. This change would primarily be an addition to 

already existing facilities and uses (i.e., no other, similar facilities are known to be 

planned in the locally affected environment). 

4.20 Historic Properties 

The legislative and regulatory basis for the identification, evaluation, protection, 

and management of historic resources in Federal undertakings is based on the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA), and its 

implementing regulations at 36 CFR 800. Historic resources—also known as 

4-253 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

cultural resources – includes districts, buildings, sites, structures, or objects 

possessing historical, architectural, archeological, cultural, traditional or scientific 

significance to broad themes in American history and culture. American Indian 

Tribal and cultural history is an important component of historic resources. 

NHPA requires that Federal agencies complete field inventories and evaluations 

to identify sites or properties that may be eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places (National Register); and, then ensure those resources 

“are not inadvertently transferred, sold, demolished, substantially altered, or 

allowed to deteriorate significantly.” Historic resources that meet National 

Register criteria are referred to as “Historic Properties.” Further, the regulations 

at 36 CFR 800 define a consultation process for ensuring compliance with the 

NHPA. The consultative parties include the State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO), the President’s Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and 

Tribal governments with cultural and legal interests in the area of the undertaking. 

4.20.1 Affected Environment 

4.20.1.1 Columbia River Reaches and Yakima River Basin 

The following discussion pertains to all of the Joint Alternatives. 

Relevant to understanding the human history and land use in the Yakima River 

basin is the federally recognized Yakama Nation, which consists of 14 Tribes and 

Bands that were combined socially and politically following the Walla Walla 

Treaty of June 9, 1855. The areas covered by all Joint Alternatives are in the 

territory ceded in the 1855 Treaty. The Yakama Nation governing Tribal Council, 

located at the Yakama Nation Reservation headquarters at Toppenish, speaks for 

and manages the interests of the constituent 14 Tribes and Bands. 

At least as early as 8,000 years ago, the ancestral inhabitants of today’s Yakama 

Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Confederated Tribes of 

the Umatilla Reservation, and the Wanapum band developed a thriving native 

economy based on the natural richness and bounty of the Columbia Plateau. In 

precontact times, the Yakama and neighboring groups consisted of small, 

politically autonomous, yet closely related, bands, which lived in permanent 

winter villages located on major watercourses. The villages were essentially 

autonomous, although each group as a whole shared a common culture, 

maintained inter-village kinship ties, shared subsistence resources, and were 

engaged in frequent social interaction with one another. 

Historians and anthropologists suggest that the traditional arrangement of 

autonomous villages was altered to a certain degree with the introduction of the 

horse in the 1700s, which gave the people greater ability to access more distant 

resources and interact with more distant groups. These more distant contacts 

included encounters with people living in the Plains region. As a result of this 

4-254 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

interaction with Plains groups, the Yakama and related peoples adapted tipis, 

Plains clothing styles, and a Plains-like pattern of social organization by 

establishing a war chief and an incipient Tribal framework in which villages 

became more closely aligned. 

Settlement centered on winter villages located in sheltered areas along the shores 

of rivers. The largest of these villages among the Kittitas and Yakima could have 

as many as 500 residents housed in circular-shaped houses with conical roofs. 

About 2,000 people typically inhabited one village of the Lower Yakima, known 

as tsíkik ‘spring.’ From these villages, subsistence forays extended into the 

surrounding areas to fish, gather, and hunt. The foods processed from these 

subsistence activities were stored at the villages for the winter. In addition to 

residential structures, villages also contained menstrual huts, sweat huts, food 

caches, and burial grounds. 

The proposed locations of the Joint Alternatives are situated in areas where there 

is a high potential for both historic and prehistoric resources. A records and 

literature review was conducted for lands associated with each of the Joint 

Alternatives. A 1-mile radius study area around both the proposed Black Rock 

and Wymer reservoirs and along the alignments for the tunnels and pipelines 

associated with them and a 1/2-mile corridor study area along the pipeline route 

for the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative were used 

for this review. As a result of this review, a total of 102 cultural resources have 

been identified and recorded, of which 76 are prehistoric, 26 are historic, and one 

is a site with both prehistoric and historic components. Among these, only five 

resources have been determined eligible for NRHP listing: a historic structure 

known as the Mattoon Cabin (45YA360) and a historic structure known as the 

Sawyer Mansion (45YA361), both located within the 1/2-mile study corridor for 

the Yakima River pump exchange pipeline boundaries; two precontact lithic 

material sites (45YA91 and 45YA94) located within the study area along the 

Black Rock reservoir outflow tunnel; and one precontact feature (45YA96), also 

located in the study area along the Black Rock reservoir outflow tunnel. In 

addition to the previously recorded archaeological sites, one archaeological 

district (Tri-Cities Archaeological District) transects the 1/2-mile study area along 

the Yakima River pump exchange pipeline corridor. This district is National and 

State Register listed and contains a combined 30 historic and prehistoric sites. 

One of these sites, 45BN52, is located within the 1/2-mile study area used for the 

Yakima River pump exchange pipeline corridor. 

While there are only five resources that have been determined eligible for listing 

in the NRHP, the eligibility status of the majority of cultural resources (97 totals) 

has not been determined. These sites include 11 precontact camp sites, 

37 precontact lithic material sites, 2 precontact burial sites, 10 precontact isolates, 

1 precontact feature site, 3 precontact cairn sites, 6 precontact talus pit sites, 

1 precontact house pit/depression site, 2 precontact petroglyph sites, 7 historic 

objects sites, 2 historic hydroelectric sites, 1 historic agriculture site, 8 historic 

4-255 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

refuse scatter/dump sites, 1 historic bridge site, 2 historic structure sites, 1 historic 

homestead site, 1 historic isolate, and 1 historic agriculture/lithic material site. 

Given the abundance of previously recorded resources within the area, the 

construction of the proposed reservoirs and pipelines could potentially affect 

significant archaeological sites. This is most apparent in the study area along the 

Black Rock reservoir inflow tunnel alignment, where there are 42 previously 

recorded historic and prehistoric resources within an area of 11,345.75 acres. 

This is in sharp contrast to the study area along the Yakima River pump exchange 

pipeline corridor, which encompasses a total area of 24,335.46 acres and contains 

a combined seven prehistoric and historic resources in addition to an 

archaeological district. 

The limited records and known historic resources inventory for the Joint 

Alternatives indicates that there is a high potential for historic resources. The 

individual size of each of the Joint Alternatives and associated impacts, the 

relationship of these alternatives to the Columbia and Yakima Rivers and Indian 

ceded lands, the Holocene geomorphology, and the high site density in nearby 

locales are indicators of a high level of complexity in the cultural and historic 

resources. In addition, these factors predispose either alternative to a high level of 

interest and scrutiny from Indian Tribes, State and Federal partners and reviewers, 

the professional historic preservation community, and the public. 

4.20.2 Environmental Consequences 

4.20.2.1 Methods and Assumptions 

Methods to identify and evaluate historic resources include Class I inventories 

and Class III field surveys. The Class I inventory is a planning tool that involves 

a literature review and development of a low-level probability model for the 

occurrence of different kinds of sites and resources. The Class III survey is a 

complete field survey of project lands to identify unrecorded sites and resources. 

The Class I inventory suggests that there are varieties of such resources in lands 

that would be affected under the Joint Alternatives; these resources span the long 

time depth of human occupation in the Columbia Plateau. 

The Class III survey, which identifies historic resources and related discoveries, 

will occur after an alternative is selected and an area of potential effect (APE) 

can be defined. Class III surveys must await identification of a preferred 

alternative because Class III survey is predicated on the premise that a range of 

historic resources will be encountered, some of which will require additional 

investigations to evaluate their significance. Of those evaluated, a subset will be 

determined significant and eligible for the National Register. These eligible sites 

4-256 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

will require mitigation, which will be determined through consultation with 

Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) and 

American Indian Tribes. 

4.20.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts under the No Action Alternative would be considered under 

separate NEPA evaluation, as discussed in chapter 2. 

Long-Term Impacts 

There would be no long-term impacts on historic properties under the No Action 

Alternative. 

4.20.2.3 Joint Alternatives 

Construction Impacts 

Impacts to historic resources are, by their nature, not short-term or transitory. 

Once adversely impacted by construction activities, an historic resource cannot be 

returned to its preconstruction condition. As a result, all potential impacts to 

historic resource are long-term in nature and are discussed in the following 

section. 

Long-Term Impacts 

A Class III survey to identify historic resources in lands involved in any of the 

Joint Alternatives would only occur if one of them were selected; therefore, the 

numbers and kinds of historic resources are not yet known. At the current stage 

of project development, the assumption is that historic resources would be 

identified through a Class III survey, and some would require additional 

investigations to determine eligibility to the National Register. Further, some of 

these investigated resources would be determined eligible, and a round of 

consultations would proceed to develop mitigation measures. 

4.20.2.4 Mitigation 

Mitigation of historic resources is data recovery or archeological excavation, 

preservation, conservation, and interpretation of significant historic properties 

from direct and indirect impacts from a construction project. Specific mitigation 

measures cannot be developed and implemented until after a preferred alternative 

has been selected, and a Class III field survey has been conducted and reported; 

the Class III survey for any of the Joint Alternatives can be reasonably estimated 

to take at least 1 year. 

A typical scenario for mitigation of a group of historic resources would be as 

follows: 

4-257 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

•	 Identify the significant historic properties that cannot be avoided during 

project construction and development. 

•	 Consult with the SHPO and ACHP that historic properties are eligible for 

the NRHP. Consultation may also occur with American Indian Tribes, 

other Federal agencies, and public entities. 

•	 Develop Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among Reclamation, SHPO, 

and ACHP over mitigation measures. MOA signatories may also include 

Tribes, other Federal agencies, and public entities. 

•	 The MOA will include a research and data recovery plan, stipulations for 

permanent storage and curation of recovered material, and provisions for 

sharing the results of the data recovery phase with the public; for example, 

interpretive facilities. The goal is to identify and implement a range of 

measures to record and preserve, in some manner, the record of historic 

resources affected by the project. Mitigation of historic properties can 

involve data recovery, or large-scale archeological excavations, a program 

of monitoring of project effects, development of interpretive facilities and 

public educational opportunities, or a mix of those measures. 

•	 The MOA may also include goals for long-term historic properties 

management and monitoring. 

•	 The period for developing, implementing and completing mitigation 

measures could take an estimated 2 years for any of the Joint Alternatives. 

However, certain activities could last for many years, if not decades, 

beyond completion of the alternative. Museum storage and curation costs, 

monitoring activities, and management of historic resources in the 

development footprint not impacted directly by project construction, are 

examples of some common long-term activities which have attendant 

costs. 

4.20.2.5 Cumulative Impacts 

The assumption is that historic resources would experience unavoidable physical 

effects under implementation of any of the Joint Alternatives. These effects 

cannot be quantified until a Class III survey is conducted. Nevertheless, some 

general statements can be made that suggest cumulative effects to historic 

resources could be severe, particularly with respect to the Black Rock and Wymer 

Dam and Reservoir Alternatives, and less so in the case of the Yakima River 

pump exchange component of the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump 

Exchange Alternative. 

Historic resources, as records of an array of human culture and knowledge at 

different points in time, are nonrenewable. Consequently, it is axiomatic that 

once a historic property is gone, another one cannot be grown to take its place. 

4-258 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Even though the aim of archeological investigations is to be able to re-create a site 

or historic property in the laboratory, it is also desirable to preserve a portion of 

the site for the future when advances in analytical methods and techniques may 

yield additional significant knowledge. For example, archeological sites contain 

evidence of environmental and climatic change, some of which is at a molecular 

level, the understanding of which depends on analytical tools that are not widely 

available or adapted to archeological applications yet. 

4.21 Indian Sacred Sites 

4.21.1 Affected Environment 

See the “Historic Properties” section for a discussion of the affected environment 

of Indian sacred sites. 

4.21.2 Environmental Consequences 

4.21.2.1 Methods and Assumptions 

Executive Order (EO) 13007, signed by President Clinton on May 24, 1996, 

instructs Federal land managers to accommodate access to, and protect the 

physical integrity of, sites of religious and spiritual significance to American 

Indians. The intent of EO 13007 is to memorialize the protection of the religious 

freedom of all American citizens. The sites subject to EO 13007 are those that are 

recognized by an American Indian Tribe through its government as a religious 

site, in contrast to sites significant to an individual. EO 13007 leaves open the 

method to learn if access to sacred sites will be impaired, except that knowledge 

of such sites should come from authoritative sources, such as from, or on behalf 

of, a Tribal Government. The Storage Study team chose to ask the Yakama 

Nation through stipulations in an interagency agreement for a spectrum of 

resource information bearing on the lands affected by the Storage Study, 

including cultural, traditional, and sacred sites. 

Because the Joint Alternatives all lie in Yakama-ceded lands, the Storage Study 

team assumed sacred sites exist because of the land use history. The Storage 

Study team has been informed by the Yakama Nation Cultural Resources 

Program that sacred sites are known; however, identification and location are, at 

present, knowledge reserved by the Tribe. Whether access to, or physical 

integrity of, sacred sites would be affected by development of any Joint 

Alternatives is not known. EO 13007 directs Federal agencies to accommodate 

access to sacred sites in project planning through a good faith effort to learn of 

sites locations. 

4-259 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

4.21.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts under the No Action Alternative would be considered under 

separate NEPA evaluation, as discussed in chapter 2. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Official Tribal sources advise that sacred sites exist, although their locations and 

numbers have not been disclosed. If the No Action Alternative is selected, access 

to, and physical integrity of, sacred sites could, in the abstract, be adversely 

affected. However, the lands in question would remain privately owned; 

therefore, EO 13007, which applies to Federal land, would afford no protection. 

4.21.2.3 Black Rock Alternative 

The presence of sacred sites in the Black Rock reservoir site has not been 

disclosed at this time. 

4.21.2.4 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

The presence of sacred sites in the Wymer reservoir site has not been disclosed at 

this time. 

4.21.2.5 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

The presence of sacred sites in lands affected by this alternative has not been 

disclosed at this time. 

4.21.2.6 Mitigation 

Mitigation to offset project impacts to access to sacred sites has few precedents or 

standard treatments. Any focus on American Indian sacred sites is complicated 

by the very nature of the discussion, which is perceived by some, if not most, 

American Indian Tribes as outside the greater public sphere. EO 13007 allows 

Government-to-Government consultation between a Federal agency and the 

affected Tribes, which will occur if mitigation in this particular category is at 

issue if one of the Joint Alternatives is selected. 

4.21.2.7 Cumulative Impacts 

The cumulative impacts depends on knowledge of Indian sacred sites within the 

footprints of the Joint Alternatives, and if access would also be affected. 

Preliminary information confirms sites exist, particularly in the Black Rock and 

Wymer reservoir alternatives. However, affected Tribal Governments have 

chosen not to disclose site-specific information. 

Assuming sacred sites are identified, addressing cumulative effects also depends 

on an understanding of each site in relationship to its religious and cultural 

4-260 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

context. For example, loss of access to a site significant to Tribal members would 

obviously evoke a sense of loss. In the case where a sacred site is involved which 

obtains significance as a member of a network of sacred sites, loss of access 

conceivably has an even greater effect. 

In some circumstances, access to sacred sites may not be impeded by 

development of one of the Joint Alternatives; however, the altered landscape can 

conceivably diminish the “sacredness” of the site in question. 

4.22 Indian Trust Assets 

Indian trust assets (ITA) are legal interests in property held in trust by the United 

States for Indian Tribes or individuals. Examples of trust assets are lands, 

minerals, hunting and fishing rights, and water rights. The United States has a 

trust responsibility to protect and maintain rights reserved by or granted to Indian 

Tribes or Indian individuals by treaties, statutes, and Executive orders, which are 

sometimes further interpreted through court decisions and regulations. This trust 

responsibility requires Reclamation to take all actions reasonably necessary to 

protect trust assets. 

4.22.1 Affected Environment 

As discussed earlier, several Tribes have interests in the areas associated with the 

potential Black Rock Alternative, Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative, and the 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative. The dams, 

reservoirs, and other facilities are within lands ceded by the Yakama under the 

June 9, 1855, Treaty with the Yakama. This treaty reserved the Yakama 

Reservation and reserved to the Yakama the exclusive right of taking fish in the 

streams running through and bordering the reservation and at all other usual and 

accustomed stations in common with citizens of the United States, and the 

privilege of hunting, gathering roots, and pasturing their stock on open and 

unclaimed lands in common with citizens. Most of the lands to be acquired for 

the Joint Alternatives are in private ownership. 

Under their 1855 Treaties, the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama 

Reservation, Washington, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian 

Reservation, Oregon, the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation 

of Oregon and the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho have exclusive fishing rights. Court 

decisions and cases have confirmed Tribal treaty fishing rights and the extent of 

those rights. 

Potential Indian trust assets of concern for this action include water rights, fishing 

rights, and hunting and gathering privileges. 

4-261 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

4.22.2 Environmental Consequences 

This section identifies potential impacts to potential ITAs under the Joint 

Alternatives. 

4.22.2.1 Methods and Assumptions 

The resources sections of this document were reviewed to identify impacts 

potentially affecting ITAs. 

4.22.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts under the No Action Alternative would be considered under 

separate NEPA evaluation, as discussed in chapter 2. 

Long-Term Impacts 

The water rights of the Yakama Nation would continue as affirmed by the 

Washington State Superior Court handling the Yakima River basin adjudication. 

The numbers of anadromous fish in the Yakima and Columbia River systems 

would not increase. Terrestrial resource trends would continue. 

4.22.2.3 Black Rock Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

No construction impacts to ITAs have been identified. 

Long-Term Impacts 

No adverse impacts to water rights, fishing rights, or hunting and gathering 

privileges, the ITAs of concern for this action, have been identified. 

The increases in harvestable anadromous fish identified in chapter 2, Section 2.7, 

“Economic and Financial Analysis,” would facilitate the exercising of Tribal 

fishing rights by members of area Tribes. It would also contribute to maintaining 

or increasing subsistence fishing. 

4.22.2.4 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

No construction impacts to ITAs have been identified. 

Long-Term Impacts 

No adverse impacts to water rights, fishing rights, or hunting and gathering 

privileges, the ITAs of concern for this action, have been identified. 

The increases in harvestable anadromous fish identified in chapter 2, Section 2.7, 

“Economic and Financial Analysis” section would facilitate the exercise of 

4-262 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Tribal fishing rights by members of area Tribes. The increases would also 

contribute to maintaining or increasing subsistence fishing. 

4.22.2.5 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

No construction impacts to ITAs have been identified. 

Long-Term Impacts 

No adverse impacts to water rights, fishing rights, or hunting and gathering 

privileges, the ITAs of concern for this action, have been identified. 

The increases in harvestable anadromous fish identified in chapter 2, Section 2.7, 

“Economic and Financial Analysis,” would facilitate the exercising of Tribal 

fishing rights by members of area Tribes. It would also contribute to maintaining 

or increasing subsistence fishing. 

4.22.2.6 Mitigation 

No mitigation would be required. 

4.22.2.7 Cumulative Impacts 

No cumulative impacts have been identified. 

4.23 Public Health 

4.23.1 Affected Environment 

4.23.1.1 Hazardous and Toxic Materials 

The acquisition of residential, agricultural, or industrial property has inherent 

risks of the property containing solid wastes and hazardous and toxic materials. 

In order to avoid acquiring real property that is contaminated, it is required under 

Reclamation Manual, Directives and Standards, that an Environmental Site 

Survey be completed prior to any acquisition. 

Septic Systems 

Larger cities and towns in the Storage Study area have sanitary wastewater 

treatment plants. In areas outside town or city limits, most homes are on septic 

systems. When properly operating, septic systems treat bacteria and filter 

nutrients from the water within the confines of the treatment system. Under 

certain conditions, such as high water table and poor soil conditions, septic 

systems do not operate properly and could result in sanitary wastes being 

discharged into groundwater or, more commonly, into surface water. These 

conditions may require the closure or relocation of these systems to protect both 

groundwater and surface water. 

4-263 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Building Materials 

Buildings, such as residences and outbuildings located on properties to be 

acquired, may require removal or demolition. Buildings older then 20 years have 

the potential of containing hazardous materials such as lead-based paint, asbestoscontaining materials, polychlorinated bi-phenols (PCB), and mercury. These 

materials are known to be hazardous to human health and the environment. All of 

these materials when used for the intended purpose are considered safe if they are 

not disturbed or damaged. If a structure is to be removed or demolished, testing 

will be completed to determine the presence any of these hazards. Based on the 

test results, the appropriate method of disposal will then be determined, if it is 

necessary at all. 

4.23.1.2 Public Health (West Nile Virus) and Mosquitoes 

Mosquitoes belong to the insect order Diptera. Mosquito mouthparts form a long, 

piercing-sucking proboscis with which females obtain a blood meal needed for 

egg production. Nectar is the main food source for male mosquitoes. Four 

distinct stages make up the life cycle of the mosquito: egg, larva, pupa, and adult. 

Larval and pupal stages are typically aquatic. Biting mosquitoes can become a 

serious nuisance to people recreating in areas with nearby mosquito populations. 

They may also be a health concern where transmission of disease agents, which 

are often maintained in bird populations, from mosquitoes to humans occurs. 

Successful disease transmission requires several generations to increase the size 

of the adult mosquito population and amplify the virus within the bird population 

(e.g., Madder et al., 1983), which then will increase the likelihood of transmission 

to humans. Optimal conditions for development of high densities of adult 

mosquitoes are large water surfaces and long periods of time (Tadzhieva et al., 

1979). Timing of availability of breeding areas is likely important and Madder 

et al. (1983) found that Culex pipiens and Cx. restuans egg production declined in 

late summer. Length of time that mosquito production areas are available is also 

critical. Minimum mean time for embryonic, larval, plus pupal development time 

(Culex species) was about 8 days at a high temperature of 86 °F (30 °C) (Madder 

et al., 1983). The Washington State Department of Health (2002) suggests that 

water that stands for greater than 10 days is needed for production of Culex 

tarsalis. In a study by Williams et al. (1993) it took about 2 days for first instar 

larvae to appear in newly filled pool areas. 

The association of dams with mosquito and human health problems has long been 

documented (World Health Organization [WHO], 2000) and the Tennessee 

Valley Authority (TVA) made recommendations for limiting mosquito production 

in impoundments (Cooney, 1976). Cooney (1976) listed a number of measures to 

help control mosquitoes in TVA facilities: (1) monitoring of mosquito 

populations; (2) the application of approved insecticides when levels reach a 

nuisance threshold; (3) implementation of an effective water-level management 

scheme; (4) maintenance of effective internal drainage; (5) control of marginal 

4-264 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

vegetation; and (6) operation of dewatering projects for mosquito control. 

Gartrell et al. (1972) suggested that dewatering areas controls mosquito 

production in the spring and summer. Water-level management destroys 

mosquito eggs and larvae by stranding them onshore or drawing them into open 

water where they are exposed to predators (Snow, 1956). Reservoir drawdowns 

during the summer and fall of at least 20 feet were effective in providing 

mosquito control in TVA reservoirs (Hess and Kiker, 1943) by decreasing 

marginal vegetation. Mosquito production is often highest in shallow, stagnant 

waters with dense, emergent vegetation. Wind-swept shorelines lacking 

vegetation and pools containing fish and other mosquito larvivores are not 

conducive to mosquito production (e.g., Pratt and Moore, 1993). 

Mosquito-Borne Disease 

Several arthropod-borne viruses associated with mosquitoes are found in 

Washington State. The Washington State Department of Health (2002) lists 

western equine encephalitis and St. Louis encephalitis as being diseases relevant 

to Washington State. Both of these viruses are maintained in a mosquito-birdmosquito cycle and Culex tarsalis is a principal vector. These traits are shared to 

a great degree with the newly emergent (in the Western hemisphere) West Nile 

virus. 

History, Origin, and Status of West Nile Virus 

West Nile virus is a typically mosquito-borne virus indigenous to Africa, Asia, 

Europe, and Australia (Campbell et al., 2002). West Nile virus was recently 

introduced to North America and first detected in 1999 in New York City. The 

virus spread across the United States by 2002 (Centers for Disease Control 

[CDC], 2002). The virus is maintained in nature in a mosquito-bird-mosquito 

transmission cycle primarily involving Culex spp. mosquitoes (CDC, 2002). A 

large number of bird species can become infected with West Nile virus. Many 

groups of birds, such as doves (columbiform) and quails (galliform), become 

infected but do not die (Reisen, 2004); highest mortality rates were found in 

passerines in a laboratory study (Komar et al., 2003). Members of the crow 

family (Corvideae) are the most susceptible to death from West Nile virus (Crane, 

2003). Susceptibility to West Nile virus is variable, and groups that are reported 

to be resistant to mortality such as the galliforms may contain members that are 

highly susceptible to mortality following infection, such as the greater sagegrouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) (Naugle et al., 2004). 

In the United States, most human infections with West Nile virus occur in 

summer or early fall (Campbell et al., 2002) and coincide with high abundance of 

adult Culex mosquitoes (Kulasekera et al., 2001). Mosquito feeding preferences 

can increase or decrease the potential of mosquitoes for transmitting the virus to 

humans. Opportunistic feeders that feed on both mammals and birds are best for 

bridging West Nile virus from birds to humans and other mammals. Goddard et 

al. (2002) suggested that a suite of Culex species is important for maintaining and 

4-265 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

bridging West Nile virus in wetland ecosystems in California. While mosquito 

genera other than Culex may be susceptible to West Nile virus infection, they are 

often found to be uninfected in nature (Reisen, 2004). Transmission of West Nile 

virus is most intense when initially arriving in a geographic area. West Nile virus 

will decline to a lower level after susceptible wild birds have either died or 

recovered and developed immunity to reinfection. Transmission of West Nile 

virus to humans requires a reservoir of infected, viremic animals (mostly birds) 

from which mosquitoes carry the virus to people (Crane, 2003). 

To prevent West Nile virus infection in humans, extensive early season larval 

control has been recommended because it prevents the buildup of mosquito 

populations (CDC, 2001). 

4.23.2 Environmental Consequences 

4.23.2.1 Methods and Assumptions 

Hazardous and Toxic Materials 

As property is identified for acquisition, an Environmental Site Survey will be 

conducted. 

Mosquitoes 

The key to estimating impacts to human health from mosquitoes is related to 

understanding the relationship between mosquito life history characteristics and 

the physical and biological environment. Conditions that create shallow, warm, 

stagnant water in conjunction with emergent vegetation should be avoided to 

prevent public health concerns. Biological needs for virus transmission also 

include resident birds in high densities (typically found at roosting sites) for virus 

amplification. 

This analysis focused on the mosquito vector Culex tarsalis and the disease agent 

West Nile virus. Other disease agents of public health concern are maintained in 

a similar Culex tarsalis-bird-Culex tarsalis cycle and responses to alternatives 

would be grossly similar. Water-level management conditions which would 

potentially create mosquito habitat were examined, with slopes from 0 to 

3 percent (obtained via GIS) considered as areas conducive to shallow water 

pooling and mosquito habitat. Other considerations were proximity of roosting 

sites for birds, potential for shoreline vegetation, and water surface disturbance 

from wind. This assessment is limited spatially to areas associated with the 

proposed reservoirs. 

4.23.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts under the No Action Alternative would be considered under 

separate NEPA evaluation, as discussed in chapter 2. 

4-266 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Long-Term Impacts 

Hazardous and Toxic Materials.—There would be no impacts because no 

property would be acquired. 

Mosquitoes.—West Nile virus is presently expanding in the United States and 

will likely increase. Climatic conditions may be associated with the spread of 

West Nile virus; in California, West Nile virus introduction coincided with above 

average temperatures and anomalous rainfall events (Reisen, 2004) that 

apparently benefited Culex populations. Similar conditions may allow for 

expansion in Washington State independent of any of the alternatives. Other 

disease agents of concern in Washington State would likely maintain infection 

cycles similar to past conditions. 

4.23.2.3 Black Rock Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Hazardous and Toxic Materials.—For all construction activities associated with 

the Joint Alternatives, the contractor(s) must comply with Reclamation Safety and 

Health Standards. In doing so, the contractor(s) will be responsible for ensuring 

that all work under contract meets or exceeds Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) standards. These standards outline the requirements for 

proper handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. 

Mosquitoes.—Construction activities often alter drainage patterns and can leave 

tire ruts in the soil which may fill with water from rainfall or seepage in wet areas, 

creating mosquito breeding sites. In some cases, equipment that is left at 

constructions sites, or tarpaulins used to cover equipment may retain water that 

could also be used by mosquitoes for rearing. 

Water should be removed from depressions and abatement strategies should be 

implemented during and after construction to minimize the creation of areas 

where water pools for extended periods of time (>7 days). 

Long-Term Impacts 

Hazardous and Toxic Materials.—As property is identified for acquisition, an 

Environmental Site Survey would be conducted. Any materials or potential 

effects of hazardous substances that could be exposed to higher levels of surface 

water or groundwater would be removed prior to final implementation. This may 

include the removal of: solid wastes, underground storage tanks, septic systems, 

any building structures, and/or other appropriate remedial action. The closer to 

human habitation or developed areas, the greater the possibility in finding 

hazardous wastes and/or contaminates. The Black Rock study area contains 

mostly undeveloped land or farmland, which minimizes the potential for 

hazardous findings. 

4-267 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

All operational facilities associated the Black Rock Alternative would comply 

with all environmental regulations pertaining to hazardous waste management 

issues such as storage, disposal, inspection, recordkeeping and reporting 

associated with operating the facilities. Each facility, such as the powerplants, 

the pumping plant, and the dam would have a Spill Prevention Control and 

Countermeasure (SPCC) plan. The SPCC would detail measures to be in place 

to prevent spills of hazardous or dangerous materials and petroleum products 

and measures to control a spill should one occur. 

Any hazardous materials and wastes associated with acquiring property would be 

remediated, and any related to construction activities would cease upon 

completion of the project; therefore, there would be no long-term impacts on 

public health. 

Mosquitoes.—Operation of Black Rock reservoir would result in a drawdown 

beginning in April and refilling in September. (See chapter 2 for drawdown 

curve.) It is estimated that from about March to the beginning of June, 30 acres 

of previously inundated land would be exposed. This would increase to 

approximately 100 acres for the months of June to the beginning of August. 

The majority of this potential mosquito habitat would likely drain into the 

reservoir or dry quickly; however, any pool areas that remain could produce 

Culex mosquitoes. Arguments against increased mosquito production under 

this scenario include the historic use of dewatering reservoirs in the spring and 

summer for mosquito control (Gartrell et al., 1972). Snow (1956) noted that 

drawdown water-level management destroys mosquito eggs and larvae by 

stranding them onshore or drawing them into open water where they are exposed 

to predators. Reservoir drawdowns during the summer and fall of at least 20 feet 

were effective in providing mosquito control in TVA reservoirs (Hess and Kiker, 

1943) by decreasing marginal vegetation. A temporary water-level drawdown in 

Minnesota wetlands also reduced densities of mosquito larvae (Coquillettidia 

perturbans) which did not recover until 4 years later (Batzer and Resh, 1992). 

The timing of the drawdown at Black Rock may also disrupt mosquito 

production. Drawdown during the spring would likely destroy egg rafts and early 

stages of larval mosquitoes. Inundation in the late summer may not allow enough 

time for populations of Culex mosquitoes to recover to levels needed for disease 

transmission. Mosquitoes that would be produced would likely be flood-water 

mosquitoes (e.g., Aedes) and not the Culex species typically associated with West 

Nile virus. 

Terrestrial vegetation could create variance in landscape topography and impact 

drainage in the drawdown area. Vegetation would also provide structure and an 

organic food base for mosquito larvae when water levels increase at other times of 

the year. While some perennial marginal vegetation may be decreased under 

these conditions, annual weedy vegetation or exotic grasses could invade exposed 

mud flats and result in favorable conditions for larval mosquitoes upon refilling, 

at least until drawdown once again occurs. If drawdown levels vary between 

4-268 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

years, vegetation that is produced in 1 year could remain partially inundated in the 

next year and provide high-quality mosquito habitat. While many fluctuating 

reservoirs have shorelines that are devoid of vegetation, others may contain large 

stands of exotics such as reed canary grass (McKay and Renk, 2002). Responses 

of vegetation to drawdown areas likely depend upon drawdown timing (which 

seeds are present in the environment), the drawdown rate and its influence on soil 

moisture, and the type of substrate (whether it is rocky or fine substrate) 

(e.g., Auble et al., 2007). 

Domestic livestock and wild ungulates should also be kept away from the 

drawdown area because of enrichment of the area with animal manure and the 

creation of hoof prints that retain water, both factors that would favor mosquito 

production. 

Black Rock reservoir would be both filled and drained via pipeline and would be 

isolated in shrub-steppe habitat away from other riparian areas (nearest riparian 

area is the Columbia River approximately 5 miles away). Riparian corridors are 

important for dispersion of Cx. tarsalis, probably because of the presence of prey 

and higher humidity that is important for avoiding desiccation. The shrub-steppe 

habitat associated with Black Rock reservoir also lacks the elevated vegetation 

commonly used by West Nile virus-susceptible birds for roosting and nesting and 

which Cx. tarsalis has been found to be attracted to in California (Reisen, 2004). 

However, other birds associated with shrub-steppe habitat, such as sage-grouse, 

may be atypical but competent amplifying agents for West Nile virus (Walker 

et al., 2007). 

Data from the Hanford Meteorology Station east of the Black Rock site capture 

the general climatic conditions for the region (Neitzel, 2005). Prevailing surface 

winds are from the northwest and are most frequent in the winter and summer. 

Monthly average wind speed at 50 feet above the ground averages 6 to 7 mph in 

the winter and 8 to 9 mph during the spring and summer. Summertime drainage 

winds from the northwest frequently exceed speeds of 30 mph. Wind gusts 

greater than or equal to 25 mph occur on an average 20 days per year in June and 

July. 

Wind speed slows near the ground surface, and average wind speed of 9 mph 

at 50 feet during the summer was used to calculate the approximate wind speed 

at 5-foot elevation from the following equation: v2 = v1 x (h2/h1)

n

 where v1 is the 

known (reference) wind speed at height h1 above ground, v2 is the speed at a 

second height h2, and n is the exponent determining the wind change caused 

by surface roughness (www.energy.iastate.edu). The exponent used (0.10) was 

the one pertaining to a smooth surface. Calculations suggest that spring/summer 

wind speed over the Black Rock site might be in the range of 7 mph and would be 

approximately 5 on the Beaufort wind scale, resulting in moderate wave action 

(www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/beaufort.html). 

4-269 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

It should be recognized that this is a rough estimate of possible conditions on the 

ground at the Black Rock site, but it does suggest that there is a possibility for 

wave action on the reservoir during mosquito production periods. Pratt and 

Moore (1993) indicate that wind-swept shorelines are not conducive to production 

of mosquito larvae. Turbidity associated with windy shorelines and fine 

sediments may also create difficulties for mosquito survival because of the 

ingestion of large volumes of nonnutritive soil particles (Ye-Ebiyo et al., 2003). 

Wind would also increase the drying rate of exposed mudflats, decreasing the 

lifespan of potential isolated pool areas. 

Operation and the physical placement of Black Rock reservoir indicates that 

relatively few mosquitoes would be produced, and limited transmission of West 

Nile virus would result from this facility, especially if vegetation does not invade 

the drawdown area. The low amount of emergent vegetation, limited roosting 

sites for bird congregations, timing of the drawdown, and winds associated with 

the area all argue against increases in Culex mosquito populations. 

•	 Following completion of project construction, to ensure there are no longterm adverse impacts from mosquitoes, Reclamation will: 

•	 Perform management and maintenance activities necessary to control 

mosquito populations. 

•	 Regularly consult with local health departments and mosquito and 

abatement districts to identify mosquito management problems, mosquito 

monitoring and abatement procedures, and opportunities to adjust water 

management practices to reduce mosquito production during problem 

periods. 

4.23.2.4 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Hazardous and Toxic Materials.—Construction impacts would be the same as 

under the Black Rock Alternative. 

Mosquitoes.—Construction impacts would be the same as under the Black Rock 

Alternative. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Hazardous and Toxic Materials.—Impacts would be similar to those described 

for the Black Rock Alternative. 

Mosquitoes.—Releases from Cle Elum Lake and flows in the Yakima River 

would be used to fill Wymer reservoir between November 1 and May 31. Water 

would be released from Wymer reservoir only in July and August, and the 

4-270 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

drawdown would expose approximately 35 acres of potential pool area. This area 

would remain exposed through October. Drawdown elevations are presented in 

chapter 2. 

Reservoir drawdowns that occur in late summer likely have negative impacts to 

mosquito production. Withdrawal of water from potentially vegetated shorelines 

would decrease mosquito populations and mitigate against any potential 

production from drawdown pools. Colonization of isolated pools in late July and 

August occurs at a time when egg production by females is beginning to decrease 

and the time needed to achieve multiple generations, which would lead to high 

adult densities, is unavailable. August is also the time of year when rapid 

evaporation of pools would take place because of high air temperatures. 

Refill of the reservoir beginning in November would gradually fill the reservoir 

through the end of May. It seems likely that this pattern of filling and drawdown 

would drastically decrease the likelihood of vegetation being present along the 

shoreline of the reservoir and would diminish problems with mosquitoes. 

4.23.2.5 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Hazardous and Toxic Materials.—Construction impacts would be the same as 

under the Black Rock Alternative. 

Mosquitoes.—Construction impacts would be the same as under the Black Rock 

Alternative. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Hazardous and Toxic Materials.—Impacts would be similar to those described 

for the Black Rock Alternative. 

Mosquitoes.—Impacts would be the same as under the Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir Alternative. 

The Yakima River pump exchange component of this alternative would not result 

in any areas conducive to shallow water pooling and mosquito habitat, and 

therefore, would not result in any increase in Culex mosquito populations. 

4.23.2.6 Mitigation 

Hazardous and Toxic Materials 

As property is identified for acquisition, Reclamation would conduct an 

Environmental Site Survey. Remediation for any materials or potential effects of 

hazardous substances will be conducted prior to final implementation. For all 

constructed facilities, Reclamation will comply with environmental regulations 

pertaining to hazardous waste management and develop a SPCC where required. 

4-271 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Mosquitoes 

Reclamation will: 

•	 Conduct baseline mosquito surveillance and control program, including a 

monitoring program for mosquito larvae. 

•	 Ensure final design of project facilities are designed in consultation with 

experts in mosquito biology and control to prevent as much mosquito 

production as possible and to facilitate proper functioning and 

maintenance in the future. Appropriate operations and maintenance 

provisions will include considerations for routine monitoring and control 

of mosquito populations. 

•	 Consult and coordinate with local health departments and mosquito and 

abatement districts about mosquito control measures during design, 

implementation, and operations phases of the project. 

•	 Prepare a mitigation monitoring plan to ensure that the proposed 

mitigation measures are implemented. 

The construction contractors will be required to: 

•	 Develop and implement mosquito abatement measures including 

stormwater management, reducing opportunities for mosquito breeding 

habitats in construction materials and facilities, management of vegetation 

that may be conducive to mosquito habitat, site maintenance to prevent 

topographical depressions and ponding, monitoring, and adult mosquito 

control. 

•	 Consult with local health departments and mosquito and abatement 

districts to discuss design or control measures to inhibit mosquito breeding 

and stormwater practices. 

•	 Monitor access routes to detect formation of undrained depressions in tire 

ruts. Backfill access-related shallow depressions or incise narrow 

drainages so they do not impound small, sheltered areas of standing water. 

•	 Ensure any artificial depressions capable of holding water for a period 

greater than 7 days are rectified by filling, draining or other treatment to 

prevent the creation of mosquito breeding sites. 

•	 Optimize drainage. 

•	 Keep discharge of test water to a practical minimum and prevent longterm pooling. 

4-272 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

•	 Avoid water storage open to ingress of insects wherever possible. When 

open storage is necessary, the duration will be kept to a minimum and 

assure proper mosquito control treatment. 

•	 Inform workers during the worker education program of the potential 

for increases in mosquito breeding populations and of the appropriate 

precautions to take to protect their health including requiring personnel to 

wear long sleeve shirts and long trousers and use insect repellent. Provide 

insect repellent. 

4.23.2.7 Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts are those environmental consequences that result from the 

incremental effects of an activity when added to other projects. Although it is 

unlikely that large increases in mosquito populations will occur with individual 

project reservoirs, the underlying result of these projects would be the ability to 

irrigate crops even during dry years. Mosquitoes are often associated with 

agriculture and irrigation (Lawler and Lanzaro, 2005); therefore, the increased 

ability to irrigate would increase cumulative mosquito numbers over periods that 

include both wet and dry years. 

4.24 Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” dated February 11, 1994, 

requires agencies to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects of their actions on minorities and lowincome populations and communities as well as the equity of the distribution of 

the benefits and risks. Environmental Justice addresses the fair treatment of 

people of all races and incomes with respect to actions affecting the environment. 

Fair treatment implies that no group should bear a disproportionate share of 

negative impacts. 

4.24.1 Affected Environment 

4.24.1.1 Black Rock Alternative 

Yakima County Census Tract 17, which includes the area around the Black Rock 

dam and reservoir site and the Grant County Census Designated Place (CDP) of 

Desert Aire, which is immediately across Priest Rapids Lake from the Black Rock 

pumping plant, were selected for the immediate study area. Table 4.52 provides 

the numbers and percentages of population for the total racial minority population 

which includes six minority racial categories: Black or African American, 

American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific 

Islander, Some Other Race, and Two or More Races and the Hispanic or Latino 

4-273 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table 4.52 Race and ethnicity 

Subject 

Study area Yakima County Washington 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

Total population 

 Racial minorities 

 Hispanic or 

Latino (of any 

race) 

7,668 

1,768 

1,976 

100.0 

23.1 

25.8 

222,581 

76,576 

79,905 

100.0 

34.4 

35.9 

5,894,121 

1,072,298 

441,509 

100.0 

18.2 

7.5 

population, a minority ethnic group for the Black Rock study area, Yakima 

County, and the State of Washington. Table 4.53 provides income, poverty, 

unemployment, and housing information for the same geographic areas. 

Table 4.53 Income, poverty, unemployment, and housing 

Subject 

Study area 

Yakima 

County Washington 

Census 

Tract 17 

Desert 

Aire CDP 

Income 

 Median family income 

 Per capita income 

$45,015 

$16,441 

$36,971 

$18,719 

$39,746 

$15,606 

$53,760 

$22,973 

Percent below poverty level 

Families 

 Individuals 

Percent unemployed

Percent of Housing 

 Occupants per room – 1.01 or more 

 Lacking complete plumbing facilities 

6.6 

11.7 

11.3 

8.0 

0.4 

4.9 

6.5 

13.8 

17.2 

3.2 

14.8 

19.7 

11.1 

14.2 

1.4 

7.3 

10.6 

6.2 

2.7 

0.5 

In comparison to Yakima County, the study area has a smaller percentage of total 

racial minority and ethnic (Hispanic or Latino) populations. The percentages of 

racial minorities and ethnic populations for the study area and the county are 

greater than for the State. 

Additional potentially affected minority populations include members of the 

Yakama Nation and downstream Indian Tribes. While Census data are available 

for recognized Indian reservations, specific data for Tribal members are not. 

Tribal members may be affected regardless of whether or not they reside on their 

reservations. 

Low-income populations are identified by several socioeconomic characteristics. 

As categorized by the 2000 Census, specific characteristics include income 

(median family and per capita), percentage of the population below poverty 

(families and individuals), unemployment rates and substandard housing. 

4-274 
 

 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

Median family income for Census Tract 17 is greater than Desert Aire and the 

County, but less than for the State. Desert Aire has per capita income higher than 

Census Tract 17 and the county but less than for the State. Compared to Yakima 

County, the study areas have lower percentages of families and individuals below 

the poverty level. 

Other measures of low income, such as unemployment and substandard housing, 

also characterize demographic data in relation to environmental justice. The 

2000 unemployment rates for the study area and Yakima County were higher than 

the State’s 6.2 percent rate. Substandard housing units are overcrowded and lack 

complete plumbing facilities. The percentage of occupied housing units with 

1.01 or more occupants per room in the study area and county was greater than 

the percentage for the State. The percentage of housing units lacking complete 

plumbing facilities in Census Tract 17 was lower than Desert Aire, the county, 

and the State, while the percentages for Desert Aire and Yakima County were 

greater than for the State. 

4.24.1.2 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Kittitas County Census Tract 9757, which includes the area around the proposed 

Wymer dam and reservoir site, was selected for the immediate study area. 

Table 4.54 provides the numbers and percentages of population for the total racial 

minority population, which includes six minority racial categories: Black or 

African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian 

and Other Pacific Islander, Some Other Race, and Two or More Races and the 

Hispanic or Latino population, a minority ethnic group for the Wymer study area, 

Kittitas County, and the State of Washington. Table 4.55 provides income, 

poverty, unemployment, and housing information for the same geographic areas. 

In comparison to the State of Washington and Kittitas County, the local study area 

has a smaller percentage of racial minorities and a greater ethnic population 

percentage. 

Table 4.54 Race and ethnicity 

Subject 

Study area Kittitas County Washington 

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

Total population 

 Racial minorities 

 Hispanic or Latino 

 (of any race) 

3,361 

268 

301 

100.0 

8.0 

9.0 

33,362 

2,745 

1,668 

100.0 

8.2 

5.0 

5,894,121 

1,072,298 

441,509 

100.0 

18.2 

7.5 

4-275 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table 4.55 Income, poverty, unemployment, and housing 

Study area 

Kittitas 

Subject County Washington 

Census 

Tract 9757 

Income 

Median family income $40,357 $46,057 $53,760 

Per capita income $20,399 $18,928 $22,973 

Percent below poverty level 

Families 10.4 10.5 7.3 

Individuals 13.3 19.6 10.6 

Percent unemployed 7.1 9.1 6.2 

Percent of housing 

Occupants per room – 1.01 or more 1.7 1.6 2.7 

Lacking complete plumbing facilities 1.0 0.8 0.5 

Additional potentially affected minority populations include members of the 

Yakama Nation and downstream Indian Tribes. While census data are available 

for recognized Indian reservations, specific data for Tribal members are not. 

Tribal members may be affected regardless of whether or not they reside on their 

reservations. 

Median family income for Census Tract 9757 is less than for the County and the 

State. The study area’s per capita income is higher than for Kittitas County but 

less than for the State. Compared to Kittitas County, the study area has lower 

percentages of families and individuals below the poverty level. 

The 2000 unemployment rates for the study area and Kittitas County were higher 

than the State’s 6.2-percent rate. The percentage of occupied housing units with 

1.01 or more occupants per room in the study area and County was less than the 

percentage for the State. The percentage of housing units lacking complete 

plumbing facilities in Census Tract 9757 was greater than for the County and the 

State. 

4.24.1.3 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

The pipeline associated with this alternative crosses Benton County and part 

of Yakima County. The Benton County Census County Divisions (CCD) of 

Benton City, Northwest Benton, and Richland-Kennewick and the Yakima 

County CCD of Sunnyside approximate the area to be traversed. Table 4.56 

provides the numbers and percentages of population for the total racial minority 

population which includes six minority racial categories: Black or African 

American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian and 

Other Pacific Islander, Some Other Race, and Two or More Races and the 

Hispanic or Latino population, a minority ethnic group for the Wymer pipeline 

area, county, and the State of Washington. Table 4.57 provides income, poverty, 

unemployment, and housing information for the same geographic areas. 

4-276 
Table 4.56 Race and ethnicity 

Northwest Benton RichlandBenton City CCD CCD Kennewick CCD Benton County

 Subject Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

Total population 5,494 100.0 11,877 100.0 124,238 100.0 142,475 100.0 

Racial minorities 731 13.3 2,915 24.5 15,716 12.6 19,596 13.8 

Hispanic or Latino 960 17.5 4,116 34.7 12,400 10.0 17,806 12.5 

 (of any race) 

Sunnyside CCD Yakima County Washington 

Subject Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 

Total population 45,291 100.0 222,581 100.0 5,894,121 100.0 

Racial minorities 21,484 47.4 76,576 34.4 1,072,298 18.2 

Hispanic or Latino 27,054 59.7 79,905 35.9 441,509 7.5 

 (of any race) 

Table 4.57 Income, poverty, unemp

Subject 

Median family income 

Per capita income 

Families 

loyment, and housing 

Benton City Northwest 

CCD Benton CCD 

Income 

$45,872 $43,225 

$16,971 $15,073 

Percent below poverty level 

9.6 13.5 

RichlandKennewick Benton 

CCD County 

$55,954 $54,146 

$22,149 $21,301 

7.1 7.8

Individuals 12.7 15.9 9.6 10.3 

Percent unemployed 

Occupants per room – 1.01 or more 

Lacking complete plumbing facilities 

Subject 

Median family income 

Per capita income 

Per

Families 

6.7 5 3.9 4.1 

Percent of housing 

5.0 4.4 2.8 3.0 

1.3 0.8 0.3 0.4 

Sunnyside CCD Yakima County Washington 

Income 

$35,086 $39,746 $53,760 

$12,375 $15,606 $22,973 

cent below poverty level 

19.5 14.8 7.3

Individuals 25.7 19.7 10.6

Percent unemployed 9.0 6.9 6.2 

Percent of housing 

Occupants per room – 1.01 or more 7.9 14.2 2.7 

Lacking complete plumbing facilities 0.8 1.4 0.5 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

4-277 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

In Benton County, the Northwest Benton CCD has the highest percentage of 

racial minorities. The percentages of racial minorities in the CCDs and in 

Benton County are lower than for Yakima County and the State. The percentage 

of racial minorities in the Sunnyside CCD is higher than for Yakima County and 

more than twice the State percentage. The percentages of the Hispanic or Latino 

populations in the Benton City CCD and Northwest Benton CCD—17.5 and 34.7, 

respectively—are greater than the percentages for Benton County and the State, 

which are 12.5 and 7.5 percent respectively. The percentage of the Hispanic or 

Latino populations in the Sunnyside CCD, 59.7, is greater than for the County, 

35.9 percent and the State, 7.5 percent. 

Additional potentially affected minority populations include members of the 

Yakama Nation and downstream Indian Tribes. While Census data are available 

for recognized Indian reservations, specific data for Tribal members are not. 

Tribal members may be affected regardless of whether or not they reside on their 

reservations. 

Median family and per capita incomes in Benton City CCD and Northwest 

Benton CCD are less than for Benton County and the State. Richland-Kennewick 

CCD’s median family income is greater than for the County and the State. Its per 

capita income is greater than for the County but less than for the State. Median 

family income and per capita income in the Sunnyside CCD are less than in 

Yakima County and the State. 

The percentages of families and individuals below poverty are higher in Benton 

CCD and Northwest Benton CCD than for Benton County and the State. The 

percentages of families and individuals in the Richland-Kennewick CCD are 

lower than for Benton County and the State. The percentages of families and 

individuals below poverty in the Sunnyside CCD and Yakima County are more 

than twice the State percentages of families and individuals below poverty. 

The 2000 unemployment rates for the Benton City CCD, Northwest Benton CCD, 

Benton County, Sunnyside CCD, and Yakima County were higher than the 

State’s 6.2-percent rate. 

The percentages of occupied housing units with 1.01 or more occupants per room 

in the Benton City CCD, Northwest Benton CCD, Benton County, Sunnyside 

CCD, and Yakima County are greater than for the State. Percentages of housing 

lacking complete plumbing facilities in Benton City CCD, Northwest Benton 

CCD, Sunnyside CCD, and Yakima County are greater than for the State. 

4-278 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

4.24.2 Environmental Consequences 

4.24.2.1 Methods and Assumptions 

Construction of the alternatives would most directly impact those living, 

recreating, or pursuing other activities in the immediate areas. To the extent these 

are minority and/or low-income populations, there is potential for 

disproportionate adverse impacts. 

Environmental justice issues are focused on environmental impacts on natural 

resources (and associated human health impacts) and potential socioeconomic 

impacts. In addition to the identification of minority and/or low-income 

populations in the study areas, the following issues were evaluated to determine 

potential impacts: 

•	 Are affected resources used by minority or low-income populations? 

•	 Are minority or low-income populations disproportionately subject to 

adverse environmental, human health, or economic impacts? 

•	 Do the resources affected by the project support subsistence living? 

Environmental resources potentially used by minority groups in the study area are 

terrestrial- and aquatic-related resources. Members of the Yakama Nation and 

other Tribes outside the immediate area may currently use these resources and 

would be expected to do so in the future. They may use these resources 

disproportionately to the total population. The subsistence level of use of 

renewable natural resources (such as fish, wildlife, and vegetation) by the 

Yakama Nation or other Tribes in the construction areas and downstream has not 

been quantified. 

4.24.2.2 No Action Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts under the No Action Alternative would be considered under 

separate NEPA evaluation, as discussed in chapter 2. 

Long-Term Impacts 

No adverse impacts would occur under this alternative. 

4.24.2.3 Black Rock Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Minor, temporary construction-related impacts to aquatic-related resources have 

been identified. 

4-279 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Long-Term Impacts 

The immediate study area potentially affected by implementation of this 

alternative has lower percentages of minority and low-income populations than 

Yakima County. There would be no disproportionate adverse impact to those 

populations; everyone in the area, especially nearest the construction areas, would 

be equally affected. 

No adverse human health impacts to any human population have been identified. 

Other than minor, temporary construction impacts, no adverse impacts to aquaticrelated resources have been identified. 

While permanent adverse impacts to terrestrial resources have been identified, 

and wildlife would be affected, there are only limited hunting opportunities in the 

area for game species, e.g., elk or deer. Thus, the potential impact to subsistence 

would be negligible. 

Overall, potential adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations would 

be negligible. 

4.24.2.4 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Minor, temporary construction-related impacts to terrestrial- and aquatic-related 

resources potentially used for subsistence have been identified. 

Long-Term Impacts 

The immediate area potentially affected by implementation of the alternative has 

lower percentages of minority and low-income populations than Kittitas County. 

There would be no disproportionate adverse impact to those populations; 

everyone in the area, especially nearest the construction areas, would be equally 

affected. 

No adverse human health impacts to any human population have been identified. 

Other than minor, temporary construction impacts, no adverse impacts to 

terrestrial- and aquatic-related resources have been identified. 

This alternative would not have potential adverse impacts to minority and/or lowincome populations. 

4.24.2.5 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Minor, temporary construction-related impacts to terrestrial- and aquatic-related 

resources potentially used for subsistence have been identified. This alternative 

4-280 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

could potentially have disproportionately adverse construction impacts 

to minority and/or low-income populations. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Much of the pipeline corridor has high percentages of minority and low-income 

populations. The actual alignment of the pipeline could disproportionately affect 

minority and low-income populations. 

No adverse human health impacts to any human population have been identified. 

Other than minor, temporary construction impacts, no adverse impacts to 

terrestrial- and aquatic-related resources potentially used for subsistence have 

been identified. 

4.24.2.6 Mitigation 

No mitigation would be required for either the Black Rock or Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir Alternative because no adverse impacts to minority and/or low-income 

populations have been identified. 

The pipeline associated with the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange 

Alternative should be aligned to avoid areas of minority and/or low-income 

populations. 

4.24.2.7 Cumulative Impacts 

No cumulative impacts have been identified. 

4.25 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Unavoidable significant adverse impacts are defined as those that meet the 

following two criteria: 

•	 There are no reasonably practicable mitigation measures to eliminate the 

impacts; and 

•	 There are no reasonable alternatives to the proposed project that would 

meet the purpose and need of the action, eliminate the impact, and not 

cause other or similar significant adverse impacts. 

All the Joint Alternatives involve some in-water construction work at the 

associated pumping plants. For the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative, the 

pumping plant is on the Yakima River. For the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River 

Pump Exchange Alternative there are two pumping plants, one on the Yakima 

River and one on the Columbia River. The Black Rock Alternative has one 

pumping plant on the Columbia River. Construction of all of these pumping 

4-281 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

plants involves the installation and removal of coffer dams and dewatering of a 

small area of the riverbed. These actions would have minor, short-term impacts 

on aquatic resources at the sites. 

Construction of facilities under any of the Joint Alternatives would result in 

unavoidable impacts associated with the land committed to those facilities. The 

most significant impacts would be associated with the construction of the dam and 

reservoir, which are features of all three Joint Alternatives. At Black Rock 

reservoir, about 8,700 acres of existing vegetation would be lost to dam and 

reservoir construction, including more than 3,600 acres of shrub-steppe and 

grassland and several other nonnative cover types. These losses are unavoidable. 

Nearly 350 acres of other land would be occupied by other project facilities, with 

the biggest loss of about 280 acres associated with the relocation of SR-24. At the 

Wymer dam and reservoir site, the losses would total about 1,400 acres, with 

about 1,200 acres of shrub-steppe and grassland, 54 acres of riparian/wetland 

habitat, and a variety of other cover types. The same losses would occur under 

the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative, along with 

additional losses associated with the pump exchange pumping plants and pipeline. 

The pipeline would be buried, but installation of it would result in the disturbance 

of nearly 1,400 acres. The final route has not been determined in detail, but it 

would extend through urban and rural setting, likely affecting a variety cover 

types including agriculture and developed land. 

Construction of the dams and reservoir may also lead to unavoidable impacts to 

historic resources. The historic resources present at the damsites would need to 

be recorded and placed in a repository, if warranted. The Black Rock dam and 

Wymer dam and saddle dike sites would unavoidably destroy any historic 

resources present in those areas. 

The Joint Alternatives all involve the impoundment of water. Seepage would 

occur in the vicinity of the dams and reservoirs. Design features would be 

included in the dams and saddle dike to minimize or control and collect the 

seepage, but local groundwater tables would be affected, and there is no way to 

absolutely prevent the seepage from occurring. 

With respect to land use and shoreline resources, adverse unavoidable impacts 

would occur with the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange 

Alternative. It would adversely affect ongoing land uses along the pipeline 

corridor while it is under construction. These impacts could include the need to 

relocate residences or other facilities depending upon the final route selected. 

Uses on the corridor would also be limited to accommodate the need for operation 

and maintenance access once the pipeline is in place. 

The Black Rock Alternative would affect transportation by requiring the need to 

relocate SR-24. Transportation would also be temporarily affected under all the 

Joint Alternatives, as some of the proposed pipelines involve construction under 

4-282 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

existing roads. The Black Rock Dam and Reservoir Alternative would involve 

two significant crossings, one of a State route. Minimal impacts would occur 

with the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative, which involves a single road 

crossing, while more significant temporary impacts would occur with the Wymer 

Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative, which involves multiple 

road crossings, including a crossing of Interstate 182 and several State routes. 

Because all of the Joint Alternatives involve significant amounts of construction 

activity, they would all result in some short-term increase in construction-related 

noise and some effects to air quality. Since the sites are, for the most part, in 

either remote or rural areas, the impacts associated with these increases are not 

expected to be significant. 

The construction of the dams and reservoirs under the Joint Alternatives would 

alter the visual landscape, and these changes are unavoidable. Black Rock dam 

and reservoir would be visible from SR-24 and SR-241 and Wymer reservoir 

would be visible from SR-821 and I-90. For Black Rock dam and reservoir, the 

changes would dominate the viewscape from vantage points to the east and 

southeast of the dam and reservoir. For Wymer dam and reservoir, the change in 

the visual environment will be less striking because the dam and reservoir would 

be visible from relatively short stretches of SR-821 and I-90, respectively. 

4.26 Relationship Between Short-Term and 

Long-Term Productivity 

NEPA requires considering “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s 

environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term 

productivity”(40 CFR 1502.16). Long-term productivity refers to the capability 

of the land to provide market outputs and amenity values for future decades. The 

quality of life for future generations is linked to the capability of the land to 

maintain its productivity. 

All Joint Alternatives would implement ground-disturbing activities that would 

produce short-term effects to soil, water quality, and habitat while providing the 

long-term benefits in terms of higher instream flows in the Yakima River, 

improved irrigation and municipal water supply, recreation, and hydropower. 

4.27 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments 

of Resources 

An irreversible commitment is a permanent resource loss, including the loss of 

future options. These commitments are removed by an alternative without the 

option to renew these resources (such as spent time and money). These 

4-283 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

commitments usually apply to nonrenewable resources, such as minerals, or to 

factors that are renewable only over long periods, such as soil productivity. 

Table 4.58 presents a summary of these commitments. 

Table 4.58 Irreversible commitments 

Commitment 

Black Rock 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam 

and Reservoir 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam 

Plus Yakima 

River Pump 

Exchange 

Alternative 

Materials, labor, and energy needed 

to construct the project represented 

by total project cost 

Materials, labor, and energy 

consumed in maintenance and 

operation of the project annually 

represented by total annual O&M 

Flow uses during construction 

4,500,000,000

60,170,000 

Coffer dams and 

other temporary 

disturbances 

 1,050,000,000

2,980,00

Coffer dams 

and other 

temporary 

disturbances 

 4,100,000,000 

 38,013,000 

Coffer dams and 

other temporary 

disturbances 

An irretrievable commitment is the loss of use or production of a natural resource 

for some time. These commitments are used by an alternative. For example, if 

suitable wildlife habitat being used for a reservoir, habitat growth, or productivity 

is lost while the land is a reservoir, but at some point in time could be revegetated. 

These commitments would include any constructed feature of an alternative for 

the life of that constructed feature. Table 4.59 presents a summary of irretrievable 

commitments. 

Table 4.59 Irretrievable commitments 

Commitment 

Black Rock 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam and 

Reservoir 

Alternative 

Wymer Dam Plus 

Yakima River Pump 

Exchange 

Alternative 

Direct land uses (total acreages 

for reservoirs, canals, pumping 

plants, switchyards, and other 

above-ground features) 

Indirect land uses (total 

acreages for borrow pits, fill 

disposal sites, excavation sites 

and other temporary 

construction features) 

Flow uses during operation 

13,000 acres 

Undetermined at 

this time 

Flows would be 

diverted from the 

Columbia River 

4,050 acres 

Undetermined at 

this time 

Flows would be 

diverted from the 

Yakima River. 

1,470 acres 

Undetermined at this 

time 

Flows would be 

diverted from the 

mouth of the Yakima 

River rather than 

from upstream of the 

Yakima River. 

4-284 
 

Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

4.28 Environmental Commitments 

This list includes the environmental commitments made in the project plan and 

Draft PR/EIS. Reclamation has the primary responsibility to ensure these 

commitments are met if an action is implemented. 

4.28.1 General 

Application would be made to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for a permit or 

an exemption under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act before commencing any 

work at the damsites, pumping plant intakes, fish bypass outlets, and contractor 

use areas, as necessary. If necessary, Reclamation would also obtain a 

Section 401 water quality certification from the Washington State Department of 

Ecology. A hydraulic project approval permit would be obtained from the 

Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and any necessary stormwater 

discharge permits would be acquired. The contractor would be supplied copies of 

the permits and the associated conditions they would be required to adhere to 

throughout construction. 

All construction activities would comply with applicable EPA, OSHA, and State 

requirements on quality and control of runoff from the construction site, sediment 

control, noise control, and safety. 

4.28.2 Groundwater Resources 

Measures to minimize the impacts from the Black Rock reservoir seepage to the 

Hanford Site would include blanketing, cutoff walls, grout curtains, drainage 

tunnels and wells. Some measures would be used to control the direction of the 

groundwater flow and others would be used to remove and transport the 

groundwater to a location away from the Hanford Site. 

Blanketing would be placed on the south reservoir rim upstream of the dam. 

The blanket could consist of impervious soils, shotcrete, or geomembrane. 

Tunnels and drain holes would be placed in the south abutment of the dam. 

The water collected from these features would be contained in pipelines and not 

allowed to seep back into the groundwater. A cutoff wall would be located 

downstream from Black Rock reservoir to block groundwater that has not been 

collected by the features in the right abutment. This cutoff wall could be up to 

400 feet deep and would be underground. Wells would be placed downstream 

from this structure to collect and deliver the seepage to a location away from 

the Hanford Site. Other wells would be located downstream from the cutoff 

wall to collect any groundwater flows that moved around the wall and were not 

collected by the right abutment features. The wells would be placed such that 

this groundwater would be pumped from the ground and collected into pipeline 

or canals to convey it away from the Hanford Site. All groundwater collected by 

4-285 
 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

these features would be conveyed away from the Hanford Site and would be 

available for consumptive uses such as drinking water, irrigation, and even to 

supplement streamflows. 

4.28.3 Water Quality 

Construction activities (such as staging areas and temporary access roads) would 

be performed in manners that would prevent sedimentation. The contractor would 

be required to use silt curtains, settling ponds, and other measures to prevent 

construction site runoff. Wastewater associated with construction activities, such 

as dewatering excavations, washing equipment or wet sawing, would be kept 

from directly discharging into surface waterways. Complying with State and 

local water quality permits would provide the necessary water quality protection. 

4.28.4 Vegetation and Wildlife 

4.28.4.1 Black Rock Alternative and Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Wetland and riparian habitats would be created. This would entail constructing 

dikes in shallow water areas within the reservoir and maintaining adequate water 

levels for the production of wetland/riparian vegetation. 

Wildlife management areas would be established adjacent to the reservoir in areas 

that would be able to provide suitable wildlife habitat. 

Artificial perches would be installed on selected areas adjacent to the new 

reservoir to provide perches for raptors. 

Shrub-steppe habitat would be created, restored, and/or protected such that the 

amount of shrub-steppe habitat would lead to production of a similar number of 

habitat units elsewhere within the Yakima River basin. 

Plant surveys for threatened and endangered species would be conducted, and any 

species discovered would be protected. 

Areas disturbed by construction activities would be revegetated. 

4.28.4.2 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

Pipelines would be buried underground, and native vegetation along the pipeline 

corridor would be restored. Vegetation maintenance and monitoring plans would 

be developed. 

Any above-ground structures would be located in areas that would cause minimal 

disturbance to wildlife and associated habitats. 

Areas disturbed by construction activities would be revegetated. 

4-286 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

4.28.5 Anadromous and Resident Fish 

The following measures would be implemented to reduce short-term impacts of 

construction activities to fishery resources: 

•	 Implement construction BMPs to avoid and minimize potential 

construction impacts, including erosion and sedimentation, accidental and 

incidental discharge of pollutants (Spill Prevention, Containment, and 

Control Plan), and dewatering and discharge of dewatering water. 

•	 Prior to complete dewatering of coffer dams, fishery personnel would 

salvage all fishes using the most appropriate capture gear and methods. 

•	 Provide treatment of construction dewatering discharges, such as sediment 

removal or filtration, as necessary, before the release of such water to 

wetlands or streams. 

•	 Comply with applicable Federal, State, and local environmental 

regulations to mitigate potential impacts to sensitive areas, including 

streams, buffers, and wetlands. 

•	 Restore disturbed areas to the maximum extent possible. 

•	 Construction work windows for special-status fish would be followed as 

required by State and Federal agencies such as Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, NOAA Fisheries, and/or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service to avoid critical periods (i.e., breeding/spawning, migration). 

4.28.6 Threatened and Endangered Species 

4.28.6.1 Black Rock Alternative 

Mitigation measures under the Black Rock Alternative could include the 

following: 

•	 Perform botanical surveys in areas proposed for disturbance and relocation 

of sensitive species. 

•	 Establish a wildlife management area adjacent to the reservoir. 

•	 Bury pipelines underground and restore native vegetation along the 

corridor. 

•	 Compensate for shrub-steppe losses by converting agricultural lands to 

shrub-steppe or enhancing degraded shrub-steppe habitat adjacent to the 

study area or at an offsite location where it would be more beneficial. 

•	 Control nonnative invasive plant species. 

4-287 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

4.28.6.2 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Mitigation measures under the Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative would be 

the same as under the Black Rock Alternative. 

4.28.6.3 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

Mitigation measures under the Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange 

Alternative would be the same as under the Black Rock Alternative. 

4.28.7 Land Use and Shoreline Resources 

4.28.7.1 Black Rock Alternative 

Impacted landowners would be compensated at fair market value according to 

established Federal regulations, guidelines, and procedures. 

Additional mitigation potential, to be explored during more detailed studies 

(especially for conveyance routes), would include the following: 

•	 Avoid dislocation of, or significant proximity impacts on, existing 

residences or other major structures to the maximum extent feasible. 

•	 Align conveyances along existing roads and/or property lines to the 

maximum extent feasible. 

•	 Minimize construction-phase disruption to existing land uses (especially 

related to construction duration and access/circulation). 

4.28.7.2 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Impacted private landowners would be compensated at fair market value 

according to established Federal guidelines, standards, and procedures. 

Additional mitigation potential, to be explored during more detailed studies 

(especially for conveyance routes), would include the following: 

•	 Avoid dislocation of the existing residence east of the State highway, if 

feasible. 

•	 Work with the landowner to accommodate agriculture in conveyance and 

transmission corridors, if desired. 

•	 Use architectural treatments and landscape screening to blend facilities 

with the surrounding landscape. (See the “Visual Quality” section.) 

4.28.7.3 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

More detailed studies would be conducted of pipeline and transmission line 

routing options exploring opportunities for avoiding direct or dislocation impacts 

4-288 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

on existing residences and businesses to the maximum extent feasible. Such 

detailed routing studies would also seek opportunities to minimize long-term 

impacts on existing developed uses in the urban environments of Richland, 

Kennewick, and West Richland. Beyond such site/alignment adjustments during 

detailed planning, mitigation would focus primarily on compensating impacted 

landowners at fair market value according to established Federal guidelines, 

standards, and procedures. 

4.28.8 Public Services 

Mitigation for short-term, construction-phase impacts on public services and 

utilities would involve close coordination with involved service providers, as well 

as with potentially impacted local residents/landowners. In this regard, the 

following objectives would be met during detailed implementation planning 

(resulting in no significant residual impacts): 

•	 Retain appropriate access throughout construction zones and throughout 

the construction period for law enforcement, fire protection and 

emergency medical/transportation service providers. 

•	 Where local utility system connections/installations would be impacted by 

construction activities, plan for and implement alternative/relocated 

connections and facilities prior to construction (i.e., avoid service 

disruptions). 

•	 Either (1) accomplish the above two measures at no cost to affected 

service providers and/or residents and landowners or (2) provide 

compensation to offset additional costs incurred. 

4.28.9 Transportation 

4.28.9.1 Black Rock Alternative 

Further discussion with the State Department of Transportation and local residents 

would be done to explore the feasibility of relocating SR-24 to the north versus 

south side of Black Rock Valley, as a means of mitigating design speed, gradient, 

winter travel and local parcel access concerns associated with proposed route. 

Potential adjustment of new conveyance pipeline routes to minimize necessary 

road crossings and other disruptions to local traffic patterns and access routes 

would be considered. 

Coordination with State and local transportation agencies and potentially 

impacted neighborhoods and landowners would be done in preparing construction 

transportation management plans. Objectives would include: 

4-289 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

•	 Specifying material haul routes and construction traffic patterns which 

minimize local traffic impacts. 

•	 Phasing construction to minimize the duration of necessary temporary 

road closures and detours. 

4.28.9.2 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

More detailed planning would be done to address questions of haul route and 

overall traffic direction and magnitude (e.g., east versus west) and, thus, potential 

traffic and road impacts in Ellensburg, Selah, or Yakima. Coordination with the 

State Department of Transportation would be required to properly plan for 

construction on, and any potential traffic flow disruptions along, SR-821. 

4.28.9.3 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

Efforts to mitigate impacts would focus on the following: 

•	 Close coordination with involved transportation agencies in obtaining 

necessary permits and preparing plans and schedules for crossings of 

highways and roads. 

•	 Close coordination and cooperation with involved railroad companies 

related to construction within the railroad ROW. 

•	 Potential adjustment of pipeline route to minimize necessary road 

crossings and other disruptions to local traffic patterns and access routes. 

•	 Coordination with involved transportation agencies and potentially 

impacted neighborhoods and landowners, as appropriate, in preparing 

construction transportation management plans. Objectives would include 

the following: 

o	 Specifying material haul routes and construction traffic patterns which 

minimize local traffic impacts. 

o	 Phasing construction to minimize the duration of necessary temporary 

road closures and detours. 

4.28.10 Air Quality 

Emissions from off-road construction equipment and particulate concentrations 

are expected to exceed the General Conformity de minimis thresholds for each 

year of construction. Therefore, additional mitigation would be applied to the 

emission sources. Such mitigation would include: 

•	 Use of emulsified or aqueous diesel fuel. 

4-290 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

•	 Use of equipment with engines that incorporate exhaust gas recirculation 

systems. 

•	 Installation of a lean NOx catalyst in the engine exhaust system. 

•	 Wet suppression and soil stabilization. 

•	 Wind fencing around the active area. 

•	 Paving onsite roadways. 

•	 Truck wheel washing facilities at site exits on public roadways. 

•	 Maintaining minimal truck bed freeboard or covering haul truck beds. 

•	 Compliance with all local, State, and Federal air quality regulations. 

4.28.11 Visual Resources 

4.28.11.1 Black Rock Alternative 

Available mitigation for visual impacts of Black Rock facilities would focus on 

(1) architectural treatments and landscape screening at the intake and fish screen, 

Black Rock outlet/powerplant, and Sunnyside powerplant/bypass facilities, and 

(2) vegetation restoration and management in the pipeline and transmission line 

easements/ROW. 

In the first regard, building exterior colors that blend with the surrounding 

environment and planting of appropriate landscape screening would be done. The 

same mitigation measures would also be applicable to outlet works and other 

appurtenant facilities at Black Rock dam. 

In the pipeline and transmission line easements/ROW, vegetation consistent with 

the surrounding environment would be used and maintained. 

4.28.11.2 Wymer Dam and Reservoir Alternative 

Treatments similar to those for the Black Rock facilities in terms of building 

colors and landscaping would be used. 

In the pipeline and transmission line easements/ROW, vegetation consistent with 

the surrounding environment would be used and maintained. 

4.28.11.3 Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange Alternative 

Treatments similar to those for the Black Rock facilities in terms of building 

colors and landscaping would be used. 

4-291 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

In the pipeline and transmission line easements/ROW, vegetation consistent with 

the surrounding environment would be used and maintained. 

4.28.12 Historic Properties 

Mitigation of historic resources is data recovery or archeological excavation, 

preservation, conservation, and interpretation of significant historic properties 

from direct and indirect impacts from a construction project. Specific mitigation 

measures cannot be developed and implemented until a preferred alternative is 

selected and a Class III field survey has been conducted and reported. The 

Class III survey for any of the Joint Alternatives can be reasonably estimated to 

take at least 1 year. 

A typical scenario for mitigation of a group of historic resources would be as 

follows: 

•	 Identify the significant historic properties that cannot be avoided during 

project construction and development. 

•	 Consult with the SHPO and ACHP that historic properties are eligible for 

the NRHP. Consultation may also occur with American Indian Tribes, 

other Federal agencies, and public entities. 

•	 Develop an MOA among Reclamation, SHPO, and ACHP over mitigation 

measures. MOA signatories may also include Tribes, other Federal 

agencies, and public entities. 

•	 The MOA will include a research and data recovery plan, stipulations for 

permanent storage and curation of recovered material, and provisions for 

sharing the results of the data recovery phase with the public; for example, 

interpretive facilities. The goal is to identify and implement a range of 

measures to record and preserve in some manner the record of historic 

resources effected by the project. Mitigation of historic properties can 

involve data recovery, or large-scale archeological excavations, a program 

of monitoring of project effects, development of interpretive facilities and 

public educational opportunities, or a mix of those measures. 

•	 The MOA may also include goals for long-term historic properties 

management and monitoring. 

The period for developing, implementing and completing mitigation measures 

can take an estimated 2 years for any of the Joint Alternatives. However, 

certain activities may last for many years, if not decades, beyond completion 

of the Alternative. Museum storage and curation costs, monitoring activities, 

and management of historic resources in the development footprint not 

4-292 
Chapter 4 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences: Joint Alternatives 

impacted directly by project construction, are examples of some common 

long-term activities which have attendant costs. 

4.28.13 Indian Sacred Sites 

Mitigation to offset project impacts to access to sacred sites has few precedents or 

standard treatments. Any focus on American Indian sacred sites is complicated 

by the very nature of the discussion, which is perceived by some, if not most, 

American Indian Tribes as outside the greater public sphere. EO 13007 allows 

Government-to-Government consultation between a Federal agency and the 

affected Tribe(s), which will occur if mitigation in this particular category is at 

issue if one of the Joint Alternatives is selected. 

4.28.14 Public Health 

4.28.14.1 Hazardous and Toxic Materials 

As property is identified for acquisition, Reclamation would conduct an 

Environmental Site Survey. Remediation for any materials or potential effects of 

hazardous substances would be conducted prior to final implementation. For all 

constructed facilities, Reclamation would comply with environmental regulations 

pertaining to hazardous waste management and develop a SPCC where required. 

4.28.14.2 Mosquitoes 

Reclamation would: 

•	 Conduct baseline mosquito surveillance and control program, including a 

monitoring program for mosquito larvae. 

•	 Ensure final design of project facilities are designed in consultation with 

experts in mosquito biology and control to prevent as much mosquito 

production as possible and to facilitate proper functioning and 

maintenance in the future. Appropriate operations and maintenance 

provisions would include considerations for routine monitoring and 

control of mosquito populations. 

•	 Consult and coordinate with local health departments and mosquito and 

abatement districts about mosquito control measures during the design, 

implementation, and operations phases of the project. 

•	 Prepare a mitigation monitoring plan to ensure that the proposed 

mitigation measures are implemented. 

4-293 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

The construction contractors would be required to: 

•	 Develop and implement mosquito abatement measures for control 

including stormwater management, reducing opportunities for mosquitobreeding habitats in construction materials and facilities, management of 

vegetation that may be conducive to mosquito habitat, site maintenance to 

prevent topographical depressions and ponding, monitoring, and adult 

mosquito control. 

•	 Consult with local health departments and mosquito and abatement 

districts to discuss design or control measures to inhibit mosquitobreeding and stormwater practices. 

•	 Monitor access routes to detect formation of undrained depressions in tire 

ruts. Backfill access-related shallow depressions or incise narrow 

drainages so they do not impound small, sheltered areas of standing water. 

•	 Ensure any artificial depressions capable of holding water for a period 

greater than 7 days are rectified by filling, draining, or other treatment to 

prevent the creation of mosquito-breeding sites. 

•	 Optimize drainage. 

•	 Keep discharge of test water to a practical minimum and prevent longterm pooling. 

•	 Avoid water storage open to ingress of insects wherever possible. When 

open storage is necessary, the duration would be kept to a minimum and 

ensure proper mosquito-control treatment. 

•	 Inform workers during the worker education program of the potential for 

increases in mosquito breeding populations and of the appropriate 

precautions to take to protect their health, including requiring personnel to 

wear long sleeve shirts and long trousers and use insect repellent. Provide 

insect repellent. 

4-294 
 

Chapter 5 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES: 

STATE ALTERNATIVES 
 

CHAPTER 5 

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES: 

STATE ALTERNATIVES 

5.1 Introduction 

This chapter describes the affected environment and environmental consequences 

associated with the State Alternatives for the Storage Study. For most resource 

topics, the affected environment described in chapter 4 applies. Where necessary 

to address the State Alternatives, supplemental information on the affected 

environment is provided. 

In cases where alternatives would have similar impacts on a resource, the analysis 

is presented for the first alternative and summarized or referenced for subsequent 

alternatives to eliminate redundancy. Environmental “consequences,” “impacts,” 

and “effects” are considered to be synonymous in this document. 

The potential impacts of the State Alternatives were evaluated by comparing the 

expected outcomes of alternatives to the No Action Alternative. The No Action 

Alternative is described in chapter 2 and includes programs such as water 

conservation that Reclamation, Ecology, and others plan to implement. 

This chapter analyzes potential impacts that could be associated with 

implementation of the State Alternatives. For the most part, specific projects that 

would be undertaken have not yet been defined and the details of projects are 

unknown. For that reason, potential impacts are discussed in general terms and a 

range of impacts is described based on the nature and magnitude of potential 

project components that could be implemented. 

Many of the specific projects that will be proposed for the State Alternatives 

would require additional environmental review. Depending on the extent of 

Federal funding or permitting required for the project, the environmental review 

could be required under NEPA as well as SEPA. Additional studies will also be 

required to determine the technical and economic feasibility of some projects. If 

available, the results of these studies will be included in the Final PR/EIS. 

5-1 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

5.2 Water Resources 

5.2.1 Affected Environment – Surface Water 

The affected environment for surface water for the Yakima River basin is 

described in chapter 4. 

5.2.2 Affected Environment – Water Rights 

The centerpiece of the water rights environment in the Yakima basin is the 

ongoing adjudication of water rights. A water rights adjudication is a court 

proceeding to establish the title (quiet title) to water rights by determining the 

validity and extent of existing water rights in a specified area (RCW 90.03.110 to 

90.03.240). New water rights are not granted as part of the adjudication process. 

The Yakima Adjudication, which began in 1977, is a major undertaking in which 

all rights to surface water in the entire Yakima basin are being adjudicated. The 

case has been divided into four pathways, including a Major Claimant Pathway 

for large entities, a Tribal Federal Reserved Water Rights Pathway for the rights 

of the Yakama Nation, Non-Indian Federal Reserved Water Rights Pathway for 

water rights held by Federal agencies who manage Federal lands (U.S. Forest 

Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), and a Subbasin Pathway for individuals 

and smaller entities. Reclamation’s water rights are State-based water rights and 

Reclamation is in the Major Claimant Pathway. At the end of the adjudication, 

Ecology will issue water right certificates for those water rights confirmed by the 

court. Water rights not confirmed by the court will be extinguished. 

Federal tribal reserved water rights are primarily based on the Winters Doctrine 

(Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908)). The two main principles of this 

doctrine are that: 1) when the United States establishes reservations, it implicitly 

recognized a reservation of water in an amount necessary to fulfill the purposes of 

the reservation; and 2) the priority date of the water right is the date the 

reservation was established. Courts have generally held that tribal reservations 

established in the nineteenth century were primarily intended to give the tribes an 

agricultural base. Establishment of a tribal reservation may also imply the use of 

water for long-established aboriginal uses such as fishing and hunting. The 

priority date for water for such aboriginal uses is time immemorial. 

Federal tribal reserved water rights are not subject to relinquishment or 

abandonment for nonuse. The reserved rights are for potential future use as well 

as historic use. The future water right for agriculture is defined by the 

PIA standard—those areas susceptible to sustained irrigation at a reasonable cost. 

The number of acres included within PIA is the number currently under irrigation 

plus those susceptible to irrigation but not yet developed. 

Federal reserved water rights may be adjudicated in State court under the 

McCarran Amendment (43 U.S.C. sect. 666(a)). Yakama Nation water rights are 

5-2 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

being adjudicated as part of the Yakima Basin Adjudication. The Court 

confirmed a diminished water right for instream flow for aquatic life in the Final 

Order Re: Treaty Reserved Water Rights at Usual and Accustomed Fishing 

Places, March 1, 1995. The priority date of this right is time immemorial. The 

Court confirmed water rights for irrigation from the mainstem Yakima River 

based upon Congressional action and Court rulings, and water rights for 

agriculture from on-reservation streams based upon the PIA standard (CFO: 

Yakama Indian Nation Water Right, September 12, 1996). The Yakama Nation’s 

water rights to Ahtanum Creek are being decided as part of the proceeding 

specific to the Ahtanum Subbasin. The Yakama Nation’s irrigation rights have a 

nonproratable priority date of June 9, 1855. 

Irrigation districts are public entities formed according to State law. The primary 

purpose of an irrigation district is to divert and convey water to the water users for 

irrigation of the lands within the district. An irrigation district may be formed for 

several purposes, including the construction or purchase of new irrigation works, 

construction or repair of diversions structures, and contracting with the Federal or 

State government for irrigation purposes (RCW 87.03.010). 

Under Washington law, individual water users within the irrigation district are the 

owners of the water rights. An irrigation district is a trustee for the water users 

within the district and is obligated to deliver water to the water users based on 

their water rights and subject to the bylaws and regulations of the district. For the 

Yakima Project, Reclamation holds title to the right to store water under State law 

and the obligation to deliver the water under the terms of its contracts and Acts of 

Congress. The irrigation district has the right to divert a certain quantity of water 

and deliver it to the landowners. Reclamation has a nonfiduciary trustee 

relationship with the districts which in turn have a trustee relationship with the 

water right owners. 

Special provisions apply to transfers of water rights within irrigation districts and 

between irrigation districts that have formed a Board of Joint Control (RCW 

87.80). A change in place of use by one or more water users within an irrigation 

district does not require Ecology’s approval if the water use continues within the 

irrigation district; the only approval required is from the board of directors of the 

irrigation district. The same applies to changes in place of use between districts 

that are members of a Board of Joint Control if the water use continues within the 

area of jurisdiction of the Board of Joint Control. 

Groundwater rights are not being adjudicated in the Acquavella adjudication. The 

relationship between groundwater and surface water is important to managing the 

water resources and making decisions regarding potential impairment of existing 

water rights by new rights. In areas where there is hydraulic continuity (an 

exchange of water between a groundwater system and a surface water body), 

pumping groundwater may potentially reduce groundwater discharge into surface 

water, or in extreme cases, divert surface water into a groundwater system, 

thereby reducing flows in surface waters. This could affect water rights to the 

5-3 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

surface waters and instream flows for fish. In the few areas where hydraulic 

continuity does not exist, groundwater may be withdrawn with no effect on 

surface waters. Management of surface waters can also affect the groundwater 

supply. In areas where irrigation occurs, part of the return flow percolates into the 

ground and recharges the aquifers. If conservation measures are implemented, 

this may reduce the amount and/or location of recharge to groundwater. 

In 1999 Ecology, Reclamation, and the Yakama Nation agreed to study the 

groundwater resources in the Yakima River basin. The study is intended to better 

describe the groundwater-surface water link, help determine the potential impact 

on existing water rights when making water right decisions, support efforts to 

improve instream flows, and estimate when/where/how much groundwater 

pumping affects streamflows. Until the study is completed, Ecology is withholding permits on groundwater applications for new water rights. Ecology may 

make exceptions for transfers and changes of groundwater rights, public health 

and safety emergencies, and domestic use from exempt wells (Ecology, 1999). 

5.2.3 Environmental Consequences – Surface Water 

This section measures hydrologic changes to the Yakima River system calculated 

by the RiverWare model to assess the success of the State Alternatives in meeting 

the State’s goals of improving fisheries, water supply conditions for proratable 

water users, and providing for future municipal and domestic demands. This 

section focuses on water quantity; water quality impacts are described in 

section 5.6. The State Alternatives are compared to the current operation of the 

Yakima Project and the Joint No Action Alternative. Joint and State Alternatives 

include future municipal demand so that a direct comparison can be made. Future 

municipal demand is not included in the No Action Alternative. For the 

Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative, it was assumed in this analysis that all 

water conserved would be retained by the implementing agency and no additional 

instream flow would be provided. For purposes of hydrologic modeling using 

RiverWare, the conserved water was retained as part of TWSA and no attempt 

was made to divide the conserved water. 

Reclamation quantified the three Storage Study goals, namely improving instream 

flows and dry year irrigation water supply and meeting future municipal water 

supply needs in chapter 2. Reclamation developed hydrologic indicators to 

quantify how well the Joint Alternatives meet the Study Storage goals. Those 

indicators are explained in chapter 2 and include: 

•	 April-September TWSA 

•	 TWSA Distribution which is comprised of: 

o	 April-September flow volume downstream from the Parker gage 

o	 April-September total irrigation and municipal diversions upstream of 

the Parker gage 

5-4 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

o September 30 reservoir contents 

• April-September flow volume at the mouth of the Yakima River 

• Irrigation proration level for dry years 

• Change in the irrigation delivery shortage for water year 1994 

• Changes in instream flow 

• Seasonal instream flow volumes 

5.2.3.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

This alternative may result in temporary, construction-related impacts to surface 

waters. For example, construction of canal linings, pipelines, reregulation 

reservoirs, pump stations and on-farm irrigation improvements have the potential 

to impact surface water through increased sediment loading during construction. 

The potential will be a function of the proximity of the project to a water body, 

the volume of sediment generated, the condition of vegetative buffers between 

the site and the water body, and the BMPs applied to control that erosion. Inputs 

of sediment to any water body may increase turbidity until the site is revegetated 

or construction is completed. Inputs of fine sediment may also affect the substrate 

condition in streams. The level of impact will vary with the amount of sediment 

input into the water body. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Table 5.1 is a summary table of the values of the hydrologic indicators described 

above for the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative. The values were 

obtained from RiverWare model runs completed by Reclamation. The values 

shown in table 5.1 are for the average of the period of 1981 to 2005 and for the 

worst drought year in recent history, 1994. 

April 1 TWSA Estimate.—The Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative results 

in a slightly increased April 1 TWSA (2.86 maf) compared to the current 

operation (2.82 maf) and the No Action Alternative (2.84 maf). The April 1 

TWSA listed in table 5.1 represents the average for the time period of 1981 to 

2005. The TWSA for drought years was also determined. Table 5.2 presents the 

April 1, TWSA for several drought years, including the sequence of drought years 

from 1992 to 1994. The Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative increases 

TWSA during drought years by up to 116,700 acre-feet compared to the current 

operation and 62,700 acre-feet compared to the No Action Alternative. The 

lowest increase occurs during an extended drought, such as occurred in the 1992­

1994 time period. The predicted increase for 1994 is only 8,000 acre-feet 

compared to the current condition and 12,200 acre-feet compared to the No 

Action Alternative. The increase in TWSA means additional water supply is 

available for distribution in the April-September timeframe for that year. 

5-5 
 

 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table 5.1 Hydrologic indicators for the period of record 1981-2005 

Hydrologic 

Alternative 

Current 

Operation No Action 

Enhanced 

Water 

Conservation 

indicator Average for water years 1981-2005 (maf) 

April 1 TWSA 

April-September flow volume at Parker gage 

April-September diversion volume upstream of 

Parker gage 

September 30 reservoir contents 

April-September flow volume at the mouth 

Irrigation delivery volume 

2.82 

0.51 

2.02 

0.27 

0.85 

1.47 

2.84 

0.62 

1.91 

0.30 

0.86 

1.46 

2.86 

0.66 

1.85 

0.32 

0.95 

1.44 

Water year 1994 (maf and percent) 

Irrigation delivery volume shortage (maf) 0.40 0.38 0.34 

Irrigation proration level 28% 27% 28% 

Table 5.2 April 1 TWSA for drought years within the period of record (1981-2005) 

Alternative 

April 1 TWSA 

(maf) 

1992 1993 1994 2001 2005 

Current Operation 

No Action Alternative 

Enhanced Water Conservation 

Difference between Enhanced Water 

Conservation and Current Operation 

Difference between Enhanced Water 

Conservation and No Action 

2.123 

2.159 

2.218 

+0.095 

+0.059 

2.094 

2.110 

2.136 

+0.042 

+0.026 

1.754 

1.750 

1.762 

+0.008 

+0.012 

1.803 

1.857 

1.911 

+0.108 

+0.054 

1.762 

1.845 

1.860 

+0.098 

+0.015 

April to September Flow Volume Downstream from the Parker Gage (Instream 

Flow).—The Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative shows a slight increase in 

instream flow downstream from the Parker gage compared to the No Action 

Alternative and a larger increase compared to current operations. The larger 

increase compared to current operations is due to the two-thirds allocation of the 

conservation savings to instream flow in the No Action Alternative (which is part 

of the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative) to meet Title XII requirements. 

Title XII instream flow requirements are described in chapter 2. Two locations 

(Parker gage and Prosser Diversion Dam) are set as instream flow control points 

in the Title XII legislation. Target flows at those locations are set based upon the 

TWSA available during the April-September time period. Table 5.3 provides a 

comparison of flow volume downstream from the Parker gage for the April to 

September and the July to September time periods. 

5-6 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

Table 5.3 Flow volume downstream from the Parker gage for April-September and JulySeptember average for period of record (1981-2005) 

Flow volume downstream from the Parker gage 

(maf) 

Alternative April-September July-September 

Current Operation 0.51 0.09 

No Action Alternative 0.62 0.13 

Enhanced Water Conservation 0.66 0.14 

The increased April to September flow volume for the Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative is 150,000 acre-feet more than current operation and 

40,000 acre-feet more than the No Action Alternative. The increased July to 

September flow volume is 50,000 acre-feet more than current operation and 

10,000 acre-feet more than the No Action Alternative. The increased flow results 

in a daily average discharge for the July to September period of 745 cfs compared 

to the current operation daily average discharge of 470 cfs and the No Action 

Alternative daily average discharge of 720 cfs. Figure 5.1 presents hydrographs 

of the average daily flows at the Parker gage for the all three alternatives 

described in table 5.3. The increased instream flow may benefit instream 

resources as described in sections 5.8 and 5.9. 

5000 

4500 

4000 

3500 

3000 

2500 

2000 

1500 

Current 

Enhanced Conservation Alternative 

No Action Alternative 

1000 

500 

0 

1-Oct 1-Nov 2-Dec 2-Jan 2-Feb 4-Mar 4-Apr 5-May 5-Jun 6-Jul 6-Aug 6-Sep 

Date 

Flow (cfs) 

Figure 5.1 Median of daily flows at the Parker gage for period of record (1981-2005). 

5-7 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

April to September Diversion Volume Upstream of the Parker Gage.—The April 

to September diversions upstream of the Parker gage are reduced by an average of 

170,000 acre-feet over the 25-year period (1981 to 2005) with the Enhanced 

Water Conservation Alternative compared to the current operation and 

60,000 acre-feet compared to the No Action Alternative. The Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative also includes supplying new municipal uses, estimated 

to be 48,000 acre-feet, upstream of the Parker gage, which the No Action 

Alternative does not. That volume is included in April-September diversion 

volume. The reduction in diversions allows remaining flow to be used for 

instream or other out-of-stream uses. 

September 30 Reservoir Contents.—The effect on the storage volume contained 

in the Yakima Project’s reservoirs is shown in table 5.1 and 5.4. The Enhanced 

Water Conservation Alternative slightly increases the volume of storage in 

Yakima Project reservoirs throughout the irrigation season and maintains a 

September 30 storage volume averaging 30 percent full, compared to an average 

under current operation of 25 percent full and 28 percent full for the No Action 

Alternative. Fuller reservoir levels at the end of the irrigation season are 

important to improving water supply for the following year if drought conditions 

occur. 

Table 5.4 Yakima Project reservoir system total contents for the period of record 1981-2005 

Alternative 

Total Reservoir Storage in Yakima Project (maf) 

March 31 June 30 September 30 

Current Operation 

No Action Alternative 

Enhanced Water 

Conservation 

0.60 (56% Full) 

0.62 (58% Full) 

0.64 (60% Full) 

0.91 (85% Full) 

0.92 (86% Full) 

0.93 (88% Full) 

0.27 (25% Full) 

0.30 (28% Full) 

0.32 (30% Full) 

April to September Flow Volume at the Mouth of the Yakima River.—The April 

to September flow volume at the mouth of the Yakima River is increased with the 

Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative (0.95 maf) compared to the No Action 

Alternative (0.86 maf) and current operation (0.85 maf). The reason is the 

Kennewick Irrigation District (KID) Pump Exchange Project which adds a point 

of diversion for part of KID and part of the Columbia Irrigation District (CID) to 

the Columbia River below the confluence of the Yakima and Columbia Rivers. 

The diversion from the Yakima River is decreased by the volume pumped from 

the Columbia River. The most current plan calls for 155 cfs to be diverted by 

KID from the Yakima River (instead of the current 334-cfs diversion). The CID 

would divert 110 cfs from the Yakima River, a reduction of approximately 72 cfs 

from its current diversion. The increase in average flow in the lower Yakima 

River would be approximately 250 cfs. A similar increase in instream flow would 

also occur during drought years. The effect of the increased instream flow is 

discussed in sections 5.8 and 5.9. 

5-8 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

Irrigation Delivery Volume Shortage and Proration Level.—Table 5.5 

summarizes the irrigation delivery volume shortfall and proration level during 

drought years. The irrigation proration level during drought years is increased 

with the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative with the exception of the last
 

year of an extended drought such as occurred from 1992 to 1994. Under these 

conditions, the proration level is predicted to equal that of the current operation 

and 1 percent greater than the No Action Alternative. The primary reason that 

very little improvement is achieved with the No Action Alternative is the twothirds allocation of conserved water to instream flow. The additional water 

conservation included in the Enhance Water Conservation Alternative is still a 

small percentage of the flow diverted in the Yakima Project. During drought 

years, it was assumed for the hydrologic modeling that new municipal water 

supplies would be prorated in the same fashion as proratable water users. If
 

municipal users are given a water right with lower priority than proratables, the 

water supply for those proratables would increase more than shown in table 5.5. 

The municipal deliveries used in the hydrologic modeling are 48,000 acre-feet 

upstream of Parker gage. It was assumed for the modeling that half of the water 

diverted for municipal uses returns to the river through wastewater discharges or 

seepage and half is used consumptively. Assuming a 50-percent proration level, 

approximately 12,000 acre-feet of consumptive use would be available for 

additional use by proratables. That equates to less than 1 percent of the proratable 

entitlements of 1.284 maf (table 2.3 in chapter 2). 

Table 5.5 Irrigation delivery volume shortage and proration level for drought years during period of 

record (1981-2005) 

Alternative 

Irrigation delivery volume shortage and percent of water supply for proratable water users 

1992 1993 1994 2001 2005 

Volume 

shortage 

(maf) % 

Volume 

shortage 

(maf) % 

Volume 

shortage 

(maf) % 

Volume 

shortage 

(maf) % 

Volume 

shortage 

(maf) % 

Current 

Operation 

0.14 68 .21 56 0.40 28 0.33 40 0.36 38 

No Action 

Alternative 

0.09 70 .17 57 0.38 27 0.27 44 0.29 45 

Enhanced 

Water 

Conservation 

0.02 74 .12 60 0.34 28 0.20 49 0.24 47 

Difference 

between Enhanced Water 

Conservation 

and Current 

Operation 

+0.12 +6 +.09 +4 0.06 0 +0.13 +9 +0.12 +9 

Difference 

between Enhanced Water 

Conservation 

and No Action 

Alternative 

+0.07 +4 +0.05 +3 +0.04 +1 +0.07 +5 +0.05 +2 

5-9 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Although the modeling predicts a slight increase in proration level, irrigation 

districts which undertake an aggressive conservation program will require less 

water to operate and can deliver a greater percentage of water diverted to farmers. 

The results of the hydrologic modeling indicate the irrigation delivery shortfall is 

reduced by 60,000 to 130,000 acre-feet during drought years compared to the 

current operation and 40,000 to 70,000 acre-feet compared to the No Action 

Alternative. The irrigation delivery shortfall is measured by subtracting the 

volume of water supplied in a drought year from the average volume of water 

supplied over the 1980 to 2005 time period. The average volume of water 

supplied is calculated by RiverWare assuming the conservation measures were in 

place for the entire period analyzed. As such, there is an improvement in the 

irrigation delivery shortage indicating that in a dry year more water is being 

delivered to the farm turnout as the result of the additional water conservation 

measures included in the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative. 

Changes in Instream Flow.—The Title XII target flows downstream from 

Sunnyside Diversion Dam (at Parker gage) are increased by 136 cfs with the No 

Action Alternative, resulting in the target flows shown in table 5.6. In addition, 

there are operational flows of 108 cfs that will result when some entities change 

their points of diversion from upstream to downstream of Sunnyside Diversion 

Dam in actions proposed under the No Action Alternative. These instream flow 

targets would not change with implementation of the Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative as no additional instream flow is assigned to the 

conservation measures. However instream flows will increase with the Enhanced 

Water Conservation Alternative as flow currently diverted into the Chandler 

Canal for the KID will remain instream, the KID and CID diversions from the 

lower Yakima River are reduced and instream flows in tributaries could improve 

with implementation of water conservation measures on small ditches. 

Table 5.6 Changes in Title XII target flows downstream from Sunnyside Diversion Dam— 

current Yakima Project operations to No Action Alternative and State Alternatives 

TWSA estimate 

(maf) 

Title XII target flow at Parker 

gage (cfs) 

April - 

September 

May -

September 

June - 

September 

July - 

September Current 

No Action 

Alternative 

3.2 2.9 2.4 1.9 600 736 

2.9 2.65 2.2 1.7 500 636 

2.65 2.4 2.0 1.5 400 536 

Less than above 300 Varies1 

1 In dry water years, the target flow is 300 cfs, and the 136-cfs increase is adjusted according to the water 

rights of the entities participating in the Basin Conservation Program. In a dry year such as 1994, the target 

flow would be 394 cfs. 

5-10 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

Effect on Seasonal Flow Objectives.—The SSTWG established seasonal flow 

objectives for the Easton reach, Cle Elum River, Ellensburg River reach, Wapato 

reach, and the lower Naches River as a means to evaluate the performance of each 

alternative against a flow regime that would be better for fish than the current 

operation. The flow regime is similar to an unregulated flow regime. The values 

for the Umtanum and Parker gages for the Enhanced Water Conservation 

Alternative are shown in table 5.7, along with a comparison to values calculated 

for the current conditions, the flow objective, and No Action Alternative. The 

values shown are for average water years. Figure 5.2 presents a comparison of 

daily flows at the Umtanum gage (figure 5.1 presented a comparison at the Parker 

gage). At both locations, the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative annual 

streamflow runoff pattern is similar to current flow conditions for the spring, 

summer, and winter seasons and does not appreciably bring flow conditions 

toward the flow volume objectives expressed by the SSTWG. 

Table 5.7 Desired spring, summer, and winter flow objectives and alternative-generated 

seasonal flow volumes expressed in maf for the Umtanum reach and Parker gage 

Flows 

Umtanum Parker 

Spring1

 Summer2 Winter3 Spring Summer Winter 

Current 0.676 0.620 0.379 0.659 0.138 0.694 

Objective 0.742 0.305 0.380 0.750 0.317 0.699 

No Action Alternative 0.686 0.614 0.380 0.726 0.190 0.699 

Enhanced Water Conservation 

Alternative 

0.695 0.604 0.379 0.765 0.194 0.694 

1

 The desired outcome is to meet or exceed the seasonal spring (March-June) flow objective volume. 

2

 The desired outcome is to not exceed, but not fall too far below the summer (July-September) flow objective 

volume. 

3

 The desired outcome is to meet or exceed the seasonal winter (October-February) flow objective volume. 

For the Umtanum gage, representing the Ellensburg River reach, the seasonal 

flow volumes for the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative were estimated to 

be: 

Spring: 

Summer: 

Winter: 

6 percent below the flow objective 

98 percent above the flow objective 

approximately equal to the flow objective 

For the Parker gage representing the Wapato Reach, the seasonal flow volumes 

for the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative were estimated to be: 

Spring: 2 percent below the flow objective 

Summer: 40 percent below the flow objective 

Winter: 1 percent below the flow objective 

5-11 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

4500 

4000 

3500 

3000 

Flow (cfs) 2500 

2000 

1500 

Current 

1000 Enhanced Conservation Alternative 

No Action Alternative 

500 

0 

1-Oct 1-Nov 2-Dec 2-Jan 2-Feb 4-Mar 4-Apr 5-May 5-Jun 6-Jul 6-Aug 6-Sep 

Date 

Figure 5.2 Yakima River median of daily flows at Umtanum gage for period of record 

(1981-2005). 

Table 5.8 compares the spring, summer, and winter seasonal percent differences 

relative to the flow volume objectives for the current condition and No Action and 

Enhanced Water Conservation Alternatives. The comparison was based on the 

average water year flow objectives. The Enhanced Water Conservation 

Alternative better meets flow objectives compared to the current operation and the 

No Action Alternative, although summer flow volumes are still much greater than 

the desired target flows. 

Table 5.8 Comparison of the differences relative to the flow objective volume by season for the 

alternatives—Umtanum and Parker stream gage stations 

Spring Summer Winter 

Location 

Current condition 

No Action Alternative

Enhanced Water 

Conservation 

Alternative 

Current condition 

No Action Alternative

Enhanced Water 

Conservation 

Alternative 

Current condition 

No Action Alternative

Enhanced Water 

Conservation 

Alternative 

Umtanum -9% -8% -6% 103% 102% 98% 0% 0% 0% 

Parker -16% -7% -2% -56% -40% -39% -1% 0% -1% 

5-12 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

The Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative annual stream runoff pattern is 

also very similar to the current condition and No Action Alternative runoff 

patterns. (See figure 5.1 and 5.2.) 

5.2.3.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts to surface water are expected to be less than those for the 

No Action and Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative. Existing infrastructure 

(reservoirs, canals) may be used to physically transfer water from user to user, 

minimizing the need for construction. Some new infrastructure may be 

constructed if the reallocation of water results in agricultural development in new 

areas instead of increasing water supply for existing agriculture. The new 

infrastructure (likely pipes, pumps and perhaps small storage reservoirs) would 

have similar types of impacts as described for the Enhanced Water Conservation 

Alternative but of a lesser scale. 

Long-Term Impacts 

The water marketing alternative is designed to facilitate the transfer of existing 

water rights to help alleviate shortfalls in water supply for both irrigation and 

municipal uses. No increases in the overall water supply for the Yakima Project 

will result and hydrologic conditions described for the No Action Alternative will 

also represent the overall hydrologic conditions for this alternative. The 

operations of the Yakima Project and individual irrigation districts or companies 

will constrain the amount and location of water transferred. For example, the 

Yakima Project operates reservoirs in both the upper Yakima River basin and in 

the Naches River basin. Water supply from both locations feeds the major 

nonproratable water users in Yakima (Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District, 

Wapato Irrigation Project). Water cannot be transferred from water users in one 

arm (i.e., the Naches River) to water users upstream in the Kittitas Valley. 

Water supply conditions for certain farmers, irrigation district or municipal users 

can improve with this alternative. It is assumed with this alternative that the 

increase in water supply for some water users and a decrease for others will still 

have a positive economic benefit as farms with higher-value crops or municipal 

users will want to purchase water from farms with lower-value crops with the 

payment covering the foregone revenue from the farms with lower-value crops. 

An estimated 200,000 acre-feet of water may need to be transferred within the 

Yakima basin to meet reliability goals for existing water users with proratable 

water rights. 

5-13 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

5.2.3.3 Groundwater Storage Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

This alternative may result in temporary, construction-related impacts to surface 

waters similar to the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative. For example, 

construction of injection wells, treatment facilities, infiltration basins, and 

conveyance lines have the potential to impact surface water through increased 

sediment loading during construction. The potential will be a function of the 

proximity of the project to a water body, the volume of sediment generated, the 

condition of vegetative buffers between the site and the water body, and the 

BMPs applied to control that erosion. 

Long-Term Impacts 

The Groundwater Storage Alternative is designed to recharge aquifers with either 

active or passive recovery that would increase streamflow and improve water 

supply. 

With the Groundwater Storage Alternative, the April to September diversions 

upstream of the Parker gage are increased by an average of 33,000 acre-feet 

over a 22-year analysis period (1978 to 2000) compared to No Action Alternative. 

Additional diversion occurs to provide water to surface infiltration facilities 

during the early summer. During dry years, however, there is little or no 

additional diversion during months when existing entitlements cannot be met 

with available storage or natural flow. The increased diversions only occur when 

there is water available over and above existing entitlements (including Title XII 

streamflows). A diversion of approximately 6,400 acre-feet for ASR during a 

6-month winter time period is also part of this alternative. That diversion equals 

approximately 18 cfs. A diversion of approximately 6,400 acre-feet for direct 

injection with passive recovery during a 6-month time period is also part of this 

alternative. That diversion equals approximately 18 cfs. The diversion would 

reduce streamflow in the Yakima River bringing the total volume of flow in the 

winter time closer to flow objectives desired by the SSTWG. The flow objective 

desired by SSTWG is 490,012 acre-feet at the Parker gage; the No Action 

Alternative runoff volume is 584,000 acre-feet. 

For the Groundwater Storage Alternative, an increase in streamflow would result 

from return flows from surface recharge facilities and from leakage to shallow 

unconfined aquifers during ASR injection to deeper aquifers. It is assumed the 

increased flow would be used to supply municipal demands with the remainder 

benefiting TWSA for all other water users in the Yakima Project. 

The Groundwater Storage Alternative would increase streamflow in the AprilSeptember time period by approximately 22,800 to 25,800 acre-feet more than the 

current operation and the increase in the July-September flow volume is 

approximately 14,900 to 15,900 acre-feet, both measured at the Parker gage. 

These are the average return flows from the surface recharge, municipal ASR, and 

5-14 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

direct injection with passive recovery alternatives (Ecology, 2007g). In general, 

the increased flow volumes are lower in dry years and higher in wet years. The 

estimated water supply provided during a drought year in the April-September 

time period is 1,600 acre-feet. That smaller increase in water supply would occur 

because it was assumed that no water would be available for surface recharge or 

ASR except when all existing entitlements have been met. Therefore, no 

additional diversion for groundwater storage would occur during drought months. 

Some leakage from the previous year’s infiltration and ASR injection would 

likely occur, which is the source of the 1,600-acre-foot estimate. 

5.2.4 Mitigation 

More detailed, site-specific studies of the alternatives are required to better 

determine their impacts and benefits and the amount of mitigation that might be 

required. Those studies would include seepage studies on irrigation canals that 

would be lined or piped, operational studies on irrigation facilities to determine 

the amount of water that could be conserved, groundwater studies to better 

characterize the amount of water that would return to surface water from 

Groundwater Storage and studies to better estimate the potential for large-scale 

water transfers to benefit irrigation water supply for some water users. Additional 

RiverWare modeling will also be required to better understand the impact on 

Yakima Project operations. Studies of the impact on return flow from irrigation 

conservation measures are also recommended to assist Reclamation in modeling 

the impact of conservation measures. 

5.2.5 Environmental Consequences – Water Rights 

5.2.5.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

No impacts on water rights would be expected from the construction of enhanced 

conservation measures. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Enhanced conservation will free up water under existing water rights for use 

by the water right owner and/or potential transfer and reallocation of the saved 

water. As noted in chapter 3, most of the water saved through conservation 

projects is nonconsumptive water. Both YRBWEP and State statutes authorizing 

conservation projects allow the water right holder to retain a portion of the saved 

water. That water can be used for the same purpose as the original water right. 

If there is a proposal to transfer the saved water, Ecology will conduct its usual 

impairment analysis and take into account the fact that the saved water has 

been nonconsumptively used in the past. To the extent that conservation 

makes additional water available, it may reduce curtailment of junior water 

rights during water-short years. 

5-15 
 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

An analysis of the potential impacts from operation of the conservation 

improvements may arise in two instances. Ecology will investigate potential 

impairment to existing water rights when a request is made to change the place of 

use or purpose of use, or the point of diversion of saved water. Additionally, 

water right owners may bring private actions in court to claim an impairment of 

their water right due to a reduced availability of water. Water saved through 

irrigation conservation projects is primarily water that was formerly return flow 

under a less efficient delivery system. Water users may use return flow that is 

available and “may obtain a right to return flow provided that flow naturally 

originated from and returned to a water course within the same watershed. Such 

rights are ... subject to the availability of the water based on the first 

appropriator’s right to make further uses of the water on the lands to which the 

right is appurtenant” (Ecology v. Acquavella, Memorandum Opinion Re: 

Subbasin Exceptions 1995). For “project water” originating from Reclamation’s 

storage reservoirs, Reclamation has the right to recapture return flow, which is 

part of TWSA and delivered to downstream project entities. A reduction in return 

flow is not, however, an impairment of downstream water rights because the 

water user is not obligated to provide return flow to downstream users (Burke v. 

Department of Ecology, PCHB No. 03-155, July 24, 2004).1 As a result, 

although changes in return flow patterns may have an adverse impact on the 

physical availability of water, they would not have an adverse impact on the legal 

availability of water, i.e., existing water rights. 

Implementation of regional agricultural efficiency improvements could decrease 

artificial recharge of groundwater. Artificial groundwater recharge caused by 

leakage from unlined irrigation canals or ditches may be reduced or eliminated 

should conservation projects include lining of these structures. As noted above, 

this could have the effect of locally lowering water tables and impair the ability of 

the owner of a groundwater right to fully exercise his or her water right. The 

existence and magnitude of these impacts would depend on many factors, 

including the number and size of irrigation canals and ditches, the degree to which 

these structures are currently leaking, the amount and efficiency of new lining that 

may be installed, the depth of the water table, the underlying soil permeability, the 

amount of recharge from other sources, and the rates of groundwater withdrawal 

(Ecology, 2003b). 

Impacts from municipal and industrial conservation projects would be expected to 

be neutral or positive to the extent the projects reduce the demand for water and 

free up more water for instream and out-of-stream uses. Potential negative 

impacts could arise from changing the place of use, purpose of use or point of 

diversion of the saved water. The potential adverse impacts should be avoided 

through Ecology’s analysis of the change application. 

1 The Board’s decision was upheld on appeal by the Acquavella court. The court’s decision 

was appealed to Division 3 of the Court of Appeals, but the appeal was withdrawn. 

5-16 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

Irrigation water rights and industrial use water rights, unlike municipal water 

supply water rights, are subject to relinquishment if all or a portion of the right is 

not used for 5 successive years without sufficient cause for nonuse (RCW 

90.14.160). Thus, if owners of the water right do not beneficially use the saved 

water in that time period, that portion of the right is subject to relinquishment and 

would become available instream to the next junior water right owner 

downstream or to TWSA. If they are not able to beneficially use the water, there 

is the potential to transfer the water to trust for instream flow or to another user 

within the 5 years. Municipalities are not subject to relinquishing their municipal 

water supply purposes water rights for nonuse (RCW 90.14.140(2)(d)). 

Consequently when a municipality conserves water, it has more water available to 

serve current and future customers. 

Although changes in return flow patterns may have adverse impacts on the 

physical availability of water, they would not have an adverse impact on the legal 

availability of water, i.e., water rights. 

5.2.5.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

No impacts to water rights are expected from the construction activities that may 

be required to implement water transfers under the Market-Based Reallocation of 

Water Resources Alternative. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Market-based reallocation depends on the transfer of existing water rights. By 

law, all existing water rights, senior and junior, are protected from impairment by 

any proposed transfer. One of the impediments to an active market is the 

complexity, cost and length of time for administrative approval of the transfer. 

Changes to the administrative process have been proposed as part of the six 

identified alternatives for market-based reallocation of water resources. None of 

the changes required by the six alternatives would reduce the protection of 

existing rights. No impacts are anticipated. 

5.2.5.3 Groundwater Storage Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

No impacts to water rights are expected from the construction activities associated 

with the Groundwater Storage Alternative. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) projects must meet standards for review and 

mitigation regarding specific issues listed in RCW 90.03.370(2)(a) and defined 

further in Chapter 173-157 WAC. Both the direct injection and the surface 

recharge alternatives for groundwater storage qualify as an “underground artificial 

5-17 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

storage and recovery project,” which includes “any project in which it is intended 

to artificially store water in the ground through injection, surface spreading and 

infiltration, or other department-approved method, and to make subsequent use of 

the stored water” (RCW 90.370(2)(a)(3)). The statute defines “reservoir” to 

include “any naturally occurring underground geological formation where water 

is collected and stored for subsequent use as part of an underground artificial 

storage and recovery project” (RCW 90.03.370). Specifically nothing in the law 

that authorizes the underground artificial storage and recovery projects changed 

the requirements to obtain a permit to appropriate or withdraw waters of the State 

(RCW 90.03.370(4)). A water right to the source water and a reservoir permit 

would be required for the diversion and storage of the water and for the beneficial 

use of the water from storage. Given the fact that the project should result in 

environmental benefits, Ecology should be able give the application priority 

processing. 

Because the projects would require a water right from Ecology and Ecology 

cannot issue a new water right if it would impair existing rights, there should be 

no impacts to water rights from the alternatives. 

5.2.6 Mitigation Measures 

Projects anticipated under the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative would 

likely cause changes in return flow patterns. Although changes in return flow 

patterns may have adverse impacts on the physical availability of water, they 

would not have an adverse impact on the legal availability of water, i.e., water 

rights, and no mitigation would be required. If Ecology determined that the 

transfer of the saved water could cause impacts, it would require mitigation of the 

impacts or deny the transfer. Examples of mitigation measures for new water 

rights are described in Ecology (2003b). 

Water right transfers through a water market or a water bank are the core actions 

under the Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative. Each 

transfer would have to be approved by Ecology or, as proposed in several of the 

reallocation alternatives, a water court. Neither Ecology nor a water court is or 

would be authorized to approve a transfer that would impair existing water rights. 

To the extent that a proposed transfer would cause impairment the applicant may 

propose measures to mitigate the impacts. 

For the Groundwater Storage Alternative, water right permits and reservoir 

permits would be required. The mitigation analysis is the same as that for water 

right transfers under the Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources 

Alternative with the additional requirement that a new water right may not be 

“detrimental to the public welfare” (RCW 90.03.290). Additional protections are 

provided by the mitigation requirements required by RCW 90.03.370(2)(b) and 

found in WAC 173-157. 

5-18 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

5.3 Groundwater Resources 

5.3.1 Affected Environment 

The affected environment for groundwater in the Yakima River basin is described 

in chapter 4. Groundwater storage facilities could be located throughout the 

Yakima basin, but would primarily be located in the Ellensburg formation and 

basalt aquifers. 

5.3.2 Environmental Consequences 

5.3.2.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction associated with conservation projects is not expected to affect 

groundwater. Construction of any facilities would be limited, not requiring 

extensive excavation. 

Long-Term Impacts 

The impacts from irrigation conservation and improved efficiency on 

groundwater would include changes in the timing and volume of irrigation 

recharge and subsequent groundwater return flow. In general, groundwater 

recharge from irrigation may decrease, unless the enhanced conservation results 

in an expansion of irrigated acres using the same amount of water. 

Impacts from municipal conservation would depend on whether total consumptive 

use is changed and whether groundwater demand in the future is changed. 

Ultimately, it is likely that the same amount of groundwater would be used (up to 

existing water rights), but conservation efforts may, for example, change the 

relative magnitude of consumptive use compared to the current condition. In the 

near term, water conservation could stabilize groundwater levels in the deeper 

producing aquifers. 

5.3.2.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

The only construction associated with the Market-Based Reallocation of Water 

Resources Alternative would be associated with new irrigation facilities for water 

rights transferred to new areas. That construction is not expected to affect 

groundwater. 

Long-Term Impacts 

The quantity and distribution of recharge to shallow aquifers could change. For 

example, recharge could be reduced if water use is changed from irrigation to 

domestic or municipal uses. 

5-19 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Increases or decreases in pumping from deeper production aquifers would change 

the distribution and variability of groundwater level fluctuations. The nature and 

magnitude of these potential impacts would depend on a number of factors, 

including where the changes occur and how much water is associated with the 

reallocation. For example, a change from irrigation to municipal use might 

change the seasonal profile of water use to a more continuous (rather than 

seasonal) withdrawal. 

5.3.2.3 Groundwater Storage Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Limited impacts to groundwater could occur during construction of infiltration 

basins or treatment facilities. However, the depth of excavation during 

construction is not expected to extend to the groundwater table and it is not 

anticipated that dewatering would be required. Site specific studies prior to 

construction would determine the potential for impacts. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Changes in groundwater elevations and groundwater flow directions in shallow 

aquifers could occur from surface infiltration. Groundwater elevations near the 

surface infiltration sites will have the most near-term, seasonal change. The 

impact of these changes would be generally positive by increasing shallow 

groundwater discharge to streams. Negative impacts could include waterlogged 

soils or unwanted shallow groundwater seepage. Long-term groundwater level 

changes could result from interannual return flows that are stored in the aquifer 

for a longer period of time. These changes would accrue slowly from year to year 

depending on the cumulative amount of water infiltrated to shallow aquifers and 

the ability of the aquifer to discharge that infiltration to the stream in a given year. 

Site specific investigations prior to facility design would determine the potential 

for this impact. 

Changes in groundwater elevations and groundwater flow directions in deeper 

aquifers could occur from the ASR component. Groundwater elevations near the 

injection wells will have the most near-term, seasonal change. The impact of 

these changes would be generally positive by increasing groundwater levels in 

deep and/or depleted aquifer zones. Long-term groundwater level changes could 

result from interannual storage that is not recovered during an annual ASR cycle. 

These changes would accrue slowly from year to year depending on the 

cumulative amount of water injected to deeper aquifers and the ability of the 

aquifer to discharge that infiltration toward a stream. Additional site specific 

studies would be conducted to more accurately characterize this potential, and as 

appropriate, determine mitigation. 

5-20 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

5.3.3 Mitigation 

It is anticipated that proper design of the groundwater storage facilities would 

reduce the potential for impacts such as shallow seepage, water logging of soils, 

and potential impacts to nearby wells from changes in groundwater hydrographs. 

Site specific studies prior to construction would define specific impacts and 

determine any necessary mitigation. 

5.4 Hydropower 

5.4.1 Affected Environment 

Six hydroelectric powerplants are located in the Yakima River basin. Two of the 

plants are owned and operated by Reclamation (Roza and Chandler Powerplants), 

two are owned and operated by the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District, and two are 

owned and operated by BIA in the WIP. 

The two Reclamation powerplants are located on the Roza Main Canal and the 

Chandler Power Canal. The Roza Powerplant is located about 3 miles northeast 

of Yakima, adjacent to Reclamation’s offices. It has a capacity of 12.9 MW. 

Water is diverted into the canal at Roza Diversion Dam about 10 miles north of 

the Yakima and returns to the river below the powerplant. Some of the power 

from the Roza Powerplant is used to operate Roza Irrigation District’s pumping 

plants. When power is being generated, there is a minimum flow target of 400 cfs 

below the dam. Power generation is terminated when the 400 cfs target cannot be 

met with the plant operating. This is usually only an issue during flip-flop 

operations. 

The Chandler Powerplant is located in Benton County about 10 miles northeast of 

Prosser. It has a capacity of 12.0 MW. The Chandler Powerplant uses water 

diverted down the Chandler Power Canal (diversion capacity is 1,500 cfs) at 

Prosser Diversion Dam to operate pumps to convey irrigation water across the 

Yakima River into the Kennewick Main Canal. The residual capacity remaining 

from irrigation needs, including when the pumps are not run for irrigation is 

diverted to power production. Power production is subordinated to various flows 

throughout the year. In the spring, the subordination target is 1,000 cfs over 

Prosser Diversion Dam through the end of June. During the remainder of the 

irrigation season, the subordination target is 450 cfs or the YRBWEP Title XII 

target flow, whichever is higher. 

The two powerplants owned by the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District are in-line 

plants that take advantage of an all piped system with excess pressure head. The 

operations of the plants are incidental to the operations of the irrigation district, 

that is the water is not diverted specifically for power generation, but whatever 

water is diverted for irrigation is used for power. The two powerplants owned by 

5-21 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

the BIA take advantage of canal drops in the gravity irrigation canal system. The 

operations of the plants are incidental to the operations of the canals. 

5.4.2 Environmental Consequences 

5.4.2.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

There will be no construction impacts to hydropower from the Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative because construction would not alter streamflows. 

Long-Term Impacts 

The operations of the existing powerplants in the Yakima River basin may be 

slightly affected by Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative. The potential 

effects could be a reduced amount of power generation at the BIA powerplants in 

the WIP in most years if water conservation measures undertaken reduce the flow 

in the canals and through the powerplants. If flow rates in the canals are 

maintained to preconservation levels, then no change in power generation would 

result. A slightly increased amount of power generation could result at those 

powerplants during drought years as the reliability of water supply increases with 

the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative and higher flows could occur in the 

canals. The additional instream flow provided by the Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative combined with electrification of KID pumps may 

slightly increase the generation at the Roza and Chandler Powerplants compared 

to the No Action Alternative. 

5.4.2.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

There would be no construction impacts to hydropower from the Market-Based 

Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative because construction would not alter 

streamflows. 

Long-Term Impacts 

The long-term impacts would depend on the location of the lessor and lessee of 

water. If the transfer of water is to farmers in the WIP during drought years, some 

increase in hydropower generation is possible for those years. Otherwise, the 

impacts would not likely be different than the No Action Alternative or the 

current operation. 

5.4.2.3 Groundwater Storage Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

There would be no construction impacts to hydropower from the Groundwater 

Storage Alternative because construction would not change streamflows. 

5-22 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

Long-Term Impacts 

There would be no long-term impacts compared to the No Action Alternative and 

the current operation. 

5.4.3 Mitigation 

No mitigation is proposed for impacts to hydropower from the State Alternatives 

because the impacts are not expected to be significant. 

5.5 Sediment Resources 

5.5.1 Affected Environment 

The affected environment for sediment resources is described in chapter 4. 

Because the specific locations of facilities associated with the State Alternatives 

are not known at this time, no sediment transport analysis was conducted. 

5.5.2 Environmental Consequences 

Chapter 4 focuses on instream sediment resources; this section will also describe 

impacts to upland sediment resources from erosion and transport of fine 

sediments. 

5.5.2.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction of canal lining, pipelines, pump stations, reregulating reservoirs or 

on-farm irrigation improvements could impact upland sediment resources by 

disturbing soils and could temporarily increase soil erosion. 

Long-Term Impacts 

The Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative is expected to have similar 

impacts as the No Action Alternative. Increased flows in some reaches of the 

Yakima River would increase transport of sand size material but channel 

morphology would not be impacted. Large floods are needed to transport a 

significant amount of gravel and change channel morphology. If conservation 

results in reduced return flows from irrigated areas, sediment transport to streams 

through irrigation drains could be reduced. 

5.5.2.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction of new irrigation facilities that are needed to utilize transferred water 

could increase soil erosion. The impacts would be similar to those of the 

Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative, except smaller in scale. 

5-23 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Long-Term Impacts 

Impacts to channel morphology would be similar to the No Action Alternative. 

Water transfers could cause changes in land use from irrigated cropland to 

dryland crops, fallowed land, or urban land. Those land use changes could result 

in changes in erosion and sediment delivery to streams. Reduced soil erosion 

could occur off dryland crop areas or fallowed land. Urban uses may decrease 

soil erosion if areas are paved and landscaped. 

5.5.2.3 Groundwater Conservation Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction of groundwater storage facilities could temporarily increase soil 

erosion. The construction footprint for ASR facilities will be relatively small. 

The construction footprint for surface recharge facilities will be larger, potentially 

greater than 1,000 acres in total, and will have increased potential for increased 

soil erosion. The infiltration basins may require excavation, which will have an 

increased potential for soil erosion. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Impacts to channel morphology would be similar to the No Action Alternative. 

The surface infiltration ponds will be dry during some periods of the year and the 

pond area would be exposed. Because the ponds will be surrounded by berms, the 

potential for longer term erosion is minor. 

5.5.2.4 Mitigation 

Requirements for erosion control would be defined for each project through 

review by State and local regulatory agencies. Requirements could include 

construction BMPs such as the use of straw bales or silt fencing to trap sediments. 

Any proposed storage projects would undergo further design and geotechnical 

review and additional project-level environmental review, prior to construction to 

assess the site’s suitability. 

Erosion control requirements would reduce sediment production and delivery 

from required infrastructure associated with each of the State Alternatives, 

including facilities, roadways, and conveyance structures. The infrastructure 

would be appropriately designed and projects would have to comply with stream 

buffer requirements in applicable local critical area ordinances and stormwater 

requirements. Mitigation measures to reduce erosion could also include 

watershed restoration activities such as planting vegetation on exposed stream 

banks and improving the condition of drainage culverts. 

Mitigating the risks associated with potential or actual geologic instabilities 

include performing a geotechnical evaluation of the sediment conditions on 

potential project sites so that geotechnical considerations are adequately 

5-24 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

incorporated into project design. Geotechnical evaluations of potential unstable 

slopes prior to design will minimize the potential for facilities to be located in 

unstable areas. 

No mitigation is needed for potential impacts to channel morphology because 

impacts are not expected to be significant. 

5.6 Water Quality 

5.6.1 Affected Environment 

5.6.1.1 Surface Water 

An overview of the surface water quality in the Yakima basin is provided in 

chapter 4. 

5.6.1.2 Groundwater 

A brief overview of the groundwater quality is provided in chapter 4. Additional 

information on groundwater quality is available for the Columbia Plateau, Moxee 

Valley and Ahtanum Valley. Based on the 1994 study of the Columbia Plateau 

(Whiteman, et al., 1994), groundwater in the basalt units is generally of good 

quality and suitable for most uses. The dominant water type is calcium 

magnesium bicarbonate, and sodium bicarbonate is the next most prevalent water 

type. Sodium bicarbonate waters typically occur in the aquifer system’s deeper 

down-gradient locations. Sodium concentrations increase with residence time in 

the aquifer system. 

The infiltrating surface water transports nitrogen derived from agricultural 

chemicals into the groundwater (Whiteman, et al., 1994). Long-term nutrient data 

have been generated by USGS NAQWA efforts. A report, Nitrate 

Concentrations in Ground Water of the Central Columbia Plateau (USGS, 1997) 

by USGS, presents an overview of nitrate concentrations in the Central Columbia 

Plateau. Results of sampling 573 wells indicated that land practices are the 

dominant influence over the distribution and concentration of nitrate in 

groundwater in this area, and that irrigated agriculture is associated with high 

nitrate concentrations and high frequency of contamination of groundwater. The 

USGS Circular, Water Quality in the Central Columbia Plateau, Washington and 

Idaho (1992-95), discusses the major water quality issues—nitrates, pesticides, 

sediment, nutrients—in the Central Columbia Plateau (Williamson et al., 1998). 

Overall, about 20 percent of wells in this study unit exceed the 10-mg/L EPA 

Maximum Concentration Level (MCL) for nitrate in drinking water. Agricultural 

return flows, which have high nitrate concentrations, reach streams through the 

unconfined aquifer causing surface water nitrate concentrations to increase in 

streams. 

5-25 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Groundwater in the lower Moxee Valley (west of and including Moxee City) 

typically lies within 5 to 20 feet of the ground surface and has dissolved oxygen 

concentrations of greater than 5 mg/L in much of the area (Ecology, 2007d). 

Groundwater samples from wells in this area contained little, if any, measurable 

iron or manganese. However, they had higher concentrations of nitrate+nitrite-N, 

total persulfate nitrogen (TPN), total phosphorus (TP), chloride, dissolved organic 

carbon (DOC), TDS, and conductivity than typically found. 

In contrast, the upper Moxee Valley (east of Moxee City) is generally 

characterized by greater depths to groundwater, finer grained aquifer materials, 

and much lower dissolved oxygen concentrations (i.e., near 0 mg/L at most 

wells). Most wells in this area contained elevated concentrations of iron and 

manganese, but had little, if any, measurable nitrate+nitrite-N or TPN. Numerous 

wells in the upper valley exceeded the criteria set for secondary protection of 

drinking water supplies for iron, manganese, TDS, and conductivity. Wells in the 

upper valley also tended to have lower TP, chloride, DOC, TDS, and conductivity 

values than wells in the lower valley (Ecology, 2007d). 

Groundwater temperatures in the Ahtanum Valley averaged 54.3 °F (12.4 °C) 

(Ecology, 2003c). This is warmer than the local mean annual air temperature of 

approximately 50 °F (10 °C) at the Yakima weather monitoring station WSO AP 

and is likely due to the effect of irrigation during the warmer part of the year 

(Western Regional Climate Center, 2007). Groundwater temperatures in both the 

Moxee and Ahtanum valleys followed seasonal air temperature patterns with 

warmer conditions from June through September and cooler conditions from 

December through March (Ecology, 2007d; 2003c). The range of measurements 

for most of the wells in the two valleys varied less than 3 °C, indicating that the 

groundwater temperature generally remains relatively stable throughout the year. 

5.6.2 Environmental Consequences 

5.6.2.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

This aggressive approach to conserving water in the Yakima basin would likely 

result in numerous small-scale improvements, which would require construction 

activities. These improvements could include lining or piping of existing canals, 

automating canals, constructing reregulating reservoirs, and installing on-farm 

water conservation improvements. 

Currently, it is not possible to determine which of these improvements would be 

implemented or the location at which they would be implemented. Nonetheless, 

construction associated with implementing many of these improvements could 

increase the potential for degradation of water quality. The most likely 

construction-related impacts would be from introducing sediments to surface 

waterbodies, which would increase turbidity. Implementation of BMPs, including 

5-26 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

the timing of construction and measures that limit erosion and stabilize disturbed 

areas, is expected to limit adverse effects on water quality to the period of 

construction and immediately thereafter. Any water quality degradation that does 

occur is expected to diminish as vegetation becomes established in the disturbed 

area. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Under this alternative, the primary focus would be improving the efficiency of 

irrigation systems in the Yakima basin. Between zero and one-third of the 

amount of conserved water would be left in source streams instead of diverting it 

for irrigation, municipal supply, and/or industrial use. It is possible that the entire 

amount of conserved water would remain in the source streams during noncritical 

years. However, two-thirds to all of the amount of conserved flow would be used 

by parties with junior water rights during critical years. These varying year-toyear conditions would result in a range of effects on water quality. 

The concentration of nutrients in the drains and wasteways as a result of surface 

and subsurface runoff is a function of the amount of water applied for irrigation. 

During noncritical years, the amount of water used for irrigation is expected to 

remain virtually the same as under the No Action Alternative. Since this 

alternative would not change agricultural water application rates, the amount of 

nutrients transported from agricultural lands would not be significantly altered. 

However, groundwater nutrient concentrations would be increased due to less 

dilution from irrigation system seepage. In contrast, the increased instream flows 

with virtually the same nutrient loadings to the streams would result in lower 

nutrient concentrations in the Yakima River and other affected streams in the 

basin. During critical years, a higher percentage of the conserved water would 

likely be used for agriculture, which could increase nutrient loadings to streams. 

However, these increased loadings are expected to be minimal and when 

considered in combination with the increased instream flows would likely result 

in minimal increases in nutrient concentrations in the Yakima River and other 

affected streams. 

On-farm conservation measures may reduce loadings of surface water and 

groundwater pollutants because of improved irrigation practices. 

The effects of this alternative on temperature and dissolved oxygen concentrations 

in surface waters would primarily be a result of changes in streamflows and the 

subsequent change in dilution effect on current water quality loading, such as 

agricultural return flows. The magnitude of streamflow increase during JulySeptember is relatively small (0.14 versus 0.15 maf), so negligible effects on 

water temperature and dissolved oxygen are anticipated. 

5-27 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

5.6.2.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Reallocating water use would not directly result in any substantial construction 

activities. Therefore, it is not expected to alter the water quality of either 

groundwater or surface water in comparison to the No Action Alternative. 

However, there is a possibility that the availability of water would lead to 

construction activities associated with the planned use of this water, and hence 

indirectly affect water quality. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Implementation of water markets and/or water banks has the potential to alter the 

use of water and thereby alter water quality in the basin. The water quality effects 

of these alterations would be dependent on the associated volume of water, and its 

implemented and forgone uses and locations. Generally: 

•	 Increases in agricultural uses would increase the potential for nutrient 

loadings to associated groundwater and surface water, moderate stream 

temperatures, and reduce stream dissolved oxygen concentrations. 

•	 Increases in municipal uses could indirectly increase the potential for 

water quality degradation by supporting increased urban development. 

The extent and location of any degradation would be dependent on the 

type and location of treatment facilities used. 

•	 Increases in instream flows would tend to reduce nutrient concentrations, 

and increase dissolved oxygen concentrations. Effects on the thermal 

regime would be dependent on the location of increased instream flows. 

In the upper basin, increased instream flows would tend to reduce stream 

temperatures. However, increased instream flows in the lower basin may 

somewhat increase stream temperature. 

The relative magnitude of these impacts would depend on the range or increase or 

decrease in use. 

5.6.2.3 Groundwater Storage Alternative 

This alternative considers three different approaches (1) Municipal ASR, 

(2) Injection with Passive Recovery, and (3) Surface Recharge. A technical 

evaluation was conducted for each of these alternatives and is provided in 

Technical Report on Groundwater Storage (Ecology, 2007g). 

5-28 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

Construction Impacts 

The effects of construction for this alternative would be dependent on which of 

the three approaches is implemented. Table 5.9 summarizes which facilities 

would need to be constructed under each of these approaches. Since the ASR 

approach would generally use existing facilities, any effects of construction are 

expected to be from drilling and testing the well that would be used for pumping 

and recovering water to/from the deep aquifer. Construction-related effects for 

the Injection with Passive Recovery approach would also be associated with 

construction of a new water treatment plant and the water transfer system to this 

plant. The most widespread construction effects would be associated with surface 

recharge, which would require construction of several ponds and a water transfer 

system to these ponds. 

Table 5.9 Summary of need for construction associated with three approaches to the 

Groundwater Storage Alternative 

Facilities Municipal ASR 

Injection with no 

recovery Surface recharge 

Treatment plant Likely use existing 

facility 

Construct new facility None 

Water transfer 

system 

(canal/piping) 

Likely use existing 

transfer system 

Construct new transfer 

system facilities to be 

used with existing 

system 

Construct new transfer system 

facilities to be used with 

existing system 

Well development Construct new well Construct new well None 

Pond construction None None Yes1 

Ongoing grounddisturbing 

maintenance 

Negligible Negligible Need for routine maintenance 

to rejuvenate declining 

infiltration rates from clogging 

1

 For an infiltration capacity of 10,000 acre-feet/month, 180-550 acres would be needed for surface recharge 

ponds (Ecology, 2007g). This would require at least 36 ponds if the maximum pond sizes is 5 and at least 9 ponds 

if the maximum pond size is 20 acres. 

* 

The primary pathways for construction to affect water quality are the transport of 

sediments into surface waters and spills of hazardous materials used in the 

construction equipment. Use of silt curtains, settling ponds, and other BMPs to 

minimize erosion and runoff of sediment would minimize the potential for 

increasing suspended sediments and turbidity in water. Fueling construction 

equipment and maintaining it off-site or in specific areas designed for that 

purpose would minimize the risk of spilling hazardous materials in the work area 

and, consequently, avoid degrading the quality of groundwater and surface water 

near the work area. 

Neither the ASR nor Injection with Passive Recovery approach is expected to 

require ongoing maintenance which would require substantial ground disturbance. 

However, the Surface Recharge ponds will need ongoing maintenance as clogging 

reduces their infiltration rates. Maintenance of the ponds is likely to include using 

5-29 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

spring-tooth harrows and/or scrapers in the ponds. Use of machinery in the pond 

would increase the potential for spills of hazardous materials including fuel and 

oils, although these risks could be minimized by conducting maintenance and 

fueling of the equipment off-site. Although disturbing the bottom of the ponds 

would increase the potential for wind to blow sediments from the ponds, it is not 

expected to result in measurable effects on water quality. As the ponds are filled 

after maintenance events, turbidity of the inflow would increase, but this would 

not affect water quality outside the pond since there would not be any runoff from 

them. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Municipal ASR.—Under the ASR approach, potable water would be pumped into 

a deep confined aquifer and recovered later by pumping. Since this approach 

would have negligible effects on the groundwater table outside of the confined 

aquifer, it would not have measurable effects on water quality beyond the 

confined area and thus would also not affect the quality of surface waters. 

Evaluation of ASR studies indicates that metal concentrations could increase 

slightly while the water is stored in the deep basalt geologic formation and that 

the concentration of coliform bacteria, an indicator of human pathogens, could be 

occasionally increased (Ecology, 2007g). However, these increases are expected 

to be small enough that they would not require additional treatment for municipal 

water supply beyond what currently takes place. 

Injection with Passive Recovery.—Under this approach, potable water would be 

injected into a deep aquifer that has hydraulic continuity with stream(s) in the 

Yakima basin. This would increase the groundwater baseline elevations and 

increase accretion to stream reaches. The specific location of accretion inflows 

would be dependent on the location of the injection site, and the geology of the 

area affected would influence any water quality effects experienced. As with the 

ASR, injection of potable water could slightly increase metal concentrations and 

the concentration of coliform bacteria in the deep basalt geologic formation. The 

deep aquifer is expected to have lower nutrient concentrations than the shallow 

aquifer, which receives nutrient loadings from agricultural use. Therefore, the 

overall nutrient concentrations of the water accruing to streams is expected to be 

reduced. We anticipate that accretion flows would generally be cooler than 

streamflows, and would therefore have a cooling effect on streams. In areas 

where accretion flows are concentrated, water temperatures could be substantially 

reduced and may provide localized thermal refugia for aquatic species including 

salmonids. 

Surface Recharge.—Under the Surface Recharge approach, water would be 

ponded in areas near streams in the basin to increase water seeping through 

alluvial sediments into the Yakima River and/or its tributaries. Changes in 

groundwater quality in affected shallow aquifers could occur from the infiltration 

component. Water quality from a controlled infiltration pond (using water from 

5-30 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

irrigation canals) is not known, but is expected to be of better quality than what 

currently occurs from applied irrigation since there will be no fertilizer or 

herbicide applications. Although specific locations and sizes of surface ponds 

have not been identified, a study was done to evaluate the potential effects of 

using this approach (Ecology, 2007g). The results of this evaluation indicate that 

the recharge water would tend to increase the concentrations of nitrate along with 

major cations and anions, and that the magnitude of these increases would be 

dependent on the ratio of the seepage rate and flow in the stream. The 

temperature of infiltration from a controlled infiltration pond (using water from 

irrigation canals) is not known, but may be warmer because of solar heating from 

ponding that may occur. The effect of this infiltration on groundwater 

temperatures discharging back to streams is expected to be small and therefore 

surface water temperatures would likely increase slightly. 

5.6.3 Mitigation 

In order to minimize adverse water-quality effects of any selected alternative, sitespecific studies could be conducted to determine potential impacts and any 

appropriate mitigation. 

5.7 Vegetation and Wildlife 

5.7.1 Affected Environment 

As described in chapter 4, vegetation and wildlife concerns within the study area 

include the continued loss and degradation of shrub-steppe habitat, the potential 

disruption and loss of vital movement corridors for local wildlife populations, and 

potential disturbance to the limited riparian and wetland environments available 

for wildlife. 

5.7.1.1 Shrub-Steppe 

Shrub-steppe vegetation communities were the historically dominant vegetation 

type in eastern Washington. However, shrub-steppe habitat has been largely lost 

and degraded over the past century due to agricultural and municipal activities. 

The shrub-steppe vegetation community supports a diverse array of wildlife 

species including the greater sage-grouse, a State Threatened and Federal 

Candidate species. 

There are three large blocks of shrub-steppe habitat remaining in the study area: 

the YTC, a portion of the Yakama Nation Reservation, and the ALE Reserve 

located on the DOE’s Hanford Site (YSFWPB, 2004). 

For more detailed information regarding shrub-steppe vegetation, communities 

within the study area, and wildlife species that utilize this habitat, refer to 

chapter 4. 

5-31 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

5.7.1.2 Movement Corridors 

Movement corridors are important to many species of wildlife. The primary 

function of a corridor is to provide access and dispersal options for wildlife 

species between two areas of habitat. Due to extensive land conversion in the 

study area for agricultural and municipal purposes, available movement corridors 

for wildlife species are limited. For more detailed descriptions of movement 

corridors for priority species, such as the greater sage-grouse and elk, within the 

study area refer to chapter 4. 

5.7.1.3 Riparian Areas (Cottonwood Recruitment) 

Riparian areas represent the transition from aquatic to terrestrial environments. 

Many riverine processes are influenced by the riparian zone, including channel 

structure, nutrient exchanges, and biological composition. Within the Yakima 

River basin, the most extensive and well-developed riparian environments are 

located along the alluvial floodplain of lower river segments with black 

cottonwood as the dominant tree species. The life history and population 

dynamics of black cottonwood are tightly bound to evolving river conditions and 

critical for comprehending the condition of the basin as a whole. For more 

detailed information regarding the importance of cottonwood recruitment and 

riparian conditions within the study area, refer to chapter 4. 

5.7.1.4 Wetland Abundance and Distribution 

Wetlands are diverse environments that are at least periodically saturated or 

covered with water. They are extremely important to the proliferation of many 

aquatic and semi-terrestrial vegetation and wildlife species within the study area. 

For more information regarding the abundance and distribution of wetlands within 

the study area, refer to chapter 4. 

5.7.2 Environmental Consequences 

The State Alternatives may require construction of pumping stations, conveyance 

pipelines, staging areas, access roads, canal lining, or other facilities. Although 

the specific effects of each of these actions are variable, all are likely to cause 

both temporary and, to a lesser degree, permanent impacts to vegetation and 

wildlife. 

Impacts to plant communities include disturbance and removal of vegetation 

during construction of infrastructure. If conveyance lines are needed, vegetation 

along the conveyance corridor would likely be removed. If the plant communities 

provide habitat for wildlife, that habitat would be lost. Similarly, wildlife in those 

habitats, such as birds, small mammals, amphibians or reptiles, could be lost or 

displaced by construction. Wildlife in the vicinity of construction projects would 

also be temporarily displaced by noise and construction activities. The magnitude 

of the impact would vary depending on the existing habitat in the proposed 

5-32 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

construction area, the level of wildlife use, the season, and the scale of the 

proposed construction, but some level of impact is unavoidable. 

Impacts to riparian areas, undisturbed shrub-steppe habitats, and areas suitable for 

listed wildlife species such as the greater sage-grouse would be considered 

significant. Impacts to disturbed habitats such as agricultural lands and grazed 

grasslands would be considered less significant. 

5.7.2.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative 

The impacts of conservation projects would vary with the type and scale of the 

project. Small on-farm conservation projects would have few impacts, and larger 

regional scale projects would have greater impacts to vegetation and wildlife. 

Construction Impacts 

Short-term impacts to vegetation and wildlife would occur during the construction 

of irrigation system improvements. Piping canals or encasing canal infrastructure 

beneath the surface would eliminate available open water and locally reduce the 

extent of riparian vegetation and habitat. Construction impacts caused by lining 

irrigation canals or field leveling may alter existing vegetation structure and 

wildlife habitat, potentially displacing wildlife, such as birds, mammals, 

amphibians, and reptiles. However, conservation improvements are intended to 

be constructed on land that is already used for agriculture, and impacts to 

undisturbed shrub-steppe habitat are not anticipated. Construction impacts would 

also include noise and construction activities that would temporarily displace 

wildlife. 

Long-Term Impacts 

In the long term, reduced seepage from lined canals could eliminate some 

vegetated areas. Lining canals may locally dewater wetland and riparian areas 

associated with these canals. However, from a basin perspective, the Enhanced 

Water Conservation Alternative may also increase the available water overall and 

allow water transfers to other areas or uses. 

If water rights are transferred to irrigate different lands with the conserved water, 

vegetation and wildlife habitat could be altered. Conserved water could be 

transferred for municipal or domestic uses, potentially expanding municipal 

development or housing and reducing native vegetation and habitat. Such water 

transfers would most likely occur in areas currently designated for such uses in 

county and city comprehensive plans. Refer to section 5.13 for a more detailed 

discussion of potential water transfers for municipal or domestic uses. 

Conservation projects could also result in a smaller number of water diversions, 

ultimately increasing instream flows. Increased streamflows may improve the 

quality of fish habitat as discussed in sections 5.8 and 5.9. They may also 

5-33 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

improve wildlife habitat along open water channels by increasing the overall 

transitional (riparian) area between aquatic and terrestrial environments. 

5.7.2.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative 

The Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative would not 

directly impact vegetation or wildlife, but transferred water rights could be used 

to irrigate different areas. This could potentially reduce the overall area of shrubsteppe and other important habitats within the basin by accelerating or allowing 

additional conversions of habitat to occur. 

Construction Impacts 

Construction of new diversion structures, pipelines, or canals that result from 

transfer of water rights to new cropland could have impacts similar to those 

described for the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative. 

Long-Term Impacts 

In the long term, water rights transfers could cause changes in land use from 

irrigated cropland to dry land, fallowed land, or urban land uses. These changes 

could affect vegetation structure and the distribution of wildlife. Water rights 

could also be transferred for domestic or municipal uses and expand development 

into areas designated for such uses in county and/or city comprehensive plans. 

If water rights are transferred to municipal or domestic uses, the quantity and 

distribution of groundwater recharge could be altered. The nature and magnitude 

of these potential impacts would depend on a number of factors, including the 

location and scale of changes in water uses. 

5.7.2.3 Groundwater Storage Alternative 

The Groundwater Storage Alternative would have both short-term and long-term 

impacts to vegetation and wildlife. However, negative impacts are anticipated to 

be limited to the footprint of the required structures for infiltration and injection, 

as well as ancillary infrastructure including pumping stations, intakes, and 

conveyance lines. 

As stated in section 5.2, injection and infiltration with passive recovery may have 

a beneficial impact of increasing instream baseflows in the Yakima River and its 

tributaries, depending on the location of the facilities within the basin. The 

increased flow may prove beneficial for the further establishment and 

proliferation of riparian vegetation and the wildlife that utilize riparian habitat. 

Infiltration would require the construction of facilities and/or berms to contain 

water during the infiltration process. Although direct injection would require 

treatment facilities, it would require more limited construction impacts to 

5-34 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

vegetation and wildlife due to the smaller scale of the projects. These facilities 

would not be located in areas of undisturbed shrub-steppe habitat. 

Both Groundwater Storage Alternatives, injection recharge and surface 

infiltration, are discussed in more detail below. 

Construction Impacts 

Injection Recharge.—Short-term impacts to vegetation and wildlife from the 

construction of required facilities for the ground injection recharge method would 

be isolated to the limits of construction. Where feasible, the injection facilities, 

approximately 100 square feet in size, would be located adjacent to existing 

treatment facilities. If a new treatment facility needs to be constructed, there 

would be greater potential impacts to vegetation and wildlife, but the impacts 

would still be limited to the extent of construction. The new facilities would 

likely be constructed on land that is already disturbed and is appropriately 

designated for such a use under existing zoning regulations. Specific short-term 

construction impacts to vegetation and wildlife would be similar to those 

described for the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative. 

Surface Infiltration.—The surface infiltration method would have more 

extensive short-term impacts than the injection method primarily due to the size 

of the infiltration basin required. Depending on site conditions and infiltration 

rates, a range of approximately 25 to 120 infiltration basins up to 20 acres in size 

would be installed across the Yakima River basin. Short-term impacts would be 

anticipated within the construction footprint of the infiltration basin, pumps, and 

along the conveyance line. Although construction impacts would be similar to 

those described for the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative, the area of 

impact for the surface infiltration method is likely much larger. 

Potential infiltration sites would likely be located in areas of disturbed or marginal 

habitat. However, the creation of the infiltration basins would require the removal 

of vegetation and the excavation of material from the site. The excavated material 

could be used onsite to construct berms. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Injection Recharge.—Operational impacts to vegetation and wildlife would be 

limited to the footprint of the injection facility and associated infrastructure. 

Beneficial impacts could arise with a localized increase in groundwater storage 

and an associated increase in instream flows. This increase could enhance the 

limited riparian forest within the Yakima River basin, ultimately improving 

conditions for wildlife that utilize this habitat. 

Surface Infiltration—Operational impacts to vegetation and wildlife caused by 

surface infiltration would be limited to the footprint of the infiltration facility and 

associated infrastructure. Disturbance of soils coupled with an increase in 

5-35 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

available water may promote the growth of invasive plant species such as kochia, 

knapweeds, and various grass species along the edges of the infiltration basin. 

The increase in groundwater levels, and the potential increase in instream flows, 

could enhance the limited riparian forest within the Yakima River basin. Such 

impacts could ultimately benefit the wildlife such as birds, mammals, reptiles, and 

amphibians that utilize riparian habitats. 

5.7.3 Mitigation 

The construction impacts to vegetation and wildlife caused by the development of 

the required facilities and infrastructure would be mitigated through site and 

facility design to minimize the need for vegetation removal. In addition, 

construction BMPs would be followed and disturbed areas would be restored to 

the maximum extent practicable. 

Following construction, it is anticipated that wildlife would return and utilize sites 

except for inundated areas such as infiltration basins. Active management of 

disturbed areas would be required to inhibit the establishment and spread of 

invasive plant species. 

5.8 Anadromous Fish 

5.8.1 Affected Environment 

Chapter 4 provides information on the status and distribution of anadromous fish 

and habitat conditions in the Yakima basin. The environmental consequences of 

the proposed State Alternatives on anadromous fish are very similar to the No 

Action Alternative. Therefore, consequences from the No Action Alternative are 

reiterated and discussed in the next sections as they relate to the State 

Alternatives. These sections further describe the methods and indicators that were 

used to evaluate these consequences. One element that remains as a data gap is 

the potential effect of drought years on these indicators. 

5.8.1.1 Fish Spawning and Rearing Habitat, Passage 

Fish spawning and rearing habitats as well as fish passage are all affected by the 

managed flow conditions of the Yakima River. Although there are differences in 

the resource requirements for various species and life stages of resident and 

anadromous fishes, there are also similarities. 

As described in chapter 4, there are numerous instream and floodplain elements of 

spawning and rearing habitat that combine to produce a spatially heterogeneous 

mixture of habitat conditions that are vital to the production and maintenance of 

native fish assemblages. The interaction of these habitat elements, combined with 

streamflow and other physiochemical determinants, produce a complex mosaic 

5-36 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

under which aquatic species assemblages have evolved and proliferate. For an indepth discussion of critical issues pertaining to aquatic habitat, such as sediment 

quantities and distribution, channel conditions, and LWD, refer to chapter 4. 

5.8.2 Environmental Consequences 

As described in detail in chapter 4, the current critical issues for anadromous fish 

within the Yakima subbasin pertain to the current practices of regulating flows for 

meeting agricultural and municipal entitlements. Presently, river flows are 

substantially altered as a result of storing water in reservoirs in the winter and 

diverting flows in spring, summer, and fall. 

The identified critical issues for anadromous salmonids are: 

•	 High summer flows in the upper Yakima and Cle Elum Rivers that reduce 

suitable rearing habitat for emergent fry and yearlings 

•	 Unnatural and relatively quick changes in streamflow and elevation in 

both the upper Yakima and Naches Rivers that disrupts habitat 

•	 Reduced stream freshets downstream from the Parker gage impacting 

smolt outmigration success 

Other issues affecting anadromous fish in the Yakima basin are also described in 

chapter 4. All issues are related to the changes in hydrologic and 

geomorphological conditions in the Yakima River and its tributaries caused by the 

intensive hydrologic management of the river system for user entitlements. 

5.8.2.1 Methods and Assumptions 

Riverware and Flow Data 

The Riverware model for evaluating flow data relative to anadromous fish was 

discussed in chapter 4. 

Temperature 

Water temperature for the No Action Alternative for the Yakima River stream 

reaches between Roza and Prosser Diversion Dams was given in figure 4.12 in 

chaper 4. These temperature conditions can be expected to be the same for all 

three State Alternatives. Water quality results at critical locations in the river 

system are discussed in chapter 4. 

Indicator 1: Summer rearing habitat in the Easton and Ellensburg reaches 

for spring Chinook and steelhead fry and yearlings 

Description.—As previously described in chapter 4, this indicator describes the 

amount (acres) and percent of juvenile spring Chinook and steelhead summer 

rearing habitat for the Easton and Ellensburg reaches, which represent the upper 

5-37 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Yakima River where high summer flows occur in important salmonid rearing 

areas. Of the five reaches that were modeled to describe the flow to fish habitat 

relationship, these two reaches were selected for this indicator because they are 

located in the upper Yakima River where high summer flows occur. Habitat 

amounts for these reaches are expected to be similar for all three State 

Alternatives as for the No Action Alternative. 

Methods.—The DSS model for the Easton and Ellensburg reaches and the 

2-D Hydraulic Model were previously described in chapter 4. 

Indicator 2: Flip-flop in both the upper Yakima and Naches Rivers for 

yearling steelhead and spring Chinook 

Description.—As previously described in chapter 4, the second measurement for 

this indicator is the pre and post flip flop average median streamflows for the 

Easton, Ellensburg, and lower Naches River reaches, which provides some 

context for daily streamflows just prior to and after flip-flop and the absolute 

change in magnitude in streamflows pre- and post flip-flop. Flow measurements 

for flip flop are expected to be similar for all three State Alternatives as for the No 

Action Alternative. 

Method.—The Riverware model and use of streamflow data for this indicator was 

previously described in chapter 4. 

Indicator 3: Spring Flow Downstream from the Parker Gage 

Description—As previously described in chapter 4, this indicator measures the 

volume (acre-feet) of water that flows downstream from the Parker gage during 

the spring season of March through June based on average daily flows generated 

by the Riverware model. For the No Action Alternative, the spring season water 

volume is compared to the desired flow objective (chapter 4) and is expressed as a 

percentage above or below the flow objective. Spring flow downstream from the 

Parker gage is expected to be similar for all three State Alternatives as for the No 

Action Alternative. 

Method.—The DSS model and use of streamflow data for this indicator was 

previously described in chapter 4. 

Indicator 4: July-September Flow Downstream from the Parker Gage 

Description.—As previously described in chapter 4, the DSS model was used to 

estimate the average amount of coho rearing habitat in the Wapato reach for the 

summer period of July through September, and habitat quantity for the No Action 

Alternative was recorded. Summer flow downstream from the Parker gage and 

the corresponding habitat amount is expected to be similar for all three State 

Alternatives as for the No Action Alternative. 

Method.—The DSS model and use of streamflow data for this indicator was 

previously described in chapter 4. 

5-38 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

Indicator 5: Estimated Anadromous Fish Population Size 

Description.—For Reclamation’s alternatives, the EDT-projected numerical 

response of the anadromous fish populations to the three alternatives relative to 

the No Action Alternative provides a way to estimate the anadromous fishery 

benefits across the alternatives. For State Alternatives, no EDT modeling was 

performed because flows in the Yakima River as a result of the proposed 

alternatives would not be significantly different than the No Action Alternative. 

Table 5.10 summarizes the effects of the State Alternatives on the selected 

indicators for spring Chinook and steelhead. 

Table 5.10 Summary of analyses for State Alternatives: Yakima River Basin Water Storage Study 

PR/EIS 

Alternatives 

State alternatives 

Resource indicator (Same as No Action Alternative) 

High summer flows in the upper Yakima and Cle Elum Rivers (acres of available habitat) 

Easton Reach 

Area 

(acre) 

Steelhead fry 

Steelhead yearling 

Spring Chinook fry 

Spring Chinook yearling 

4.1 

57.9 

2.5 

47.9 

Ellensburg Reach 

Area 

(acre) 

Steelhead fry 

Steelhead yearling 

Spring Chinook fry 

Spring Chinook yearling 

2.2 

20.2 

1.7 

14.9 

Flip flop (rate of change during flip flop) (average cfs/day between August 15th to September 14th) 

Easton -8 cfs 

Ellensburg -78 cfs 

Lower Naches 34 cfs 

Reduced spring freshets downstream from the Parker gage. (Percent difference in spring season flow 

between the alternative and flow objective ( If >=0 then flow objective reached) 

-7% 

Stream run-off timing Not applicable 

Summer flows downstream from the Parker gage (acres of available habitat) 

Area 

(acre) 

Coho yearling 63.7 

5-39 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Indicator Findings 

The Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative will result in a modest increase in 

river flow as compared to the No Action Alternative, but not an increase in flow 

which would change impact conclusions. 

The Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative would have 

impacts similar to the No Action Alternative wherein the hydrograph is little 

changed from existing conditions. Winter and spring flows throughout the 

systems are essentially unchanged as a result of water conservation under this 

alternative. Summer flows do increase slightly, in some reaches, mostly 

downstream from the Parker gage, as water which currently is released from 

storage and diverted downstream for irrigation remains instream to meet the 

higher flow targets. The magnitude of the streamflow changes varies by reach. 

At the Parker gage, the increase is estimated at 136 cfs in average or wetter years 

and about 90 cfs in dry years. Because the flow regime under this alternative is 

essentially unchanged from existing conditions, the indicators discussed under the 

Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative are linked to flows that generally 

reflect the current condition. 

Indicator 1: Summer rearing habitat in the Easton and Ellensburg reach for 

spring Chinook and steelhead fry and yearlings. The habitat quantity amounts 

for each reach and species/life stage is presented in table 4.25 in chapter 4 for the 

No Action Alternative; these amounts would be similar for the State Alternatives. 

These values are essentially unchanged from the current condition. 

Indicator 2: Flip-flop in both the upper Yakima and Naches Rivers for 

yearling steelhead and spring Chinook. Flows in the Easton reach drop by 

about 8 cfs per day during the flip flop season from mid-August to midSeptember. At the same time flows in the Ellensburg reach are dropping by 

78 cfs/day while flows in the lower Naches River go up by about 34 cfs/day 

(table 4.26). On average, flows in the Easton reach drop from about 572 to 

328 cfs, while flows downstream in the Ellensburg reach, which is affected 

significantly by Cle Elum Lake release that does not affect Easton, drop from 

about 3,860 to 1,506 cfs. On the lower Naches River, flows rise from about 

612 cfs to 1,628 cfs as releases from Rimrock Lake are ramped up. 

The average rate of change in daily flow for the No Action Alternative and the 

current condition was nearly the same for all three reaches; indicating no change 

with this alternative. Therefore, no change is expected in the biological 

consequence to anadromous salmonids by the State Alternatives as compared to 

the current condition. 

Indicator 3: Early Spring/Fall Flow Downstream from the Parker Gage. 

Increased flow downstream from the Parker gage is considered beneficial to 

improve anadromous salmon habitat through the middle and lower Yakima River. 

5-40 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

Moreover, the March – June timeframe is especially important for salmon given 

its timing coincident with smolt outmigration and the resulting benefit to smolt 

survival. 

The median early spring season (March-June) flow downstream from the Parker 

gage for the No Action Alternative is 2,274 cfs which is an increase in flow of 

292 cfs over the current condition (1,983 cfs). Table 5.11 provides a comparison 

of flow volume downstream from the Parker gage for the March to June, July to 

October, and November to February time periods. 

Table 5.11 Median seasonal flow volume downstream from the Parker gage, 1981-2005 

Flow volume downstream from the Parker gage (maf)) 

Alternative Mar – Jun Jul – Oct Nov – Feb 

Current Operation 0.60 0.12 0.59 

No Action Alternative 0.66 0.17 0.58 

Enhanced Water Conservation 0.72 0.18 0.58 

The No Action Alternative and the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative 

show increases in instream flow downstream from the Parker gage compared to 

current operation for most of the months evaluated. The increased March to June 

flow volume for the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative is 107,000 acrefeet more than current operation and 40,000 acre-feet more than the No Action 

Alternative while the increased July to October flow volume is 59,000 acre-feet 

more than current operation and 4,000 acre-feet more than the No Action 

Alternative. The increased flow results in an increase in daily average discharge 

for these months compared to the current operation and No Action Alternative, 

which will benefit instream resources, as described in sections 5.8 and 5.9. 

Indicator 4: Late Spring/Fall Flow Downstream from the Parker gage. 

July – September Flow (Fish Habitat Area) 

The median July - September flow downstream from the Parker gage for the No 

Action Alternative is 642 cfs, which is an improvement of 333 cfs over the 

current condition (309 cfs). However, based on the flow-to-habitat relationship 

for coho yearlings, the result is a net decrease of approximately 4.8 acres in the 

amount of available summer rearing habitat (figure 5.3). This decrease is the 

result of habitat loss in the main channel (7.9 acres) as channel velocity increases 

as a result of increased flow that is not compensated for by an increase in side 

channel habitat (3.1 acres) because the flow threshold that results in the wateringup of side channels has not been realized. Overall habitat amount begins to 

increase again at 750 cfs. These conditions would be expected to be the same for 

the State Alternatives. 

5-41 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Wapato Coho Summer Rearing Habitat 

0.00 

50.00 

100.00 

150.00 

200.00 

250.00 

300 500 750 1500 2000 2500 5000 7500 12500 15000 

Flow (cfs) 

Area (acres) 

mainstem side channel total 

Figure 5.3 Relationship of coho summer yearling habitat amount to flow for the Wapato reach. 

April – September Flow (Instream Flow) 

Both the No Action Alternative and the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative 

show increases in instream flow downstream from the Parker gage compared to 

the current operation. The reason is the two-thirds allocation of the conservation 

savings to instream flow in the No Action Alternative to meet Title XII 

requirements. Title XII instream flow requirements are described in chapter 2. 

Two locations (Sunnyside Diversion Dam and Prosser Diversion Dam) are set as 

instream flow control points in the Title XII legislation. Target flows at those 

locations are set based upon the TWSA available during the April-September time 

period. Table 5.12 provides a comparison of flow volume downstream from the 

Parker gage for the April to September and the July to September time periods. 

Table 5.12 Flow volume downstream from the Parker gage for April-September and JulySeptember, average 1981-2005 

Alternative 

Flow volume downstream from the Parker gage (maf) 

April-September July-September 

Current Operation 

No Action Alternative 

Enhanced Water Conservation 

0.51 

0.62 

0.66 

0.09 

0.13 

0.14 

5-42 
 

Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

The increased April to September flow volume for the Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative is 150,000 acre-feet more than the current operation and 

40,000 acre-feet more than the No Action Alternative. The increased July to 

September flow volume is 50,000 acre-feet more than the current operation and 

10,000 acre-feet more than the No Action Alternative. The median flow for the 

Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative for the July-September time period is 

654 cfs, compared to 642 cfs for the No Action Alternative and 333 cfs for the 

current condition. Figure 5.1 presents hydrographs of the median of daily flows 

at the Parker gage for the all three alternatives described in table 5.12. The 

increased instream flow will benefit instream resources as described in 

sections 5.8 and 5.9. 

Indicator 5: Estimated Anadromous Fish Population Size. The Enhanced 

Water Conservation Alternative is expected to result in salmon and steelhead 

population sizes similar to those estimated for the No Action Alternative. 

Table 5.13 presents the estimated population size for spring and fall Chinook, 

coho, and steelhead for the No Action Alternative. These population size 

estimates do not include the contribution of hatchery produced fish and exclude 

harvest, and the estimates are based on the naturally produced fish determined 

from the quantity and quality of habitat. 

Table 5.13 Estimated average annual fish 

escapement (includes harvest) numbers (natural 

and hatchery) based on the EDT and AHA models 

for the No Action Alternative 

Species No Action Alternative 

Spring Chinook 7,189 

Fall Chinook 6,893 

Coho 8,475 

Steelhead 2,700 

5.8.2.2 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative 

The impacts to anadromous fish associated with this alternative are anticipated to 

be minimal. 

Construction Impacts 

Short term and temporary construction impacts that alter the conditions of aquatic 

habitat for some organisms would occur during the construction or modification 

of diversion and conveyance infrastructure, but the overall impact is anticipated to 

be minor relative to the quality and amount of aquatic habitat found within the 

Yakima system. Impacts caused from construction and field leveling activities 

may also alter aquatic conditions by temporarily increasing sedimentation 

(turbidity) in adjoining waters, but these impacts are anticipated to be temporary. 

5-43 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Long-Term Impacts 

Long-term impacts may result in reduced and/or more efficient diversion practices 

with potential to increase streamflows from an increase in groundwater discharge 

during low water periods. Depending on the timing and location of the increased 

flows, they could benefit anadromous and resident fish species. Reservoir levels 

may change from existing if conservation allows water to be stored in the 

reservoir for a longer period of time before being released. 

5.8.2.3 Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative 

Water rights transfers associated with the Market-Based Reallocation of Water 

Resources Alternative are not expected to have a substantial impact on aquatic 

resources within the Yakima River basin. 

Construction Impacts 

Minor impacts from construction activities with this alternative are similar to 

those described for the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative above. These 

impacts are anticipated to be temporary and isolated to areas within the 

boundaries of construction, similar to those described for the Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative. However, less construction is expected for this 

alternative than for the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative. Mitigation for 

any impacts caused by construction under this alternative would be similar to 

those described for the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative. 

Long-Term Impacts 

In the long term, if water rights are transferred to instream uses, streamflows may 

increase. Depending on the timing and location of the increased flows, 

anadromous and resident fish species could benefit. Higher flows will likely 

increase aquatic habitat conditions for fish and other organisms by increasing 

overall area and improving water quality conditions (e.g., temperature). 

5.8.2.4 Groundwater Storage Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Short term construction related impacts from the Groundwater Storage 

Alternative are expected to be minimal and similar to those described above for 

the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative. Most infiltration and injection 

facilities will be located away from streams; however screened intake and 

conveyance infrastructure would be located within aquatic and riparian areas. 

Some delivery facilities could be located in riparian areas, but only minor, 

temporary construction impacts (e.g., sedimentation) are anticipated. 

Long-Term Impacts 

In the long term, groundwater storage has the potential to provide several 

beneficial impacts to aquatic organisms within the Yakima River system. Water 

5-44 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

injected or infiltrated into area aquifers, over the long term, may become part of 

the natural groundwater system that would potentially seep back into the river 

(surface) system through groundwater seeps. Groundwater seeps are often 

associated with geological structures, such as faults or fold structures. Recharge 

of cold surface water during the winter at certain geologic structures may increase 

the flux of cold water to streams at existing areas of groundwater discharge. This 

would benefit cold water fish and other organisms, like salmonids, that utilize the 

Yakima River system. In addition, groundwater storage may be used to 

supplement streamflows. Depending on the timing and location of the returned 

flows, aquatic species may benefit. 

Further, water quality of return flows is expected to be better (i.e., cooler and 

cleaner) than ambient conditions. Direct injection to augment streamflows can 

provide refugia (cool groundwater inflow) for aquatic species in streams. 

5.8.3 Mitigation 

The following measures will be implemented to reduce short term impacts of 

construction activities to anadromous fish: 

•	 Implement construction BMPs to avoid and minimize potential 

construction impacts, including erosion and sedimentation, accidental and 

incidental discharge of pollutants (Spill Prevention, Containment, and 

Control Plan), and dewatering and discharge of dewatering water. 

•	 Provide treatment of construction dewatering discharges, such as sediment 

removal or filtration, as necessary, before the release of such water to 

wetlands or streams. 

•	 Comply with applicable Federal, State, and local environmental 

regulations to mitigate potential impacts to sensitive areas, including 

streams, buffers, and wetlands. 

•	 Restore disturbed areas to the maximum extent possible. 

•	 Construction work windows for special-status fish would be followed as 

required by State and Federal agencies such as WDFW, NOAA Fisheries, 

and/or USFWS to avoid critical periods (i.e., breeding/spawning, 

migration). 

•	 Also see the mitigation measures under Water Resources, section 5.2 and 

Sediment Resources, section 5.5. 

5-45 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

5.9 Resident Fish 

5.9.1 Affected Environment 

Chapter 4 previously provided information on extent of the affected area for State 

Alternatives for resident fish, as well as status and distribution of resident fish and 

habitat conditions in the affected area. The environmental consequences of the 

proposed State Alternatives on resident fish are very similar to the No Action 

Alternative. Therefore, consequences from the No Action Alternative are 

reiterated and discussed in the next sections as they relate to the State 

Alternatives. These sections further describe the methods and indicators that were 

used to evaluate these consequences. One element that remains as a data gap is 

the potential effect of drought years on these indicators. 

5.9.2 Environmental Consequences 

Similar to anadromous fish, and as described in detail in chapter 4, the existing 

critical issues for resident fish within the Yakima subbasin pertain to the current 

practices of regulating flows for meeting agricultural and municipal entitlements. 

Additional identified critical issues for resident fish are: 

•	 Reservoir operation affects resident fish by affecting the productivity of 

the reservoirs for fish and their food base 

•	 Water level regulation in reservoirs affects access from the reservoir to 

tributary spawning streams for resident fish. 

5.9.2.1 Methods and Assumptions 

Temperature 

Water temperature for the No Action Alternative for the Yakima River stream 

reaches between Roza and Prosser Diversion Dams was given in figure 4.12 in 

chapter 4. These temperature conditions can be expected to be the same for all 

three State Alternatives. Results at critical locations in the river system are 

discussed in chapter 4, “Water Quality.” 

Indicator 1— Summer rearing habitat in the Easton, Ellensburg and lower 

Naches River reaches for rainbow trout and bull trout. 

Refer to chapter 4 for a complete description of this indicator since they are 

similar in methodology. The only differences are that the fry and sub-yearling life 

stage time periods for rainbow trout and bull trout are different than for steelhead 

and spring Chinook because of differences in their life cycles. It should be 

mentioned that there are few records of bull trout residing in the three reaches 

evaluated for this indicator. And there is no evidence that a viable spawning 

population exists in these reaches, though occasional spawning nests have been 

observed over the years. The lifestage time periods used to estimate the amount 

5-46 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

of fry and sub-yearling habitat in the Easton, Ellensburg, and lower Naches River 

reaches were as follows: 

• Rainbow trout fry- July 1st through August 30th 

• Rainbow trout sub-yearling- September 1st through September 30th 

• Bull trout fry- April 1st through June 30th 

• Bull trout sub-yearling- June 1st through September 30th 

Indicator 2: Flip-flop in both the upper Yakima and Naches Rivers 

This indicator applies similarly to anadromous and resident fishes. A complete 

description of this indicator is discussed in chapter 4. 

Indicator 3: Reservoir Operations 

As described in chapter 4, the DSS and Riverware models were used to calculate 

the average number of annual days the critical threshold volume is not exceeded 

for Kachess Lake, Keechelus Lake and Rimrock Lake, and the average elevation 

for these reservoirs over a number of years. This indicator calculated the percent 

change of each Reclamation alternative to the No Action Alternative. This 

percent change is expected to be the same as the No Action Alternative for the 

Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources and Groundwater Storage 

Alternatives. For the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative, average 

elevations are slightly but not significantly above the current condition and No 

Action conditions for most reservoirs (table 5.14). This small change in elevation 

could create a slight increase in bull trout access to tributary spawning habitats. 

Table 5.15 summarizes the effects of the State Alternatives on the selected 

indicators for rainbow trout and bull trout. 

Table 5.14 Average elevation at existing Yakima basin reservoirs from July 15 to 

September 15, 1981 – 2005 

 Kachess Lake 

elevation in feet 

(% change from 

Current Condition) 

Keechelus Lake 

elevation in feet 

(% change from 

Current Condition) 

Rimrock Lake 

elevation in feet 

(% change from 

Current Condition) 

Current Condition 

State Alternative 1: 

Enhanced Water 

Conservation 

No Action Alternative 

2,248.9 

2,251.1 (0.1) 

2,250.9 (<0.1) 

2466.6 

2,468.3 (<0.1) 

2,467.9 (<0.1)

2,909.2 

2,909.7 (<0.1) 

 2,909.9 (<0.1) 

5-47 
 

 

 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table 5.15 Comparative analysis of State Alternatives: Yakima River Basin Water 

Storage Study PR/EIS 

Alternatives 

Resource indicator State alternatives (same as No Action Alternative) 

Summer flows in the upper Yakima and Lower Naches Rivers 

(acres of available habitat) 

Rainbow trout fry 5.2 

Rainbow trout yearling 57.2 

Bull trout yearling 61.9 

Ellensburg reach 

Rainbow trout fry 

Rainbow trout yearling 

Bull trout yearling 

Rainbow trout fry 

Rainbow trout yearling 

Bull trout yearling 

Easton reach 

2.5 

19.9 

20.5 

4.3 

45.9 

64.8 

Lower Naches 

Bull trout spawner upmigration at reservoirs (inseason days impassible) 

Kachess Lake 18 

Keechelus Lake 37 

Rimrock Lake 3 

Reservoir elevation during bull trout spawning migration (July 15 – September 15) 

Kachess Lake 2,248.4 ft 

Keechelus Lake 2,467.3 ft 

Rimrock Lake 2,909.9 ft 

Indicator Findings 

Indicator 1: Summer rearing habitat in the Easton, Ellensburg and lower Naches 

River reaches for rainbow trout and bull trout. −The habitat quantity amounts for 

each reach and species/life stage is presented in table 5.15 for the No Action 

Alternative; these amounts would be the same for the State Alternatives. These 

values are essentially unchanged from the current condition. Only habitat 

changes near or greater than 10% are discussed in the text, but all values are 

reported in table 5.15. 

Indicator 2: Flip-flop in both the upper Yakima and Naches Rivers. −The 

results are the same as discussed for anadromous fish in chapter 4. No change is 

expected in the biological consequence to resident fish by the State Alternatives 

compared to the current condition. 

Indicator 3: Reservoir operations. − The average annual number of days with a 

critical threshold reservoir volume for bull trout spawners for the No Action 

Alternative is Kachess Lake, 18 days; Keechelus Lake, 37 days; and Rimrock 

5-48 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

Lake, 3 days (table 5.6). The average reservoir elevations for the period 

coinciding with bull trout spawner migration for all the alternatives are shown in 

table 5.15. The average reservoir elevation for No Action were Kachess Lake, 

2,248.4 feet; Keechelus Lake, 2,467.3 feet; and Rimrock Lake 2,909.9 feet. 

These conditions would be expected to be the same for the State Alternatives. 

5.9.2.2 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative 

The impacts of this alternative to resident fish would be similar to those described 

under anadromous fish. 

5.9.2.3 Market-Based Water Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative 

The impacts of this alternative to resident fish would be similar to those described 

under anadromous fish. 

5.9.2.4 Groundwater Storage Alternative 

The impacts of this alternative to resident fish would be similar to those described 

under anadromous fish. 

5.9.3 Mitigation 

Mitigation measures for resident fish would be similar to those described under 

Anadromous Fish. 

5.10 Aquatic Invertebrates 

5.10.1 Affected Environment 

A thorough description of the complex and variable invertebrate population 

responses to regulated river systems such as the Yakima is provided in chapter 4. 

Conditions that may influence the aquatic invertebrate communities within the 

Yakima system correspond directly to flow controls related to municipal and 

agricultural entitlements and flow diversions. 

5.10.2 Environmental Consequences 

5.10.2.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Impacts related to construction associated with the Enhanced Water Conservation 

Alternative are anticipated to be minor and isolated to areas adjacent to or 

immediately downstream of any new intake or outlet structures related to 

irrigation improvements. 

5-49 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Long-Term Impacts 

Aquatic invertebrate communities are dynamic and adaptive to changing 

environmental conditions. As stated in chapter 4, high quality resilient 

invertebrate communities exist in the upper Yakima River basin under the altered 

flow regimes associated with flip-flop operations (Cuffney et al., 1997; Stanford 

et al., 2002; Nelson, 2004; Reclamation, unpublished data). Limited data appear 

to indicate some impairment to aquatic invertebrates in downstream sites. 

Cuffney et al. (1997) describe sites along the mainstem Yakima between the 

Umtanum and Parker gages as containing moderately impaired communities. The 

potential for increased flows from conservation practices would likely 

beneficially impact the conditions of aquatic invertebrate communities within the 

Yakima River basin; however due to the many environmental factors that 

influence these communities, no definitive impacts can be quantified with 

available information. 

5.10.2.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Impacts related to construction under this alternative would be similar to those 

described for the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Long-term impacts would be similar to those described for the Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative. 

5.10.2.3 Groundwater Storage Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Impacts related to construction under this alternative would be similar to those 

described for the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Long-term impacts would be similar to those described for the Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative. 

5.10.3 Mitigation 

No mitigation measures are required as impacts to aquatic invertebrate 

populations are anticipated to be minor, or in the long-term, potentially beneficial. 

5-50 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

5.11 Threatened and Endangered Species 

5.11.1 Affected Environment 

A comprehensive description of special status species potentially occupying or 

using upland, wetland, and aquatic sites within the project area is provided in 

chapter 4, and will not be repeated here. For a species and status list, refer to the 

“Threatened and Endangered Species” section in chapter 4. 

5.11.2 Environmental Consequences 

5.11.2.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Although anticipated to be negligible, any impacts to threatened and endangered 

species from this alternative would be similar to those for Vegetation and 

Wildlife, Anadromous Fish, and Resident Fish described in sections 5.7, 5.8, and 

5.9, respectively. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Over the long term, the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative could benefit 

threatened and endangered aquatic species such as steelhead and bull trout by 

increasing flow during critical life history stages. Monitoring would be needed to 

determine if such effects occur and are measurable. 

5.11.2.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Although not anticipated, any potential impacts to threatened and endangered 

species from this alternative would be similar to those for Vegetation and 

Wildlife, Anadromous Fish, and Resident Fish described in sections 5.7, 5.8, and 

5.9 respectively. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Potential long-term beneficial effects from the increase in streamflows during 

critical life history stages for listed aquatic species within the study area would be 

similar to the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative. 

5.11.2.3 Groundwater Storage Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Although anticipated to be negligible and isolated, any impacts to threatened and 

endangered species from this alternative would be similar to those for Vegetation 

and Wildlife, Anadromous Fish, and Resident Fish described in sections 5.7, 5.8, 

and 5.9 respectively. 

5-51 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Long-Term Impacts 

Potential long-term beneficial effects from the increase in streamflows during 

critical life history stages for listed aquatic species within the study area would be 

similar to the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative. 

5.11.3 Mitigation 

Negative impacts to federally and State-listed species are not anticipated from the 

implementation of the State Alternatives. However, any short-term disturbances 

from construction or operational impacts would have mitigation measures similar 

to those for Vegetation and Wildlife, Anadromous Fish, and Resident Fish 

described in sections 5.7, 5.8, and 5.9 respectively. 

5.12 Recreational Resources 

5.12.1 Affected Environment 

The major locations for water-based recreation in the Yakima River basin are the 

five headwater reservoirs (figure 4.18 in chapter 4) and the mainstems of the 

Yakima, Tieton, and Naches Rivers. These water bodies provide opportunities for 

lake boating, rafting, kayaking, canoeing, fishing, hiking, camping, picnicking, 

swimming, and wildlife viewing. Water levels affect the type and quality of 

recreation on the basin’s lakes and rivers. Additional information on recreational 

resources is provided in chapter 4. 

5.12.2 Environmental Consequences 

5.12.2.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction of conservation projects is unlikely to affect recreation because it is 

not expected to occur in or adjacent to recreation areas. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Conservation may increase streamflows in some reaches, but it is not expected to 

affect streamflows to the extent that boating or shoreline recreation would be 

impacted. Depending on the timing and volume of increased streamflows, they 

may improve the health of streams and riparian zones and provide increased 

opportunities for wildlife watching and camping. Increased flows may also 

improve fish habitat and increase fishing opportunities. Municipal water 

conservation projects could benefit municipal recreation facilities, for example, 

by providing additional water for irrigating playfields. 

5-52 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

5.12.2.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction for the Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative 

would be limited to new irrigation facilities if water rights are transferred to 

irrigate different areas. Construction is unlikely to impact recreation resources, 

because it would not occur in or adjacent to recreation areas. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Because the extent and location of water transfers is unknown, it is not possible to 

quantitatively evaluate changes in streamflows. However, water transfers are not 

expected to result in streamflow changes that would affect recreation. 

5.12.2.3 Groundwater Storage Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction of groundwater storage facilities is not expected to occur in or 

adjacent to recreation facilities; therefore, no construction impacts are anticipated. 

Long-Term Impacts 

No long-term impacts to recreation resources are expected as a result of 

groundwater storage. Groundwater storage would increase streamflows both 

upstream of and downstream from the Parker gage. The effect of these 

streamflow increases are expected to be similar to those for the Enhanced Water 

Conservation Alternative. 

5.12.3 Mitigation 

Because no significant impacts to recreation resources are anticipated, no 

mitigation measures are proposed. 

5.13 Land and Shoreline Use 

5.13.1 Affected Environment 

5.13.1.1 Current Land Use 

Land use in the project area is diverse, ranging from protected wilderness to 

intensive agriculture to areas of relatively dense urban development. Private 

ownership totals 32 percent or over 1.2 million acres of the 4 million acres in the 

Yakima River basin (YSFWPB, 2004). However, the single largest landowner is 

the U.S Government with 1.5 million acres or 38 percent of the land area. Most 

of the Federal land is within the Wenatchee National Forest (WNF) in the upper 

portion of the Yakima River basin. The national forest area is managed for 

multiple uses, including commercial timber production and recreation. Private 

forest lands are also common in these mountainous areas. 

5-53 
Urban/ Suburban 

1% 

 

Timber Harvesting 

36% 

Rangeland 

47% 

Irrigated Agriculture 

16% 

Figure 5.4 General land use types and percent distribution 

within the project area (YSFWPB, 2004). 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Other large Federal land holdings include the U.S. Army Yakima Training Center 

(YTC), the Hanford Site, and BLM lands. Other public ownership (State, county, 

and local governments) totals over 400,000 acres. 

The Yakama Nation Reservation covers 1,573 square miles (1,371,918 acres) in 

southern Yakima County and a smaller part of Klickitat County. The Yakama 

Nation and its members have over 880,000 acres held in trust; only a small 

portion is deeded land (YSFWPB, 2004). 

Less than 60 square miles (1 percent) of the 6,150 square miles of the Yakima 

River basin has been converted to urban/suburban development. Significant 

urban areas include Cle Elum, Ellensburg, Selah, Yakima/Union Gap, Toppenish, 

Sunnyside, Grandview, Prosser, and the Tri-Cities. These urbanized areas host 

much of the project area’s population, as well as its manufacturing, commercial, 

and service industry base. Though a minor portion of the total basin area, 

urban/suburban development and its associated infrastructure, such as roads, 

railroads, dikes and levees, have a disproportionate impact on aquatic and 

terrestrial habitats (YSFWPB, 2004). 

Rangelands (2,900 square miles) are primarily used and managed for grazing, 

military training, wildlife habitat, and tribal cultural activities. The 2,200 square 

miles of forested areas in the northern and western portions of the basin are 

primarily used and managed for timber harvest, water quality, fish and wildlife 

habitat, grazing, tribal cultural activities, and recreation. About one-fourth of the 

forested area is designated as wilderness. The 1,000 square miles of irrigated 

agriculture includes pasture, orchards, grapes, hops, and field crops (see 

figure 5.4). Diverse recreational activities, including hunting, fishing, and 

camping, occur across much of the project area (YSFWPB, 2004). 

5-54 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

5.13.1.2 Shoreline Management Act, 1972 

Many of the activities that would emerge from the State Alternatives have the 

potential to impact waterways in the basin that are considered shorelines of the 

State. These shorelines are governed under shoreline master programs developed 

under the authority of the SMA, which was established in 1972 (Chapter 90.58 

RCW, WAC 173-18). Local shoreline master programs, which must be approved 

by Ecology, are intended to protect shoreline ecology, public access, and water 

dependent uses and to require mitigation of impacts where appropriate. 

 Under the SMA, “shorelines of the state” are the total of all “shorelines” and 

“shorelines of statewide significance” within the State (RCW 90.58.030(2)(c). 

“Shorelines” is defined in the SMA as: 

...all of the water areas of the state, including reservoirs, and their 

associated shorelands, together with the lands underlying them; 

except (i) shorelines of statewide significance; (ii) shorelines on 

segments of streams upstream of a point where the mean annual 

flow is twenty cubic feet per second or less and the wetlands 

associated with such upstream segments; and (iii) shorelines on 

lakes less than twenty acres in size and wetlands associated with 

such small lakes;... (RCW 90.58.030(2)(d). 

“Shorelines of statewide significance” within the project area include the 

following water bodies and the land within 200 feet of the ordinary high water 

mark: 

Those lakes, whether natural, artificial, or a combination thereof, 

with a surface acreage of one thousand acres or more measured at 

the ordinary high water mark; Those natural rivers or segments 

thereof as follows: ... Any [rivers] east of the crest of the Cascade 

range downstream of a point where the annual flow is measured at 

two hundred cubic feet per second or more, or those portions of 

rivers east of the crest of the Cascade range downstream from the 

first three hundred square miles of drainage area, whichever is 

longer;... (RCW 90.58.030(2)e). 

Tables 5.16 and 5.17 show the streams and lakes within the project area that are 

under regulated by the SMA (WAC 173-18). 

5-55 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table 5.16 Rivers and streams protected under the SMA 

Benton County (WAC 173-18-070) 

Yakima River From Benton-Yakima County line (Sec.7, T8N, R24E) downstream to 

mouth on Columbia River Sec.19, T9N, R29E). 

Yakima County (WAC 173-18-430) 

Ahtanum Creek From confluence of North and South Forks of Ahtanum Creek (Sec.17, 

T12N, R16E) downstream to mouth at Yakima River (Sec.17, T12N, 

R19E) excluding those reaches within Yakima Indian Reservation 

Ahtanum Creek (North Fork) From confluence of Ahtanum Creek North Fork and Ahtanum Creek 

Middle Fork (Sec.24, T12N, R14E) downstream to confluence with S. 

Fork of Ahtanum Creek (Sec.17, T12N, R16E) 

Ahtanum Creek (South Fork) From confluence of unnamed creek and Ahtanum Creek South Fork 

(Sec.24, T12N, R15E) downstream to confluence with N. Fork of 

Ahtanum Creek. 

Swauk Creek From the boundary (Sec.10, T20N, R17E) downstream (excluding all 

Federal lands) to confluence with Yakima River (Sec.20, T19N, R17E). 

Cowiche Creek (South Fork) From an approximate point (NW1/4 of NE1/4 Sec.33, T14N, R16E) 

downstream through Cowiche Creek to confluence with Naches River 

(Sec.9, T13N, R18E). 

Bumping River From U.S.G.S. gaging station (Sec.23, T16N, R12E) downstream to 

confluence with Naches and Little Naches Rivers (Sec.4, T17N, R14E). 

Excluding Federal lands. 

Little Naches River From confluence of N. Fork and M. Fork Little Naches River (Sec.36, 

T19N, R12E) downstream to confluence with Naches River (Sec.4, 

T17N, R14E). Excluding Federal lands. 

Naches River From confluence of Little Naches River and Bumping River (Sec.4, 

T17N, R14E) downstream to confluence with Yakima River (Sec.12, 

T13N, R18E). Excluding Federal lands. 

Rattlesnake Creek From Snoqualmie National Forest boundary (Sec.6, T15N, R15E) 

downstream to mouth at Naches River (Sec.3, same township). 

Tieton River From west section line (Sec.29, T14N, R15E) downstream to confluence 

with Naches River (Sec.35, T15N, R16E). Excluding Federal lands. 

Tieton River (South Fork) From the south section line (Sec.23, T12N, R12E) downstream to mouth 

at Rimrock Lake (Sec.7, T13N, R14E). Excluding Federal lands. 

Yakima River From the Kittitas County line (Sec.33, T15N, R19E) downstream, 

excluding all Federal lands and Yakima Indian Reservation, to Benton 

County line (Sec.7, T8N, R24E). 

Kittitas County (WAC 173-18-230) 

Big Creek From the WNF boundary (Sec.35, T20N, R13E) downstream (excluding 

Federal lands) to confluence with Yakima River (Sec.21, T20N, R14E). 

Cabin Creek From WNF boundary (Sec.19, T20N, R13E) downstream to confluence 

with Yakima River (Sec.9, T20N, R13E). 

Cle Elum River From the WNF boundary crossing Cle Elum Lake (Sec.33, 34 & 35, 

T21N, R14E) downstream to confluence with Yakima River (Sec.32, 

T20N, R15E). 

Kachess River From the WNF boundary (Sec.3, T20N, R13E) downstream through Lake 

Easton State Park and to confluence with Yakima River (same section). 

Little Creek From the WNF boundary (Sec.33, T20N, R14E) (excluding all Federal 

lands) downstream to confluence with Yakima River (Sec.22, T20N, 

R14E) 

5-56 
Table 5.16 Rivers and streams protected under the SMA (continued) 

Kittitas County (WAC 173-18-230) (continued) 

 

Log Creek From confluence of Log Creek and unnamed creek (NW1/4, SW1/4 

Sec.31, T20N, R13E) downstream to confluence with Cabin Creek 

(Sec.19, T20N, R13E) 

Manastash Creek From confluence of N. and S. Forks Manastash Creek (Sec.17, T17N, 

R17E) downstream to confluence with Yakima River (Sec.4, T17N, 

R18E) 

Manastash Creek (South Fork) From the WNF boundary (Sec.31, T18N, R16E) downstream to 

confluence with Manastash Creek (Sec.17, T17N, R17E). 

Taneum Creek From WNF boundary (Sec.30, T19N, R16E) downstream (excluding all 

Federal lands) to mouth on Yakima River (Sec.33, T19N, R17E). 

Teanaway River From the confluence of the M. Fork and the W. Fork Teanaway River 

(Sec.6, T20N, R16E) downstream to Yakima River (Sec.3, T19N, R16E). 

Teanaway River (Middle Fork) From the WNF boundary (Sec.15, T21N, R15E) downstream to 

confluence with Teanaway River (Sec.6, T20N, R16E). 

Teanaway River (North Fork) From the WNF boundary (Sec.4, T21N, R16E) downstream (excluding all 

Federal lands) to the Teanaway River (Sec.6, T20N, R16E). 

Teanaway River (West Fork) From the WNF boundary (Sec.30, T21N, R15E) downstream (excluding 

all Federal lands) to the Teanaway River (Sec.6, T20N, R16E). 

Wilson Creek From confluence with Naneum Creek (Sec.30, T17N, R19E) downstream 

to confluence with Yakima River (Sec.31, T17N, R19E). 

Yakima River From the WNF boundary (Sec.15, T21N, R12E) downstream (excluding 

all Federal lands) to the Yakima Co. line (Sec.33, T15N, R19E). 

Table 5.17 Lakes protected under the SMA 1972 

Area 

Name Location (Acres) Use1 

Benton County (WAC 173-20-090) 

No Lakes in Project Area 

Kittitas County (WAC 173-20-400) 

Manastash Lake Sec. 3, T17N, R15E 23.5 R 

Lake Easton Sec. 11, T20N, R13E 237.6 R, I 

Lost Lake Sec. 3, T21N, R11E 144.8 R 

Cooper Lake Sec. 2, T22N, R13E 119.7 R 

Tucquala Lake Sec. 3, T23N, R14E 63 R 

Unnamed Lakes Sec. 14, T21N, R12E 60 R 

Lakes of Statewide Significance (WAC 173-20-400) 

Cle Elum Lake Sec. 10, T15N, R23E 4810.0 R, I 

Keechelus Lake Sec. 12, T21N, R11E 2560.0 R, I 

Kachess Lake Sec. 34, T21, R13E 4540.0 R, I 

Yakima County (WAC173-20-800) 

Byron Ponds (Res.) Sec. 12, T8N, R23E 50 R 

Horseshoe Pond Sec. 22, T9N, R22N 59 R 

Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

5-57 
Table 5.17 Lakes protected under the SMA 1972 (continued) 

Name Location 

Area 

(Acres) Use1 

Yakima County (WAC173-20-800) (continued) 

Morgan Pond Sec. 25, T9N, R22E 24.6 R 

Giffin Lake Sec. 26, T9N, R22E 104.8 R 

Oleys Lake Sec. 7, T9N, R22E 35.4 R 

Freeway Lake Sec. 7, T13n, R19E 23.2 R 

Wenas Lake Sec. 2, T15N, R17E 61.4 R, I 

Unnamed Lake Sec. 31, T14N, R19E 22.3 R 

Unnamed Lake Sec. 11, T13N, R18E 21.4 R 

Unnamed Lake Sec. 11, T13N, R18E 21.3 R 

1

R = Recreation – wildlife, general public use, beautification, fishing, etc.; I = Irrigation (WAC 173-20-

040). 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

5.13.1.3 Tribal and Federal Lands 

As mentioned above, the Federal Government controls and manages a substantial 

area of land in the project area, including forests, rangeland, national parks, the 

Army’s YTC, and other lands. Federal activities on these lands are not subject to 

the local regulations or the SMA, but Federal policies generally direct that 

activities of the Federal Government should be consistent with local regulations to 

the extent feasible within the mission of each agency. 

Substantial portions of the project area, 1,573 square miles, are lands reserved 

under treaty with the Yakama Nation. These areas are not subject to any State 

regulations. Each tribe or confederation of tribes enacts its own laws to control 

land use and protect natural resources on lands within the reservation. 

5.13.2 Environmental Consequences 

The State Alternatives are not anticipated to have significant impacts to land uses. 

No significant impacts to shoreline use are anticipated from any of the State 

Alternatives. 

5.13.2.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Agricultural conservation efforts are not expected to have any substantial impact 

on land use. Improvements to irrigation systems would be confined to lands 

already designated for agriculture. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Although conservation may allow the irrigation of additional lands, those 

lands are expected to be in areas that are zoned agricultural. No people would 

5-58 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

be displaced as a result of conservation improvements. Some existing 

irrigation facilities may be demolished and replaced. 

By increasing the reliability of irrigation supplies, it is expected that enhanced 

water conservation would improve the viability of existing agricultural operations 

and reduce the potential conversion of agricultural land to other uses. Municipal 

conservation facilities could include water reclamation and reuse facilities that 

must be designed and sited according to local comprehensive plan and zoning 

regulations. 

Some new and/or replaced irrigation facilities such as intakes and conveyance 

infrastructure may be located within shoreline areas, but the short- and long-term 

impacts are not anticipated to be substantial. As project types and locations are 

more clearly refined, specific impacts to shoreline areas can be more fully 

quantified. 

5.13.2.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Like the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative, a Market-Based Reallocation 

of Water Resources Alternative is not expected to have substantial short-term 

impacts to land use. 

Long-Term Impacts 

In the long term, transfers of water rights may result in changes in land use, both 

in the areas where the water rights originated and in the recipient areas. These 

transfers may influence development in urban areas and may contribute to the 

conversion of farm uses to urban or domestic uses. Transfers of water from 

agricultural lands may increase fallow lands that otherwise would have supported 

irrigated crops. On the other hand, transfers that improve the reliability of an 

irrigation water supply may help keep some properties in agricultural use that 

otherwise would be converted to urban uses. Transferred water rights may be 

used to irrigate different areas and expand agricultural land uses. This expansion 

is expected to occur in areas already designated for agricultural use. No people 

would be displaced and no structures would be removed. 

Transfers from out-of-stream uses to instream uses may reduce the water 

available for future urban, industrial, and agricultural development. 

Similar to the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative, some new and/or 

replaced irrigation facilities such as intakes and conveyance infrastructure may be 

located within shoreline areas, but impacts are not anticipated to be substantial. 

As project types and locations are more clearly refined, specific impacts to 

shoreline areas can be more fully quantified. 

5-59 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

5.13.2.3 Groundwater Storage Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Like the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative, the Groundwater Storage 

Alternative is not expected to have substantial short-term impacts to land use. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Groundwater storage projects would require land for infiltration or injection sites 

and treatment facilities; sites may range from approximately 1 to 20 acres in size. 

The land would be purchased from willing sellers or obtained through acquisition 

following applicable State and Federal regulations. 

Injection facilities would be sited with existing treatment facilities where possible. 

New facilities could be controversial if they are located adjacent to urban or 

housing areas. The location of any facilities would comply with comprehensive 

plan and zoning designations, where possible, but in some cases where no 

alternative exists, changes in zoning may be required. Any proposed zoning 

modifications would be conducted in accordance with all applicable local 

requirements, including public notification requirements. 

Intake, conveyance, and discharge infrastructure associated with the Groundwater 

Storage Alternative may be located within shoreline areas, but the short- and 

long-term impacts are not anticipated to be substantial. As project types and 

locations are more clearly refined, specific impacts to shoreline areas can be more 

fully quantified. 

5.13.3 Mitigation 

Short-term, construction impacts to land use are not anticipated in association 

with the implementation of any of the State Alternatives; therefore no mitigation 

would be required. 

Any required property acquisition would be negotiated with each property owner 

on a case-by-case basis, and every attempt would be made to minimize adverse 

impacts to property owners. Property acquisition procedures would be 

coordinated with other appropriate entities in the Yakima River basin, including 

the United States and Washington State. 

5.14 Socioeconomics 

Implementation of the three State Alternatives would result in impacts to 

socioeconomic resources. These impacts would be different from those that 

would result from constructing a dam or reservoir, but impacts would occur for all 

alternatives, as described below. 

5-60 
 

Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

5.14.1 Affected Environment 

The proposed State Alternatives might affect five distinct components of 

socioeconomic conditions in Washington: 

•	 The value of water-related goods and services 

•	 The level and composition of jobs and incomes 

•	 The distribution among different groups of the costs and benefits resulting 

from management of water resources 

•	 The socioeconomic structure 

•	 Economic uncertainty and risk 

These components are briefly described below; additional discussion is included 

in the Technical Report on Socioeconomics (Ecology, 2007i). 

5.14.1.1 Value of Goods and Services 

Water and related resources are economically important when, as part of an 

ecosystem, they produce goods and services that benefit people, impose costs on 

them, or both (NRC, 2005). The State Alternatives would affect socioeconomic 

conditions in the basin by altering the supply and, hence, the value of individual 

goods and services derived from the basin’s water resources. They also would 

affect the basin’s economy by altering the amount of money spent in the basin. 

An increase would be a benefit for the basin’s economy, a decrease would be a 

cost. A broader State or national perspective is likely to yield a different 

accounting, insofar as benefits (costs) within the basin might be offset by costs 

(benefits) elsewhere. An increase in the income from crops produced in the basin, 

for example, might induce offsetting reductions in the income from crops 

produced in other basins within Washington or in other States. 

Water and related resources in the Yakima River basin produce many goods and 

services, but there exists no accounting of their overall value. Economists have, 

however, estimated for the larger Columbia River Basin the value of marginal 

(incremental) changes in the supply of water to produce some crops and a few 

other goods and services. Table 5-18 shows, by major irrigated crop, farmers’ 

average gross and net (revenues minus production costs) economic returns early 

this decade (Huppert et al., 2004). Both types of return per acre varied widely, 

indicating that opportunities exist to increase the value of water-related goods and 

services by shifting water from lower-value to higher-value crops. 

5-61 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table 5.18 Farmers’ average economic returns for irrigated crops in the Columbia River 

Basin, by crop

 Hay Orchards Vegetables Other Potatoes Wheat 

Per acre 

Gross economic return $877 $5,485 $1,408 $961 $3,122 $344 

Net economic return -$25 $312 $276 -$271 $464 -$99 

Per acre-foot of water 

Net economic return -$5 $82 $89 -$91 $147 -$34 

Source: Huppert et al., 2004. 

A simulation of drought conditions, in which the supply of water to irrigators with 

proratable water rights would be 50 percent of their entitlement, found that 

shifting water from irrigating lower-valued crops to irrigating higher-valued 

crops, under conditions that existed in the mid 1990s, would have increased the 

gross value of irrigated crops produced in the Yakima River basin by $150 to 

$350 per acre-foot of water (Scott et al., 2004). Fallowing a field capable of 

growing a lower-value crop, such as hay, and reallocating the water to grow a 

higher-value crop might have increased the total, gross value of irrigated crops by 

more than $400 per acre. 

Table 5-19 shows there probably are opportunities to increase the value of waterrelated goods and services other than crops. The data in the table report recent 

estimates of the marginal value of several water-related goods and services in the 

Columbia River Basin. The top portion focuses on irrigation and assumes 

marginal, or incremental, changes would have the same characteristics as current 

averages. From a farmer’s perspective the value of a marginal change in the 

supply of irrigation water, which equals the net return on irrigated crops, ranges 

from negative $91 to positive $147 per acre-foot (Huppert et al., 2004). From a 

Statewide perspective, however, the marginal value of water used for irrigation in 

the Columbia River Basin is far different: it ranges from negative $60 to negative 

$70 per acre-foot (Williams and Capps, Jr., 2005). The value is negative because, 

if individual farmers increased their production, they would drive down the prices 

and, therefore, earnings for all farmers. 

The middle rows of table 5-19 show the estimated, marginal value per acre-foot of 

water for municipal use, hydropower, navigation, general recreation, waste 

assimilation, and ecosystem functions. The estimate for municipal use exceeds 

the others, indicating that, as municipal demand grows, the overall value of waterrelated goods and services could be increased by shifting water from any of the 

other uses to this one. The hydropower values represent all the electricity that 

would be generated from McNary Dam downstream. The estimates for 

navigation, recreation, and waste assimilation are typical for the region and are 

not site-specific. The estimate for ecosystem functions represents the marginal 

value of water protected or acquired for environmental purposes. 

5-62 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

Table 5.19 Estimates of marginal value of selected water-related variables (as reported by each 

source) 

Variable Marginal Value Source 

Water for irrigation, local perspective 

Water for irrigation, State perspective 

Water for municipal or industrial use 

Water for hydropower (McNary Dam 

downstream) 

Water for navigation 

Water for general recreation 

Water for waste assimilation 

Water for ecosystem functions 

($91) – $147/acre-ft 

($60) – ($70)/acre-ft 

$65 – $452/acre-ft 

$7.46/acre-ft 

$5.60/acre-ft 

$7.70 – $130/acre-ft 

$0.20–$0.28/acre-ft 

$21/acre-ft 

Huppert et al., 2004 

Williams and Capps, Jr., 2005 

Ecology, 2004 

Huppert et al., 2004 

NRC, 2004 

NRC, 2004 

NRC, 2004 

Brown, 2004 

The marginal value of water that produces other goods and services could be 

substantial, but reliable estimates are not available. The full value of a use would 

reflect not just the value of water to the user but also the value of the impacts on 

others, which economists call externalities or spillover effects. With some 

exceptions, the demand for water-related goods and services likely will increase 

as the population grows and becomes wealthier, and as the economy expands. 

5.14.1.2 Jobs and Incomes 

Water and related resources influence jobs and incomes through three 

mechanisms: 

•	 Providing goods and services that are inputs to commercial activities; 

•	 Producing goods and services that create a quality of life that influences 

the location decisions of households and businesses; and 

•	 Providing other valuable ecosystem goods and services. 

Impacts on jobs and incomes would materialize in the context of the two, distinct 

regional markets for labor and local commerce that split the Yakima River basin, 

with Kittitas County connected more closely to the Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia 

metropolitan centers, and the rest of the basin connected more closely to the 

Kennewick-Richland-Pasco centers (Johnson and Kort, 2004). Agriculture is the 

largest commercial user of water in the basin, but its share of jobs and personal 

income has been declining for several decades (U.S. Department of Commerce, 

2006). Quality-of-life impacts materialize when amenities, such as water-related 

recreational opportunities, induce households and businesses to locate nearby. 

Some water-related goods and services can influence jobs and incomes even 

though they are not direct inputs for commerce or amenities for households. 

Wetlands and floodplains, for example, can influence the risk of flood damage 

and, therefore, the cost of living and doing business in downstream communities 

(Daily, 1997). 

5-63 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

A recent estimate of agricultural employment in the Columbia River Basin 

provides a context for anticipating the potential impacts of changes in water use in 

the Yakima River basin, indicating that permanently shifting 1,000 acre-feet of 

water into (out of) irrigation would increase (decrease) employment directly 

linked to the agricultural industry by about 18 jobs, and related, Statewide 

employment by about 45 jobs (Huppert et al., 2004). Any such increases or 

decreases in employment probably would be accompanied by tradeoffs in jobs 

associated with alternative uses of water. Additional research is needed to 

determine the full impacts on jobs and incomes associated with changes in water 

use in the Yakima River basin. 

5.14.1.3 Distribution of Costs and Benefits 

The costs and benefits of water-management decisions are sometimes not 

distributed equally among different groups. Decisions affecting salmon and 

steelhead, for example, can have important distributional effects governed by 

treaties, laws, and regulations (Independent Economic Analysis Board, 2005). 

Also important is the unequal distribution resulting whenever those who enjoy the 

benefits of a good or service do not bear the full costs of its production. This 

outcome, which can arise from the fixed allocation of water to water-right holders 

without regard for the impacts on others, subsidies, the emission of pollutants, and 

other factors. It also encourages the beneficiaries to consume the goods and 

services beyond optimal levels (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1991). 

5.14.1.4 Socioeconomic Structure 

Many aspects of economic activity and social organization in the basin have long 

been tied directly to water. Harvest of salmon and steelhead has provided a 

cultural focus and the basis for much economic activity for the members of tribal 

groups, commercial fisheries, and recreational fisheries (Fluharty, 2000). 

Irrigation has enabled the expansion of agriculture and hydropower has flowed to 

homes and business throughout the Western States. Water for municipal and 

industrial uses supports urban development. 

An important element of the socioeconomic structure is the State’s water-right 

system, which gives priority on a first-come basis. For further explanation of this 

system, see section 5.2.5. 

Federal laws and regulations play a major role in the management of the basin’s 

water. Federal guidelines limit use of Federal funds for water resource projects 

that would provide no net benefit to the national economy and indicate there 

generally would be no net benefit from expenditures that would increase the 

supply of crops, such as rice, cotton, corn, soybeans, wheat, milo, barley, oats, 

hay, and pasture, that are grown in large quantities throughout the Nation (U.S. 

Water Resources Council, 1983). 

5-64 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

The voluntary transfer of water—through donation, conservation, lease, or 

purchase—from one place, type, and time of use to another has long been seen as 

necessary to reduce the economic damage from drought, offset the adverse 

impacts of water withdrawals on streamflows, increase water-related economic 

benefits and jobs, and provide water for new demands. It also is possible for a 

private or public entity to purchase land to gain control over the appurtenant water 

right, and then redirect the water to another type of use. 

Many transfers have occurred within the basin’s irrigation districts. Each nonFederal district may approve temporary or permanent transfers within its 

boundaries that alter the place of use. A district may, itself, own or lease water 

rights, with the water to be used within its boundaries, and each non-Federal 

district has authority to sell or lease water rights to entities within and outside the 

district’s boundaries. 

Local water managers perceive that Reclamation has, in essence, operated a water 

bank in the basin since 1905 (Roundtable Associates, 2003). Reclamation also 

has limited authority to support market-related transactions by others that would 

increase water conservation, increase instream flows beneficial to salmon and 

other species, and augment the supply of water for out-of-stream uses. 

Transactions can have diverse characteristics, and have included exchanges 

between Reclamation and individual cities, or transfers by water-right holders to 

the State’s Trust Water Program, and others. 

Barriers to Water Transfers 

Several aspects of the socioeconomic structure that shape the relationship between 

water and the economy impede water transfers. Many potential sellers and 

potential buyers are not fully aware of the mechanics and economic opportunities 

associated with transfers, and no permanent set of institutions exists to facilitate 

transfers and, thereby, build familiarity and trust. Instead, ad hoc efforts to 

promote transfers have had intermittent and limited success. For example, in 

2005, a drought year, Ecology implemented a market-like mechanism, inviting 

water-right holders to indicate their willingness to lease their water right to 

Ecology, and it received and completed transactions on 27 offers, totaling 4,764.6 

acre-feet (Ecology, 2006b). A similar invitation in 2007 elicited no valid 

responses, and a preliminary, follow-up investigation found water-right holders 

cited these reasons for not responding: 

• They have little trust in Ecology, 

• They were not expecting and/or did not understand the 2007 invitation, 

• They did not see an imperative to consider transfers in a nondrought year, 

• They disagree with Ecology’s efforts to increase instream flows, or 

5-65 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

•	 The value they place on continuing to exercise their water rights to irrigate 

their lands exceeds the amount they perceived they would have received 

from leasing them to Ecology. 

Additional barriers arise because a proposal to transfer water triggers a process 

that allows all interested parties to review the proposal, gives anyone that feels it 

would cause harm to present evidence, and calls for a court to review all evidence 

before making a ruling. To expedite this process, Ecology, Reclamation, the 

Yakama Nation, WDFW, Service, and NOAA Fisheries have established the 

WTWG, which provides voluntary, expedited review of proposed transfers by 

these agencies, irrigation districts, and others. The group can recommend court 

approval of proposals that satisfy six criteria: 

•	 The proposed transfer would have a neutral effect on the TWSA in the 

basin; 

•	 The proposed transfer would not increase consumptive use; 

•	 The water would have been used, but for the transfer; 

•	 The transfer would adhere to a specific delivery schedule; 

•	 The transfer would not adversely affect instream flow; and 

•	 The transfer would satisfy operational considerations for the Yakima 

Project. 

The physical facilities and operational requirements of the water management 

system also can impede water transfers. Transfers must be accommodated by the 

operational constraints of the Yakima Project and, perhaps, by one or more 

irrigation districts. Reclamation has obligations to manage the Project according 

to protocols and Federal reclamation laws and to ensure that instream flows meet 

established targets. Irrigation districts typically seek to keep water levels high in 

their systems during the irrigation season to maintain the systems’ integrity and to 

move water efficiently. Some districts have policies that can restrict the transfer 

of water elsewhere or from irrigation to other uses. Overall, the system has only a 

limited capacity to accommodate transfers that would send water to a point of 

diversion upstream. 

Similar factors can impede conservation. State law requires water-right holders to 

use water beneficially or relinquish their right to the water and some fear that, if 

they acknowledge that an opportunity to conserve water exists, this may be seen 

as an indication that they are not putting the water to beneficial use and trigger 

actions that would lead to relinquishment. Other limitations can arise if a farmer, 

irrigation district, or municipal/industrial water user lacks sufficient financial 

resources to implement conservation measures (NRC, 2004; Schaible, 2000). 

5-66 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

5.14.1.5 Uncertainty and Risk 

Risk is the probability that a decision will generate an outcome less desirable than 

intended. Sometimes it can be quantified, but often it remains uncertain. 

Uncertainty and risk are economically undesirable, and, all else equal, decisions 

that reduce them are preferred over those that do not. Major concerns about risk 

and uncertainty have been expressed regarding habitat for salmon and steelhead, 

especially during critical times and conditions, and for irrigators, especially 

during times of drought for those who have invested in orchards and other 

perennial crops (Huppert et al., 2004; NRC, 2004). The greatest risk and 

uncertainty occurs during periods of drought. 

Additional uncertainty and risk accompany anticipated changes in climate, which 

some research indicates may raise air temperatures and diminish runoff in spring 

and summer in the Yakima River basin, reducing the availability of water to meet 

the demands for irrigation, instream flows, and other uses (Mastin and Sharp, 

2006). Such findings indicate there may be increased risks associated with 

droughts, and particularly the risks associated with high-value water uses, such as 

instream flows to provide habitat for at-risk fish and other aquatic species, and 

irrigation to sustain perennial crops. As these risks rise, the potential gains from 

transferring water from lower-value uses to higher-value uses in an expeditious 

manner, via conservation, groundwater storage, and/or market-based reallocation 

of water may also rise. 

5.14.2 Environmental Consequences 

All three of the State Alternatives have the potential to increase the value of the 

goods and services society derives from the basin’s water and related resources. 

Each alternative probably would have a positive impact on the jobs and incomes 

of those directly associated with it, but the impacts on the overall economy are 

likely to be mixed: in general shifting water from lower-value to higher-value 

uses would boost the economy, but some sectors and individuals associated with 

goods and services whose supply would decline might be adversely affected. 

Each of the alternatives could affect the distribution of costs and benefits 

associated with the basin’s water resources and alter the relationship between the 

resources and the economy, with the actual effects determined by how the 

alternative would be implemented. Each of the alternatives likely would reduce 

uncertainty and risk associated with the basin’s water resources, by improving the 

supply of water available to produce higher-value goods and services. 

5.14.2.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

The construction costs of enhanced conservation projects are estimated to be 

approximately $405 million, in 2007 dollars. The scope and design of specific 

projects would determine their costs, benefits, and net benefits (or net costs); their 

5-67 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

impacts on jobs and income; the distribution of costs and benefits; their 

interaction with the economy; and the levels of risk and uncertainty they would 

generate for affected parties. The expenditure of funds on conservation projects 

would generate some jobs and incomes, but these would be offset, locally, 

Statewide, or nationally, to the extent that the funds would not be spent on other 

things in the basin, State, or Nation. Short-term impacts also may arise from the 

adoption of conservation technologies, such as drip irrigation, and/or changes in 

behaviour, such as relying on scientific measurements of soil moisture before 

irrigating a field. 

Long-Term Impacts 

A general assessment of conservation indicates that irrigation-related conservation 

projects and programs in the region, if implemented wisely, probably would yield 

substantial net economic benefits (Schaible, 2000). Research elsewhere shows 

similar benefits from potential urban conservation projects and programs (Gleick 

et al., 2003; NRC, 2004). The Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative is 

intended yield net economic gains sooner rather than later, by lowering legal, 

financial, and/or institutional barriers that otherwise would impede the extent and 

speed of conservation efforts in the basin. 

The scope and design of specific demand-management programs and investments 

in infrastructure would determine their costs, benefits, and net benefits (or net 

costs); their impacts on jobs and income; the distribution of costs and benefits; 

their interaction with the economy; and the levels of risk and uncertainty they 

would generate for affected parties. Substantial expansion in conservation 

activity probably would require overcoming the legal, financial, and other hurdles 

that have impeded conservation in the past. This might occur by using public 

funds to diminish the financial risk a water-right holder would face by 

undertaking a conservation investment, or by reducing the likelihood that, by 

accepting public funds for a conservation project, a farmer would have to 

relinquish control over some of the saved water to be used as instream flow. 

With enhanced water conservation, an existing set of goods and services would be 

produced with less water and the conserved water would be used to produce a 

new set of goods and services. The value of the new set of goods and services 

will depend on the circumstances of each specific conservation project or 

program. The value of marginal (incremental) changes in the supply of water to 

produce different goods and services is discussed in section 5.14.1. 

Enhanced conservation projects and programs would have distributional effects if 

their benefits would accrue to one group while their costs would be borne by 

another. General taxpayers might incur some or all of the costs of a project, for 

example, but the benefits would accrue to the farmer(s) who would realize an 

increase in the supply of water for irrigation and to anglers and others who would 

enjoy the benefits of increased streamflows and improved habitat for salmon. 

5-68 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

Enhanced conservation projects and programs probably would not alter the 

general structure of the economic activity and social organization linked to the 

basin’s water resources. They might reduce uncertainty and risk associated with 

the movement of water resources through the basin by reducing the amount of 

water that would percolate into the ground and later appear somewhere else and, 

instead, increase the likelihood that the water would be more directly controlled 

by water managers. 

5.14.2.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

The only construction activities involved with this alternative would be the 

construction of new irrigation facilities where water rights are transferred to 

irrigate different areas. The impacts for new construction would be similar to the 

Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative, but on a smaller scale. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Market-based transfers of water likely would increase the economic well-being of 

those who participate in them because a transaction would occur only if both the 

buyer and the seller expected it to be beneficial. Transactions also probably 

would increase the value of goods and services directly derived from water 

resources, because those derived by the buyer would have greater value than those 

forgone by the seller. The regional economic effects of water transfers probably 

would be discernible only if the transactions altered a large enough portion of a 

given activity at a specific place and time in the basin to alter the overall structure 

of related activities. For example, transfers that markedly improved streamrelated recreational opportunities and other amenities might trigger noticeable 

adjustments in economic activity and housing patterns by influencing the location 

decisions of households that place a high value on the amenities. 

Under current laws and regulations, a proposed water transfer would receive 

approval from the court and Reclamation only where it would have no detrimental 

effect on other water rights or on the operation of the Yakima Project. In most 

instances, water to be transferred would come from someone who has the right to 

divert a quantity of water from a stream at a given place and given time and to 

consume a portion, with an obligation to return the remainder back to the stream. 

If water were transferred to another party, the user no longer would divert the 

water at that time and place. The portion of the water that otherwise would have 

been return flow would, instead, continue downstream only as far as the next 

diversion point for another water right. The portion that otherwise would have 

been consumed would flow downstream to the mouth of the river (and to the 

mouth of the Columbia River), if it is being converted to instream flow, or to the 

new diversion point, if it is being converted to an out-of-stream use. 

5-69 
 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

There is insufficient information available to quantify the amount, location, 

timing, and changes in water use that will be seen in the basin. The available 

information does, however, provide useful insights. 

The potential size of irrigator-to-irrigator trades in the basin is illustrated by an 

analysis of the cropping patterns and economic conditions of the mid-1990s (Scott 

et al., 2004). It found that, during drought years, farmers in the basin seek to 

transfer water from lower-value crops (mint, asparagus, sweet corn, other 

vegetables, alfalfa hay, other hay, wheat, other grain, pasture, and miscellaneous 

crops) to higher-value crops (apples, other tree crops, grapes, hops, and timothy 

hay). It reported the data in table 5.20, showing the amount of water typically 

used in each of the basin’s major irrigation districts to irrigate each category of 

crop. With the exception of Roza and Tieton Irrigation Districts, the amount used 

to irrigate low-value crops exceeded the amount used to irrigate high-value crops. 

Table 5.20 Typical on-farm demand for water to irrigate high- and low-value crops, by
 

irrigation district (acre-feet per year, April-September) 

Crop Roza Kittitas Sunnyside Tieton Wapato Kennewick Total 

High 

Value1 190,680 73,785 148,670 97,620 112.400 8,320 560,415 

Low 

Value2 91,495 147,765 252,766 17,573 293,420 23,445 897,518 

Total 282,175 221,550 401,436 115,193 405,820 31,765 1,457,939 

Source: Scott et al., 2004. 

1 Apples, other tree crops, grapes, hops, and timothy hay. 

2

 Mint, asparagus, sweet corn, other vegetables, alfalfa hay, other hay, wheat, other grain, pasture, and 

miscellaneous. 

The analysis found that, during a drought year in which water deliveries to 

proratable irrigators would be half of the entitlements, proratable irrigators 

growing higher-value crops might seek as much as 205,000 acre-feet of water to 

fill the gap. To obtain the water, they might pay $200 per acre-foot, on average, 

or $40 million total, to obtain water from farmers that otherwise would irrigate 

lower-value crops. The increase in the value of their crops would be offset by the 

loss of output on lands left fallow by sellers of water, and the net increase in crop 

value would be about $20 million. This net increase would be about 1.5 percent 

of the total value of all farm products in the basin, and about 6.6 percent of 

farmers’ total net farm income in the basin. Insofar as farmers with proratable 

water rights grow about two-thirds of the basin’s higher-valued crops, they likely 

would realize most of the direct benefits of the transfers (Scott et al., 2004). 

An earlier analysis examined the crop patterns, irrigation patterns, prices, and 

other conditions of the late 1980s and early 1990s, and concluded that almost 

100,000 acre-feet of water could be leased from such lands during a typical year 

5-70 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

for about $30 per acre-foot, in the dollars of the early 1990s, and an additional 

150,000 acre-feet could be leased for about $50 to $60 per acre-foot (Willey and 

Diamant, 1994). 

These findings roughly indicate the water that might be available in the basin for 

instream flows, and the potential costs to obtain it. They do not, however, 

account for operational factors that might interfere with the potential transfers. 

Nor do they account for changes in market conditions that have occurred over the 

past 15 years or so or that might occur in the future, changes in climate, or other 

factors that might affect the economic feasibility and impacts of future water 

transfers. Thus, to detail the potential for future market-related transfers, further 

investigation is needed to discern the current and anticipated future amounts of 

the water used to irrigate low-value crops, the location of this water, the potential 

compensation required to induce farmers to relinquish, and the operational 

feasibility of each potential transfer. 

Too few transactions have occurred in the basin to provide a reliable basis for 

determining what the prices of transactions might be in the future. Table 5.21, 

however, illustrates the prices that might materialize in the Yakima River basin by 

providing a rough overview of the prices of transactions that have taken place 

throughout the Western States between 1987 and 2005. The transactions reported 

in table 5.21 come from both drought and nondrought years; transactions in 

drought years are expected to have higher prices than those in nondrought years. 

Most of the transactions have occurred in other States, primarily California and 

Colorado, at prices higher than those seen in Washington. The data in table 5.21 

show several patterns. Buyers pay more to purchase than to lease water, 

presumably because a purchase provides greater assurance that water will be 

available in the future. Urban buyers have paid more than farmers for water. 

Table 5.21 Representative water transfer prices (per acre-foot per year) in Western 

States, 1987-2005, by sector 

Agriculture-to-urban Agriculture-to-agriculture 

Leases Sales Leases Sales 

Mean Price 

Median Price 

Number of Observations 

$114 

$40 

189 

$4,366 

$2,643 

1,013 

$29 

$10 

178 

$1,747 

$1,235 

169 

Source: Brewer et al., 2007. 

Trends and patterns in the number, type, and location of future water transfers 

will be influenced by numerous factors that shape the demand for and supply of 

water. These include, but are not limited to, the incidence and severity of 

drought, the reliability of drought forecasts, population and economic growth in 

the basin and among outside groups with an interest in the basin’s water 

resources, and trends in the population of salmon and other species dependent on 

instream flows. The evolution in transfers also will be influenced by social and 

institutional factors that affect parties’ willingness to participate in transactions. 

5-71 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Growth in the number of transactions will occur only as more parties see that 

participating in them is likely to yield sufficient economic gain that it warrants the 

time and effort required to make them work. 

The information presented above indicates that the Market-Based Reallocation of 

Water Resources Alternative has the potential to yield economic benefits, both to 

participants in water transfers and to the basin’s overall economy. Increases in 

the number of transfers and the amount of water transferred are likely to occur 

only slowly, however, unless the legal, economic, and socio-cultural barriers to 

transfers are overcome (Roundtable Associates, no date). Both public and private 

efforts to lower the barriers have occurred in the basin, seeking to accelerate the 

review process, provide funding to lease or purchase water rights, and make more 

people aware of transactional opportunities. Significant increase in transfers 

probably could not occur unless Ecology received additional funding to process 

them and/or processing responsibility were shifted to another entity (Roundtable 

Associates, no date). Additional public funding probably would be required to 

facilitate more transfers, insofar as they would require more effort by Ecology, 

Reclamation, and the court to execute their responsibilities to see that the transfers 

comply with existing laws and regulations. 

The value of transactions during future drought years could total $45 million, 

assuming transactions would affect the flow of 225,000 acre-feet of water and the 

average value of each transaction would be $200 per acre-foot. The overall value 

of water transactions over the next 20-50 years could total up to $173 million. 

This estimate assumes transactions aimed at increasing instream flows would total 

1,000 to 14,000 acre-feet of water per year, transactions for irrigation would total 

10,000 to 20,000 acre-feet per year, and transactions to increase municipal water 

supplies would total up to 40,000 acre-feet per year, at prices ranging from $250 

to $4,400 per acre-foot. Further research is required to determine in greater detail 

how the different approaches to lowering barriers would affect costs and benefits, 

jobs and incomes, the distribution of impacts, the socioeconomic structure, and 

uncertainty and risk. 

5.14.2.3 Groundwater Storage Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

With the surface recharge approach, construction costs over 10-20 years would 

total $54 million to $164 million. With direct injection, the total construction 

costs would be $65 million over the same period. 

Long-Term Impacts 

The costs and benefits of storing water underground would be determined by 

several factors. The overall costs would be determined largely by the individual 

costs of acquiring and protecting the sites and constructing and operating the 

facilities. The costs of electricity and labor are likely to be major components of 

5-72 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

the operating costs. Also important will be the opportunity costs of the water, 

land, and other resources that would be used by this alternative, e.g., the value of 

the water-related goods and services that otherwise would be produced but would 

be lost when water is injected underground. 

The benefits would be determined by the willingness of users to pay for the goods 

and services that would be derived from the water. The water might provide 

services similar to insurance when it lies underground, insofar as it would be 

available to satisfy unmet demands. In addition, it might actually flow to the 

surface and/or be retrieved and produce goods and services, such as aquatic 

habitat, irrigation, or water for municipal-industrial uses. See section 5.14.1 for a 

discussion of the potential willingness to pay for the marginal value of additional 

supplies of water. All else equal, the greater the uncertainty regarding the ability 

of surface water flows to meet future demands, the greater would be the benefits 

of storing water underground so it would be available to meet unmet demands. It 

might produce other goods and services on its own, by migrating close to the 

surface, or close enough to the surface, to provide goods and services associated 

with wetlands, increased instream flows, etc. Stored water that migrated to a 

stream might provide water quality benefits by cooling streamflows, for example. 

Additional water when it is retrieved from storage (or when it leaks into surface 

water). All else being equal, the greater the uncertainty regarding the availability 

of water to be stored and, once stored, its availability to be retrieved, the greater 

would be the costs and the smaller would be the benefits. 

Further research is required to describe cost options and their respective impacts 

on economic benefits, jobs and incomes, the distribution of impacts, 

socioeconomic structure, and uncertainty and risk. 

Summary of Costs for the State Alternatives.—Table 5.22 summarizes the 

estimated costs associated with the State Alternatives and the potential flows that 

could result from each alternative. 

5.14.3 Mitigation Measures 

The type of mitigation, if any, that would be appropriate for each of the 

alternatives would be determined by future socioeconomic conditions and by the 

specific steps that would be taken to implement the alternative. Mitigation 

typically would be warranted only insofar as an alternative would reduce the 

supply of one set of goods and services (to increase the supply of another) and the 

reduction harmed one or more individuals, businesses, landowners, or other 

interest group. Mitigation might involve compensation, by providing 

unemployment benefits if the fallowing of land were to cause farm workers to 

lose their jobs, for example. Or, it might involve the provision of substitutes for 

the reduced goods and services. If construction associated with aquifer storage 

and recovery were to impinge on existing habitat or infrastructure roads, for 

example, replacements might be built. 

5-73 
 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Table 5.22 Cost comparison of State Alternatives 

Alternatives Construction cost 

Construction 

duration 

Cost per 

acre/foot for 

instream flow 

No Action 

Enhanced Water Conservation $405 million 10 years 1

$10,125 

Market-Based 

Reallocation of 

Water Resources2 

Drought years 

lease3 $45 million 1 Year N/A 

Nondrought 

years purchase3 Up to $173 million 20–50 years 4

 $250–$4,400 

Groundwater 

Storage Alternative 

Surface recharge $54 – 164 million 10-20 years $1,190 – 

3,636/acre-feet 

Direct injection5

 $65 million5 10-20 years $5,078 

Alternatives 

Instream 

flows during 

average year 

(acre-feet at 

Parker gage) 

Cost per acrefoot for 

irrigation and 

municipal 

supply during 

drought year 

(1994) 

Irrigation supply 

during drought 

year (1994)(acrefeet, above Parker 

gage) 

Municipal 

supply during 

drought year 

(1994) 

(acre-feet above 

Parker gage) 

No Action 

Enhanced Water 

Conservation 

40,000 $7,860 20,000 13,400 

MarketBased 

Reallocation 

of Water 

Resources2 

Drought 

years 

lease3 

N/A $200 200,000 20,000 

Nondrought 

years 

purchase3 

7,000 –14,000 $2880 -$3,460 10,000–20,000 Up to 40,000 

Groundwater 

Storage 

Alternative 

Surface 

recharge 

33,000 N/A N/A N/A 

Direct 

injection 5 6,400 $5,078 N/A 6,400 

1

 The Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative is not configured to substantially increase instream flow as the No 

Action Alternative provides a much greater instream flow benefit at the Parker gage compared to the current condition. 

2

 We estimate the cost of this alternative for two general scenarios: drought years in which parties would seek to lease 

water, and nondrought years in which parties would seek to purchase water rights. Implementation of this alternative 

would not entail construction; the figures reported reflect the amounts lessees/buyers would pay lessors/sellers. 

3

 Assumptions: The cost per acre-foot will roughly equal the average cost of water leased during the 2005 drought. 

The amount shown for irrigation approximates the amount needed, after taking into account the effects of enhanced 

conservation, to yield a 70 percent proration level for proratable irrigators during drought years. Roughly 40,000 acre-feet 

of new urban demand will materialize in areas with surface-water shortages during drought years but only half of this 

demand will be satisfied during these years. 

4

 Assumptions: The lower bound of the cost per acre-foot reflects the recent purchase of water rights by Washington 

Water Trust; the upper bound reflects the mean cost of recent urban water purchases in Western States. The lower 

bound of the amount of water for instream flows reflects the amount Reclamation, Ecology, and others purchased since 

1999; the upper bound is twice this amount. The amount of water purchased for irrigation equals 5–10 percent of the 

drought-year leases, and roughly 10-20 percent of the water applied to lower-valued crops in the basin in the early 1990s. 

New urban demand will require roughly 48,000 acre-feet per year of water upstream of the Parker gage. The total cost 

equals the midpoint of the price range, $2,345 per acre-foot, times the upper bound of the sum of the amounts shown, 

74,000 acre-feet. 

5

 Time lags between the time of direct injection and increased availability of water (e.g., seepage back to streams) vary 

dependent upon the target aquifer and mode of operation. Benefits and costs are based on equilibrium between 

recharge and active/passive recovery (i.e., beneficial effects may not be realized until several decades after 

implementation of a direct injection recharge, dependent upon the target aquifer). 

5-74 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

5.15 Public Services and Utilities 

The Yakima River basin is a large region that consists of expansive rural areas, a 

few small towns and cities, and urban development concentrated around 

Ellensburg, Yakima, and the Tri-Cities. The basin also features major regional 

water supply systems for irrigation and municipal uses. This section discusses 

water supply and regional water use, public services, and public utilities. 

Hydropower is discussed in section 5.4. 

5.15.1 Affected Environment 

5.15.1.1 Water Supply and Regional Water Use 

Potable water supply is provided by public and private water systems and 

individual wells. Within the basin, approximately 60,000 households are served 

by public and private water systems, while approximately 51,000 households are 

served by individual wells (Reclamation, 2006b). Most of the irrigation water is 

supplied by irrigation districts and ditch companies through diversions from the 

Yakima River and its tributaries. Reclamation operates the Yakima Project, 

which stores water for mainstem Yakima and Naches River water users. An 

estimated 465,400 acres of irrigable land is served by the Yakima Project (see 

chapter 1). A much smaller amount is diverted or pumped from groundwater by 

individual water users. 

5.15.1.2 Public Services 

Public services in the Yakima River basin are provided by tribal, Federal, State, 

county, and local governments, as well as by volunteer fire departments and other 

volunteer groups in many areas, especially rural areas. Services include 

emergency fire and police services, education, health services, recreation 

programs, and other services. 

5.15.1.3 Public Utilities 

Public utilities in the Yakima River basin are provided by a combination of tribal, 

county, city, special purpose district, and private suppliers. Wastewater and solid 

waste utilities are provided by counties and cities. In some cases wastewater 

treatment is provided by private treatment facilities serving individual 

developments outside urban areas. In most rural areas, wastewater treatment is 

provided through individual private septic systems. Electricity is provided by the 

private utilities Puget Sound Energy and PacifiCorp, and PUDs Kittitas County 

P.U.D. #1 and Benton Rural Electric Association. 

5.15.2 Environmental Consequences 

Substantial impacts to public services and utilities are not anticipated from any of 

the State Alternatives. 

5-75 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

5.15.2.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction along roadways associated with irrigation improvements under the 

Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative could cause temporary disruption of 

utilities and increased response time for police and fire emergency services. 

However, any disruptions would be coordinated with local services and utilities 

and would be scheduled to minimize impacts. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Conservation and efficiency measures, such as lining or piping irrigation ditches, 

would result in cost impacts to irrigation districts and companies. It is anticipated 

that the costs would be shared between Ecology, Reclamation and water users 

with the majority of the costs borne by Ecology. Some of the costs would be 

absorbed by the irrigation districts and companies, causing increased rates. 

Conservation measures could reduce energy consumption in some areas over time 

by reducing the volume of water that needs to be pumped to irrigate a given area. 

However, some of the conservation measures (KID, CID) entail construction of 

new pumping plants to allow water to remain instream in the Yakima River. 

Those plants will increase the overall amount of energy consumed. 

On-farm conservation measures would have minimal impacts on public services 

and utilities. Some measures, such as conversion to sprinkler irrigation or 

automated systems, may consume additional electricity. Conservation measures, 

such as more efficient irrigation application rates that result in less return flow, 

could reduce water reaching lakes and rivers as return flow, which could affect 

other water users’ ability to provide adequate water. 

Municipal conservation programs, including the development of reclamation and 

reuse facilities, could require additional investments by local utilities and 

increased rates in the short term. However, over the long term, conservation 

programs could reduce costs of providing municipal water as the cost of new 

water supplies increases. Enhanced water conservation may improve the 

reliability of public water supplies. 

5.15.2.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts associated with irrigation improvements are similar to those 

described for the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative. 

Long-Term Impacts 

A market-based water allocation system would incur costs for implementation and 

administration. It is expected that at least a portion of those costs would be borne 

5-76 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

by the State. Transfers from irrigation uses to domestic uses may cause increased 

demands for municipal services if development increases. Water right transfers 

may create a source to improve the reliability of public water supplies. 

5.15.2.3 Groundwater Storage Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts to public services and utilities associated with building 

infiltration ponds, injection wells, and conveyance infrastructure under the 

Groundwater Storage Alternative are similar to those described for the Enhanced 

Water Conservation Alternative. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Groundwater storage would require additional costs for treatment and operation. 

It is assumed that these costs would be borne by State or Federal agencies. 

Additional power would be required for pumping, injection, and treatment. 

Groundwater storage may provide a source of water to increase the reliability of 

public water supplies. 

5.15.3 Mitigation 

The following measures could be used to avoid impacts to public services and 

utilities during construction: 

•	 Provide public notification of proposed construction activities, including 

the timing of construction, to all local service providers and schools within 

the immediate vicinity of any facilities or infrastructure projects. 

•	 Plan construction traffic routing to maintain free-flowing traffic conditions 

and minimize potential increases in response times for emergency 

vehicles. Develop construction traffic plans in accordance with local 

requirements to ensure emergency service providers identify emergency 

access routes that are to be maintained during construction activities. 

•	 Coordinate with local utility service providers to assist in utility locations, 

if applicable, and to identify specific mitigation measures to minimize 

impacts to utility purveyors. 

Coordination would occur with local utility purveyors to identify other specific 

mitigation measures to minimize impacts. 

5-77 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

5.16 Transportation 

5.16.1 Affected Environment 

Agricultural irrigation in the Yakima River basin occurs primarily along rivers 

and tributaries in lower elevation areas. Some of these agricultural areas are 

adjacent to major highways in the basin. Most agricultural lands are located along 

the rural, local road system. 

Major highways in the Yakima River basin include I-90 and I-82, Federal 

Highways 97 and 12, and State and local Highways 10, 821, 410, 24, 240, and 

241 (see figure 5.5). In addition, there are a number of local roads that serve the 

rural areas of the basin. The Burlington Northern (BN) Railroad runs through the 

basin. The rail route is generally parallel to I-90 in the upper basin, west of the 

Yakima River through the Yakima River Canyon (parallel to Highway 821), and 

parallel to I-82 toward the Tri-Cities area. 

5.16.2 Environmental Consequences 

5.16.2.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction of facilities to improve water conservation could have minor, shortterm impacts on highways in the Yakima River basin. Where canals or other 

delivery systems are located adjacent to roadways, there could be temporary 

disruptions of traffic. Piping of canals could require that culverts be installed or 

replaced under roadways. There would be increased traffic on roadways with 

worker traffic, equipment, and deliveries. The degree of impact depends, in part, 

on the current level of service on potentially affected roads. Because most 

irrigated lands are located on local, rural roads with limited traffic, only minor 

impacts are anticipated. Construction impacts may also occur if conserved water 

results in water rights being transferred to irrigate different areas. The impacts of 

constructing new delivery systems would be similar to those for constructing 

water conservation projects. 

Long-Term Impacts 

No long-term impacts to transportation are anticipated. Operation of conservation 

projects would require only infrequent trips by maintenance vehicles and would 

have no impact on transportation systems. 

5.16.2.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

The only construction associated with the Market-Based Reallocation of Water 

Alternative would be if irrigation facilities are constructed to supply new areas 

where water rights have been transferred. These impacts would be similar to 

5-78 
" 

i 

! 

, 

! 

• 

-------, 

;r ~K MA: 

"", 

0 "",· ...... ., 

~ ",." 

,--, ~" 

, 

L~~' __________ ~==~ 

.so'C,"~, Wl~OOrn'c". ."",,; ""CU~OOlC,C.,,,, •• ,_______ c Yok ~ Rr- BtI~n _ stC<1lge f ",,;DIy stL.dy PRII'IS .207369 

Fi gure S.4 

Major T ransportati on Ro utes 

Yakima Rrver Basin, VVashington 

Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

Figure 5.5 Major transportation routes. 

5-79 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

those for the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative except on a smaller scale. 

Mitigation measures for construction would be similar to those for the Enhanced 

Water Conservation Alternative. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Water banks or water transfers would not by themselves affect transportation. In 

areas where new irrigation facilities are installed, maintenance vehicles would 

make infrequent trips. If the area is not currently in agricultural use, there would 

be increased vehicle trips by agricultural equipment. 

5.16.2.3 Groundwater Storage Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

The construction of infiltration and injection facilities for groundwater storage 

projects would temporarily increase trips by worker vehicles, construction 

equipment, and material delivery on adjacent roadways. If treatment facilities are 

required for injection facilities, construction would generate more traffic than the 

infiltration facilities. Depending on the location of the infiltration and injection 

facilities, new access roads may need to be constructed. 

Conveyance facilities would be required to convey water from the Yakima River 

to the injection or infiltration site. Where groundwater is actively recovered, 

pipelines would also be required to convey the water from the recovery well to the 

municipal supply system. In some cases, these conveyance facilities may cross 

existing roads. If the conveyance lines cross major highways, they would likely 

be installed by boring under the highway to minimize traffic impacts. On minor 

highways, the conveyance lines would be installed by a cut and cover method that 

would require temporary lane closures. 

Long-Term Impacts 

No long-term impacts to transportation are anticipated from the Groundwater 

Storage Alternative. The infiltration and injection facilities would require only 

infrequent trips by maintenance vehicles. 

5.16.3 Mitigation 

Mitigation measures to reduce construction impacts to transportation would be 

similar for all three alternatives. Mitigation would include maintaining access to 

properties, installing signage, marking detour routes, and providing information to 

the public. 

Since there would be no long-term impacts to transportation from the three State 

Alternatives, no mitigation is necessary. 

5-80 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

5.17 Air Quality 

5.17.1 Affected Environment 

The Affected Environment and applicable regulations for air quality for the State 

Alternatives is described in chapter 4. Primary sources of air pollutants in the 

Yakima basin are vehicular emissions and windblown dust from agricultural 

activities. Some residential wood burning and industrial emissions occur, 

primarily in urban areas. The Yakima River basin experiences frequent strong 

winds, primarily from the northwest. These winds, combined with the fine 

sediments in the area increase the potential for windblown dust. Air quality in the 

Yakima River basin is well within the standards for pollutants. 

The State of Washington, through the Department of Ecology, regulates fugitive 

dust emissions by requiring that “the owner or operator of a source of fugitive 

dust shall take reasonable precautions to prevent fugitive dust from becoming 

airborne and shall maintain and operate the source to minimize emissions” 

(Ecology, 2002a). The Benton County Clean Air Authority (BCAA) regulates air 

quality in Benton County and has established a Fugitive Dust Policy to reduce 

dust emissions. The Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority requires Dust Control 

Plans for projects in Yakima County. Kittitas and Franklin Counties do not have 

similar regulatory agencies, but they are subject to Ecology regulations. 

5.17.2 Environmental Consequences 

5.17.2.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction of agricultural conservation projects could cause increases in 

fugitive dust from disturbed soils and increased vehicle and equipment emissions. 

These impacts are expected to be minor and temporary. 

Long-Term Impacts 

No emissions would be associated with operation of agricultural conservation 

projects. Municipal conservation projects may include the use of reclaimed 

water. Reclaimed water will be treated and is not expected to produce odors. 

5.17.2.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

If water rights are transferred to irrigate different areas, the construction of new 

water delivery systems would have minor and temporary impacts similar to those 

of the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative. 

5-81 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Long-Term Impacts 

The only operational impacts to air quality expected from market-based water 

reallocation would increase dust if fields are fallowed. 

5.17.2.3 Groundwater Storage Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction of groundwater storage facilities would have minor and temporary 

impacts similar to those of the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative. If 

excavation is required for the infiltration basins, there would be an increased 

potential for fugitive dust during excavation. 

Long-Term Impacts 

The groundwater infiltration basins would be dry during certain periods of the 

year. The exposed ground could increase the potential for windblown dust. The 

extent of the increased dust would depend on the location of the basins and the 

amount of wind dispersal that would occur at specific site. 

The groundwater storage facilities would require electric pumps, which would not 

produce emissions. If generators are used for back up power supplies, there 

would be increased emissions during those periods when backup power is needed. 

Those emissions would be temporary since the generators would only be used in 

emergencies. 

5.17.3 Mitigation 

Mitigation measures that could be used to reduce construction impacts for all 

State Alternatives include: 

• Complying with applicable dust control policies and plans; 

• Spraying dry soil with water to reduce dust; 

• Minimizing idling of equipment when not in use; 

• Covering dirt and gravel piles; and 

• Sweeping roadways to reduce mud and dust. 

Dust control plans could be developed to mitigate the impacts of increased dust 

from fallow fields and dry infiltration basins. Measures to reduce dust could 

include installing plantings around the infiltration basins and planting droughttolerant plants in fallow areas. No mitigation measures are required for the 

temporary emissions from back up generators. 

5-82 
 

Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

5.18 Noise 

5.18.1 Affected Environment 

The affected environment for noise is similar to that described in chapter 4. 

Projects associated with the State Alternatives would primarily be located in rural 

areas. Ambient noise sources in these areas consist of vehicular noise, power 

tools and mechanical equipment, and livestock. Some groundwater storage 

facilities could be located within city limits where ambient noise sources would 

include commercial, industrial, and residential activities. 

5.18.2 Environmental Consequences 

5.18.2.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction associated with conservation projects would temporarily increase 

noise levels in the project area. Noise sources would include increased vehicular 

traffic, heavy equipment, and the hauling of construction materials. These 

impacts would be short-term, likely lasting a few weeks. Construction activities 

are exempt from Ecology noise ordinances that apply to the project area. 

Long-Term Impacts 

The operation of conservation projects is not expected to generate increased noise. 

5.18.2.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Under the Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative, noise 

impacts would occur only if construction were required in order to apply 

transferred water rights to new areas. The construction impacts would be similar 

to those described for the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative but smaller 

in scale. 

Long-Term Impacts 

The Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative would not 

generate increased long-term noise. 

5.18.2.3 Groundwater Storage Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts associated with the Groundwater Storage Alternative would 

be similar to those of the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative. 

Construction of groundwater storage facilities located in incorporated areas would 

5-83 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

be subject to the jurisdiction’s noise regulations. Construction projects are 

exempt from noise regulations during specified hours (generally 7 a.m. to 

10 p.m.). 

Long-Term Impacts 

Pumps used at the groundwater storage facilities would generate noise, but the 

noise would be minimal and likely undetectable off-site. No other long-term 

noise impacts would be associated with groundwater storage. 

5.18.3 Mitigation 

Construction noise impacts for all State Alternatives could be mitigated by 

limiting construction hours, using equipment with mufflers or noise control, and 

situating noise-generating equipment away from houses. For groundwater storage 

facilities located within city limits, projects would comply with applicable 

construction noise hours. 

No mitigation measures would be required for operation of any of the State 

Alternatives. 

5.19 Visual Resources 

5.19.1 Affected Environment 

The Yakima River basin in Central Washington is located on the arid side of the 

Cascade Range. The headwaters of the Yakima River are located in the forested 

areas of the Cascades. The river flows generally northwest to southeast to its 

mouth at the Columbia River. The river valley is broad and flat and surrounded 

by a series of ridges. In places the river cuts through these ridges. Agriculture is 

a major land use in the Yakima River valley, and views on the valley floor are 

primarily of agricultural fields with irrigation canals. Vegetation on the 

surrounding ridges is mainly grasses and shrubs. These ridges are brown most of 

the year and contrast with the green, irrigated portions of the valley floor. In the 

lower valley, near Yakima, Mount Rainier and Mount Adams are visible in 

places. In the upper valley, urban areas are limited to Ellensburg. In the lower 

valley a string of towns extends from the City of Yakima to Grandview. The 

major urban area of the Tri-Cities is located at the mouth of the river. 

Projects associated with the State Alternatives would mainly be located in the 

rural portions of the Yakima River basin. Visual resources in those areas are 

characterized by agricultural fields with irrigation canals. Some of the irrigation 

canals support riparian vegetation. 

5-84 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

5.19.2 Environmental Consequences 

5.19.2.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Conservation projects would consist of improvements to existing irrigation 

systems in rural areas. No significant changes to visual resources are anticipated 

with most conservation projects. Construction equipment and activities would 

temporarily alter, but not obstruct, views. 

Long-Term Impacts 

The improved irrigation systems would be visually similar to existing systems. 

The exceptions would be where riparian vegetation is removed and where open 

canals or ditches are piped. The removal of riparian vegetation would reduce 

water losses from canals, but would change visual resources. Piping of canals or 

ditches would be a visual change from open water with a stream-like appearance 

to a pipe. 

Most of the conservation projects would be visible only from the local area and 

would be viewed primarily by local farmers or ranchers. Some of the major 

delivery canals in the Yakima River basin are visible from major highways. 

Piping or lining of these canals would be visible to people driving through the 

basin, but the views would be for a few seconds or minutes. 

5.19.2.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

If water rights are transferred to new areas, the construction of new irrigation 

facilities would be similar to the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative. 

Long-Term Impacts 

The Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative would have 

no direct effects on visual resources. However, reallocation could result in 

land use changes that would alter visual landscapes. Water right transfers could 

result in expanding irrigation to new areas, changing agricultural uses to urban or 

domestic uses, or fallowing some fields. All would result in changes to the visual 

landscape, which some people may view as negative. Irrigated agriculture would 

be expanded into areas that are zoned for agriculture. Visual changes would be 

limited to changes in crop types and the addition of irrigation facilities, but the 

overall visual landscape would not be altered. Water transferred to urban or 

domestic uses would also be applied in areas that are designated for those uses. 

Some people may view a fallow field as potential wildlife habitat, while others 

may feel that such areas are unkempt and overgrown. Without weed control, 

fallowed fields could be invaded by weedy species. 

5-85 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

5.19.2.3 Groundwater Storage Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction impacts associated with groundwater storage facilities would be 

similar to those of the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Groundwater storage facilities would change the visual landscape in their 

immediate areas. Infiltration sites would change from dry areas to basins that 

hold water. The basins could be as large as 20 acres. Injection facilities would be 

housed in pump houses similar to wells and have minimal visual impacts. The 

treatment facilities associated with infiltration would be housed in buildings that 

would alter the local visual landscape if located in rural areas; however, the 

impacts are not expected to be significant. 

Injection and treatment facilities would be sited with existing treatment facilities 

where possible. Most conveyance lines would be underground. However, the 

intake lines would require pump facilities adjacent to the water source. This 

would consist of a pump house, power supply, and intake pipe. The facilities 

would be fenced. Depending on the location, the intake facilities would be visible 

from adjacent roadways and from boats on the river. All impacts would be 

localized and would affect a limited number of individuals; largely those people 

who live in or travel through the local area. 

5.19.3 Mitigation Measures 

No mitigation measures are proposed for construction impacts of any of the State 

Alternatives because the impacts are not expected to be significant. There would 

be no long-term impacts associated with the Enhanced Water Conservation 

Alternative, and therefore no mitigation is proposed. 

The potential impacts associated with the Market-Based Reallocation of Water 

Resources Alternative would be mitigated by compliance with existing zoning 

and other regulations. The new uses supplied by water rights transfers would be 

located in areas that are designated for those uses. The counties in the Yakima 

River basin have weed control districts or ordinances that could be used to 

enforce weed control on fallow land. Ordinances could also be adopted or 

conditions added to transfer agreements to require planting of fallowed fields to 

reduce the growth of noxious weeds. 

The visual impacts of groundwater storage facilities could be mitigated by using 

building colors that blend with the surrounding environment and plantings that 

screen the pump and injection facilities. Building colors could also help reduce 

the visual impacts of intake facilities. These areas and infiltration basins could 

also be screened with riparian plantings to make them less visible to the public. 

5-86 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

5.20 Cultural Resources 

Analysis of the impacts of the three proposed State Alternatives on cultural 

resources is based on a review of the known impacts to cultural resources on 

similar types of projects. A cultural resources overview of an area this large will 

necessarily be cursory. Some of the projects proposed by the State under this 

SEPA EIS will require additional review. Ultimately the specific projects will 

require a more detailed cultural resource analysis, including fieldwork. 

Analysis of cultural resources for the Joint Alternatives was reviewed as part of 

the analysis of the State Alternative methods. Cultural resources are evaluated 

under different regulations for the Joint and State Alternatives. The State 

Alternatives are mainly evaluated under SEPA. Additionally, Washington State 

EO 05-05 establishes a review process by DAHP and affected tribes for capital 

projects or land acquisition proposed by State agencies; Ecology will initiate the 

project review process for the State Alternatives with DAHP once an 

alternative(s) is selected for more detailed analysis. 

SEPA requires that cultural resources within a proposed project area must be 

identified, and that measures must be proposed to reduce or control impacts on 

these resources. Under SEPA, DAHP provides formal opinions on the 

significance of sites and the impact of the proposed projects on such sites. Other 

State laws governing cultural resources protect Native American graves (RCW 

27.44), abandoned historic cemeteries (RCW 68.60), and archaeological sites 

(RCW 27.53). These laws contain clauses regarding the inadvertent discovery of 

cultural resources during activities such as construction. 

The Joint Alternatives are evaluated under the NHPA, as well as EO 13007 

(Indian Sacred Sites). Other Federal laws also may apply including the Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (P.L. 101-601), the 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 USC 470aa-470mm), and the 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 USC §§ 1996, 1996a). 

5.20.1 Affected Environment 

General background on the Affected Environment is described in chapter 4, 

addressing Historic Resources and Indian Sacred Sites the Joint Alternatives. 

5.20.2 Environmental Consequences 

5.20.2.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Any on-farm conservation which involves ground disturbing activities has 

the potential to impact cultural resources. These include any new construction, 

such as ponds and conveyance lines. Overall, the impact to cultural resources 

5-87 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

from enhanced water conservation efforts is expected to be low to moderate, 

depending on the scale of the conservation measures. 

One of the projected aspects of enhanced water conservation is the efficiency 

based improvement of existing agricultural irrigation systems. Improvements to 

agricultural infrastructure have the potential to impact cultural resources in two 

ways. The first potential impact involves the replacement or modification of 

historic farm infrastructure, i.e., any building or modified landscape greater than 

50 years old. Disturbed or modified farm infrastructure will have to be evaluated 

as to its age and potential historical significance depending on State or Federal 

involvement. For example, projects on private property supported by grants from 

the Natural Resources Conservation Services would be subject to the NHPA and 

would likely require at least archival review of the project for cultural resources 

and probably field work as well. 

Secondly, any new construction associated with this alternative has the potential 

to impact both above ground and underground cultural resources located within 

their footprint. Impacts to cultural resources from municipal conservation might 

be expected if there are replacements to in-use historic-age water management 

infrastructure, as well as if there is ground-disturbing construction for new 

facilities. Furthermore, large scale changes to existing farm infrastructure would 

have the potential impact of diminishing the integrity of setting and location for 

historic age cultural resources in the vicinity. 

Long-Term Impacts 

The long-term impacts of this Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative to 

cultural resources could include modified patterns of modern human activity, and 

potentially altered stream or spring flows. If modern patterns of human activity 

are substantially changed, then surficial cultural resources within these areas are 

prone to impact from relic collecting and site disturbance. 

5.20.2.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources 

Construction Impacts 

No impacts to cultural resources are anticipated due to the Market-Based 

Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative as this alternative consists primarily 

of transfer of water rights and not actual transfer of water to new uses. In cases 

where additional water is transferred for agricultural uses, it is assumed the land 

will already be in agriculture providing no significant change to the current 

condition. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Long-term impacts under the Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources 

would be similar to those discussed for the Enhanced Water Conservation 

Alternative. By transferring water from lower value to higher value uses, this 

5-88 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

alternative may result in more intensive agricultural activity in some areas. There 

also may be increased pressure to transfer water to higher value residential or 

commercial uses. All land use changes would take place consistent with adopted 

land use plans and zoning codes. Any shift to a more intense activity that would 

result in excavation would be subject to site-specific evaluations to determine the 

potential to affect cultural resources. 

5.20.2.3 Groundwater Storage 

Construction Impacts 

The Groundwater Storage Alternative has the potential to impact cultural resource 

properties located within the footprint of any new ground-disturbing construction 

activities, including but not limited to: surface infiltration reservoirs, subsurface 

injection sites, water treatment sites, conveyance lines, access roads, electrical 

transmission corridors, and staging areas. Impacts are specific to these areas, and 

stem from the disturbance of in situ cultural resources. One moderating factor is 

that the types of landforms expected to be selected for groundwater storage 

infrastructure will be mainly located away from significant streams and rivers, 

areas which typically have fewer cultural resources than areas nearer perennial 

water sources. Only intake facilities are proposed at rivers. If alternative site 

locations are feasible, then complete avoidance of significant cultural resources 

may be possible. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Surface infiltration reservoirs are large facilities, and have the potential to 

adversely modify traditional cultural landscapes. This could have a negative 

impact on the integrity of setting and feeling of nearby archaeological sites and 

could also interfere with Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs). Increased 

localized streamflow volume increases the potential for erosion of stream-side 

archaeological sites. However, restoring historic streams, springs, or seeps 

associated with historically significant areas like TCPs may actually increase their 

integrity. Overall, the impact to cultural resources from the Groundwater Storage 

Alternative is expected to be low to moderate. 

5.20.3 Mitigation Measures 

Depending on the funding source and degree of Federal involvement and 

permitting, the Section 106 process would need to be followed for the State 

Alternatives, including archival research, intensive cultural resource survey, 

NRHP site and district evaluation, general Cultural Resources Management Plans 

(CRMPs), site specific Historic Property Treatment Plans (HPTPs), NRHP 

eligibility testing, nature and extent testing, data recovery, and synthetic 

documentation. For projects that do not require compliance with NHPA, any 

inadvertent discovery of cultural resources on private land would be subject to 

5-89 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

RCW 27.53 and RCW 27.44 which protect cultural resources and Indian burials 

on private land from being “knowingly” disturbed. 

The construction of new infrastructure or renovation of existing infrastructure 

could require additional environmental review depending on the scale and 

location of the project, after which the exact mitigation measures would be 

developed in coordination with DAHP, the affected tribes, and other interested 

parties. Ecology will develop a CRMP for the Enhanced Water Conservation 

Alternative in consultation with interested parties. The CRMP will support the 

goals of the conservation alternative while ensuring appropriate cultural resources 

management. The CRMP will outline efforts to identify cultural resources in the 

project area, develop a review process for planned actions, outline potential 

mitigation measures, and include processes to identify and resolve conflicts. 

Mitigation measures could include archaeological remote sensing during planning 

to allow avoidance; excavation of archaeological sites that would be adversely 

affected by the projects; documentation of historic structures; site 

protection/stabilization, including site burial, use of filter fabrics, revegetation, 

site armoring, and other measures; efforts to reduce vandalism through public 

education, fencing, or site surveillance; and archaeological monitoring during 

construction (Draper 1992; Lenihan et al. 1981). Construction contracts would 

require that if any archaeological material is encountered during construction, 

construction activities in the immediate vicinity would halt and DAHP and a 

professional archaeologist would be contacted for further assessment prior to 

resuming construction activity in that area. 

Mitigation measures for TCPs would need to be determined in consultation with 

the appropriate cultural group. Because TCPs contribute to the maintenance of a 

culture, mitigation efforts may include documentation of the significance of the 

place through oral histories or recording traditional storytellers. It is important to 

note that it is not always possible to mitigate adverse effects to TCPs. 

The Groundwater Storage Alternative is the most likely of the State Alternatives 

to impact cultural resources. Additional review including field investigations 

would be required once specific locations are identified. 

5.21 Public Health and Safety 

This section discusses public health and safety in terms of two issues relevant to 

storage projects: hazardous and toxic materials and potential for mosquito 

breeding. 

5-90 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

5.21.1 Affected Environment 

General background on public health issues, including information on mosquitoborne diseases is described in chapter 4. Projects implemented as part of the State 

Alternatives would be located primarily in rural areas. The potential for 

encountering hazardous materials in these areas would be more limited than in 

developed areas. However, agricultural chemicals or petroleum products could 

have been stored in areas that will be disturbed during construction. The Yakima 

River basin is arid with limited areas of standing water suitable for mosquito 

breeding. However, standing water created by existing irrigation systems could 

be used for mosquito breeding. 

5.21.2 Environmental Consequences – Hazardous Materials 

5.21.2.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Hazardous or toxic materials could be encountered during construction of 

conservation projects. Most projects would be located in areas that have already 

been disturbed during previous construction, reducing the potential for 

encountering unknown hazardous materials. In areas where land use practices or 

other activities are known to have the potential for contamination, additional sitespecific evaluations would be conducted prior to construction. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Operation of the conservation projects would not require or disturb any hazardous 

or toxic materials. 

5.21.2.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Hazardous or toxic materials could be encountered during construction of new 

irrigation facilities if water rights are transferred to irrigate different areas. 

However, the potential for this is expected to be small because most of these areas 

have been used for agricultural, and would not likely be subject to contamination. 

Additional evaluations may need to be conducted if construction is proposed near 

chemical storage areas, vehicle maintenance and storage areas, or other locations 

where hazardous chemicals could be concentrated. 

Long-Term Impacts 

If new areas are irrigated, agricultural chemicals could be applied to new areas, 

but those chemicals would be used in compliance with applicable regulations and 

are not expected to create hazards. 

5-91 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

5.21.2.3 Groundwater Storage Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction of facilities for groundwater storage could disturb areas of toxic or 

hazardous material. Because the facilities would be constructed in rural areas, the 

potential for encountering contamination is limited. However, additional studies 

may be required if construction is proposed in or near areas used for chemical 

storage, vehicle maintenance and storage, or other areas with intense chemical 

use. During facility siting, onsite investigations would be conducted to determine 

the feasibility of the site for recharge including the potential to encounter 

contaminated soils or groundwater. Facilities will be sited to avoid these areas to 

the greatest extent possible. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Treatment facilities for direct injection would require storage of chemicals onsite. 

Those chemicals would be stored and handled in accordance with applicable 

local, State, and Federal regulations including the Uniform Fire Code and the 

Model Toxics Control Act. The potential for spills or leaks of hazardous 

materials would be minor. 

5.21.3 Mitigation 

For all State Alternatives, mitigation measures to minimize impacts from 

hazardous and toxic materials during construction include: 

•	 Site-specific investigations will be conducted prior to construction to 

identify potential constraints to the site, including contaminated soils or 

groundwater. 

•	 Construction excavations will be observed for potential contamination. If 

field personnel observe onsite contamination, specific mitigation measures 

would be developed based on the magnitude of contamination identified. 

•	 Construction plans will include provisions for contractors to follow if 

unanticipated contamination is discovered. 

•	 Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plans would be 

developed to identify emergency measures to be employed to prevent the 

accidental release of contaminants into the environment. 

No mitigation measures are proposed for long-term impacts of the State 

Alternatives because the impacts are not expected to be significant. 

5-92 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

5.21.4 Environmental Consequences – Mosquitoes 

5.21.4.1 Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction activities are not expected to increase breeding areas for mosquitoes. 

Additional pooling or ponding of water will not occur and may be reduced from 

existing conditions. 

Long-Term Impacts 

The Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative is not expected to increase the 

breeding areas for mosquitoes and reduced water seepage may decrease the 

breeding area by reducing or eliminating areas of leakage. Conservation projects 

would not increase areas of standing water. Lining and piping canals would 

reduce the available area for mosquito breeding. The removal of riparian 

vegetation along canals may also reduce the potential for mosquito breeding by 

reducing leakage. On-farm irrigation improvements may include ponds to capture 

and reuse tail water. Water is not expected to remain in the ponds long enough to 

provide breeding habitat. 

5.21.4.2 Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative 

Construction Impacts 

Construction of new irrigation facilities would not create new mosquito breeding 

areas, as these facilities will mostly be piping or conveyance facilities with no 

areas of standing water. 

Long-Term Impacts 

Water transfers associated with water banks or water marketing would not 

directly affect mosquito breeding. New irrigation systems constructed for water 

rights transferred to irrigate different areas are not expected to create substantial 

areas of standing water that would increase mosquito breeding habitat. However, 

new canals could create small areas of standing water. These areas may require 

observation to ensure that mosquito breeding does not occur. 

5.21.4.3 Groundwater Storage Alternative 

No impacts associated with mosquitoes are expected from direct injection 

methods of groundwater storage. However, the infiltration method will require a 

series of large basins to store water for infiltration. These basins could create 

mosquito breeding areas, but they are not expected to have stable water levels for 

a long enough period of time to create mosquito problems. Operation of the 

ponds will be monitored for the potential to enhance mosquito breeding. 

5-93 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

5.21.5 Mitigation 

Although no significant impacts are expected with any of the State Alternatives, 

an insect control program could be developed to mitigate the potential for 

increased mosquito breeding. Increased awareness by the agricultural community 

and irrigation facility operators will reduce the potential to create standing water. 

5.22 Cumulative Impacts 

Cumulative impacts associated with the State Alternatives vary according to the 

alternative, as described below. 

The Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative would require minimal 

construction, but could result in cumulative economic as well as land use impacts. 

As with all the State Alternatives, this alternative involves transferring water from 

a lower value use to a higher valued use. This would lead to a shift in the timing 

of supply of water by reducing the amount of water that otherwise would 

percolate into the ground and reemerge as surface water some days or weeks later. 

This timing change could lead to a change in cropping patterns for those who 

experience improved irrigation reliability. A change in cropping patterns could 

result in a conversion of fallow or unused farmlands into more actively managed 

areas, which could contribute to a regional trend of reducing remaining 

undeveloped areas, which can provide habitat. In terms of potential economic 

impacts, the Enhanced Water Conservation Alternative would require initial 

financial investment as well as ongoing operational expenses; these expenses 

would be assumed to improve water supply reliability that would generate 

economic benefits during subsequent years. The anticipated funding for this 

alternative assumes the majority of the funding would be provided by Ecology 

with the remainder coming from other funding sources; implementation would 

add to Ecology’s funding obligations and would place an additional 

administrative burden on Ecology staff. For local jurisdictions, funding for the 

conservation program would compete with the numerous other local funding 

needs. Money used for implementing the Enhanced Water Conservation 

Alternative would not be available for other public funding needs. 

Implementing the Market-Based Reallocation of Water Resources Alternative 

would also result in a transfer of water from lower-valued uses to higher valued 

uses, with accompanying economic impacts and potential shifts in land use 

activities. Options for implementing this alternative include establishing a private 

nonprofit or for-profit entity, or working within established institutions such as 

the TWRP. All of these options require increased administrative costs for the 

implementing/administering entity. If these options are funded within existing 

publicly-funded institutions such as Ecology, additional funding sources will be 

required to shoulder the increased administrative burden. These additional 

funding needs will compete with numerous other funding needs for publicly 

5-94 
Chapter 5 

Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences: State Alternatives 

funded institutions, as well as costs to improve habitat for fish and other projectrelated objectives. If a private entity manages the administration of the water 

banking/water market approach, the price of water would likely rise. This could 

result in providing water to those willing to pay the highest price, which could 

result in a shift away from agriculture and toward municipal, industrial and 

commercial users, such as residential developers. Because of the market-based 

pricing, this alternative has the greatest potential for this type of cumulative land 

use impacts among the State Alternatives. Complying with adopted land use 

plans and policies within local jurisdictions would minimize this potential. 

The Groundwater Storage Alternative would shift the supply of water resources, 

removing water from lower-valued instream flows when water is abundant in 

winter months, storing it underground, and withdrawing it to increase the supply 

of water available for higher-valued uses when water is scarce in summer months. 

This alternative would require financial investment for construction of recharge 

ponds, as well as ongoing operational costs. The construction of recharge ponds 

would permanently commit the acreage associated with the ponds (approximately 

20 acres per pond) to recharge basins, removing these sites as habitat or 

agricultural areas. The large number of potential ponds could cumulatively 

contribute to long-term losses in both of these land use types. The cost of this 

alternative will likely be borne in large part by the public, which would, as 

described for the other State Alternatives, result in competing demands for 

increasingly limited public funding. 

Implementing any of the State Alternatives would result in water being shifted 

from the production of lower-value goods and services to the production of 

higher-value goods and services. The shift in the production of water-related 

goods and services might alter the pattern of related economic activity. A shift in 

the production of irrigated crops from one area to another, and from one crop to 

another, for example, might alter the pattern of farm-related traffic, and the 

pattern of food processing activities. Such shifts could economically strand plant, 

equipment, and infrastructure associated with the lower-valued crops. 

Conversely, they might cause excess wear and tear on the plant, equipment, and 

infrastructure associated with the higher-value crops. Similar effects might occur 

with the transfer of water to produce goods and services other than irrigated crops. 

The fields that otherwise would produce the lower-value goods and services 

would be left fallow or converted to other uses. When a landowner sells the water 

rights appurtenant to a parcel, the market value of that parcel might rise or fall, 

depending on the new use of the land. Such a rise or fall might have a parallel 

impact on the property taxes local governments receive from the land. 

Ecology would work to minimize potential cumulative impacts to land uses by 

continuing to coordinate with tribes and local, State, and Federal agencies. Any 

5-95 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

development that occurs as a result of more reliable water supplies would comply 

with local planning and zoning regulations, in accordance with adopted land use 

and planning polices. 

5-96 
Chapter 6 

CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 
 

CHAPTER 6 

CONSULTATION AND 

COORDINATION 

This chapter describes Reclamation’s and Ecology’s public involvement, 

consultation, and coordination activities to date, including future actions that will 

occur during the processing of this document. Public information activities would 

continue through the future developments of this project. 

6.1 Public Involvement 

Public involvement is a process where interested and affected individuals, 

organizations, agencies, and governmental entities are consulted and included in 

Reclamation’s decisionmaking process. In addition to providing information to 

the public regarding the Draft PR/EIS, Reclamation also solicited responses 

regarding the public’s needs, values, and evaluations of the proposed alternatives. 

Reclamation encouraged and used both formal and informal input. As additional 

issues arise, they will be considered and included as appropriate. 

6.1.1 Scoping Process 

The Draft PR/EIS scoping process was initiated in December 2006 to receive 

public input on the scope of the Yakima River Basin Water Storage Feasibility 

Study, consistent with the requirements of NEPA and its implementing 

regulations and SEPA. The Federal Register Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS 

and a schedule for the scoping meetings were published December 29, 2006. 

Also on December 29, 2006, Ecology published the Determination of 

Significance as a public notice in area newspapers consistent with the 

requirements of SEPA. Reclamation also issued a news release to local media. 

Meeting notices describing the project, requesting comments, and announcing the 

date, times, and location of the public scoping meetings were mailed to interested 

individuals, Tribes, groups, and government agencies. A total of 331 meeting 

notices were distributed. The Notice of Intent, Determination of Significance, 

news release, and meeting notice are attached to the Scoping Summary Report 

(Reclamation and Ecology, 2007b). The Scoping Summary Report is available 

upon request or can be accessed from the Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Storage Study Web site: http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/ 

storage_study/index.html. 

6-1 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

The purposes of scoping were to: 

•	 Inform the public about the background, purpose, and alternatives being 

considered as part of the Storage Study. 

•	 Obtain input regarding identifying issues and concerns associated with the 

current alternatives. 

•	 Identify other alternatives for the Storage Study. 

6.1.1.1 Public Scoping Meetings 

On January 23, 2007, two scoping meetings were held at the Yakima Convention 

Center in Yakima, Washington. Both meetings were preceded by a 1-hour open 

house and included a question-and-answer period at the end of the meetings. The 

first meeting was held from 2 to 4 p.m., and the second meeting was held from 

7 to 9 p.m. These were joint meetings with Ecology and complied with both 

NEPA and SEPA scoping requirements. 

Approximately 70 people attended the afternoon session, and approximately 

30 persons attended the evening session. 

6.1.1.2 Comments and Other Information Received from the Public 

The official public scoping comment period began December 29, 2006, and 

concluded January 31, 2007. 

Including those received during the scoping meetings, 130 written comment 

documents were received during this period. The documents included one 

request to be added to the mailing list with no comments, 6 identical form letters 

received by email, 74 identical postcards received by U.S. mail, and 49 unique 

documents received by one or more of the following methods—hand delivery, 

email, U.S. mail, or fax. Some documents were received by multiple methods. 

The comments ranged from brief comments or questions to detailed statements. 

The comments included suggestions that the Storage Study should investigate 

nonstorage alternatives such as aquifer storage and recovery for instream and 

out-of-stream uses, more water conservation measures, and reallocation of 

water resources for instream and out-of-stream uses. In addition, there were 

comments about how each of the resources should be analyzed, which led to 

the development of the indicators used to evaluate the effects of the alternatives 

on the resources. 

Additionally, Reclamation received two analyses from the Yakima Basin Storage 

Alliance (YBSA): Recreation and Economic Development Analyses of Lands 

Around Black Rock Reservoir (YBSA, 2007) and Evaluation of the Black Rock 

Project’s Pumped Storage Power Costs and Benefits (Energy Northwest, 2007). 

A summary of these analyses follows. 

6-2 
Chapter 6 

Consultation and 

Coordination 

During the course of the development of the Storage Study, the YBSA has 

suggested that the economic evaluations conducted by Reclamation as directed by 

the P&Gs do not capture the full extent of the economic benefits that could accrue 

from potential water-resource-related actions. Economic studies prepared by 

others have indicated greater monetary value arising from irrigated agriculture 

and water-related recreation development. 

For example, the YBSA, in cooperation with the Port of Sunnyside and Benton 

and Yakima Counties, commissioned a study in 2006 to address economic 

benefits which could be derived from construction and operation of a Black Rock 

reservoir. This study focused on the potential of residential, resort, and 

commercial development at the Black Rock reservoir which could create 

significant increased revenue flows within the four-county area over a 20-year 

timeframe. The foregoing study reflected considerable at-site development 

beyond the minimum basic recreation facilities contemplated by Reclamation. 

These potential revenue flows would be regional in scope and not the national 

economic benefits that Reclamation and other Federal studies are mandated to 

address for the economic justification of Federal water resource projects. 

The 2007 YBSA study is more representative of an economic impact analysis 

than a benefits analysis and relies on extensive private residential, resort, and 

commercial development. Such development is not precluded at Federal water 

resource projects; however, Federal legislation does provide for non-Federal 

development and operation and maintenance of recreation facilities at such 

potential reservoirs beyond minimum basic facilities. It does allow residential, 

resort, and commercial development, but such development must be consistent 

with the authorized purposes of the project and must not compromise project 

operations to achieve these purposes. 

In addition to the two powerplants at the delivery points to the Roza and 

Sunnyside Canals, the YBSA suggested that a pump-generation facility be 

considered for the Black Rock reservoir. Pump generation is the concept of 

pumping water into a reservoir while power is relatively inexpensive and then, 

when power demand increases and is likely to be more expensive, release the 

water to generate power. Reclamation analyzed a pump-generation option at 

Black Rock reservoir during the appraisal phase of the Storage Study and 

determined that it was not economically or financially feasible to pursue for the 

Storage Study. 

The YBSA commissioned a study to review those conclusions and 

provide recommendations on how pump generation could be made more 

financially attractive at the Black Rock reservoir. Reclamation reviewed 

the recommendations and, using additional information from outside 

Reclamation, concluded that it is still appropriate to move forward with a 

pump-only Black Rock Alternative. 

6-3 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

6.1.2 Public Hearings and Review of Draft PR/EIS 

This Draft PR/EIS is available for public review until March 31, 2008. 

Reclamation and Ecology will also hold formal public hearings in February 2008 

to receive oral and written comments. Reclamation and Ecology will respond to 

the comments in the final planning report/environmental impact statement. No 

Reclamation decision will be made on the proposed action until a minimum of 

30 days after release of the Final PR/EIS. Following this 30-day period, 

Reclamation will complete its Record of Decision, which will identify the 

alternative to be implemented. 

6.1.3 Other Meetings Held with Interested Parties 

Following are other meetings that have been held with interested parties in 

regard to the Storage Study, both during and prior to initiation of the 

NEPA/SEPA process. 

6.1.3.1 Public Meetings 

•	 April 27, 28, 29, 2004 – Public meetings/open houses were held for the 

public to provide information on the Storage Study process. The meetings 

were held in Ellensburg, Pasco, and Yakima, Washington. 

•	 March 29, 2005 – An information meeting was held for the public to 

discuss findings reported in the Summary Report, Appraisal Assessment of 

the Black Rock Alternative (Reclamation, 2004e) and answer questions. 

The meeting was held at the Yakima Convention Center, Yakima 

Washington. 

•	 September 21, 2005 – A public meeting/open house was held at the 

Yakima Convention Center, Yakima Washington, to provide updates and 

answer questions about the current alternatives being studied. 

•	 June 20, 2006 – A public meeting/open house was held at the Yakima 

Convention Center, Yakima Washington, to discuss and answer questions 

regarding the Yakima River Basin Storage Alternatives Appraisal 

Assessment (Reclamation, 2006b). 

•	 September 18, 2007 – A press conference was held at Reclamation’s 

Pacific Northwest Construction Office in Yakima, Washington, to 

announce the release of Reclamation's report, Modeling Groundwater 

Hydrologic Impacts of the Potential Black Rock Reservoir (Reclamation, 

2007d). 

6.1.3.2 Meetings with the Yakama Nation 

•	 June 30, 2005 – Reclamation and Ecology management met with Yakama 

Nation staff to discuss critical issues and concerns of the Nation regarding 

the Storage Study in Toppenish, Washington. 

6-4 
Chapter 6 

Consultation and 

Coordination 

•	 November 10, 2005 – Presentation/update to Yakama Nation staff by 

Storage Study manager regarding the Storage Study process, results of the 

Summary Report, Appraisal Assessment of the Black Rock Alternative and 

the Yakima River basin alternatives to be studied, Toppenish, Washington. 

•	 November 15, 2006 – Presentation to Yakama Nation staff by Storage 

Study manager regarding the Yakima River Basin Storage Alternatives 

Appraisal Assessment and upcoming plan formulation document, 

Toppenish, Washington. 

•	 December 15, 2006 – Reclamation and Ecology management met with 

Yakama Nation staff to review and discuss the results of the plan 

formulation phase and the joint Reclamation/Ecology decision on how to 

proceed with the Storage Study based on the results presented in the plan 

formulation document, Yakima, Washington. 

•	 December 2006 – Storage Study biologist met with the Yakama Nation 

and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to discuss stream reach 

prioritization with regard to flow and biological significance. 

6.1.3.3 Stakeholder Meetings 

Storage Study staff have participated in many informal meetings with 

stakeholders in the Yakima River basin, including the Yakama Nation, Kittitas 

Reclamation District, Roza Irrigation District, Wapato Irrigation District, 

Sunnyside Irrigation Division, Yakima Basin Storage Alliance, and others, on a 

variety of topics. In addition, the following formal meetings were held in 

connection with the Storage Study: 

•	 February 19, 2004 – An information meeting was held with stakeholders 

to explain the planning process and the Black Rock Alternative design 

process and schedule. The meeting was held at the Yakima Arboretum, 

Yakima, Washington. 

•	 March 29, 2005 – An information meeting was held with stakeholders to 

discuss findings reported in the Black Rock Summary Report and answer 

questions. The meeting was held at the Yakima Convention Center, 

Yakima, Washington. 

•	 August 12, 2005 – A meeting was held to discuss the Yakima River Basin 

Storage Alternatives Appraisal Assessment, the Storage Study process and 

the fisheries modeling being done. The meeting was held at the Yakima 

Arboretum, Yakima, Washington. 

•	 September 1, 2005 – Storage Study staff and technical team members met 

with stakeholders regarding the economic analysis of the Storage Study. 

The meeting was held at the Clarion Hotel, Yakima, Washington. 

6-5 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

•	 December 7, 2006 – Storage Study staff met with YBSA to review 

and discuss the results of the plan formulation phase and the joint 

Reclamation/Ecology decision on how to proceed with the Storage 

Study based on the results presented in the plan formulation document. 

The meeting was held in Yakima, Washington. 

•	 December 8, 2006 – Storage Study staff met with the Yakima Basin Joint 

Board to review and discuss the results of the plan formulation phase and 

the joint Reclamation/Ecology decision on how to proceed with the 

Storage Study based on the results presented in the plan formulation 

document. The meeting was held in Yakima, Washington. 

•	 December 14, 2006 – Storage Study staff met with the Yakima Basin Fish 

and Wildlife Recovery Board to review and discuss the results of the plan 

formulation phase and the joint Reclamation/Ecology decision on how to 

proceed with the Storage Study based on the results presented in the plan 

formulation document. The meeting was held in Yakima, Washington. 

6.1.3.4 Roundtable Meetings 

In response to input received during stakeholder meetings in December 2006 and 

the January 2007 scoping periods for the Storage Study’s NEPA/SEPA process, 

Reclamation and Ecology formed a Roundtable group to participate in the 

following key aspects of the Storage Study: 

•	 Reviewing/revisiting Storage Study goals and focusing on identifying and 

confirming measures of success in meeting these goals. 

•	 Critically reviewing the suggested alternatives with potential for meeting 

Storage Study goals (based on Storage Study results to date, input received 

through recent stakeholder and public scoping activities, and additional 

operation studies during the Roundtable process). 

•	 Refining the methods, tools, and criteria to be used in comparing 

alternatives.
 

The Roundtable included representation from key interest groups/constituencies at 

a policy/management level with a stake in the Storage Study and its outcome, 

with support from technical specialists on an as-needed basis. The Roundtable 

played an important role in ensuring the completeness, effectiveness, efficiency, 

and acceptability of the Storage Study as the detailed phase of analysis and 

decisionmaking got underway. Notes and summaries were prepared for each 

meeting and posted on the Storage Study Web site. 

The Roundtable process was conducted over a sequence of four meetings, each 

from 1 to 4 p.m. in Yakima, Washington, according to the following schedule: 

6-6 
Chapter 6 

Consultation and 

Coordination 

•	 Meeting 1: Thursday, March 8, 2007, Yakima Arboretum 

•	 Meeting 2: Thursday, March 29, 2007, Yakima Arboretum 

•	 Meeting 3: Thursday, April 19, 2007, Yakima Arboretum 

•	 Meeting 4: Thursday, November 1, 2007, Yakima Convention Center 

6.1.3.5 Technical Working Group Meetings 

From 2004 through 2007, the SSTWG, comprised of biologists from several 

agencies and organizations throughout the Yakima River basin, was formed to 

discuss/resolve issues and concerns related to the Yakima River basin fisheries. 

Meetings were held on an as-needed basis in Yakima, Washington. 

As part of the Roundtable process, the SSTWG, involving the Yakama Nation, 

NOAA Fisheries, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, YBSA, Yakima 

Basin Fish and Wildlife Recovery Board, Yakima Basin Water Resource Agency, 

and Yakima County, was convened on March 19, 2007, to establish nonbinding 

flow objectives upon which to base instream flow criteria for the Storage Study. 

6.1.3.6 Other Meetings/Presentations with Interested Parties 

Other meetings and briefings attended by Reclamation staff included the 

following: 

•	 June 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 – Presentation to annual Aquatic Science 

Conference by Storage Study biologist, Central Washington University, 

Ellensburg, Washington. 

•	 March 21, 2005 – Joint Board Working Group (Roza and Sunnyside) at 

Sunnyside, Washington, representatives from Confederated Tribes of the 

Umatilla Indian Reservation, YRBWEP Manager, and Storage Study 

manager, arranged by YBSA. 

•	 September 29, 2005 – Presentation to American Water Resources Agency 

Conference by Storage Study manager, Richland, Washington. 

•	 October 13, 2005 – Presentation to American Rivers, et al., by Storage 

Study manager and biologist, Seattle, Washington. 

•	 November 3, 2005 – Presentation to Yakama Nation by Storage Study 

manager, Toppenish Washington. 

•	 November 30, 2005 – Presentation to Oregon State University by Storage 

Study manager, Corvallis, Oregon. 

6-7 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

•	 February 16, 2006 – Presentation to Northwest Irrigation Operators, Inc., 

by assistant storage study manager, at Doubletree-Riverside Hotel, Boise, 

Idaho. 

•	 February 23, 2006 – Presentation to Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla 

Indian Reservation by Storage Study manager and UCAO Native 

American Coordinator, Pendleton, Oregon. 

•	 July 2006 – Meeting among Storage Study biologist, Yakama Nation staff, 

and WDFW to discuss the Wymer alternatives. 

•	 August 16, 2006 – Presentation to YBSA Salmon Summit by Upper 

Columbia Area Office manager, Yakima, Washington. 

•	 October 3, 2006 – Presentation to 2007 Climate and Water Resource 

Forecast Meeting by Upper Columbia Area Office manager, Kelso, 

Washington. 

•	 January 2007 – Meeting among Storage Study biologist, Yakama Nation 

staff, and WDFW to discuss the flow objective concept. 

•	 February 3, 2007 – Meeting between the Storage Study manager and 

landowners in the Black Rock Valley. This meeting was held at the Silver 

Dollar Café; twelve people attended. 

In addition to these meetings, each final report has been published on the Storage 

Study Web site with the appropriate notices to the public, stakeholders, and 

interested parties using the regional media, e-mail lists, and Ecology’s mailing list 

server for the Storage Study. 

6.2 Agency Coordination and Consultation 

6.2.1 Cooperating Agencies 

As co-lead agencies, Reclamation and Ecology have the responsibility for 

the development of this Draft PR/EIS. Other agencies/entities that advised 

Reclamation of their desire to be cooperating agencies under the NEPA process 

include Yakima County; Yakima Training Center; Seattle District of the 

U.S. Corps of Engineers; and the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of River 

Protection. In assuming this responsibility, these agencies agreed to perform one 

or more of the following duties: 

•	 Participate in the NEPA process 

•	 At the request of Reclamation, develop information and prepare 

environmental analyses, including portions of the Draft PR/EIS on which 

6-8 
Chapter 6 

Consultation and 

Coordination 

the cooperator has specific expertise. For example, the U.S. Department 

of Energy is ensuring this Draft PR/EIS reasonably and accurately 

describes the potential impacts to the Hanford Site and is consistent with 

analyses to be presented in the Tank Closure and Waste Management 

Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site (Federal Register, 

2006). 

• Review the Draft and Final PR/EIS. 

6.2.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

6.2.2.1 Endangered Species Act 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Section 7(a) (2)) requires 

Federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service when a 

Federal action may affect a listed endangered or threatened species or its critical 

habitat. This is to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by a 

Federal agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed 

species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of its critical habitat. 

Reclamation obtained a list of the threatened and endangered species within the 

study area from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Web site. Formal consultation 

will not be initiated until a preferred alternative is selected. 

6.2.2.2 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 United States Code 661-667e, as 

amended) requires Federal agencies to coordinate with the Service when planning 

a new project or modifying existing projects so that wildlife resources receive 

equal consideration and are coordinated with other project objectives and features. 

The recommendations contained in the draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

Report (section IV) are attached to this Draft PR/EIS, along with Reclamation’s 

responses to them. 

6.2.3 NOAA Fisheries 

Section 7(a) (2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires Federal agencies 

to consult with NOAA Fisheries when a Federal action may affect a listed 

endangered or threatened species or its critical habitat. This is to ensure that any 

action authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal agency is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of its critical habitat. 

Reclamation obtained a listing of the threatened and endangered species within 

the study area from the NOAA Fisheries Web site. NOAA Fisheries has 

participated in SSTWG and Roundtable meetings. Formal consultation will not 

be initiated until a preferred alternative is selected. 

6-9 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

6.2.4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Reclamation has ongoing coordination activities with the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers in conjunction with their interests and responsibilities for wetlands. 

Reclamation will make application to the Corps or petition the Corps for an 

exemption under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as stated in the 

“Environmental Commitments.” 

6.2.5 State Historic Preservation Officer 

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended in 1992, requires 

that Federal agencies consider the effects that their projects have on historic 

properties. Section 106 of this act and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 

Part 800) provide procedures that Federal agencies must follow to comply with 

NHPA on specific undertakings. 

To comply with Section 106 of NHPA, Federal agencies must consult with the 

State Historic Preservation Officer; any cultural group, including Native 

American Tribes with a traditional or religious interest in the study area; and the 

interested public. Federal agencies must show that a good faith effort has been 

made to identify historic properties in the area of potential effect for a project. 

The significance of historic properties must be evaluated, the effect of the project 

on the historic properties must be determined, and the Federal agency must 

mitigate adverse effects the projects may cause on significant resources. After a 

preferred alternative has been chosen, Reclamation will comply with these laws 

and regulations. 

6.3 Tribal Consultation and Coordination 

6.3.1 Government-to-Government Consultation 

Executive Order 13175 establishes “regular and meaningful consultation and 

collaboration with tribal officials in the development of Federal policies that have 

tribal implications, to strengthen the United States Government-to-Government 

relationships with Indian Tribes, and to reduce the imposition of unfunded 

mandates upon Indian Tribes.” 

Government-to-Government consultation between Reclamation and the Yakama 

Nation has occurred at the following meetings: 

•	 October 5, 2004 – Yakama Tribal Council and director of Reclamation’s 

Pacific Northwest Region. 

•	 April 5, 2005 – Yakama Tribal Council and director of Reclamation’s 

Pacific Northwest Region. 

See section 6.1.3.2 for a list of other meetings with the Tribe. 

6-10 
Chapter 6 

Consultation and 

Coordination 

6.3.2 National Historic Preservation Act 

As described in section 6.2.5, the NHPA requires Federal agencies to consult with 

the SHPO and Native American Tribes with a traditional or religious interest in 

the study area, and the interested public. 

6.3.3 Executive Order 13007: Indian Sacred Sites 

Executive Order 13007 instructs Federal agencies to promote accommodation of, 

access to, and protection of the physical integrity of American Indian sacred sites. 

A sacred site is a specific, discrete, narrowly delineated location on Federal land 

that is identified by an Indian Tribe or an Indian individual determined to be an 

appropriate authoritative representative of an Indian religion, as sacred by virtue 

of its established religious significance to, or ceremonial use by, an Indian 

religion, provided that the Tribe or appropriately authoritative representative of an 

Indian religion has informed the agency of the existence of such a site. The 

Yakama Nation Cultural Resources Program has informed Reclamation that 

sacred sites are present in the study area, but do not wish to provide specific 

information. 

In a letter dated November 13, 2007, the Yakama Nation Cultural Resources 

Program Manager informed Reclamation that sacred sites are present in the study 

area, but do not wish to provide specific information. 

6.3.4 Indian Trust Assets 

Indian trust assets are legal interests in property held in trust by the United States 

for Indian Tribes, Nations, or individuals. The Secretary of the Interior is the 

trustee for the United States on behalf of Indian Tribes. All U.S. Department of 

the Interior agencies share the Secretary’s duty to act responsibly to protect and 

maintain ITAs reserved by or granted to Indian Tribes, Nations, or individuals by 

treaties, statutes, and Executive orders. Reclamation’s Indian policy is based on 

Secretarial Order 3175, U.S. Department of the Interior Responsibilities for 

Indian Trust Resources, November 8, 1993; reissued as U.S. Department of the 

Interior Manual (DM) Part 303: Indian Trust Responsibilities, Chapter 2: 

Principles for Managing Indian Trust Assets (303 DM 2) and most recently issued 

by Reclamation’s Commissioner in his memorandum of February 25, 1998. This 

policy states Reclamation will carry out its activities in a manner that protects 

trust assets and avoids adverse impacts when possible. This Draft PR/EIS 

addresses ITA effects of the Joint Alternatives in chapter 4. No adverse impacts 

to ITA are identified. 

6-11 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

6.4 Native American Graves Protection and 

 Repatriation Act 

Reclamation will include in construction contracts a stipulation and protocol in 

the event of inadvertent discovery of human remains that are determined to be 

American Indian. 

6.5	 Compliance with Other Federal Laws 

In addition to the laws, Executive orders, and regulations described above, 

Reclamation has complied and will continue to comply with these other laws and 

Executive orders. 

6.5.1 Executive Order 11988: Floodplain Management 

Reclamation will comply with Executive Order 11988 to reduce the risk of flood 

loss to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to 

restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains. 

6.5.2 Executive Order 11990: Protection of Wetlands 

Reclamation will comply with Executive Order 11990 to minimize distribution, 

loss, or degradation of wetlands. 

6.5.3 Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898 established environmental justice as a Federal agency 

priority to ensure that minority and low-income groups are not disproportionately 

affected by Federal actions. 

6-12 
LIST OF PREPARERS
 
 

LIST OF PREPARERS 

Chapters 1, 2, 4, and 6 

Name and Title 

Education and 

Professional 

Experience Affiliation Contribution 

Lola M. Abshire, 

Regional NEPA 

Coordinator 

B.S., Natural Resources 

Management, 

University of Arizona 

Bureau of Reclamation NEPA guidance, 

document review, 

filing 

28 years experience in 

resource management and environmental compliance 

Patty Alexander, 

Technical Editor 

A,A., English (in 

progress), Red Rocks 

Community College 

Diploma of Theology, 

Golden Gate 

Seminary, 

San Francisco (in 

progress) 

23 years experience 

editing and desktop 

publishing environmental compliance 

documents 

Bureau of Reclamation Technical editing, 

design, desktop 

publishing 

Robert Aukerman, B.S., Parks and 

Contractor Recreation 

Administration and 

Planning, 

Pennsylvania State 

University 

M.S., Ph.D., Recreation 

and Parks 

Administration and 

Planning 

40 years experience in 

recreation and tourism 

planning and 

management 

Bureau of Reclamation Recreational 

Contractor, resources analysis 

Aukerman, Haas, 

and Associates, LLC 

Susan Black, Social B.A., Economics, Bureau of Reclamation Public health analysis 

Science Analyst St. Martin’s University (hazardous and 

toxic materials) 23 years experience in 

water resources Indian trust assets 

planning, environ- analysis 

mental compliance, Environmental justice social analysis, and analysis public involvement 

LP-1 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Name and Title 

Education and 

Professional 

Experience Affiliation Contribution 

Levi Brekke, Civil 

Engineer 

B.S., Civil Engineering, 

University of Iowa 

Bureau of Reclamation Climate change 

analysis 

M.S., Environmental 

Science and 

Engineering, Stanford 

University 

Ph.D., Civil Engineering, 

University of 

California, Berkeley 

10 years experience in 

environmental and 

water resources 

engineering 

Wendy Christensen, 

Civil Engineer/ 

Assistant Storage 

Study Manager 

B.S., Civil Engineering, 

Colorado State 

University 

Master Degree, 

Engineering 

Management, 

Washington State 

University 

Bureau of Reclamation Storage Study 

coordination and 

document review; 

Joint Alternatives 

analysis 

17 years experience in 

civil engineering 

Dianne Clark, Technical B.S., Journalism, Bureau of Reclamation Document 

Writer-Editor University of Colorado management and 

20 years experience in editing 

managing and editing 

environmental 

compliance 

documents 

Aja K. DeCoteau, B.A., Environmental Yakama Nation Shrub-steppe and 

GIS Specialist and Studies/Native movement corridor 

Field Wildlife American Studies, analysis 

Biologist II Dartmouth College 

Master of Environmental 

Management, Yale 

University’s School of 

Forestry and 

Environmental Studies 

LP-2 
 

 

List of Preparers 

Name and Title 

Mark DeLeon, 

Archaeologist 

Education and 

Professional 

Experience 

B.A., University of 

Alabama, 

Anthropology 

M.S., University of 

Southern Mississippi, 

Anthropology 

30 years experience in 

Federal historic 

preservation programs 

and cultural resource 

management 

Affiliation 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Contribution 

Historic properties 

analysis 

Indian sacred sites 

analysis 

State Historic 

Preservation Officer 

consultation 

Native American 

Graves Protection 

and Repatriation Act 

consultation 

Kayti Didricksen, 

Hydrogeologist 

Tom Elliott, Resources 

Manager 

Paula Engel, Economist 

B.S., Geology, Western 

Washington University 

M.S., Hydrogeology, 

Eastern Washington 

University 

29 years experience in 

engineering geology 

and hydrogeology 

B.A., Virginia 

Commonwealth 

University 

13 years experience as a 

vegetation resources 

manager 

B.S., Animal Science, 

University of Idaho 

M.S., Agricultural 

Economics, University 

of Idaho 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Yakama Nation 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Groundwater analysis 

Black cottonwood 

reproduction 

analysis 

Regional economic 

development 

analysis 

John Evans, 

Environmental 

Protection Specialist 

B.A., International 

Development, The 

Evergreen State 

College 

24 years NEPA and 

natural resources 

management 

Bureau of Reclamation Water resources 

analysis 

Vegetation and wildlife 

analyses 

Threatened and 

endangered species 

analysis 

Agency, Tribal, and 

protection of 

wetlands 

coordination and 

consultation 

LP-3 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Education and 

Professional 

Name and Title Experience Affiliation Contribution 

Glenn E. Haas, B.S., Forestry, 

Contractor Pennsylvania State 

University 

M.S., Recreation and 

Parks Administration, 

Pennsylvania State 

University 

Ph.D., Natural 

Resources, Recreation 

and Tourism, Colorado 

State University 

Extensive experience in 

recreation planning 

and management 

Bureau of Reclamation Recreational 

Contractor, resources analysis 

Aukerman, Haas, 

and Associates, LLC 

Steve Hiebert, B.S., Fisheries, College Bureau of Reclamation Fisheries, false 

Fisheries Biologist of Agriculture, New attraction, 

Mexico State temperature, and 

University fish screening 

analyses 27 years experience in 

fishery science 

Rob Hilldale, Civil B.S. and M.S., Civil Bureau of Reclamation Sediment resource 

Engineer, PE Engineering, analysis 

specializing in 

sediment transport 

and river mechanics, 

Washington State 

University 

7 years experience 

Gina Hoff, Water B.S., Microbiology, Bureau of Reclamation Water quality analysis 

Quality Specialist/ Central Washington 

Physical Scientist University 

5 years experience 

Lynn Holt, Technical 15 years experience in Bureau of Reclamation Technical Report 

Writer public affairs and management and 

writing editing 

Public involvement 

Joel Hubble, Fisheries B.S., Fisheries, College Bureau of Reclamation Anadromous fish 

Biologist of Fisheries, University analysis 

of Washington Resident fish analysis 

M.S., Biology-Fisheries, 

Central Washington 

University 

27 years experience in 

fishery science 

LP-4 
List of Preparers 

Name and Title 

David Kaumheimer, 

Environmental 

Programs Manager 

Education and 

Professional 

Experience 

B.S., Wildlife Ecology, 

University of 

Wisconsin 

M.S., Wildlife 

Management, 

University of Idaho 

25 years experience 

Affiliation 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Contribution 

Storage Study 

oversight 

Marlene Johnson, 

Assistant Resource 

Manager 

Dave King, Hydraulic 

Engineer 

Associate of Business 

Administration, 

University of Denver 

21 years experience in 

editing and project 

management 

B.S., Agricultural 

Engineering, The Ohio 

State University 

M.S., Agricultural 

Engineering, 

University of Idaho 

31 years experience in 

operation and 

maintenance of water 

systems 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Resource 

management 

assistance 

Development of data 

management 

system to process 

data from hydrologic 

model and various 

other models into 

EDT databases 

Patrick Mangan, 

Technical Service 

Center Team Leader 

B.S., Forestry and Soil 

Science, University of 

Wisconsin 

M.S., Water Resources, 

University of 

Wisconsin 

25 years experience as 

fisheries biologist 

Bureau of Reclamation Threatened and 

endangered species 

analysis 

Air quality analysis 

Noise analysis 

Relationship between 

short-term and longterm productivity 

analysis 

Irreversible and 

irretrievable 

commitments of 

resources analysis 

Teri Manross, 

Technical Editor 

A.A., English/Psychology 

(in progress), Red 

Rocks Community 

College 

16 years experience 

editing and desktop 

publishing environmental compliance 

documents 

Bureau of Reclamation Technical editing and 

desktop publishing 

LP-5 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Name and Title 

Education and 

Professional 

Experience Affiliation Contribution 

Kim McCartney, 

Storage Study 

Manager 

B.S., Agricultural 

Engineering, South 

Dakota State 

University 

30 years experience in 

civil engineering and 

water resource 

development 

Bureau of Reclamation Storage Study 

coordination 

Mary Mellema, 

Hydrologist 

B.S., Soil Science, 

University of 

Minnesota 

M.S., Soil Science, 

University of 

Minnesota 

20 years experience in 

hydrology 

Bureau of Reclamation Hydropower resources 

analysis 

S. Mark Nelson, 

Research Aquatic 

Biologist 

B.S., Biology, 

Metropolitan State 

College, Denver, CO 

M.S., Fisheries, 

Colorado State 

University 

20 years experience in 

the areas of water 

quality and riparian 

ecology 

Bureau of Reclamation Aquatic resources 

analysis 

Public health analysis 

(mosquitoes) 

John Petrovsky, 

Contractor 

B.A., Psychology, 

University of 

California, Los 

Angeles 

M.L.A., Landscape 

Architecture, California 

Polytechnic University, 

Pomona 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Washington State 

Department of 

Ecology Contractor, 

John Petrovsky 

Associates, 

subcontractor to 

CH2MHill, Bureau of 

Reclamation 

30 years experience as 

landscape architect 

and environmental 

Contractor 

planner 

Land and shoreline 

use analysis 

Public services 

analysis 

Transportation 

analysis 

Visual resources 

analysis 

LP-6 
List of Preparers 

Education and 

Professional 

Name and Title Experience Affiliation Contribution 

Jonathan Platt, B.S., Business Admini- Bureau of Reclamation National economic 

Resource Economist stration, Bryant development 

College, Smithfield, RI analysis 

M.S., Agricultural and 

Resource Economics, 

Colorado State 

University 

20 years experience in 

resource economics 

Roger Sonnichsen, 

Agricultural Engineer 

B.S., Agricultural 

Engineering, 

Washington State 

University 

M.S., Engineering 

Sciences, Washington 

State University 

15 years experience in 

water resources 

engineering 

Bureau of Reclamation Hydropower resources 

analysis 

Larry Vinsonhaler, B.A, Economics, Bureau of Reclamation Background and 

Contractor University of Pacific, Contractor History 

Stockton, California Prior Investigations 

48 years experience in 

water resource 

planning, repayment 

Joint Alternatives 

analysis 

contracts, and Water resources 

management and 

administration 

analysis 

Hydropower resources 

analysis 

Romeo Wisco, 

Electrical Engineer 

B.S., Electrical 

Engineering, 

University of the 

Philippines 

Master's Program, 

Electrical Engineering, 

University of the 

Philippines 

20 years experience in 

electric utility system 

engineering; 15 years 

experience in 

hydrology systems 

modeling 

Bureau of Reclamation Hydropower resources 

analysis 

LP-7 
 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

LIST OF PREPARERS 

Chapters 3 and 5 

Education and 

Name and Title 

Professional 

Experience Affiliation Contribution 

Molly Adolfson, 

Contractor 

B.A., Environmental 

Science, Western 

Washington 

University 

Washington State 

Department of 

Ecology Contractor, 

ESA Adolfson 

SEPA review; quality 

assurance/quality 

control for State 

Alternatives 

30 years experience in 

environmental 

impact analysis, 

water quality, 

natural resource 

management 

Robert H. Anderson, 

L.Hg., Contractor 

B.S., Geology, 

University of 

Washington 

M.S., Geology/ 

geophysics, 

University of 

Wisconsin 

Washington State 

Department of 

Ecology Contractor, 

Golder Associates, 

Inc. 

Earth and water 

resources analysis 

22 years experience in 

geology and 

hydrogeology 

Jacqueline Bryan, B.S., Technical Washington Editing 

Contractor, Technical Communication, Department of 

Writer University of Ecology Contractor, 

Louisiana NE Anchor 

Environmental LLC 18 years experience in 

editing 

environmental 

documents 

James Harrison, M.A., Anthropology, Washington State Cultural resources 

Contractor, Texas A&M Department of analysis 

Archaeologist University Ecology Contractor, 

Paragon Research 6 years experience in Associates, LLC cultural resource 

management 

LP-8 
 

 

 

List of Preparers 

Education and 

Professional 

Name and Title Experience Affiliation Contribution 

Adam Hill, Contractor B.S., Civil 

Engineering, 

Washington State 

University 

M.S., Civil 

Engineering, 

Washington State 

University 

Washington 

Department of 

Ecology Contractor, 

Anchor 

Environmental LLC 

Water resources 

analysis 

Water Resources 

Engineer 

2 years experience in 

water resources 

planning and 

engineering 

Paula Johnson, B.A., Anthropology Washington State Cultural resources 

Contractor, Department of analysis M.A., Museology, Archaeologist Ecology Contractor, University of Paragon Research Washington Associates, LLC 

16 years experience in 

cultural resources 

management 

Brian Mattax, Contractor B.S., Biology, Purdue Washington State Water quality analysis 

University Department of 

Ecology Contractor, 26 years experience in Golder Associates, water resources Inc. 

Mary McCrea, B.S., Microbiology, 

Contractor University of 

Washington 

M.S., Environmental 

Science, 

Washington State 

University 

J.D., University of 

Puget Sound 

School of Law 

25 years experience in 

resource 

management 

Washington State Water rights analysis; 

Department of Market-Based 

Ecology Contractor, Reallocation of Water 

Cascadia Law Resources Alternative 

Group 

LP-9 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Education and 

Professional 

Name and Title Experience Affiliation Contribution 

Bob Montgomery, P.E., 

Contractor 

B.S., Civil 

Engineering, 

University 

Washington 

M.S., Civil 

Engineering, 

University 

Washington 

, Washington 

Department of 

Ecology Contractor, 

Anchor 

Environmental LLC 

Lead for State 

Alternatives 

26 years experience in 

water resources 

planning and 

engineering 

Ernie Niemi, Contractor M.C.R.P., Harvard Washington State Socioeconomics 

University Department of analysis; MarketEcology Contractor, Based Reallocation of 30 years experience in ECO Northwest Water Alternative natural resource 

economics 

Alyssa Neir, Contractor B.S., Environmental Washington State Groundwater and water 

Studies and Urban Department of quality analyses; 

Studies, University Ecology Contractor, Groundwater Storage 

of Pennsylvania Golder Associates Alternative 

M.W.R., Water Inc. 

Resource 

Management, 

University of New 

Mexico 

2 years experience as 

an environmental 

planner 

Chris Pitre, Contractor B.S., Chemistry, Washington State Groundwater analysis, 

Geology, Carleton Department of Groundwater Storage 

University, Ottawa, Ecology Contractor, Alternative 

Canada Golder Associates 

M.S., Earth Sciences, Inc. 

University of 

Waterloo, Waterloo, 

Canada 

Licensed Geologist, 

Hydrogeology 

Specialty, 

Washington State 

LP-10 
List of Preparers 

Education and 

Professional 

Name and Title Experience Affiliation Contribution 

Ann Root, Contractor B.S., Geographical 

Planning, Montana 

State University 

M.S., Oregon State 

University 

Ph.D., Oregon State 

University 

18 years experience in 

NEPA/SEPA 

documentation, 

water resources 

Washington State SEPA project manager; 

Department of recreation, 

Ecology Contractor, transportation, visual 

ESA Adolfson resources, and public 

health and safety 

analyses 

Derek Sandison, Central B.A., Biology Science, 

Regional Director Central Washington 

University 

M.S., Natural 

Resource 

Management, 

Central Washington 

University 

33 years experience in 

public health, 

environmental 

science, 

environmental 

planning, and State 

Environmental 

Policy Act 

compliance 

Washington State SEPA Responsible 

Department of Official, storage study 

Ecology oversight, and 

document review 

Ken Yocom, Contractor B.S., Zoology, Eastern Washington State Vegetation and wildlife, 

Washington Department of aquatic resources, 

University Ecology Contractor, threatened and 

ESA Adolfson endangered species, M.L.A., Landscape public services, and Architecture land use and 

Ph.D., Urban Ecology, shoreline resources 

University of analyses 

Washington 

11 years experience 

as terrestrial and 

aquatic ecologist 

LP-11 
DISTRIBUTION LIST
 
Distribution List 

This Draft PR/EIS is available for information and review on Reclamation’s 

Pacific Northwest Region Web site at www.usbr.gov. In addition, copies of it are 

being sent for information and review to the distribution list, shown below. 

All locations are in the State of Washington, unless otherwise noted. 

U.S. Congressional Delegation 

United States Senate 

Honorable Maria Cantwell 

Honorable Patty Murray 

House of Representatives 

Honorable Doc Hastings 

Governor of Washington 

Honorable Christine Gregoire 

Indian Tribes 

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Nespelem 

Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Toppenish, Yakima 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Pendleton OR 

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation Oregon, Warm Springs 

OR 

Nez Perce Tribe, Lapwai ID 

Wanapum Tribe, Beverly 

Washington State Legislature 

7th Legislative District 

Senator Bob Morton, Olympia 

Representative Joel Kretz, Colville, Olympia 

Representative Bob Sump, Olympia 

8th Legislative District 

Senator Jerome Delvin, Olympia, Richland 

Representative Larry Haler, Olympia, Richland 

Representative Shirley Hankins, Olympia, Richland 

DL-1
 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

13th Legislative District 

Senator Janéa Holmquist, Moses Lake, Olympia 

Representative Bill Hinkle, Ellensburg, Olympia 

Representative Judy Warnick, Moses Lake, Olympia 

14th Legislative District 

Senator Jim Clements, Selah, Olympia 

Representative Charles Ross, Olympia 

Representative Mary Skinner, Olympia, Yakima 

15th Legislative District 

Senator Jim Honeyford, Olympia, Sunnyside 

Representative Bruce Chandler, Olympia, Zillah 

Representative Daniel Newhouse, Olympia, Sunnyside 

16th Legislative District 

Senator Mike Hewitt, Olympia, Walla Walla 

Representative Bill Grant, Olympia, Walla Walla 

Representative Maureen Walsh, Olympia, Walla Walla 

Federal Agencies 

Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service, Cle Elum, Naches, Wenatchee 

Department of Defense 

Department of the Army 

Corps of Engineers, Seattle, Portland OR 

Yakima Training Center, Yakima 

Department of Energy 

Bonneville Power Administration, Portland OR 

Hanford Site 

Office of River Protection, Richland 

Richland Operations Office, Richland 

Office of NEPA Policy and Assistance, Washington DC 

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland 

Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service, Ellensburg, Seattle 

Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nespelem, Toppenish, Wapato; Lapwai ID; 

Pendleton, Portland, Warm Springs OR; Reston VA 

Bureau of Land Management, Spokane Valley, Wenatchee, Washington DC 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Leavenworth, Richland, Spokane Valley, 

Wenatchee, Yakima, Arlington VA 

DL-2
 
Distribution List 

Geological Survey, Tacoma, Fort Collins, CO, Reston VA 

Minerals Management Service, Herndon VA 

National Park Service, Seattle, Washington DC 

Natural Resources Library, Washington DC 

Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, Portland OR, 

Washington DC 

Office of Surface Mining, Washington DC 

Department of Transportation 

Federal Highway Administration, Olympia 

Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle, Washington DC 

General Services Administration, Auburn 

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, Portland OR 

State and Local Government Agencies 

State of Oregon 

Office of Energy, Salem OR 

Department of Environmental Quality, Portland OR 

State of Washington 

Central Washington University, Ellensburg 

Department Of Ecology, Olympia, Spokane, Yakima 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Yakima 

Department of Natural Resources, Ellensburg, Olympia 

Department of Transportation, Yakima 

Historic Preservation Office, Olympia 

Hop Growers of Washington, Moxee 

Recreation and Conservation Office, Olympia 

North Yakima Conservation District, Yakima 

State Parks, Olympia 

State Parks and Recreation Commission, Olympia 

University of Washington, Seattle 

Washington House Republicans – Policy Development Department, Olympia 

Yakima Learning Institute, Yakima 

Local Agencies 

Benton County 

Clean Air Authority, Richland 

Commissioners, Kennewick, Prosser 

City of Ellensburg 

City of Kennewick 

City of Pasco 

City of Richland 

City of Sunnyside 

City of West Richland 

DL-3
 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

City of Yakima 

Douglas County 

Public Utility District No. 1, East Wenatchee 

Grant County 

Public Utility District, Ephrata 

Kittitas County 

Commissioners, Ellensburg 

Yakima County 

Auditor, Yakima 

Commissioners, Yakima 

Community Services, Yakima 

Planning Department, Yakima 

Surface Water Management, Yakima 

Yakima Basin Planning Unit, Yakima 

Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority, Yakima 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage Feasibility Study Roundtable 

Membership 

American Rivers (Michael Garrity), Seattle 

Benton County Commissioners (Max Benitz), Prosser 

City Of Yakima (Dave Brown, Bill Lover), Yakima 

Kittitas County Board Of Commissioners (David Bowen), Ellensburg 

Kittitas Reclamation District (Urban Eberhart), Ellensburg 

National Marine Fisheries Service (Dale Bambrick), Ellensburg 

Roza Irrigation District (Ron Van Gundy), Sunnyside 

Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District (James Trull), Sunnyside 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Jeff Tayer), Yakima 

Yakama Nation (Phil Rigdon), Toppenish 

Yakima Basin Fish and Wildlife Recovery Board (Alex Conley), Yakima 

Yakima Basin Storage Alliance (Sid Morrison), Zillah 

Yakima Basin Water Resource Agency (Jim Milton), Yakima 

Yakima County Commissioners (Mike Leita), Yakima 

Irrigation Districts 

Cascade Irrigation District, Ellensburg 

East Columbia Irrigation District, Othello 

Kennewick Irrigation District, Kennewick 

Kittitas Reclamation District, Ellensburg 

Naches-Selah Irrigation District, Selah 

Roza Irrigation District, Outlook, Sunnyside, Yakima 

Selah-Moxee Irrigation District, Moxee 

Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District, Sunnyside 

Union Gap Irrigation District, Wapato 

DL-4
 
 

Distribution List 

Libraries 

Bellevue Regional Library, Bellevue 

Benton City Library, Benton City 

Carpenter Memorial Library, Cle Elum 

Donald K C North Library, Heritage University, Toppenish 

Ellensburg Public Library, Ellensburg 

Holland and Terrell Libraries, Washington State University, Pullman 

James Brooks Library, Central Washington University, Ellensburg 

John A Brown Library Media Center, Wenatchee Valley College, Wenatchee 

John F Kennedy Library, Eastern Washington University Library, Cheney 

Kennewick Library, Kennewick 

Kittitas Public Library, Kittitas 

Library, Columbia Basin College, Pasco 

Max E Benitz Library, WSU Tri-Cities, Richland 

Mid-Columbia Library, Kennewick 

North Campus Library, Wenatchee Valley College At Omak, Omak 

Pasco Library, Pasco 

Peterson Memorial Library, Walla Walla University, College Place 

Prosser Library, Prosser 

Raymond Library and Media Center, Yakima Valley Community College, 

Yakima 

Richland Public Library, Richland 

Roslyn Public Library, Roslyn 

Seattle Public Library, Seattle 

Sunnyside Public Library, Sunnyside 

Toppenish Library, Toppenish 

Wapato Library, Wapato 

Washington State Library, Olympia 

West Richland Library, Richland 

Yakama Nation Library, Toppenish 

Yakima Valley Regional Library, Yakima 

Organizations 

American Rivers, Seattle 

American Whitewater, Seattle 

Auto Dealer's Assoc, Yakima 

Center for Environmental Law and Policy, Seattle 

Central Washington Building and Construction Trades, Pasco 

Citizens for a Clean Columbia, Wenatchee 

Columbia Basin Development League, Royal City 

Columbia Institute for Water Policy, Spokane 

Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission, Portland OR 

Desert Aire Owners Association, Desert Aire 

Greenway Auto Mall, Yakima 

League of Women Voters of Yakima County, Yakima 

DL-5
 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Lower Columbia Audubon Society, Richland 

National Water Resources Association, Arlington VA 

National Wildlife Federation, Seattle 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Helena MT, Portland OR 

Pacific Northwest Council of Carpenters, Yakima 

Port Of Benton, Richland 

Port Of Sunnyside, Sunnyside 

Sierra Club, Seattle 

Taxpayers for Common Sense, Washington DC 

Washington Cattlemen's Association, Ellensburg 

Washington Environmental Council, Seattle 

Washington Farm Bureau, Lacey 

Washington Trout, Duvall 

Water Watch, Portland OR 

Yakima Basin Fish and Wildlife Recovery Board, Yakima 

Yakima Basin Joint Board, Sunnyside 

Yakima Basin Storage Alliance, Granger, Prosser, Richland, Tieton, Yakima, 

Zillah 

Yakima Basin Water Resource Agency, Yakima 

Yakima Valley Audubon Society, Yakima 

Yakima Valley Conference of Governments, Yakima 

Individuals 

Bob Anderson, Kennewick 

Paul Andrews, Seattle 

Zine A. and Najiba Badissy TR, Kirkland 

Gary L. Bailey, Yakima 

Duane and Dixie Baker, Chelan 

Tammy Baker, Yakima 

Joseph A. and Donna F. Balmelli, Chehalis 

John Baranouski, Selah 

Ray Benish, Bothell 

William J. Bosch, Yakima 

Douglas Chapin, Yakima 

Ernest W. Charvet, Mabton 

Lyle Collins, Yakima 

Charles C. Colyear, Yakima 

Ben Dover, Yakima 

Bob Eaton, Ellensburg 

Jack W. Eaton et ux., et al., Ellensburg 

Robert A. Eaton, et al., Ellensburg 

Jim Esget, Sequim 

James L. Eubanks, Ellensburg 

Don and Delphine Fekete, Kennewick 

Glen Fiedler, Puyallup 

DL-6
 
Distribution List 

Ben Floyd, Pasco 

Phelps Freeborn, Yakima 

David Garretson, Yakima 

Ben George, Thorp 

Walter A. George, Sunnyside 

Bob Halvorson, Toppenish 

Ernie Hamm, Yakima 

Kenneth Hammond, Ellensburg 

Bill Hinkle, Cle Elum 

Scott P. Holman, Yakima 

Lon K. Inaba, Wapato 

Matt Jenkins, Berkeley, CA 

Lydia J. Johnson, Wapato 

Richard S. Koch TR, Olympia 

Melburn Krueger, Toppenish 

Susan Lattomus, Yakima 

Kenneth E. Lewis, Prosser 

Edward Lisowski, Yakima 

Linda Lohse, Glenn CA 

Jack Maddnes, Yakima 

Darrel Martindale, Moses Lake 

Simon Martinez, Moxee 

Arthur Miller, Richland 

Pat Monk, Ellensburg 

C. M. Moore, Naches 

Ronald R. and Marilyn J. Nester, Moxee 

Shirley Nixon, Port Angeles 

David E. Ortman, Seattle 

Stephanie Parrish, Moxee 

David W. Powell, Yakima 

Bruce Powers, Chelan 

Richard Prigmore, Sunnyside 

John Pringle, Kennewick 

Felix D. Quinn, West Richland 

V. Gwendolyn Rawlings, Kennewick 

Pat Reynolds, Yakima 

Glenn and Audrey Rice, Yakima 

Victor and Martha Robert, Yakima 

Jay Russell, Naches 

Kurt Sharar, Ellensburg 

O. D. Slagle, Richland 

Paul K. Smith, Toppenish 

Janet L. Taggares TR, Othello 

Bob Toftdahl, Royal City 

K. Tolliver, Kennewick 

Margie Van Cleve, Selah 

DL-7
 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Jacqui Walker, Yakima 

Wautoma Valley LLC, Yakima 

Scott and Pam Woodward, Richland 

Harry Worbes, Yakima 

Stan Youngberg, Ellensburg 

Loretta Zammarchi, Moxee 

Business Entities 

Allison Farms, Zillah 

Bender Consulting LLC, Kirkland 

GEO Engineers, Redmond 

HDR Engineering, Bellevue 

Jacobs Associates, Seattle 

MSE-Tech Applications, Richland 

Petkevicius and Associates, Kennewick 

Rettig Osborne and Forgette LLP, Kennewick 

Schwisow and Associates, Olympia 

Science Applications International Corp, Richland, Germantown, MD 

Taylor Angus Ranch, Moxee 

The Williams Law Firm, Bellevue 

TRIDEC, Kennewick 

URS Corporation, Portland, OR 

Media 

Daily Sun News, Sunnyside 

Yakima Herald Republic, Yakima 

DL-8
 
REFERENCES
 
 

 

REFERENCES
 

Abbe, T.E. and D.R. Montgomery, 1996. “Large Woody Debris Jams, Channel 

Hydraulics, and Habitat Formation in Large Rivers,” Regulated Rivers, 12:201­

221. 

Adams, E., 1992. Clean Water for Washington. Washington State Department of 

Ecology, Washington State University Cooperative Extension Regional Water 

Quality, Spokane WA. 

Allan, J.D., 1995. Stream Ecology: Structure and Function of Running Waters. 

Chapman and Hall, Inc., New York. 

Anderson, E., 2002. Personal communication through e-mail received from Eric 

Anderson, WDFW, on May 7, 2002. Subject: Juvenile Bull Trout Found in 

Steelhead Survey on Cowiche Creek. 

Anglin, D.R. et al., 2006. Effects of Hydropower Operations on Spawning 

Habitat, Rearing Habitat, and Stranding/Entrapment Mortality of Fall Chinook 

Salmon in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River. Final report. 

Arango, C.P., 2001. “The Effect of a Sudden Flow Reduction on Aquatic Insects 

of the Upper Yakima River, Washington, USA.” Master’s thesis. Central 

Washington University, Ellensburg WA. 

Armitage, P.D., 1984. “Environmental Changes Induced by Stream Regulation 

and their Effect on Lotic Macroinvertebrate Communities” Regulated Rivers, 

pp. 139-165. A. Lillehammer and S.J. Salveit, editors. University Press, Oslo, 

Norway. 

Armitage, P.D., R.J.M. Gunn, M.T. Furse, J.F. Wright, and D. Moss, 1987. “The 

Use of Prediction to Assess Macroinvertebrate Response to River Regulation,” 

Hydrobiologia, vol. 144, pp. 25-32. 

Arscott, D.B., K. Tockner, and J.V. Ward, 2001. “Thermal Heterogeneity Along 

a Braided Floodplain River” (Tagliamento River, northeastern Italy), Can J. Fish. 

Aquat. Sci., 58(12): 2359-2373. 

Auble, G.T., and M.L. Scott, 1998. “Fluvial Disturbance Patches and 

Cottonwood Recruitment Along the Upper Missouri River, Montana,” 

Wetlands 18, pp. 546-556. 

R-1 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Auble, G.T., P.B. Shafroth, M.L. Scott, and J.E. Roelle, 2007. “Early Vegetation 

Development on an Exposed Reservoir: Implications for Dam Removal,” 

Environmental Management, 39:806-818. 

Audubon Society, 2002. Annual Christmas Bird Count. Accessed online at: 

http://audubon2.org/birds/cbc/hr 

Ayers, R.S., and D.W. Westcot, 1985. Water Quality for Agriculture. Food and 

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO Irrigation and Drainage 

Paper 29, Rev. 1. 

Bartholow, J., 2007. Stream Segment Temperature Model (SSTEMP) Version 2. 

October 2007. U.S. Geological Survey. Accessed online at: 

http://www.fort.usgs.gov/products/publications/10016/10016.pdf. 

Batzer, D.P., and V.H. Resh, 1992. “Wetland Management Strategies that 

Enhance Waterfowl Habitats Can Also Control Mosquitoes,” Journal of the 

American Mosquito Control Association, 8(2):117-125. 

Bauer, H.H., and A.J. Hansen, Jr., 2000. Hydrology of the Columbia Plateau 

Regional Aquifer System, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. U.S. Geological 

Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4106. 

BCAA, 1996. Urban Fugitive Dust Policy. Benton County Air Authority. 

Accessed online at: http://www.bcaa.net/Files/PubInfo/BCAAFDP.pdf 

BCAA, 2003. Other Air Quality Issues. Benton County Air Authority. Accessed 

online at: http://www.bcaa.net/LAQ000.htm. 

Beier P., and S. Loe, 1992. Wildlife Society Bulletin, vol. 20, No. 4 (Winter 

1992), pp. 434-440. 

Benton County, 1997. Benton County Comprehensive Plan. Accessed online at: 

http://www.co.benton.wa.us/comp_plan.htm#Ch4Maps 

Benton County Sustainable Development, 2002. Yakima River Storage 

Enhancement Initiative – Black Rock Reservoir Study. May 2002. Prepared by 

Washington Infrastructure Services, Inc. 

Bilby, R.E., and J.W. Ward, 1991. “Characteristics and Function of Large Woody 

Debris in Streams Draining Old-Growth, Clear-Cut, and Second-Growth Forests 

in Southwestern Washington,” Can J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.,48: 24-2058. 

R-2 
References 

Bilby, R.E., and P.A. Bisson, 1998. “Function and Distribution of Large Woody 

Debris,” River Ecology and Management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal 

Ecoregion. R.J. Naiman and R.E. Bilby, editors. Springer, New York, pp. 324­

346. 

Binns, N.A., and F.M. Eiserman, 1979. “Quantification of Fluvial Trout Habitat 

in Wyoming,” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 108: 215-228. 

Biology Technical Work Group, 2004. Defining Fish and Wildlife Resource 

Issues for the Yakima River Basin Water Storage Feasibility Study. Technical 

report, Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima WA. 

Bison, P.S., R.E. Bilby, M.D. Bryant, C.A. Dolloff, G.B. Grette, R.A. House, 

M.L. Murphy, K.V. Kolski, and J.R. Sedell, 1987. “Large Woody Debris in 

Forested Streams in the Pacific Northwest: Past, Present, and Future,” Streamside 

Management: Forestry and Fisheries Interactions. University of Washington, 

Institute of Forest Resources, Contribution No. 57, Seattle WA. 

Bisson, P.A., and R.E. Bilby, 1998. “Organic Matter and Trophic Dynamics,” 

River Ecology and Management: Lessons from the Pacific Coastal Ecoregion, 

pp. 373-398. R.J. Naiman and R.E. Bilby, editors. Springer-Verlag. New 

York NY. 

Bjornn, T.C., and D.W. Reiser, 1991. “Habitat Requirements of Salmonids in 

Streams,” Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes 

and Their Habitats, pp. 83-138. W.R. Meeham, editor. Special Publication 19, 

American Fisheries Society, Bethesda MD. 

Bogatov, V.V., 1978. “Effects of Floods on the Drift of Benthos in the Bomnak 

River (Basin of Zeya River),” Soviet Journal of Ecology, vol. 9, pp. 520-523. 

Boucher, P.R., 1975. Sediment Transport by Irrigation Return Flows in Four 

Small Drains Within the DID-18 Drainage of the Sulphur Creek Basin, Yakima 

County, Washington, April 1979 to October 1981. U.S. Geological Survey Water 

Resources Investigations Report 83-4167, Tacoma WA, 149 pp. 

Boucher, P.R., and M.O. Fretwell, 1982. Irrigation-Water Quality in the Sulphur 

Creek Basin, Yakima and Benton Counties, Washington, April 1976 through 

March 1977. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 81-1008, Tacoma WA, 

68 pp. 

Bovee, K., T.J. Waddle, C. Talbert, J.R. Hatten, and T.R. Batt, 2008 (in 

preparation). “Development and Application of a Decision Support System for 

Water Management Investigations in the Upper Yakima River, Washington.” 

U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. 

R-3 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Bowlby, J.N., and J.C. Roff, 1986. “Trout Biomass and Habitat Relationships in 

Southern Ontario Streams,” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 

vol. 115(4), pp. 503-514. 

Braatne, J.H., and B. Jamieson, 2001. The Impacts of Flow Regulation on 

Riparian Cottonwood Forests of the Yakima River. Report to Bonneville Power 

Administration, Portland OR. Contract No. 00000005, Project No. 200006800 

(BPA Report DOE/BP-00000005-3), 69 pp. 

Braatne, J.H., R. Jamieson, S.B. Rood, and K.M. Gill, 2007. “Instream Flows and 

the Decline of Riparian Cottonwoods Along the Yakima River, Washington, 

USA,” River Research and Applications, 23: 247-267. 

Braatne, J.H., S.B. Rood, and P.E. Heilman, 1996. “Life History, Ecology, and 

Conservation of Riparian Cottonwoods in North America,” Biology of Populus 

and its Implications for Management and Conservation. Stettler, Bradshaw, 

Heilman, and Hinckley, editors. NRC Research Press, Ottawa. 

Brett, J.R., 1956. “Some Principles in the Thermal Requirement of Fishes,” The 

Quarterly Review of Biology, 31(2): 75-87. 

Brittain, J.E., and T.J. Eikeland, 1988. “Invertebrate Drift: A Review,” 

Hydrobiologia, vol. 166, pp. 77-93. 

Brown, T.C., 2004. “The Marginal Economic Value of Streamflow from National 

Forests.” U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Discussion 

Paper DP-04-1, RMRS-4851, December 28, 2004. 

Buchanan D.V., M.L. Hanson, and R.M. Hooton, 1997. “Status of Oregon’s Bull 

Trout.” Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Fish Division, Portland OR, 

24 pp. 

Burkepile, N., 2007. Personal communication. Yakama Nation Wildlife, 

Vegetation and Range Programs. 

Busack, C., C. Knudsen, A. Marshall, S. Phelps, and D. Seiler, 1991. “Yakima 

Hatchery Experimental Design.” Annual Progress Report DOE/BP. 

Cade, T.J., and C.P. Woods, 1997. “Changes in the Distribution and Abundance 

of the Loggerhead Shrike,” Conservation Biology, 11(1):21-31. 

Cadwell, L.L., M.A. Simmons, J.L. Downs, and C.M. Sveum, 1994. “SageGrouse on the Yakima Training Center: A Summary of Studies Conducted 

During 1991 and 1992.” Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richmond WA. 

R-4 
 

References 

Caldwell, L.L., J.L. Downs, R.P. Mueller, M.R. Sackschewsky, M.A. Simmons, 

B.L. Tiller, and K.A. Gano, 2000. Chapter 8.2, “Ecosystem Monitoring and 

Ecological Compliance.” Hanford Site Environmental Report, Calendar Year 

2000. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy by Pacific Northwest National 

Laboratories under contract DE-AC0-6-67RLO1830. Accessed online at: 

http://www.hanford.gov/docs/annualrp00/ 

Camargo, J.A., and D.G. De Jalon, 1990. “The Downstream Impacts of the 

Burgomillodo Reservoir, Spain,” Regulated Rivers: Research & Management, 

vol. 5, pp. 305-317. 

Campbell, G.L., A.A. Marfin, R.S. Lanciotti, and D.J. Gubler, 2002. “West Nile 

Virus,” The Lancet Infectious Diseases, 2:519-529. 

Campton, D.E., and J.M. Johnston, 1985. “Electrophoretic Evidence for a 

Genetic Admixture of Native and Nonnative Rainbow Trout in the Yakima River, 

Washington,” Trans. Am. Fish. Soc., 114: 782 793. 

Canessa, P., and R.E. Hermanson, 1994. EM4885 Irrigation Management 

Practices to Protect Ground Water and Surface Water Quality - State of 

Washington. Washington State Department of Ecology, Washington State 

University Cooperative Extension, and U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Carroll, J., and J. Joy, 2000. Quality Assurance Project Plan: Lower Yakima 

River Water Quality Model and Evaluation of the USBR Columbia River Pump 

Exchange Project. May 2000. Environmental Assessment Program, Washington 

State Department of Ecology, Olympia WA. 

Carroll, J., and J. Joy, 2001. USBR Columbia River Pump Exchange Project 

Potential Water Quality Impacts on the Lower Yakima River. Publication No. 01­

03-000, January 2001. Environmental Assessment Program, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, Olympia WA. 

CDC, 2001. Epidemic/Epizootic West Nile Virus in the United States: Revised 

Guidelines for Surveillance, Prevention and Control. Centers for Disease 

Control. Accessed online at: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/westnile/ 

publications.htm. 

CDC, 2002. “Provisional Surveillance Summary of the West Nile Virus 

Epidemic - United States, January-November 2002,” MMWR, 2002;51:1129­

1133. Centers for Disease Control. 

CH2M Hill, 1975. Characterization of Present Water-Quality Conditions in the 

Yakima Basin. Report to the Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia 

WA. Technical Bulletin 10. 

R-5 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Chapman, R.J., T.M. Hinckley, L.C. Lee, and R.O. Teskey, 1982. Impact of 

Water Level Changes on Woody Riparian and Wetland Communities, vol. 10. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Publication No. OBS-82/83, Kearneysville WV. 

City of Kennewick, 2000. Columbia Park Master Development Plan. February, 

2000, Kennewick WA. 

City of Richland, 1999. Rivershore Master Plan. October 1999, Richland WA. 

City of Richland, 2004. Richland Wye Master Plan. Accessed online at: 

http://www.ci.richland.wa.us/richland/planning. 

City of Richland, 2006. Comprehensive Plan. Accessed online at: 

http://www.ci.richland.wa.us/RICHLAND/planning/index.cfm?PageNum=11 

Closs, G.P., and P.S. Lake, 1996. “Drought, Differential Mortality and the 

Coexistence of a Native and an Introduced Fish Species in a Southeast Australian 

Intermittent Stream,” Environmental Biology of Fishes, 47: 17-26. 

Coffin, C., 2003. Quality Assurance Project Plan for TMDL Effectiveness 

Monitoring and Water Quality Evaluation in the Lower Yakima River. 

Publication No. 04-03-203. Washington State Department of Ecology, Central 

Regional Office, Yakima, WA. Accessed online at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/ 

biblio/0403203.html. 

Coffin, C., R. Plotnikoff, and R. Anderson, 2006. Lower Yakima River Suspended 

Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load Study Water Quality Effectiveness 

Monitoring Report. May 2006, publication No. 06-03-014, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, Central Regional Office, Yakima WA. 

Cole, T., and S. Wells, 2007. CE-QUAL-W2 V3 Hydrodynamic and Water 

Quality Model, General Model Description. October 2007. Accessed online at: 

http://eco.wiz.uni-kassel.de/model_db/mdb/ce-qual-w2.html. 

Columbia Geotechnical Associates, 2004. Geologic Investigation, Black Rock 

Dam, Alternate Damsite, Yakima County, Washington. Prepared for Bureau of 

Reclamation by Columbia Geotechnical Associates, Inc., February 2004, 66 pp. 

Collier, M., R.H. Webb, and J.C. Schmidt, 1996. “A Primer on the Downstream 

Effects of Dams.” U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1126, 94 pp. 

Cooney, J.C., 1976. “Impoundments,” Mosquito News, 36(4):413-414. 

Cooper, R., 2005. Personal communication. 

R-6 
 

 

References 

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of 

Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. National Wetlands 

Inventory Center, FWS/OBS-79/31, December 1979. 

Craig, S.E., 1997. “Habitat Conditions Affecting Bull Trout (Salvelinus 

confluentus) Spawning Areas Within the Yakima River Basin, Washington.” 

M.S. Thesis, Central Washington University, Ellensburg WA, 74 pp. 

Cramer, S.O., D.B. Lester, P.A. Monk, and K.L. Witty, 2003. A Review of 

Abundance Trends, Hatchery and Wild Fish Interactions, and Habitat Features of 

the Middle Columbia Steelhead ESU. Prepared for Mid Columbia Stakeholders 

by S.P. Cramer & Associates, Sandy OR. 

Crane, J.K., 2003. “Here Comes West Nile Virus – Again,” The Clinical Advisor, 

July 2003:11-12. 

Crane, S., 2007. Personal Communication. Yakama Nation. 

Crawford, R.C., and J. Kagan, 2001. “Wildlife Habitats: Descriptions, Status, 

Trends, and System Dynamics, Ch. 2.16: Shrub-Steppe,” Wildlife-Habitat 

Relationships in Oregon and Washington, pp. 50-51. D. Johnson and T. O’Neil, 

editors. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press. 

Creech, J., and G. Bohn, 2005. Wilson Creek Sub-Basin Bacteria Total Maximum 

Daily Load (Water Cleanup Plan). June 2005, Publication No. 05-10-041, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, Central Regional Office, Yakima WA. 

Creech, J., and J. Joy, 2002. Upper Yakima Basin Suspended Sediment, Turbidity 

and Organochlorine Pesticide Total Maximum Daily Load, Submittal Report. 

Publication No. 02-10-047-WQ. Washington State Department of Ecology, 

Olympia, WA. Accessed online at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/ 

0210047.html. 

Crowley, Paul J., 2004. “Evaluation of Irrigation Water as a Drinking Water 

Source.” May 2004, pp. 18-33, Pullman WA. 

Cuffney, T.F., M.R. Meador, S.D. Porter, and M.E. Gurtz, 1997. Distribution of 

Fish, Benthic Invertebrate, and Algal Communities in Relation to Physical and 

Chemical Conditions, Yakima River Basin, Washington, 1990. U.S. Geological 

Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 96-4280, Raleigh NC. 

Daily, G.C., 1997. Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural 

Ecosystem. Washington DC: Island Press. 

Daubenmire, R., 1970. “Steppe Vegetation of Washington.” Washington 

Agricultural Experiment Station, Tech. Bulletin 62, 131 pp. 

R-7 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Davidson, C., 1998. “Issues in Measuring Landscape Fragmentation,” Wildlife 

Society Bulletin, 26:32-37. 

DeBell, D.S., 1990. “Populus Trichocarpa: Black Cottonwood,” Silvics of North 

America: Hardwoods, vol. 2, R.M. Burns and B.H. Honkala, editors. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook, 645:570-576. 

DeCoteau, 2007. Personal communication. Yakama Nation. 

Degani, G., G.N. Herbst, R. Ortal, H.J. Bromley, D. Levanon, Y. Netzer, 

N. Harari, and H. Glazman, 1993. “Relationship Between Current Velocity, 

Depth, and the Invertebrate Community in a Stable River System,” 

Hydrobiologia, vol. 263, pp. 163-172. 

De Vries, P.E., 1997. “Riverine Salmon Egg Burial Depths: Review of Published 

Data and Implications for Scour Studies,” Can. J. of Fish Aquat. Sci., vol. 54, 

No. 8, pp. 1685-1698. 

DeVries, P.E., 2000. “Scour in Low Gradient Gravel Bed Streams: Patterns, 

Processes, and Implications for the Survival of Salmonid Embryos.” 

Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle WA. 

Dobler, F.C., J. Eby, C. Perry, S. Richardson, and M. VanderHaegen, 1996. 

Status of Washington’s Shrub-Steppe Ecosystem: Extent, Ownership, and 

Wildlife/Vegetation Relationships. Wildlife Management Division, Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia WA. 

Draper, J.A., 1992. “The 1992 Options Analysis Study: Cultural Resources,” 

Contributions in Cultural Resource Management No. 38, Center for Northwest 

Anthropology, Pullman: Washington State University. 

Dunne T., and L.B. Leopold, 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. 

W.H. Freeman and Company, New York. 

Dykaar, B.D., and P.J. Wigington, Jr., 2000. “Floodplain Formation and 

Cottonwood Colonization Patterns on the Willamette River, Oregon,” 

Environmental Management, 25: 87-104. 

Ebbert, J.C., and S.S. Embrey, 2002. Pesticides in Surface Water of the Yakima 

River Basin, Washington, 1999-2000; Their Occurrence and an Assessment of 

Factors Affecting Concentrations and Loads. Water Resources Investigations 

Report No. 01-4211. USGS National Water-Quality Assessment Program, 

Tacoma WA. 

R-8 
 

 

References 

Ebbert, J.C., S.S. Embrey, and J.A. Kelley, 2003. Concentrations and Loads of 

Suspended Sediments and Nutrients in Surface Water of the Yakima River Basin, 

Washington, 1999-2000—With an Analysis of Trends in Concentrations. Water 

Resources Investigations Report 03-4026. USGS National Water-Quality 

Assessment Program, Tacoma WA. 

Eberhardt, L.E., and L.A. Hoffman, 1991. Sage-Grouse on the Yakima Training 

Center: A Summary of Studies Conducted During 1989 and 1990. PNL-7647, 

Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland WA. 

Eberhardt, L.E., L.L. Eberhardt, B.L. Tiller, and L.L. Cadwell, 1996. “Growth of 

an Isolated Elk Population,” Journal of Wildlife Management, (60)2:369-373. 

Ecology, 1979. Irrigated Agriculture Water Quality Management Plan Section 

208, Public Law 95-217. Washington State Department of Ecology, Water 

Quality Program, Olympia WA, Report 79-5b. 

Ecology, 1990. Washington Administrative Code Chapter 173-200, “Water 

Quality Standards for Ground Waters of the State of Washington.” Washington 

State Department of Ecology Water Quality Program. 

Ecology, 1997. Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 173-201A, “Water 

Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington.” Washington 

State Department of Ecology, Olympia WA. 

Ecology, 1999. “Focus Sheet: Ground Water/Surface Water Interactions to Be 

Studied in Yakima River Basin,” Focus No. 99-1817. 

Ecology, 2000. Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 173-060, “Maximum 

Environmental Noise Levels.” Washington State Department of Ecology. 

Accessed online at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/wac17360.pdf. 

Ecology, 2002a. Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 173-401-532, 

“Categorically Exempt Insignificant Emission Units.” Washington State 

Department of Ecology. Accessed online at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/ 

wac173401.pdf. 

Ecology, 2002b. Lower Yakima River Water Quality Project Update. 

Washington State Department of Ecology. Accessed online at: 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/tmdl/watershed/yakima_wq/ 

loweryak-update.htm. 

Ecology, 2003a. “Prevention of Significant Deterioration: Getting a Permit.” 

Washington State Department of Ecology. Accessed online at: 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/air/psd/ PSD_PDFS/PSD_getpermit.pdf 

R-9 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Ecology, 2003b. “Mitigation Measures Used in Water Rights Permitting.” 

Washington State Department of Ecology, April 2003. 

Ecology, 2003c. Ground Water Quality in the Central Ahtanum Valley, Yakima 

County, March 2001 – December 2002. Publication No. 03-03-040. 

Ecology, 2004. An Evaluation of Probable Benefits and Costs for the Proposed 

Rule to Establish the Columbia River Water Resources Management Program. 

Washington State Department of Ecology, No. 04-11-032, December 2004. 

Ecology and West Water Research, 2004. Analysis of Water Banks in the 

Western States. Ecology Publication Number 04-11-011, July 2004. 

Ecology, 2005a. Determining Irrigation Efficiency and Consumptive Use. Water 

Resources Program Guidance. Guide 1210. Washington State Department of 

Ecology. Accessed online at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/ 

rules/images/pdf/guid1210.pdf 

Ecology, 2005b. Ahtanum Creek Watershed Restoration Program Final 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Washington State Department 

of Ecology, Publication No. 05-06-016, June 2005. 

Ecology, 2005c. Focus on Upper Yakima Basin. Washington State Department 

of Ecology, Publication No. 01-10-003, December 2005, Yakima WA. 

Ecology, 2005d. Focus on Wilson Creek Sub-Basin Bacteria TMDL Approved - 

Detailed Planning Underway. Washington State Department of Ecology, 

Publication No. 03-10-022, December 2005, Yakima WA. 

Ecology, 2006a. Washington Administrative Code, Chapter 173-201A, “Water 

Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington.” Publication 

Number 06-10-091, Washington State Department of Ecology, Water Quality 

Program, Olympia WA. 

Ecology, 2006b. 2006 Report to the Legislature: Water Banking in Washington 

State. Ecology Publication Number 06-11-048, December 2006. 

Ecology, 2007a. Columbia River Water Management Program Final 

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. Washington State Department of 

Ecology. 

Ecology, 2007b. Washington State's Water Quality Assessment [303(d) & 305(b) 

Report]. October 2007. Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality 

Program. Accessed online at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/ 

2002/2004_documents/list_by_category-cat5.html. 

R-10 
References 

Ecology, 2007c. Washington State's Water Quality Assessment for 2004. Water 

Quality Listings by Category. The 2004 list divides water bodies into one of five 

categories. Washington State Department of Ecology. Accessed online at 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/303d/2002/2004_documents/ 

list_by_category-cat5.html. 

Ecology, 2007d. Ambient Groundwater Quality in the Moxee Valley Surficial 

Aquifer, Yakima County, January-June 2006. Publication No. 07-03-023. 

Ecology, 2007e. Technical Report on Cultural Resources for the Yakima River 

Basin Water Storage Feasibility Study. Prepared by Paragon Research 

Associates, LLC, December 2007. 

Ecology, 2007f. Technical Report on the Enhanced Water Conservation 

Alternative for the Yakima River Basin Water Storage Feasibility Study. Prepared 

by Anchor Environmental, December 2007. 

Ecology, 2007g. Technical Report on the Groundwater Storage Alternative for 

the Yakima River Basin Water Storage Feasibility Study. Prepared by Golder 

Associates, December 2007. 

Ecology, 2007h. Technical Report on the Market-Based Reallocation of Water 

Resources Alternative: Water Markets-Water Banks for the Yakima River Basin 

Water Storage Feasibility Study. Prepared by Cascadia Law Group and 

ECONorthwest, December 2007 

Ecology, 2007i. Technical Report on Socioeconomic Impacts of the State 

Alternatives for the Yakima River Basin Water Storage Feasibility Study. 

Prepared by ECONorthwest, December 2007. 

Ecology, no date. Focus on Teanaway Basin Temperature TMDL is a Plan to 

Improve Stream Temperatures. Washington State Department of Ecology, 

Publication No. 01-10-020, Yakima WA. 

Eitemiller, D.J., C.P. Arango, K.L. Clark, and M.L. Uebelacker, 2002. The 

Effects of Anthropogenic Alterations to Lateral Connectivity on Seven Select 

Alluvial Floodplans Within the Yakima River Basin. Washington Department of 

Geography and Land Studies, Central Washington University, Ellensburg WA. 

Eitemiller, D.J., M.L. Uebelacker, D.A. Plume, C.P. Arango, and K.L. Clark, 

2000. “The Effects of Anthropogenic Alterations to Lateral Connectivity on 

Seven Select Alluvial Floodplains within the Yakima River Basin, Washington,” 

AWRA 2000 Summer International Specialty Conference on Riparian Ecology 

and Management in Multi-Land Use Watersheds, pp. 239-244. R. Wigington, 

R.L. Beschta, and W.J. Ripple, editors. Central Washington University, 

Ellensburg WA; American Water Resources Association, Portland, OR. 

R-11 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Energy Northwest, 2007. Evaluation of the Black Rock Project’s Pumped 

Storage Power Costs and Benefits. 

EPA, 1986a. Quality Criteria for Water 1986. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington DC. 

EPA, 1986b. Noise and Your Hearing. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Noise Abatement and Control. 

ESRI, 2005. U.S. Major Roads. Tele Atlas North America, Inc./Geographic Data 

Technology, Inc., ESRI, Redlands CA. 

Everest, F.H., N.B. Armantrout, S.M. Keller, W.D. Parante, J.R. Sedell, 

T.E. Nickelson, J.M. Johnston, and G.N. Haugen, 1985. “Salmonids,” 

pp. 199-230, Management of Wildlife and Fish Habitats in Forests of Western 

Oregon and Washington. E.R. Brown, editor. Publication R6-F&WL-192-1985, 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 

Portland OR. 

Fairfield, G., 2005. Personal communication. 

Fausch, K.D., C. Gowan, A.D. Richmond, and S.C. Riley, 1994. “The Role of 

Dispersal in Trout Population Response to Habitat Formed by Large Woody 

Debris in Colorado Mountain Streams,” Bulletin Français de la Pêche et de la 

Pisciculture, 337/338/339: 179-190. 

Federal Register, 1998. 50 CFR Part 17, “Listing of Bull Trout in the Columbia 

and Klamath River Distinct Population Segment, Final Rule,” Rules and 

Regulations, vol. 63, No. 111, June 10, 1998, pp. 31647-31674. 

Federal Register, 2005. 50 CFR Part 226. “Designation of Critical Habitat for 

12 Evolutionarily Significant Units of West Coast Salmon and Steelhead in 

Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, Final Rule,” Rules and Regulations, vol. 70, 

No. 170, Friday, September 2, 2005, pp. 52630-52858. 

Federal Register, 2006. “Notice of Intent to Prepare the Tank Closure and Waste 

Management Environmental Impact Statement for the Hanford Site, Richland, 

WA,” vol. 71, No. 22, February 2, 2006, pp. 5655. 

FERC, 2006. Priest Rapids Hydroelectric Project, Washington, Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. FERC Project No. 2114, November 2006, 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, 

Washington DC. 

R-12 
 

References 

Fierke, M.K., and J.B. Kauffman, 2005. “Structural Dynamics of Riparian 

Forests Along a Black Cottonwood Successional Gradient,” Forest Ecology and 

Management, 215:149-162. 

Flagg, T.A., T.E. Ruehle, L.W. Harrell, J.L. Mighell, C.R. Pasley, A.J. Novotny, 

E. Statick, C.W. Sims, D.B. Dey, and V.W. Mahnken, 2000. Cle Elum Lake 

Anadromous Salmon Restoration Feasibility Study: Summary of Research, 2000. 

Final Report to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. Contract 

No. 86AI6480, Project No. 86-045, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle 

WA, 118 pp. 

Fluharty, D.L., 2000. Characterization and Assessment of Economic Systems in 

the Interior Columbia Basin: Fisheries. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-451, 

April 2000. 

Fraley, J.J., and B.B. Shepard, 1989. “Life History, Ecology and Population 

Status of Migratory Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Flathead Lake and 

River System, Montana,” Northwest Science, 63(4):133-143. 

Franklin, A.B., B.R. Noon, and T.L. George, 2002. “What is Habitat 

Fragmentation?” Studies in Avian Biology, No. 25:20-29, 10 pp. 

Fretwell, M.R., 1989. “Homing Behavior of Adult Sockeye Salmon in Response 

to a Hydroelectric Diversion of Homestream Waters at Seton Creek.” 

International Pacific Salmon Commission, Vancouver, BC, 38 pp. 

Friedman, J.M., 1993. “Vegetation Establishment and Channel Narrowing Along 

a Great-Plains Stream Following a Catastrophic Flood.” Ph.D. dissertation, 

University of Colorado, Boulder CO, 156 pp. 

Friedman, J.M., W.R. Osterkamp, M.L. Scott, and G.T. Auble, 1998. 

“Downstream Effects of Dams on Channel Geometry and Bottomland Vegetation: 

Regional Patterns in the Great Plains,” Wetlands, 18:619-633. 

Fuhrer, G.J., S.L. Fluter, S.W. McKenzie, J.F. Rinella, J.K. Crawford, D.J. Cain, 

M.I. Hornberger, J.L. Bridges, and K.A. Skach, 1994. Surface-Water-Quality 

Assessment of the Yakima River Basin in Washington; Major- and Minor-Element 

Data for Sediment, Water, and Aquatic Biota, 1987-91. Water Resources 

Investigations Report No. 94-308, 1992, Portland OR. 

Fuhrer, G.J., D.Q. Tanner, J.L. Morace, S.W. McKenzie, and K.A. Skach, 1996. 

Water Quality of the Lower Columbia River Basin; Analysis of Current and 

Historical Water-Quality Data Through 1994. Water Resources Investigations 

Report No. 95-4294, Portland OR. 

R-13 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Fuhrer, G.J., J.L. Morace, J.F. Rinella, J.C. Ebbert, S.S. Embrey, I.R. Waite, 

K.D. Carpenter, D.R. Wise, and C.A. Hughes, 2004. Water Quality in the Yakima 

River Basin, Washington, 1999-2000. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1237, 34 

pp., Portland, OR. 

Gartrell, F.E., W.W. Barnes, G.S. Christopher, 1972. “Environmental Impact and 

Mosquito Control Water Resource Management Projects,” Mosquito News, 

32(3):337-343. 

Gladden, J.E., and L.A. Smock, 1990. “Macroinvertebrate Distribution and 

Production on the Floodplains of Two Lowland Headwater Streams,” Freshwater 

Biology 24:533-545. 

Gleick, P., D. Haasz, C. Henges-Jeck, V. Srinivasan, G. Wolff, K.K. Cushing, and 

A. Mann, 2003. Waste Not, Want Not: The Potential for Urban Water 

Conservation in California. Pacific Institute, November 2003. 

Goddard, L.B., A.E. Roth, W.K. Reisen, and T.W. Scott, 2002. “Vector 

Competence of California Mosquitoes for West Nile Virus,” Emerging Infectious 

Diseases, 8(12):1385-1391. 

Goetz, F.A., 1994. “Distribution and Juvenile Ecology of Bull Trout (Salvelinus 

confluentus) in the Cascade Mountains.” Master of Science, Oregon State 

University, Corvallis OR, 173 pp. 

Golder and Associates, 2006. Appraisal Assessment of the Yakima River Pump 

Exchange Alternative Delivery System for Roza and Sunnyside Valley Irrigation 

Districts. 

Gore, J.A., and R.D. Judy, 1981. “Predictive Models of Benthic 

Macroinvertebrate Density for Use in Instream Flow Studies and Regulated Flow 

Management,” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, vol. 38, 

pp. 1363-1370. 

Gore, J.A.,1978. “A Technique for Predicting In-Stream Flow Requirements of 

Benthic Macroinvertebrates,” Freshwater Biology, vol. 8, pp. 141-151. 

Grant County PUD, 1991. Priest Rapids/Wanapum Land Use Plan. Grant 

County Public Utility District. 

Grant County PUD, 1992. Priest Rapids/Wanapum Land Use Plan. Grant 

County Public Utility District. Accessed online at 

http://www.gcpud.org/recreation/pdfs/ GrantPUDLandUsePlan1992.pdf. 

Grant County PUD, 2003. Priest Rapids Hydroelectric Project No. 2114. Grant 

County Public Utility District. 

R-14 
 

References 

Greene, K.E., J.C. Ebbert, and M.D. Munn, 1996. Nutrients, Suspended 

Sediment, and Pesticides in Streams and Irrigation Systems in the Central 

Columbia Plateau in Washington and Idaho, 1959-1991. Water Resources 

Investigations Report No. 94-4215, Tacoma WA. 

Griffith, M.B., and S.A. Perry, 1993. “The Distribution of Macroinvertebrates in 

the Hyporheic Zone of Two Small Appalachian Headwater Streams,” Archiv fuer 

Hydrobiologie, vol. 126(3), pp. 373-384. 

Groot, C., L. Margolis, and W.C. Clarke (editors), 1995. Physiological Ecology 

of Pacific Salmon. University British Columbia Press, Vancouver, Canada. 

Haas, G.E., R. Aukerman, V. Lovejoy, and D. Welch, 2004. Water Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum System (WROS) Users’ Guidebook. July 2004. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service 

Center, Denver CO. 

Hall, L.S., P.R. Krausman, and M.L. Morrison, 1997. “The Habitat Concept and 

a Plea for Standard Terminology,” Wildlife Society Bulletin, vol. 25, No. 1. 

International Issues and Perspectives in Wildlife Management (Spring, 1997), 

pp. 173-182. 

Hallock, D., 2006. Washington State Water Quality Conditions in 2005 Based on 

Data from Freshwater Monitoring Unit. Washington State Department of 

Ecology, Publication No. 06-03-030, November 2006. Environmental 

Assessment Program, Olympia WA. 

Hamlet, A.F., and D.P. Lettenmaier, 1999. Effects of Climate Change on 

Hydrology and Water Resources in the Columbia River Basin. Am. Water Res. 

Assoc., 35(6): 1597-1623. 

Hamlet A.F., P.W. Mote, M.P. Clark, and D.P. Lettenmaier, 2007. “20th Century 

Trends in Runoff, Evapotranspiration, and Soil Moisture in the Western U.S.,” 

J. Climate, 20 (8): 1468 1486. 

Harbaugh, A.W., E.R. Banta, M.C. Hill, and M.G McDonald, 2000. MODFLOW2000, The U.S. Geological Survey Modular Ground-Water Model - User Guide to 

Modularization Concepts and the Ground-Water Flow Process. U.S. Geological 

Survey Open-File Report 2000-92, 121 pp. 

Haring, D., 2001. Habitat Limiting Factors, Yakima River Watershed, Water 

Resource Inventory Areas 37–39. Final Report. Washington State Conservation 

Commission, 364 pp. 

R-15 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Hays, D.W., 2001. Washington Pygmy Rabbit Emergency Action Plan for 

Species Survival-Addendum to Washington State Recovery Plan for the Pygmy 

Rabbit (1995). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife – Wildlife Program, 

Olympia WA. 

Hess, A.D., and C.C. Kiker, 1943. “Water Level Management for Malaria 

Control on Impounded Waters,” J. Natl. Malar. Soc., 3:181-196. 

Hicks, M., 2002. Establishing Surface Water Quality Criteria for the Protection 

of Agricultural Water Supplies. Washington State Department of Ecology Water 

Quality Program. Department of Ecology Publications Distributions Office, 

Olympia WA. 

Hiebert, S., 1999. “Limnological Surveys of Five Reservoirs in the Upper 

Yakima River Basin, Washington, August 3-7, 1998.” Progress Report. Bureau 

of Reclamation, Technical Service Center, Denver CO. 

Hill, M.T., W.S. Platts, and R.L. Bescha, 1991. “Ecological and 

Geomorphological Concepts for Instream and Out-of-Channel Flow 

Requirements,” Rivers, 2(3): 198-210. 

Hilldale, R.C., and D.M. Mooney, 2007. One-Dimensional Hydraulic Modeling 

of the Yakima Basin: A Component of the Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study, Washington. Final report to the Upper Columbia Area Office. 

Hockersmith, E., J. Vella, and L. Stuehrenberg, 1995. Yakima River RadioTelemetry Study: Steelhead, 1989-1993. Annual Report Submitted to Bonneville 

Power Administration, DOE/BP-00276-3, Portland OR. 

Hopkins, B.S., D.K. Clark, M. Schlender, and Stinson, 1985. Basic Water 

Monitoring Program Fish Tissue and Sediment Sampling for 1984. Publication 

No. 85-7. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia WA. Accessed 

online at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/857.html and http://www.ecy.wa.gov/ 

programs/wq/303d/2002/2004_documents/wq_assessment_cats2004.html. 

Huppert, D., G. Green, W. Beyers, A. Subkoviak, and A. Wenzl, 2004. 

Economics of Columbia River Initiative: Final Report to the Washington 

Department of Ecology and CRI Economics Advisory Committee. University of 

Washington and Seattle University, January 2004. 

Hynes, H.B.N., 1970. The Ecology of Running Waters. University of Toronto 

Press, Waterloo, 555 pp. 

Hynes, H.B.N., 1975. “The Stream and its Valley,” Verhandlung Internationale 

Vereingung de Limnologie, 19:1-15. 

R-16 
References 

Independent Economic Analysis Board, 2005. Economic Effects from Columbia 

River Basin Anadromous Salmonid Fish Production. Northwest Power and 

Conservation Council, IEAB 2005-1, December 2005. 

IPCC, 2000. Special Report on Emission Scenarios. N. Nakicenovic and 

R. Swart (editors), Cambridge University Press, 570 pp. 

IPCC, 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of 

Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC. J.T. Houghton, 

Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and 

C.A. Johnson (editors). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge 

University Press, 881 pp. 

IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007 - The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of 

Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. S. Soloman, 

D. Qin, M. Manning, M. Marquis, K. Averyt, M.M.B. Tignor, H.L. Miller, and 

Z. Chen (editors). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge 

University Press, 996 pp. 

Irvine, J.R., 1985. “Effects of Successive Flow Perturbations on Stream 

Invertebrates,” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, vol. 42, 

pp. 1922-1927. 

Isley, S., Personal communication. Washington State Department of Ecology, 

November 30, 2007. 

Jenkins, C.T., 1968. “Computation of Rate and Volume of Stream Depletion by 

Wells,” U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water Resources Investigations, 

D1-4. 

Johnson, A., D. Norton, and B. Yake, 1986. Occurrence and Significance of DDT 

Compounds and Other Contaminants in Fish, Water, and Sediment from the 

Yakima River Basin. Publication No. 86-5. Washington State Department of 

Ecology, Olympia WA. Accessed online at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/ 

865.html. 

Johnson, A., 2006. Quality Assurance Project Plan: Chlorinated Pesticides, 

PCBs, and Dioxins in Yakima River Fish - 2006: Assessing Progress Toward 

TMDL Targets and Updating the Fish Consumption Advisory. Publication 

No. 06-03-111, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia WA. 

Accessed online at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0603111.html. 

Johnson, A., 2007. Quality Assurance Project Plan: Yakima River Chlorinated 

Pesticides, PCBs, Suspended Sediment, and Turbidity Total Maximum Daily Load 

Study. Publication No. 07-03-107, July 2007. Environmental Assessment 

Program, Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia WA. 

R-17 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Johnson, K.P., and J.R. Kort, 2004. “2004 Redefinition of the BEA Economic 

Areas,” Survey of Current Business, November: 68-75. 

Jones, M.A., J.J. Vaccaro, and A.M. Watkins, 2006. Hydrogeologic Framework 

of Sedimentary Deposits in Six Structural Basins, Yakima River Basin, 

Washington. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5116, 

24 pp. 

Joy, J., 2002. Upper Yakima River Basin Suspended Sediment and 

Organochlorine Pesticide Total Maximum Daily Load. Publication No. 02-03­

012. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia WA. Accessed online 

at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0203012.html. 

Joy, J., and B. Patterson, 1997. A Suspended Sediment and DDT Total Maximum 

Daily Load Evaluation Report for the Yakima River. Publication No. 97-321. 

Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia WA. Accessed online at: 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/97321.html. 

Junk, W.J., P.B. Bayley, and R.E. Sparks, 1989. “The Flood Pulse Concept in 

River-Floodplain Systems.” pp 110-127. D.P. Dodge, editor, Proceedings of the 

International Large River Symposium. Can Spec. Publ. Fish Aquat. Sci., 106. 

Kardouni, J., and A. Stohr, 2005. Quality Assurance Project Plan: Upper Yakima 

Basin Temperature Total Maximum Daily Load Study. Publication No. 05-03­

111, June 2005. Environmental Assessment Program, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, Olympia WA. 

Karr, J.R., 1991. “Biological Integrity: A Long-Neglected Aspect of Water 

Resource Management,” Ecological Applications, 1: 66-84. 

Karrenberg, S., P.J. Edwards, and J. Kollmann, 2002. “The Life History of 

Salicaceae Living in the Active Zone of Floodplains,” Freshwater Biology, 

47: 733-748. 

Kaval, P., and J. Loomis, 2003. Updated Outdoor Recreation Use Values with 

Emphasis on National Park Recreation. Final report to NPS, Fort Collins, 

Colorado, Cooperative Agreement No. CA 1200-99-009 

Keller, E.A., and F.J. Swanson, 1979. “Effects of Large Organic Material on 

Channel Form and Fluvial Processes,” Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 

4: 361-380. 

Kinnison H.B., and J.E. Sceva, 1963. “Effects of Hydraulic and Geologic Factors 

on Streamflow of the Yakima River Basin Washington.” U.S. Geological Survey 

Water Supply Paper 1595. 

R-18 
References 

Kirk, T., and T. Mackie, 1993. Black Rock – Moxee Valley Groundwater Study: 

Washington. Department of Ecology, Report No. OFTR 93-1, 79 pp. 

Kittitas County, 1992. Zoning Ordinance: Forest and Range, Ordinance 92-6 

(part), 1992. Accessed online at: http://www.co.kittitas.wa.us/boc/countycode/ 

title17.asp#Chapter_17.56. 

Kittitas County, 2006. Comprehensive Plan. Accessed online at: 

http://www.co.kittitas.wa.us/cds/compplan.asp. 

Knowles, C.J., and R.G. Gumtow, 1996. Saving the Bull Trout. The Thoreau 

Institute, Oak Grove OR, 21 pp. 

Komar, N., S. Langevin, S. Hinten, N. Nemeth, E. Edwards, D. Hettler, B. Davis, 

R. Bowen, and M. Bunning, 2003. “Experimental Infection of North American 

Birds with the New York 1999 Strain of West Nile Virus,” Emerging Infectious 

Diseases, 9(3):311-322. 

Kulasekera, V.L., L. Kramer, R.S. Nasci, F. Mostashari, B. Cherry, S.C. Trock, 

C. Glaser, and J.R. Miller, 2001. “West Nile Virus Infection in Mosquitoes, 

Birds, Horses, and Humans, Staten Island, New York, 2000,” Emerging Infectious 

Diseases, 7(4): 

Lai, Y.G., 2006. Theory and User Manual for SRH-W. Version 1.1. 

Sedimentation and River Hydraulics Group, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver CO. 

Accessed online at http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/sediment/model/ 

srh2d/Downloads/SRH-W%20v1.1%20User%20Manual%20June2007.pdf. 

Lancaster, J., and A.G. Hildrew, 1993. “Characterizing In-Stream Flow Refugia,” 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, vol. 50, pp. 1663-1675. 

Lawler, S.P., and G.C. Lanzaro, 2005. Managing Mosquitoes on the Farm. 

Publication 8158, University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural 

Resources. 

Lenihan, D.J., T.L. Carrell, S. Fosberg, S.L. Ray, and J.A. Ware, 1981. The Final 

Report of the National Reservoir Inundation Study, vol. 1 and 2. U.S. National 

Park Service, SWRO, Santa Fe NM. 

Leopold, L.B., M.G. Wolman, and J.P. Miller, 1964. Fluvial Processes in 

Geomorphology. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco CA. 

Liang, X., D.P. Lettenmaier, E.F. Wood, and S.J. Burges, 1994. “A Simple 

Hydrologically Based Model of Land Surface Water and Energy Fluxes for 

General Circulation Models,” J. Geophys. Res. 99 (D7), 14415–14428. 

R-19 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Ligon, F.K., W.E. Dietrich, and W.J. Trush, 1995. “Downstream Ecological 

Effects of Dams,” Bioscience, 45(3): 183-192. 

Lilga, M.C., 1998. “Effects of Flow Variation on Stream Temperatures in the 

Lower Yakima River.” M.S. thesis, Washington State University. 

Lindsey, K.A., T.L. Tolan, and M. Nielson, 2003. Hydrogeology of the Columbia 

Basin Groundwater Management Area, Adams, Grant and Franklin Counties, 

Washington. 4th Symposium on the Geology of Washington State Conference, 

April 6-10, 2003. Tacoma WA, 81 pp. 

Lisle, T.E., 1986. “Effect of Woody Debris on Anadromous Salmonid Habitat, 

Prince of Wales Island, Southeast Alaska,” No. Am. J. Fish. Mgmt, 6: 538-550. 

Littlefield, C.D., and G.L. Ivey, 2001. Washington State Recovery Plan for the 

Sandhill Crane. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia WA. 

Livingston, M., 2007. Personal communication. Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife. 

Lytle, D.A., and D.M. Merritt, 2004. “Hydrologic Regimes and Riparian Forests: 

A Structured Population Model For Cottonwood,” Ecology, 85: 2493-2503. 

Lytle, D.A., and N.L. Poff, 2004. “Adaptation to Natural Flow Regimes,” Trends 

in Ecology and Evolution, 19:94-100. 

MacDonald, K., S. Noble, and J. Haskins, 1996. An Assessment of the Status of 

Aquatic Resources Within Subbasins on the Wenatchee National Forest. 

U.S. Forest Service. 

MacDonnell, L.J., 1995. Water Banks: Untangling the Gordian Knot of Western 

Water. Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, University of Colorado. 

Madder, D.J., G.A. Surgeoner, and B.V. Helson, 1983. “Number of Generations, 

Egg Production, and Developmental Time of Culex pipiens and Culex restuans 

(Diptera:Culicidae) in Southern Ontario,” J. Med. Entomol., 20(3):275-287. 

Mahoney, J.M., and S.B. Rood, 1998. “Streamflow Requirements for 

Cottonwood Seedling Recruitment - an Integrative Model,” Wetlands, 

18:634-645. 

Mann, C., 2003. Personal communication with air quality specialist, Benton 

County Air Authority, Kennewick WA. 

R-20 
References 

Mastin, M.C., and W. Sharp, 2006. “Comparison of Simulated Runoff in the 

Yakima River Basin, Washington, for Present and Global Climate-Change 

Conditions,” Proceedings: Third Federal Interagency Hydrologic Modeling 

Conference. Subcommittee on Hydrology, a Subcommittee of the Advisory 

Committee on Water Information, Reno NV. Web site accessed at: 

http://wa.water.usgs.gov/projects/yakimawarsmp/data/9EKT2_03_approved.pdf. 

McCartney, K., 2007. Personal communication with Yakima Basin Storage Study 

manager in September 2007. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Reclamation. 

McCorquodale, S.M., 1985. “Archaeological Evidence of Elk in the Columbia 

Basin,” Northwest Science, 59(3): 192-197. 

McCorquodale, S.M., I.I. Eberhardt, and L.E. Eberhardt, 1988. “Dynamics of a 

Colonizing Elk Population,” Journal of Wildlife Management, 52:309-313. 

McCullough, D.A., 1999. A Review and Synthesis of Effects of Alterations to the 

Water Temperature Regime on Freshwater Life Stages of Salmonids, with Special 

Reference to Chinook Salmon. Columbia Intertribal Fisheries Commission, 

Portland OR. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10. 

Published as EPA 910-R-99-010, 279 pp. 

McIntosh, B.A., J.R. Sedell, J.E. Smith, R.C. Wissmar, S.E. Clarke, G.H. Reeves, 

and L.A. Brown, 1994. “Historical Changes in Fish Habitat for Selected River 

Basins of Eastern Oregon and Washington,” Northwest Science, 68: 36-53. 

McIntosh, B.A., J.R. Sedell, R.F. Thurow, S.E. Clarke, and G.L. Chandler, 2000. 

“Historical Changes in Pool Habitats in the Columbia River Basin,” Ecological 

Applications, 10:1478-1496. 

McKay, K.L., and N.F. Renk, 2002. “Currents and Undercurrents: An 

Administrative History of Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area.” National 

Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 

McPhail, J.D., and C.B. Murray, 1979. “The Early Life-History and Ecology of 

Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma) in the Upper Arrow Lakes.” Department of 

Zoology and Institute of Animal Resources, University of British Columbia, 

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 

Medina, V.F., and S. Vedula, 2002. “Kennewick Irrigation District Water Quality 

Project: Data From Years 2000 and 2001.” January 2002, Washington State 

University Tri-Cities, Richland WA. 

R-21 
 

 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Meehan, W.R., and T.C. Bjornn, 1991. “Salmonid Distributions and Life 

Histories,” Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes 

and their Habitats. W.R. Meehan (editor), American Fisheries Society, Special 

Publication No. 19, Bethesda, Maryland, pp. 47-82. 

Mentor, J., and J. Morin, 2007. “Water Banking: Mirage or Delusion?” 

Washington-American Water Resources Association (WA-AWRA) Section 

Newsletter. July-August 2007. 

Mizell, M., 2006. Personal communication. Discussions about migration and 

holding areas for radio-tagged bull trout in the Naches River between 2004 and 

2006, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Mongillo, P., and L. Faulconer, 1982. Yakima Fisheries Enhancement Study 

Phase II Final Report, pp. 120. Washington Department of Game. 

Montgomery, D.R., J.M. Buffington, N.P. Peterson, D. Scheutt-Hames, and 

T.P. Quinn, 1996. “Streambed Scour, Egg Burial Depths and the Influence of 

Salmonid Spawning on Bed Surface Mobility and Embryo Survival,” Can. 

J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 53:1061-1070. 

Montgomery, D.R., and H. Piegay, 2003. “Wood in Rivers: Interactions with 

Channel Morphology and Processes,” Geomorphology 51: 1-5. 

Montgomery, D.R., and E.E. Wohl, 2003. “Rivers and Riverine Landscapes,” 

Development in Quaternary Science, 1:221-246. 

Montgomery, D.R., B.D. Collins, J.M. Buffington, and T.B. Abbe, 2003. 

“Geomorphic Effects of Wood in Rivers,” American Fisheries Society. 

Montgomery, W.L., S.D. McCormick, R.J. Naiman, F.G. Whoriskey, and 

G.A. Black, 1983. “Spring Migratory Synchrony of Salmonid, Catastomid, and 

Cyprinid Fishes in Riviere je la Truite, Quebec,” Can. J. Zoo, 61: 2495. 

Moog, O., 1993. “Quantification of Daily Peak Hydropower Effects on Aquatic 

Fauna and Management to Minimize Environmental Impacts,” Regulated Rivers: 

Research & Management, vol. 8, pp. 5-14. 

Mooney, D.M., 2007. Sediment Transport Modeling of the Yakima Basin. 

Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center, Denver CO. 

Morace, J.L., and S.W. McKenzie, 2002. Fecal-Indicator Bacteria in the Yakima 

River Basin, Washington: An Examination of 1999 and 2000 Synoptic-Sampling 

Data and Their Relation to Historical Data. Water Resources Investigations 

Report No. 02-4054, Portland OR. 

R-22 
References 

Morace, J.L., G.J. Fuhrer, J.F. Rinella, and S.W. McKenzie et al., 1999. SurfaceWater-Quality Assessment of the Yakima River Basin in Washington: Overview 

of Major Findings, 1987-91. USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 

No. 98-4113, Portland OR. 

Morgan, R.P., R.E. Jacobson, S.B. Weisberg, L.A. McDowell, and H.T. Wilson, 

1991. “Effects of Flow Alteration to Benthic Macroinvertebrate Communities 

Below the Brighton Hydroelectric Dam,” Journal of Freshwater Ecology, 

vol. 6(4), pp. 419-429. 

Morrison, M.L., B.G. Marcot, and R.W. Manan, 1978. Wildlife-Habitat 

Relationships: Concepts and Applications. University of Wisconsin Press, 

Madison WI. 

Mote, P.W., 2003. “Trends in Snow Water Equivalent in the Pacific Northwest 

and their Climatic Causes,” Geophysical Research Letters 30 (12): 1601, 

doi:10.1029/2003GL017258 

Mote, P.W., D.J. Canning, D.L. Fluharty, R.C. Francis, J.F. Franklin, 

A.F. Hamlet, M. Hershman, M. Holmberg, K.N. Ideker, W.S. Keeton, 

D.P. Lettenmaier, L.R. Leung, N.J. Mantua, E.L. Miles, B. Noble, H. Parandvash, 

D.W. Peterson, A.K. Snover, and S.R. Willard, 1999. Impacts of Climate 

Variability and Change, Pacific Northwest. National Atmospheric and Oceanic 

Administration, Office of Global Programs, and JISAO/SMA Climate Impacts 

Group, Seattle, WA. 110 pp. 

Mote, P.W., E.A. Parson, A.F. Hamlet, K.G. Ideker, W.S. Keeton, 

D.P. Lettenmaier, N.J. Mantua, E.L. Miles, D.W. Peterson, D.L. Peterson, 

R., Slaughter, and A.K. Snover, 2003. “Preparing for Climatic Change: the 

Water, Salmon, and Forests of the Pacific Northwest,” Climatic Change, 

61 (1 2): 45-88 

Mote, P.W., 2006. “Climate-Driven Variability and Trends in Mountain 

Snowpack in Western North America,” J. Climate, 19 (23):6209-6220 

Naesje, T., B. Jonsson, and J. Skurdal, 1995. “Spring Floods: A Primary Cue of 

Hatching of River Spawning Coregoninae,” Can. J. Fish Aquat. Sci, 52: 2190­

2196. 

Naiman, R.J., T.J. Beechie, L.E. Benda, D.R. Berg, P.A. Bisson, and 

L.H. MacDonald, 1992. “Fundamental Elements of Ecologically Healthy 

Watersheds in the Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecoregion,” Watershed 

Management, pp. 127-188, R.J. Naiman (editor), Springer-Verlag, New York NY. 

Naiman, R.J., and H. Décamps, 1997. “The Ecology of Interfaces: The Riparian 

Zone,” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 28: 621-658. 

R-23 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Naiman, R.J., K.L. Fetherston, S. McKay, and J. Chen, 1998. “Riparian Forests,” 

River Ecology and Management, pp. 289-323. R.J. Naiman and R.E. Bilby 

(editors), Springer-Verlag, New York NY. 

Naiman, R.J., and J.J. Latterell, 2005. “Principles for Linking Fish Habitat to 

Fisheries Management and Conservation,” Journal of Fish Biology, 67:166-185. 

Naiman, R.J., H. Décamps, J. Pastor, and C.A. Johnston, 1988. “The Potential 

Importance of Boundaries to Fluvial Ecosystems,” J. North Am Benth. Soc, 7: 

289-306. 

National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering, 1972. 

Water Quality Criteria 1972. Report of the Committee on Water Quality Criteria. 

Environmental Studies Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington DC. 

National Technical Advisory Committee, 1968. Water Quality Criteria 1968. 

Report of the National Technical Advisory Committee to the Secretary of the 

Interior. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Washington DC. 

Natural Resources Consulting Engineering, 2001. “Volume 1 Irrigation Water 

Conservation and Management Plan for the Wapato Irrigation Project.” Draft 

report. Fort Collins CO, pp. 6-50/51. 

Naugle, D.E., C.L. Aldridge, B.L. Walker, T.E. Cornish, B.J. Moynahan, 

M.J. Holloran, K. Brown, G.D. Johnson, E.T. Schmidtmann, R.T. Mayer, 

C.Y. Kato, M.R. Matchett, T.J. Christiansen, W.E. Cook, T. Creekmore, 

R.D. Failse, E.T. Rinkes, and M.S. Boyle, 2004. West Nile Virus: Pending Crisis 

for Greater Sage Grouse, Ecology Letters (2004), 7:704-713. 

Negishi, J.N., M. Inque, and M. Nunokawa, 2002. “Effects of Channelisation on 

Stream Habitat in Relation to a Spate and Flow Refugia for Macroinvertebrates in 

Northern Japan,” Freshwater Biology, vol. 47(8), pp. 1515-1529. 

Neitzel, D.A. (editor), 2005. Hanford Site National Environmental Policy Act 

Characterization. PNL-6415, Rev. 17. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 

Richland WA. 

Nelson, L.M., 1979. Sediment Transport by Irrigation Return Flows in the Lower 

Yakima River Basin, Washington, 1975 and 1976 Irrigation Seasons. Open File 

Report 78-946. U.S. Geological Survey, Tacoma WA. 76 pp. 

Nelson, S.M., 2004. “Aquatic Invertebrates Associated with Unregulated 

Tributaries and Reservoir Tailwaters in the Yakima Area: A Comparison with 

Other Reclamation Dams and Examples of Downstream Recovery.” Technical 

Memorandum No. 8220-05-01. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Reclamation, Denver CO. 

R-24 
References 

Nelson, S.M., 2005. “Stream Macroinvertebrate Surveys in the Cle Elum and 

Bumping River Watersheds, Storage Dam Fish Passage Study, Yakima Project, 

Washington.” Technical Series No. PN-YDFP-002, Bureau of Reclamation, 

Boise ID. 

Nelson, S.M., and M. Bowen, 2004. “Environmental Parameters Associated with 

Chinook Salmon Redds in the Yakima and Cle Elum Rivers in Washington— 

Final Report.” Technical Memorandum No. 8220-04-01. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver CO. 

Nesler, T.P., R.T. Muth, and A.F. Wasowicz, 1988. “Evidence for Baseline Flow 

Spikes as Spawning Clues for Colorado Squawfish in the Yampa River, 

Colorado,” American Fisheries Society Symposium, 5: 68-79. 

Nilsson, C., and M. Svedmark, 2002. “Basic Principles and Ecological 

Consequences of Changing Water Regimes: Riparian Plant Communities,” 

Environmental Management, 30, 468-480. 

NOAA Fisheries, 1996. “Factors for Decline.” A Supplement to the Notice of 

Determination for West Coast Steelhead Under the Endangered Species Act.” 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Fisheries, Protected 

Resources Branch, Portland OR. 

NOAA Fisheries, 2004. Critical Habitat Analytical Review Team (CHART) 

Report. Department of Commerce, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric 

Administration. 

Novitsky, P., 2005. Personal communication. U.S. Forest Service, Cle Elum 

Ranger District, June 9, 2005. 

NPPC, 2001. Yakima Subbasin Summary. Laura Berg, editor. Northwest Power 

Planning and Conservation Council, Portland OR, 336 pp. 

NRC, 1996. Upstream: Salmon and Society in the Pacific Northwest. National 

Research Council, Committee on Protection and Management of Pacific 

Northwest Anadromous Salmonids, National Academy Press, Washington DC, 

452 pp. 

NRC, 2004. Managing the Columbia River: Instream Flows, Water Withdrawals 

and Salmon Survival. Washington DC: The National Academies Press. National 

Research Council of the National Academies. 

NRC, 2005. Valuing Ecosystem Resources: Toward Better Environmental 

Decision-Making. Washington DC: The National Academies Press. National 

Research Council of the National Academies. 

R-25 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

NRCS, 1997. Water Quality and Agriculture Status, Conditions, and Trends. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

NRCS, 2002. Water Quality Technical Note Number 10, “Water Quality 

Indicator Tools.” U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service. 

Nugent, J., T. Newsome, M. Nugent, W. Brock, P. Hoffarth, and P. Wagner, 

2002a. “1999 Evaluation of Juvenile Fall Chinook Salmon Stranding on the 

Hanford Reach of the Columbia River.” Prepared for the Bonneville Power 

Administration and the Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County, 

BPA Contract No. 9701400 and GCPUD Contracts Document 97BI30417. 

Nugent, J., T. Newsome, M. Nugent, W. Brock, P. Hoffarth, and P. WagnerWashington, 2002b. “2000 Evaluation of Juvenile Fall Chinook Salmon Stranding 

on the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River.” Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration and the Public Utility District 

No. 2 of Grant County, BPA Contract No. 9701400, GCPUD Contracts 

Document 97BI30417, 92 electronic pages, BPA Report No. DOE/BP-00004294­

2. 

Nugent, J., T. Newsome, P. Hoffarth, M. Nugent, W. Brock, and M. Kuklinski, 

2002c. “2001 Evaluation of Juvenile Fall Chinook Salmon Stranding on 

the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River.” Prepared for the Bonneville 

Power Administration and the Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County, 

BPA Contract Number 9701400 and GCPUD Contracts Document 97BI30417, 

57 electronic pages, BPA Report DOE/BP-00004294-3. 

O'Connor, J.E., M.A. Jones, and T.L. Haluska, 2003. “Flood Plain and Channel 

Dynamics of the Quinault and Queets Rivers, Washington USA,” 

Geomorphology, 51:31-59. 

Paller, M.H., W.L. Specht, and S.A. Dyer, 2006. “Effects of Stream Size on Taxa 

Richness and Other Commonly Used Benthic Bioassessment Metrics,” 

Hydrobiologia 568: 309-316. 

Parker, P.L., and T.F. King, 1998. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting 

Traditional Cultural Properties. National Register Bulletin No. 38, National Park 

Service, Washington DC. 

Partridge, M., and D. Rickman, 2003. “The Waxing and Waning of Regional 

Economies: the Chicken-Egg Question of Jobs Versus People,” Journal of Urban 

Economics, 53: 76-97. 

R-26 
 

References 

Payne, J.T., A.W. Wood, A.F. Hamlet, R.N. Palmer, and D.P. Lettenmaier, 2004. 

“Mitigating the Effects of Climate Change on the Water Resources of the 

Columbia River Basin,” Climatic Change, 62(1-3):233-256. 

Pearsons, T.N., G.A. McMichael, S.W. Martin, E.L. Bartrand, J.A. Long, and 

S.A. Leider, 1996. Yakima Species Interactions Studies - Annual Report FY 1994. 

Bonneville Power Administration DOE/BP 99852 3. 

Pearsons, T.N. et al., 1998. “Yakima River Species Interactions Studies.” 

Progress Report 1995-1997. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland OR. 

Pearsons, T., 2002. Personal communication. Ongoing conversations between 

T. Pearsons, Fish Biologist, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife 

and Walter Larrick, Fish Biologist, Bureau of Reclamation. 

Pfeifer, B., J.E Hagen, D. Weitkamp, D.H. Bennett, J. Lukas, and T. Dresser, 

2001. “Evaluation of Fish Species Present in the Priest Rapids Project Area, 

Mid-Columbia River, Washington.” Prepared by Grant PUD. 

Phelps, S.R., B.M. Baker, and C.A. Busack, 2000. “Genetic Relationships and 

Stock Structure of Yakima River Basin and Klickitat River Basin Steelhead 

Populations.” Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Genetics Unit 

unpublished report, Olympia WA, 56 pp. 

PNNL, 2006. Summary of the Hanford Site Environmental Report for Calendar 

Year 2005. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy by Pacific Northwest 

National Laboratory (PNNL-15892), Richland WA. 

PNNL, 2007. The Black Rock Reservoir Study: Results of the Borehole 

Hydrologic Field Testing Characterization Program: At the Potential Damsite 

Southern Abutment Location.” PNNL Project No. F84346, unpublished letter and 

report for the Bureau of Reclamation. 

Poff, N.L., and J.V. Ward, 1989. “Implications of Streamflow Variability and 

Predictability for Lotic Community Structure: A Regional Analysis of 

Streamflow Patterns,” Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 46: 1805-1817. 

Poff, N.L., J.D. Allan, M.B. Bain, J.R. Karr, K.L. Prestegaard, B.D. Richter, 

R.E. Sparks, and J.C. Stromberg, 1997. “The Natural Flow Regime: A Paradigm 

for River Conservation and Restoration,” Bioscience, 47: 11 769-784. 

Poole, G.C., and C.H. Berman, 2001. “An Ecological Perspective in In-Stream 

Temperature: Natural Heat Dynamics and Mechanisms of Human-Caused 

Thermal Degradation,” Environmental Management, 27: 787-802. 

R-27 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Potter, A., J. Fleckenstein, S. Richardson, and D. Hays, 1999. Washington State 

Status Report for the Mardon Skipper. Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Wildlife Management Program, Olympia WA. 

Power, M.E., A. Sun, G. Parker, W.E. Dietrich, and J.T. Wootton, 1995. 

“Hydraulic Foodchain Models,” BioScience, 45: 159-167. 

Pratt, H.D., and C.G. Moore, 1993. “Mosquitoes of Public Health Importance 

and their Control.” Self-Study Course 3013-G, Vector-Borne Disease Control. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention. 

Pringle, C.M., R.J. Naiman, G. Bretschko, J. Karr, M. Oswood, J. Webster, 

R. Welcomme, and M.J. Winderbourn, 1988. “Patch Dynamics in Lotic Systems: 

The Stream as a Mosaic,” J. North Am. Benth. Soc., 7: 503-524. 

Quinn, J.M., and C.W. Hickey, 1994. “Hydraulic Parameters and Benthic 

Invertebrate Distributions in Two Gravel-Bed New Zealand Rivers,” Freshwater 

Biology, vol. 32, pp. 489-500. 

Ralph, S.C., G.W. Poole, L.L. Conquest, and R.J. Naiman, 1994. “Stream 

Channel Morphology and Woody Debris in Logged and Unlogged Basins of 

Western Washington,” Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 51:37-51. 

Ratliff, D.E., and P.J. Howell, 1992. “The Status of Bull Trout Populations in 

Oregon,” Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain Bull Trout Workshop. 

P.J. Howell and D.V. Buchanon (editors), Oregon Chapter of the American 

Fisheries Society, Corvallis, pp. 10-17. 

Reclamation and Service, 1966. Bumping Lake Enlargement Joint Feasibility 

Report. 

Reclamation, 1979. Proposed Bumping Lake Enlargement, Final Environmental 

Impact Statement 

Reclamation, 1988. Addendum. Geologic Report for Wymer Damsite, Yakima 

River Basin Water Enhancement Project, Washington. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region, Division of Design 

and Construction, Geology Branch, December 1988, 18 pp. 

Reclamation, 1996. Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project Plan of 

Study for Preparation of a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest 

Region, Boise ID. 

R-28 
References 

Reclamation, 1999. Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project, 

Washington, Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest 

Region, Upper Columbia Area Office, Yakima WA. 

Reclamation, 2000. Biological Assessment, Yakima Project Operations and 

Maintenance. Supplement to the December 1999 Biological Assessment on the 

Federal Columbia River Power System. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region, Upper Columbia Area Office, Yakima 

WA, 236 pp. 

Reclamation, 2001. Keechelus Safety of Dams Modification, Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 

Pacific Northwest Region, Boise ID. 

Reclamation, 2002a. Interim Comprehensive Basin Operating Plan. Yakima 

Project, Washington. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 

Pacific Northwest Region, Upper Columbia Area Office, Yakima WA. 

Reclamation, 2002b. Scoping Summary: “Kennewick and Columbia Irrigation 

Districts Pump Exchange Planning Report and Environmental Impact Statement, 

Yakima Project, Washington.” U.S. Department of the Bureau of Reclamation, 

Pacific Northwest Region, Upper Columbia Area Office, Yakima WA. 

Reclamation, 2003a. Phase I Assessment Report – Storage Dam Fish Passage 

Study. September 2003 (revised April 2005). U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region, Boise ID. 

Reclamation, 2003b. Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation, 

Biological Opinion and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act, Essential Fish Habitat Consultation. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 

Reclamation, 2003c. “Yakima Hydromet Archive Data Access.” Accessed at: 

http://mac1.pn.usbr.gov/yakima/yakwebarcread.htm. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 

Reclamation, 2003d. Summary of Upper Yakima River Steelhead Movements, 

Winter 2002/2003. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 

Prepared in Cooperation with the Yakama Nation and the University of Idaho. 

Reclamation, 2004a. Appraisal Assessment of the Black Rock Alternative 

Facilities and Field Cost Estimates. Technical Series No. TS-YSS-2, 

December 2004, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 

Technical Service Center, Denver CO. 

R-29 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Reclamation, 2004b. Appraisal Assessment of the Black Rock Alternative 

Delivery System for Sunnyside Division. Technical Series No. TS-YSS-4, 

December 2004, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific 

Northwest Region, Boise ID. 

Reclamation, 2004c. Sunnyside Division Conservation Project Final 

Environmental Assessment. Sunnyside Division Board of Control Water 

Conservation Project. September 2004. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region, Upper Columbia Area Office, Yakima 

WA. 

Reclamation, 2004d. Appraisal Assessment of the Black Rock Project Delivery 

System for Roza, Terrace Heights, Selah-Moxee, and Union Gap Irrigation 

Districts. Technical Series No. TS-YSS-3, December 2004. U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Construction Office, 

Yakima WA. 

Reclamation, 2004e. Summary Report, Appraisal Assessment of the Black Rock 

Alternative. Technical Series No. TS-YSS-7. December 2004. U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region, Boise ID. 

Reclamation, 2004f. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for Appraisal 

Studies of the Proposed Black Rock Dam. Technical Series No. D-8330-2004-14, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest 

Region, Boise ID. 

Reclamation, 2004g. Summary Report Appraisal Assessment of Hydrogeology at 

a Potential Black Rock Damsite. Technical Series No. TS-YSS-6. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region, 

Boise, ID. 

Reclamation, 2005. “Steelhead Movements in the Upper Yakima Basin, Winter 

2003-2004.” U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Technical 

Memorandum 8290-05-01, prepared in Cooperation with the Yakama Nation and 

the University of Idaho. 

Reclamation, 2006a. Appraisal Assessment of the Yakima River Pump Exchange 

Alternative Delivery System for Roza and Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District. 

Technical Series No. TS-YSS-11, October, 2006. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region, Upper Columbia Area Office, 

Yakima WA. 

Reclamation, 2006b. Yakima River Basin Storage Alternatives Appraisal 

Assessment. Technical Series No. TS-YSS-8, May 2006. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region, Upper Columbia Area 

Office, Yakima WA. 

R-30 
 

 

References 

Reclamation. 2006c. Storage Study Team Technical Information and Hydrologic 

Analysis for Plan Formulation. November 2006. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region, Upper Columbia Area 

Office, Yakima WA. 

Reclamation, 2007a. Yakima River Basin Storage Study - Wymer Dam 

and Reservoir Appraisal Report. Technical Series No. TS-YSS-16. 

September 2007. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific 

Northwest Region. 

Reclamation, 2007b. “General Description of Yakima Basin Irrigation Project.”
 

August 10, 2007. Bureau of Reclamation. Accessed online at: 

http://www.usbr.gov/dataweb/html/yakima.html. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Reclamation. 

Reclamation, 2007c. Potholes Reservoir Supplemental Feed Route Draft 

Environmental Assessment. April 2007. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region, Upper Columbia Area Office, Yakima
 

WA. 

Reclamation, 2007d. Modeling Groundwater Hydrologic Impacts of the Potential 

Black Rock Reservoir. Technical Series No. TS-YSS-19, September 2007, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest 

Region, Boise ID. 

Reclamation, 2007e. Identifying Stream Habitat Features with a TwoDimensional Hydraulic Model. Technical Series No. TS-YSS-12. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service 

Center, Denver CO. 

Reclamation, 2007f. Recreation Demand and User Preference Analysis. 

Technical Series No. TS-YSS-10. February 2007. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center, Denver CO. 

Reclamation, 2007g. Yakima River Fishery Economics Technical Report. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service 

Center, Economics and Resource Planning Group, August 2007, Denver CO. 

Reclamation and Ecology, 2007. Appraisal Evaluation of Columbia River 

Mainstem Off-Channel Storage Options. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Reclamation and Washington State Department of Ecology, May 2007. 

Reclamation, 2008a. Aquatic Ecosystem Evaluation. Technical Series 

No. TS-YSS-22. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 

Pacific Northwest Region, Upper Columbia Area Office, Yakima WA. 

R-31 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Reclamation, 2008b. Assessment of the Effects of the Yakima Basin Storage Study 

on Columbia River Fish Proximate to the Proposed Intake Locations. pp. iii, a-f, 

1-6, 80-89. Technical Series No. TS-YSS-13, May 2007, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center, Denver CO. 

Reclamation, 2008c. System Operations Technical Document. U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region, Upper 

Columbia Area Office, Yakima WA. 

Reclamation, 2008d. Yakima River Basin Reservoir and River Recreation Survey 

Report of Findings. Technical Series No. TS-YSS-15, Prepared by Aukerman, 

Haas, and Associates, LLC. 

Reisen, W., H. Lothrop, R. Chiles, M. Madon, C. Cossen, L. Woods, S. Husted, 

V. Kramer, and J. Edman, 2004. “West Nile Virus in California,” Emerging 

Infectious Diseases, 10(8):1369-1378. 

Resh, V.H., A.V. Brown, A.P. Covish, M.E. Gurtz, H.W. Li, G.W. Minshall, 

S.R. Riece, A.L. Sheldon, J.B. Wallace, and R. Wissmar, 1988. “The Role of 

Disturbance in Stream Ecology,” J. No. Am. Benthol. Soc., 7: 433-455. 

Reveal, J.L., F. Caplow, and K. Beck, 1995. “Eriogonum codium (Polygonaceae: 

Eriogonoideae) - A New Species from Southcentral Washington,” Rhodora, 97 

(892):350-356. 

Richter, B.D., J.V. Baumgartner, J. Powell, and D.P. Braun, 1996. “A Method for 

Assessing Hydrologic Alteration Within Ecosystems,” Conservation Biology, 

10: 1163-1174. 

Rieman, B.E., and J.D. McIntyre, 1993. Demographic and Habitat Requirements 

for Conservation of Bull Trout. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT 302, Ogden UT, 

38 pp. 

Rieman, B.E., D.C. Lee, and R.F. Thurow, 1997. “Distribution, Status, and 

Likely Future Trends of Bull Trout Within the Columbia River and Klamath 

River Basins,” North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 17:1111-1125. 

Rinella, J.F., S.W. McKenzie, and G.J. Fuhrer, 1992a. Surface-Water-Quality 

Assessment of the Yakima River Basin, Washington: Analysis of Available WaterQuality Data through 1985 Water Year. Water Resources Investigations Report 

No. 91-454, Portland OR. 

R-32 
References 

Rinella, J.F. et al. 1992b. “Surface-Water-Quality Assessment of the Yakima 

River Basin, Washington: Pesticide and Other Trace Organic-Compound Data 

for Water, Sediment, Soil, and Aquatic Biota, 1987-1991.” U.S. Geological 

Survey Open File Report 92-644, Portland OR. 

Rinella, J.F., P.A. Hamilton, and S.W. McKenzie, 1993. “Persistence of the DDT 

Pesticide in the Yakima River Basin.” U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1090, 

Portland OR. 

Rinella, J.F., S.W. McKenzie, J.K. Crawford, W.T. Foreman, G.J. Fuhrer, 

J.L. Morace, and G.R. Aiken, 1999. Surface-Water-Quality Assessment of the 

Yakima River Basin, Washington; Distribution of Pesticides and Other Organic 

Compounds in Water, Sediment, and Aquatic Biota, 1987-91 (with a section on 

dissolved organic carbon in the Yakima River basin). Water Resources 

Investigations Report No. 2354-B, Portland OR. 

Ring, T.E., and B. Watson, 1999. “Effects of Geologic and Hydrologic Factors 

and Watershed Change on Aquatic Habitat in the Yakima River Basin, 

Washington.” pp. 191-194. R. Sakrison and P. Sturtevant, editors, Watershed 

Management to Protect Declining Species. American Water Resources 

Association, Middleberg VA, TPS-99-4. 

RMC Water and Environment and McBain & Trush, Inc., 2007. Upper Tuolumne 

River: Description of River Ecosystem and Recommended Monitoring Actions. 

Chapters 1-5. San Francisco Public Utility District, San Francisco CA. 

Rood, S.B., J.M. Mahoney, D.E. Reid, and L. Zilm, 1995. “Instream Flows and 

the Decline of Riparian Cottonwoods Along the St. Mary River, Alberta,” 

Canadian Journal of Botany/Revue Canadienne de Botanique, 73: 1250-1260. 

Roundtable Associates, 2003. Water Exchange in the Yakima Basin. October 6, 

2003. Accessed online September 27, 2007 at: 

http://www.roundtableassociates.com/ywe/WB%20Final/Yakima%20Water%20B 

ank%20ver%205.1%20(Final%20Draft).pdf 

Roundtable Associates, no date. Water Exchange in the Yakima Basin: 

Additional Speaker Notes in Brackets. Accessed online at: 

http://www.roundtableassociates.com/ywe/WB%20Final/YWE%20Presentation% 

20Script%20with%20notes.doc 

Ryker, S.J., and J.L. Jones, 1995. Nitrate Concentrations in Ground Water of the 

Central Columbia Plateau. USGS Open File Report 95-445, 4 p. 

Saldi, K.A., R.L. Dirkes, and M.L. Blanton, 2007. Surface-Water Surveillance. 

July 10, 2007. Accessed online at: http://www.pnl.gov/env/SurfaceWater_Surveillance.html. 

R-33 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Schaible, G.D., 2000. “Economic and Conservation Tradeoffs of Regulatory vs. 

Incentive-Based Water Policy in the Pacific Northwest,” Water Resources 

Development, 16 (2): 221-238. 

Schlosser, I.J., 1985. “Flow Regime, Juvenile Abundance, and the Assemblage 

Structure of Stream Fishes,” Ecology, 66: 1484-1490. 

Schmidtmann, R.T. Mayer, C.Y. Kato, M.R. Matchett, T.J. Christiansen, 

W.E. Cook, T. Creekmore, R.D. Falise, E.T. Rinkes, and M.S. Boyce, 2004. 

“West Nile Virus: Pending Crisis for Greater Sage-Grouse,” Ecology Letters, 

7:704-713. 

Schroeder, M.A., D.W. Hays, M.F. Livingston, L.E. Stream, J.E. Jacobsen, and 

D.J. Pierce, 2000. Changes in the Distribution and Abundance of Sage Grouse in 

Washington. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Engineering and 

Environment, Inc. 

Schroeder, M.A., and W.M. Vander Haegen, 2006. Use of CPR Fields by 

Greater Sage-Grouse and Other Shrubsteppe Associated Wildlife in Washington. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Program Science Division, 

October 2006. 

SCM Consultants, Inc., 1999. Columbia Irrigation District Water Conservation 

Plan. 1999 revision. Prepared for the Columbia Irrigation District. 

Scott, M.J., L.W. Vail, J. Jaksch, C.O. Stockle, and A. Kemanian, 2004. “Water 

Exchanges: Tools to Beat El Nino Climate Variability in Irrigated Agriculture,” 

Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 40: 15-31. 

Scott, M.J., L.W. Vail, R. Prasad, 2006. “What Can Adaptation to Climate 

Variability in Irrigated Agriculture Teach Us About Dealing with Climate 

Change?” PNWDSA-7396. Submitted to Journal of the American Water 

Resources Association, Battelle, Pacific Northwest Division, Richland WA. 

SCS, 1978. “Co-operative River Basin Study, 1978.” Draft report, December 

1978. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, and Forest 

Service, Spokane WA. 

Sedell, J.R., P.A. Bisson, F.J. Swanson, and S.V Gregory, 1988. “What We 

Know About Large Trees that Fall into Streams and Rivers,” From the Forest to 

the Sea: A Story of Fallen Trees. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, General Technical Report PNW-229, Portland OR, pp. 347-380. 

Seegrist, D.W., and R. Gard, 1972. “Effects of Floods on Trout in Sagehen 

Creek, California,” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 10(1): 748­

482. 

R-34 
 

References 

Service, 1992. “Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to 

List the Plant Spiranthes diluvialis as a Threatened Species,” Federal Register, 

57-2048. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Service, 1995. Ute Ladies’-Tresses (Spiranthes diluvalis) Recovery Plan. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver CO. 

Service, 1998. “Bull Trout Status Summary and Supporting Documents Lists: 

Klamath River and Columbia River Distinct Population Segments.” 

Service, 2002. Draft Recovery Plan for Bull Trout in the Middle Columbia 

Recovery Unit. Draft Recovery Unit Chapter-21. 

Service, 2007a. Biological Opinion Regarding the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s Proposal Issuance of Permits Under the Template Safe Harbor 

Agreement for the Columbia Basin Pygmy Rabbit. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Spokane WA. 

Service, 2007b. “Yakima River Basin Water Storage Feasibility Study Fish and 

Wildlife Coordination Act Report.” Draft Report. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office, 

October 10, 2007. Spokane WA. 

Service, 2007c. Ute Ladies’-Tresses Orchid discussion. Accessed online at: 

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/plants/uteladiestress/. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Mountain Prairie Region, Endangered Species Program. 

Short, H.L., 1984. “Habitat Suitability Index Models: Brewer’s Sparrow.” 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-82/10.83, 16 pp. 

Shroeder, M.A., D.W. Hays, M.F. Livingston, L.E. Stream, J.E. Jacobson, and 

D.J. Pierce, 2000. “Changes in the Distribution and Abundance of Sage Grouse 

in Washington,” Northwestern Naturalist, 81:104-112. 

Snow, W.E., 1956. “Production and Control of Floodwater Mosquitoes Incidental 

to Water Level Operations on Reservoirs of the Tennessee Valley Authority,” 

Proceedings of the Tenth International Congress on Entomology, 3:745-750. 

Snyder, D., 2005. Personal communication. 

Snyder, E.B., and J.A. Stanford, 2001. Review and Synthesis of River Ecological 

Studies in the Yakima River, Washington, With Emphasis on Flow and Salmon 

Habitat Interactions. Final report to the Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima Office, 

Washington. 

R-35 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Snyder, E.B., C.P. Arango, D.J. Eitemiller, J.A. Stanford, and M.L. Uebelacker, 

2002. “Floodplain Hydrologic Connectivity and Fisheries Restoration in the 

Yakima River, U.S.S,” Verhandlung der Internationalen Vereingung fur 

Theortische und Angewandte Limnologie (International Association of 

Theoretical and Applied Limnology), 28:1653-1657. 

SOAC, 1999. Report on Biologically Based Flows for the Yakima River Basin. 

pp. 1-4, May 1999, System Operation Advisory Committee, Washington. 

Sommer, T.R., M.L. Nobriga, W.C. Harrell, W. Batham, and W.J. Kimmerer, 

2001. “Floodplain Rearing of Juvenile Chinook Salmon: Evidence of Enhanced 

Growth and Survival,” Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 58:325-333. 

Sonnichsen, R., 2007. Personal communication. Bureau of Reclamation, Ephrata 

Office. 

South Central Washington Shrub Steppe/Rangeland Conservation Partnership, 

2006. Memorandum of Understanding. 

Sparks, R.E., 1995. “Need for Ecosystem Management of Large Rivers and their 

Floodplains,” Bioscience, 45: 168-182. 

Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, and R.P. Novitzki, 1996. An 

Ecosystem Approach to Salmonid Conservation. TR-4501-96-6057. ManTech 

Environmental Research Services Corporation, Corvallis OR. 

Stanford, J.A., and J.V. Ward, 1993. “An Ecosystem Perspective of Alluvial 

Rivers: Connectivity and the Hyporheic Corridor,” J. No. Am. Benthol. Soc., 

12(1): 48-60. 

Stanford, J.A., E.B. Snyder, M.N. Lorang, D.C. Whited, P.L. Matson, and 

J.L. Chaffin, 2002. The Reaches Project: Ecological and Geomorphic Studies 

Supporting Normative Flows in the Yakima River Basin, Washington. Final 

Report to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Yakima 

Office, WA, and Yakama Nation, Toppenish WA. BPA Report No. DOE/BP00005854-1, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland OR. 

Stanford, J.A., J.V. Ward, W.J. Liss, C.A. Frissell, R.N. Williams, 

J.A. Lichatowich, and C.C. Coutant, 1996. “A General Protocol for Restoration 

of Regulated Rivers,” Regulated Rivers, 12: 391-413. 

Statzner, B., J.A. Gore, and V.H. Resh, 1988. “Hydraulic Stream Ecology: 

Observed Patterns and Potential Applications,” Journal of the North American 

Benthological Society, vol. 7(4), pp. 307-360. 

R-36 
References 

Stella, J., and Stillwater Sciences, 2006. “Restoring Recruitment Processes for 

Riparian Cottonwoods and Willows: A Field-Calibrated Predictive Model for the 

Lower San Joaquin Basin.” CALFED Bay-Delta Ecosystem Restoration 

Program, Sacramento CA; Berkeley CA. 

Stephenson, J., 2007. Personal communication. Yakama Nation Wildlife, 

Vegetation, and Range Programs. 

Stillwater Sciences, 2001. Merced River Restoration Baseline Studies, Volume II: 

Geomorphic and Riparian Vegetation Investigations Report. Final report. 

Merced River Technical Advisory Committee, Berkeley CA. 

Stinson, D.W., J.W. Watson, and K.R. McAllister, 2001. “Washington State 

Status Report for the Bald Eagle.” Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 

Olympia WA. 

Stinson, D.W., D.W. Hays, and M.A. Schroeder, 2004. Washington State 

Recovery Plan for the Greater Sage-Grouse. Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Olympia WA, 109 pp. 

Sullivan, K., D.J. Martin, R.K. Cardwell, J.E. Toll, and S. Duke, 2000. “An 

Analysis of the Effects of Temperature on Salmonids of the Pacific Northwest 

with Implications for Selecting Temperature Criteria.” Sustainable Ecosystems 

Institute, Portland OR, 192 pp. 

Suren, A.M., B.J.F. Biggs, M.J. Duncan, L. Bergey, and P. Lambert, 2003. 

“Benthic Community Dynamics During Summer Low-Flows in Two Rivers of 

Contrasting Enrichment Invertebrates,” New Zealand Journal of Marine and 

Freshwater Research, vol. 37, pp. 71-83. 

Swanson, D., and T. Wright, 1978. “Bedrock Geology of the Northern Columbia 

Plateau and Adjacent Areas,” The Channeled Scablands – A Guide to the 

Geomorphology of the Columbia Plateau, Washington, pp. 37-57. V. Baker and 

D. Nummedal, editors. NASA Office of Space Science, Planetary Geology 

Program, Washington DC. 

Sweeney, B.W., and R.L. Vannote, 1986. “Growth and Production of a Stream 

Stonefly: Influences of Diet and Temperature,” Ecology, 67(5): 1396-1410. 

Tadzhieva, V.S., Z.M. Khaidarova, S.A. Zainiev, Z.A. Galina, V.V. Atarskaya, 

and M.S. Muminov, 1979. “Formation of a Focus of Mass Mosquito Breeding in 

Arnasaisk - Lowering of the Uzbek SSR,” Communication I. Med. Parasitol. 

Parasit. Bolezn., 48(2):46-50 (in Russian with English abstract). 

R-37 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Thomas, J., and K. Bovee, 2007. Personal communication. Separate 

conversations with Jeff Thomas, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Ken Bovee, 

October 2007. Subject: Methodology Used to Determine the Critical Passage 

Criteria of Bull Trout Spawners from Kachess, Keechelus and Rimrock 

Reservoirs into their Spawning Tributaries. 

Trepanier, S., M.A. Rodriguez, and P. Magnan, 1996. “Spawning Migrations in 

Landlocked Atlantic Salmon: Time Service Modeling of River Discharge and 

Water Temperature Effects,” Journal of Fish Biology, 48: 925-936. 

Tri-County Water Resource Agency, 2002. “Chapter 2, Existing Conditions.” 

Watershed Plan Document, Yakima River Basin. 

Trumbull, J.W., 2007. Personal communication. October 9, 2007. Manager 

Industry and Public Projects, Union Pacific Railroad. 

Trush, B., S. McBain, and L. Leopold, 2000. “Attributes of an Alluvial River and 

their Relation to Water Policy and Management,” Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences, 97, 11858-11863. 

Tsukamoto, G., 2000. The Rattlesnake Hills (Hanford) Elk Strategic 

Management Plan. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia WA, 

34 pp. 

University of Washington, 2006. Columbia River DART Web site. Accessed 

online at: http://www.cbr.washington.edu/dart/dart/html. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1978. Yakima Valley Regional Water 

Management Study. Volumes 1-4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle 

District, Seattle WA. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1991. National Economic Development 

Procedures Manual: Overview Manual for Conducting National Economic 

Development Analysis. Water Resources Support Center, Institute for Water 

Resources, IWR Report 91-R-11, October 1991. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1999. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1999 Total 

Dissolved Gas Monitoring - Colombia and Snake Rivers. U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, North Pacific Water Management Division, Reservoir Control Center 

Water Quality Section, February 2000, Portland OR. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Northwest Division, 2003. U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers Dissolved Gas and Water Temperature Monitoring Report, Columbia 

Basin. North Pacific Water Management Division, Reservoir Control Center 

Water Quality Unit, December 2003, Portland OR. 

R-38 
 

References 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. Accessed online at: http://factfinder.census.gov/. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, 2006. Local Area Personal Income. Tables 

CA1-3, CA25, and CA45. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic 

Analysis, Accessed online September 27, 2007 at: http://www.bea.gov/ 

bea/regional/reis/ 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1991. The Noise 

Guidebook. Office of Communications, Planning and Development. 

U.S. Forest Service, 2005. Personal communication with recreation staff at 

Cle Elum and Naches Ranger Districtts. 

USGS, 1991. Water Resources Data. Washington. 

USGS, 1996. Water Quality in the Central Columbia Plateau, Washington and 

Idaho, 1992-95. By Alex K. Williamson, Mark D. Munn, Sarah J. Ryker, Richard 

J. Wagner, James C. Ebbert, and Ann M. Vanderpool. 

USGS, 1997. Nitrate Concentrations in Ground Water of the Central Columbia 

Plateau. USGS Open File Report 94-445. 

USGS, 2008. Stream Network and Stream Segment Temperature Models 

Software. October 2007. U.S. Geological Survey. Accessed online at: 

http://www.fort.usgs.gov/Products/Software/SNTEMP/. 

U.S. Water Resources Council, 1983. Economic and Environmental Principles 

and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies. 

March 10, 1983. 

Vaccaro, J.J., 1986. Simulation of Streamflow Temperatures in the Yakima River 

Basin, Washington, April-October, 1981. U.S. Geological Survey Water 

Resources Investigations Report 85-4232, Tacoma WA. 

Vaccaro, J.J., and S.S. Sumioka, 2006. Estimates of Ground-Water Pumpage 

from the Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington, 1960-2000. 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5205, 56 pp. 

Vaccaro, J.J., and T.D. Olsen, 2007. Estimates of Ground-Water Recharge to the 

Yakima River Basin Aquifer System, Washington, for Predevelopment and 

Current Land-Use and Land-Cover Conditions. U.S. Geological Survey 

Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5007, 30 pp. 

R-39 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Vander Haegen, W.M., M.A. Schroeder, S.S. Germaine, S.D. West, and 

R.A. Gitzen, 2004. Wildlife on Conservation Reserve Program Lands and Native 

Shrub Steppe in Washington: Progress Report for 2004. Washington Department 

of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia WA, 51 pp. 

Voss, F.D., C.A. Curran, and M.C. Mastin, 2007. “Modeling Water Temperature 

in the Yakima River, Washington, from Roza Dam to Prosser Dam.” Draft. 

U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007-xxxx, 45 pp. 

Walker, B.L. et al., 2007. “West Nile Virus and Greater Sage Grouse: Estimating 

Infection Rate in a Wild Bird Population,” Avian Disease, 51:000-000, 2007. 

Ward, J.V., 1976. “Effect of Flow Patterns Below Large Dams on Stream 

Benthos: A Review,” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, vol. 2. 

J.R. Osborn and C.H. Allman, editors. Instream Flow Needs Symposium, 

Bethesda MD. 

Ward, J.V., K. Tockner, U. Uehlinger, and F. Malard, 2001. “Understanding 

Natural Patterns and Processes in River Corridors as the Basis for Effective River 

Restoration,” Regulated Rivers: Research & Management, 17, 311-323. 

Washington Department of Game, 1981. “Yakima River Basin Water 

Enhancement Project - Fish and Wildlife Problems and Needs.” pp. 19. Prepared 

for the Bureau of Reclamation. 

Washington Department of Natural Resources, Washington Natural Heritage 

Program, and U.S. Department of the Interior - Bureau of Land Management, 

1997. Eriogonum codium. Umtanum Desert Buckwheat. Accessed online at: 

http://www.wa.gov/dnr/htdocs/fr/nhp/refdesk/fguide/pdf/erco.pdf. 

Washington State Department of Health. 2002. Washington State MosquitoBorne Disease Response Plan. Accessed online at: www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/ts/ 

zoo/wnv/wnv.html. 

Washington State Department of Transportation, 1997. “Railroads Active in 

Washington State, at 1:24,000.” ArcInfo Coverage, GIS Implementation Team, 

Olympia, Washington. 

Water Quality Research Group, 2007. CE-QUAL-W2 Hydrodynamic and Water 

Quality Model. October 2007. Accessed online at: http://www.ce.pdx.edu/w2/. 

Waters, T.F., 1982. “Annual Production by a Stream Brook Charr Population and 

by its Principal Invertebrate Food,” Environmental Biology of Fishes, vol. 7(2), 

pp. 165-170. 

R-40 
References 

Waters, T.F., 1995. “Sediment in Streams: Sources, Biological Effects and 

Controls.” American Fisheries Society Monograph 7, Bethesda MD. 

Watson, J.W., and D.J. Pierce, 2000. Migration and Winter Ranges of 

Ferruginous Hawks from Washington – Annual Report. Washington Department 

of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia WA. 

WDFW, 1995. Washington State Recovery Plan for the Pygmy Rabbit - Wildlife 

Management Program. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia 

WA, 73 pp. 

WDFW, 1998. Salmonid Stock Inventory. Appendix: Bull Trout and Dolly 

Varden. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia WA. 

Welch, D., and G. Haas, 2007. Recreation Demand and User Preference 

Analysis. Yakima River Basin Storage Feasibility Study, Washington. Bureau of 

Reclamation, Technical Services Center, Denver CO. 

Welcomme, R.L., 1992. “River Conservation: Future Prospects.” P.J. Boon, 

R. Calow, and G.E. Petts, editors, River Conservation and Management. 

pp. 454-462. John Wiley and Sons, New York NY. 

Western Regional Climate Center, 2007. Yakima WSO AP, Washington, Period 

of Record General Climate Summary - Temperature web page. Accessed online 

October 16, 2007, at: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliGCStT.pl?wa9465, 

updated September 17, 2007. Accessed October 16, 2007. 

Wetzel, R.G., 1990. “Reservoir Ecosystems: Conclusions and Speculations.” 

K.W. Thornton, B.L. Kimmel, and F.E. Payne, editors, Reservoir Limnology - 

Ecological Perspectives. pp. 227-238. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 

Whiteman, K.J., J.J. Vaccaro, J.B. Gonthier, and H.H. Bauer, 1994. 

Hydrogeologic Framework and Geochemistry of the Columbia Plateau 

Regional Aquifer System, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. USGS Professional 

Paper 1413-B, 73 p. 

WHO, 2000. Human Health and Dams. World Health Organization, 

WHO/SDE/WSH/00.01. 

Willey, Z., and A. Diamant, 1994. Restoring the Yakima River's Environment: 

Water Marketing and Instream Flow Enhancement in Washington's Yakima River 

Basin. Environmental Defense Fund, March 1994. 

Williams, D.D., A. Tavares-Cromar, D.J. Kushner, and J.R. Coleman, 1993. 

“Colonization Patterns and Life-History Dynamics of Culex Mosquitoes in 

Artificial Ponds of Different Character,” Can. J. Zool., 71:568-578. 

R-41 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Williams, D.D., and H.B.N. Hynes, 1977. “The Ecology of Temporary 

Streams II: General Remarks on Temporary Streams,” Internationale Revue des 

gesampten- Hydrobiologie, 62: 53-61. 

Williams, G.W., and O. Capps, Jr., 2005. An Assessment of Future Markets for 

Crops Grown Along the Columbia River: Economic Implications of Increases in 

Production Resulting from New Agricultural Water Rights Under the Columbia 

River Initiative. September 2005. 

Williamson, A.K., M.D. Munn, S.J. Ryker, R.J. Wagner, J.C. Ebbert, and 

A.M. Vanderpool, 1998. Water Quality in the Central Columbia Plateau, 

Washington and Idaho, 1992-95. USGS Circular 1144. 

Wilzbach, M.A., K.W. Cummins, and J.D. Hall, 1986. “Influence of Habitat 

Manipulations on Interactions Between Cutthroat Trout and Invertebrate Drift,” 

Ecology, vol. 67(4), pp. 898-911. 

Wissmar, R.C., J.E. Smith, B.A. McIntosh, H.W. Li, G.H. Reeves, and 

J.R. Sedell, 1994. “A History of Resource Use and Disturbance in Riverine 

Basins of Eastern Oregon and Washington (early 1800s - 1900s),” Northwest 

Science, 68. 

Wissmar, R.C., and S.D. Craig, 1998. “Factors Affecting Bull Trout Spawning 

Activity and Habitat Selection in an Altered Headwater Stream.” Unpublished 

manuscript. 

Wood, A.W., E.P. Maurer, A. Kumar, and D.P. Lettenmaier, 2002. “Long-Range 

Experimental Hydrologic Forecasting for the Eastern United States,” 

J. Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 107(D20), 4429. 

Wood, A.W., L.R. Leung, V. Sridhar, and D.P. Lettenmaier, 2004. “Hydrologic 

Implications of Dynamical and Statistical Approaches to Downscaling Climate 

Model Outputs,” Climatic Change, 15(62):189-216. 

Wydoski, R.S., and R.R. Whitney, 2003. Inland Fishes of Washington. 

University of Washington Press, Seattle WA and London UK. 

Yakama Nation, 2006. Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project Monitoring and 

Evaluation. The Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Project 

1995-063-25, Contract No. 0022449, July 20, 2006. 

Yakima County, 1997. Plan 2015. Accessed online at: 

http://www.co.yakima.wa.us/publicservices/2015.htm. 

Yakima County, 1998a. Plan 2015. Accessed online at: 

http://www.co.yakima.wa.us/publicservices/2015.htm. 

R-42 
References 

Yakima County, 1998b. Zoning map. Accessed online at: http://yakimap.com/ 

servlet/com.esri.esrimap.Esrimap?name=YakGISH&Cmd=Map. 

Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority, 2007. Personal communication. Yakima 

Regional Clean Air Authority. 

Yakima River Basin Conservation Advisory Group, 1998. Basin Conservation 

Plan for the Yakima River Basin Water Conservation Program. Prepared for the 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. 

Yakima River Basin Watershed Planning Unit and Tri-County Water Resources 

Agency, 2001. Watershed Assessment, Yakima River Basin. Prepared by 

Economic and Engineering Services, Inc., Yakima WA. 

Yakima River Basin Watershed Planning Unit and Tri-County Water Resources 

Agency, 2003. Watershed Management Plan - Yakima River Basin. Prepared by 

Economic and Engineering Services, Inc., in association with Montgomery Water 

Group, Inc., R. C. Bain and Associates, and McKenzie Consulting. Funded by 

grant No. G0900288 and G0200298, provided by Washington State Department 

of Ecology. 

Yakima River Watershed Council, 1996. State of the Water Resources of the 

Yakima River Basin. July 1996, Yakima WA. 

Yakima River Watershed Council, 1997. “A 20/20 Vision for a Viable Future of 

the Water Resource of the Yakima River Basin.” Draft. Yakima WA. 

Yakima Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Planning Board, 2004. Yakima Subbasin 

Plan and Supplement – Final Plan. Yakima Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Planning 

Board. Prepared for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, Yakima 

WA. 

Yakima Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Planning Board, 2005. “Draft Yakima 

Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan.” 

Yakima Valley Visitors and Convention Bureau, 2005. Yakima Valley Visitors 

Guide. 

YBSA, 2007. Recreation & Economic Development Analysis of Lands Around 

Black Rock Reservoir. Yakima Basin Storage Alliance. 

Ye-Ebiyo, Y., R.J. Pollack, A. Kiszewski, and A. Spielman, 2003. “Enhancement 

of Development of Larval Anopheles Arabiensis by Proximity to Flowering Maize 

(Zea mays) in Turbid Water and When Crowded,” Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg., 

68(6):748-752. 

R-43 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Young, M.K., K. Haire, and M. Bozek, 1994. “The Effect and Extent of Railroad 

Tie Drives in Streams of Southeastern Wyoming,” Western Journal of Applied 

Forestry, 9(4): 125-130 

Yount, J.D., and G.J. Niemi, 1990. “Recovery of Lotic Communities and 

Ecosystems from Disturbance—A Narrative Review of Case Studies,” 

Environmental Management, vol. 14(5), pp. 547-569. 

Zuroske, M., 2005. “Water Quality of Small Irrigation Return Drains to the 

Lower Yakima River, 2003 Irrigation Season.” Draft report. South Yakima 

Conservation District, Sunnyside WA. 

Zuroske, M., 2007. “Lower Yakima River Eutrophication Study: 2005 in 

Review.” Draft report, February 7, 2007, South Yakima Conservation District, 

Sunnyside WA. 

Zuroske, M., 2007. “Macrophyte Survey in the Yakima River near Kiona, August 

2005 and September 2006.” Draft report, January 30, 2007, South Yakima 

Conservation District, Sunnyside WA. 

R-44 
GLOSSARY
 
GLOSSARY 

accretion The return flow to the stream from surface recharge. 

Acquavella A Yakima River basin water adjudication court case 

in Yakima County Superior Court. 

adjudication The judicial process through which the existence of a 

water right is confirmed by court decree. 

acre-foot The volume of water that could cover one acre to a 

depth of 1 foot. Equivalent to 43,560 cubic feet or 

325,851 gallons. 

active capacity The reservoir capacity or quantity of water which lies 

above the inactive reservoir capacity and is normally 

usable for storage and regulation of reservoir inflow 

to meet established reservoir operating requirements. 

active recovery When the recharged groundwater is subsequently 

recovered by pumping the water back out. 

adfluvial spawner Fish that spawn in tributaries and, as adults, reside in 

lakes. 

alluvial Composed of clay, silt, sand, gravel, or similar 

material deposited by running water. 

anadromous Fish that migrate from salt water to freshwater to 

breed. Going up rivers to spawn. 

antecedent flood A flood or series of floods assumed to occur prior to 

the occurrence of an inflow flood used to design a 

specific dam. 

anticline A geologic fold that is convex upward. 

appraisal-level design Designs based on limited analyses, available design 

data, and professional assumptions, but of sufficient 

detail to provide satisfactory quantities and 

preliminary field cost estimates. 

appurtenant An accompanying part of feature of something; 

accessory. 

GL-1 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

aquatic biota Collective term describing the organisms living in or 

depending on the aquatic environment. 

aquifer A water-bearing stratum of permeable rock, sand, or 

gravel. 

aquifer storage and 

recovery 

A system that injects potable water via wells into 

aquifers during periods of excess capacity and 

withdraw the water for municipal supply during 

periods of peak demand or limited supply. 

aquitard A geologic unit that restricts the movement of 

groundwater. 

average water supply 

year 

A water supply in the Yakima River basin between 

2,250,000 and 3,250,000 acre-feet. 

bank-full The water level, or stage, at which a stream or river is 

at the top of its banks and any further rise would 

result in water moving into the flood plain. 

bathymetric The study of surfaces under water, such as a river or 

lake floor. 

benthic Relating to the bottom of a sea or lake or to the 

organisms that live there. 

Biology Technical Work 

Group 

A biologist work group consisting of technical 

representatives from NOAA Fisheries, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Washington Department of Ecology, the 

Yakama Nation, Yakima Basin Joint Board, Yakima 

Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Planning, and 

Reclamation’s Upper Columbia Area Office and 

Technical Service Center. 

Black Rock Summary 

Report 

Summary Report, Appraisal Assessment of the Black 

Rock Alternative (Reclamation, December 2004). 

cfs Flow rate in cubic feet per second. 

connectivity The relationship between groundwater and surface 

water. 

GL-2 
Glossary 

cumulative effect For NEPA purposes, these are impacts to the 

environment that result from the incremental impact 

of the action when added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of 

what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person 

undertakes such action. 

de minimis Latin term for “of minimum importance” or “trifling.” 

direct injection with 

passive recovery 

Potable water that is injected into an aquifer during 

periods of excess capacity and allowed to become 

part of the natural groundwater system and flow to 

natural discharge areas (i.e., streams or springs). 

dry water year A water supply in the Yakima River basin less than 

2,250,000 acre-feet. 

Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology 

emergence Refers to the fry lifestage of the salmon when they 

swim up through the substrate from their incubation 

nest (redd) to live along the stream edge. 

endangered species A species that is in danger of extinction throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range. To term a run 

of salmon “endangered” is to say that particular run is 

in danger of extinction. 

entrained The act of a juvenile fish entering, either passively or 

actively, a diversion canal at the point of diversion 

from a stream or entering a pumping plant canal. 

Environmental Justice Environmental Justice is the fair treatment of people 

of all races and incomes with respect to actions 

affecting the environment. Fair treatment implies that 

there is equity of the distribution of benefits and risks 

associated with a proposed project, and that one 

group does not suffer disproportionate adverse 

affects. 

Environmental Quality 

account (EQ) 

An account that measures the degree to which the 

alternative would affect the quality of the natural and 

cultural resources and ecological systems of the area. 

GL-3 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

escapement The act of adult salmon and steelhead successfully 

arriving at their spawning areas by avoiding harvest 

and predation 

ethnographic Relating to the branch of anthropology that deals 

historically with the origin and filiation of races and 

cultures. 

fingerling A juvenile fish during its first summer after 

emergence, usually under 3 inches long (see also fry 

and smolt). 

flip-flop An operational action in the upper Yakima River 

basin in late summer to encourage anadromous 

salmon to spawn at lower river state levels so that the 

flows required to keep the redds watered and 

protected during the subsequent incubation period are 

minimized. 

flow The volume of water passing a given point per unit of 

time. 

flow objectives The desired monthly streamflow used to guide 

RiverWare model operation criteria. Also used to 

evaluate alternative performance in terms of how 

closely they meet the desired monthly streamflow. 

fluvial spawner Fish that spawn in tributaries and, as adults, reside in 

rivers. 

freed-up Yakima River 

water 

Yakima River water currently used by potential 

exchange participants that would not be diverted by 

those participants, but would instead be used for 

instream flow, dry-year proratable irrigation water 

rights, and future municipal supply needs. 

freshet A great rise or overflowing of a stream caused by 

heavy rains or snowmelt. 

fry The life stage of fish between the egg and fingerling 

stages. Depending on the fish species, fry can 

measure from a few millimeters to a few centimeters 

in length (see also fingerling and smolt). 

GL-4 
Glossary 

habitat The combination of resources and the environmental 

conditions that promotes occupancy by individuals of 

a give species and allows those individuals to survive 

and reproduce. 

Hanford reach Columbia River reach extending from 15 miles 

upstream from the mouth of the Yakima River to 

Priest Rapids Dam. 

historic property Any building, site, district, structure, or object (that 

has archeological or cultural significance) included 

in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register. 

hydraulic conductivity The rate at which the water can move through an 

aquifer. 

hydraulic grade line The surface or profile of water flowing out of 

hydraulic gradient; the slope of the hydraulic grade 

line is under pressure; the hydraulic grade line is the 

actual level to which water would rise in a small 

vertical tube connected to the pipe. 

hydraulic gradient The slope of the surface of open or underground 

water. 

Hyd-Sim The Bonneville Power Authority computer model 

used as the hydrologic basis for the 2000 Biological 

Opinion; it includes the significant United States 

Federal and non-Federal dams and the major 

Canadian projects on the main stem Columbia River 

and its major tributaries. 

hyporheic invertebrates Aquatic insects that complete all or a portion of their 

lifecycle beneath the riverbed. 

in situ With reference to cultural resources, an object, 

feature or strata situated in its original, meaningful 

depositional context; undisturbed. 

inactive capacity the reservoir capacity or quantity of water which lies 

beneath the active reservoir capacity and is normally 

unavailable for withdrawal because of operating 

agreements or physical constraints. 

GL-5 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Indian sacred site A specific, discrete, narrowly delineated location on 

Federal land that is identified by an Indian Tribe, or 

Indian individual determined to be an appropriately 

authoritative representative of an Indian religion, as 

sacred by virtue of its established religious 

significance to, or ceremonial use by, an Indian 

religion. 

Indian trust assets (ITA) ITAs are legal interests in property held in trust by the 

United States for Indian Tribes or individuals. They 

are rights that were reserved by or granted to 

American Indian (Indian) Tribes or Indian individuals 

by treaties, statutes, and executive orders. These 

rights are sometimes further interpreted through court 

decisions and regulations. 

instream flows Water flows for designated uses within a defined 

stream channel, such as minimum flows for fish, 

wildlife, recreation, or aesthetics. 

integrated alternative An alternative after it has been added to the No 

Action Alternative (existing Yakima Project plus 

YRBWEP conservation measures) for operation, 

maintenance, and management. 

interbed Term given to the sediments deposited between basalt 

flows in the Columbia Plateau Basalt Group. 

interflow Term given to the zone where most of the lateral 

groundwater flow occurs in the Columbia River 

basalts. Consists of a combination of the permeable 

bottom of one basalt flow and the adjacent flow top of 

the underlying basalt flow. 

k Hydraulic conductivity. 

Kh Horizontal hydraulic conductivity 

liquefaction A loss of material strength during earthquake shaking 

that can result in large areas of slope failure or 

settlement of the ground surface. 

littoral zone The area between the high and low water marks. 

GL-6 
Glossary 

metamorphic rock Refers to rocks that have changed in form from their 

original rock type (sedimentary or igneous) in 

response to extreme changes in temperature, pressure 

or chemical environment. For example: limestone 

into marble. 

million acre-feet The volume of water that could cover 1 million acres 

to a depth of 1 foot. 

National Economic An account that measures how the alternative would 

Development account yield positive changes in the economic value of the 

(NED) national output of goods and services. 

natural (unregulated) The flow regime of a stream as it would occur prior to 

flows development, that is, the predevelopment landscape, 

with a flow regime similar to that defined for 

unregulated flows. 

natural flow River flow that originates from a source other than 

reservoir storage. 

nonprorated water rights Pre-Yakima Project senior water rights related to 

natural flows that are served first and cannot be 

reduced until all the proratable rights are regulated to 

zero. 

normative flows Flows that mimic the natural frequency, duration, and 

magnitude in the rise and fall of the river stage to the 

greatest extent possible given the cultural, legal, and 

operational constraints associated with river basin 

development. 

oligotrophic Lacking plant nutrients and usually containing 

plentiful amounts of dissolved oxygen without 

stratification. 

operation criteria Rules used in the RiverWare model specific to each 

alternative that dictate how Yakima basin flow is used 

to address irrigation and instream flow objectives 

Other Social Effects An account that measures the extent and magnitude to 

account (OSE) which the alternative would affect the quality of life 

and social well-being in the area. 

overburden A thick deposit of sediments overlying bedrock. 

GL-7 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

passerine Of or relating to the largest order of birds, which 

includes over half of all living birds and consists 

chiefly of songbirds of perching habitats. 

passive recovery Recharging water (placing water in) the aquifer 

system and allowing it to become part of the natural 

groundwater system and flow to natural discharge 

areas (i.e., streams or springs). The water is 

“recovered” when it reaches the stream and is 

available for instream or out-of-stream uses. 

phreatic Free-standing water level; surface water level. 

Principles and Economic and Environmental Principles and 

Guidelines (P&Gs) Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources 

Implementation Studies. 

prorated water rights Newer junior water rights related to storage water 

that, in water short years, receive less than their full 

right on a prorated basis. 

Reclamation U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Reclamation. 

redd The nest that a spawning female salmon digs in 

gravel to deposit her eggs. 

Regional Economic An account that measures the degree to which the 

Development account alternative would affect the region’s income, 

(RED) employment, population, economic base, and social 

development. 

riparian Relating to, living in, or located on a water course. 

RiverWare (Yak-RW) Yakima Project RiverWare model; a daily time-step 

reservoir and river operation computer model of the 

Yakima Project created with the RiverWare software. 

Roza Division Division of Yakima Project comprised of Roza 

Irrigation District. 

Roza Powerplant The existing powerplant located at Roza Canal mile 

post 11. 

sediment Any very finely divided organic or mineral matter 

deposited by water in nonturbulent areas. 

GL-8 
Glossary 

shoal A place where the water of a sea, lake, river, pond, 

etc., is shallow; a shallow. 

shrub-steppe A vegetation type consisting of a mix of woody 

shrubs, grasses, and forbs, generally dominated by 

Wyoming big sagebrush and blue bunch wheatgrass. 

slopewash Soil and rock material that has moved downslope, 

assisted by running water that is not channelized. 

smolt Adolescent salmon or steelhead that are undergoing 

changes preparatory for living in salt water. Usually 

3 to 7 inches long (see also fry and fingerling). 

spawner Adult salmon that has left the ocean and entered a 

river to spawn. 

specific yield The potential storage in an unconfined aquifer 

Storage Study Yakima River Basin Water Storage Feasibility Study; 

a multiyear evaluation of the viability and 

acceptability of several storage augmentation 

alternatives, including a potential water exchange, for 

the benefit of fish, irrigation, and municipal water 

supply within the Yakima River basin. 

Storage Study Technical A fisheries biologist work group formed to assist on 

Work Group (SSTWG) fishery technical matters related to the Storage Study. 

storage water Water that has been stored and purposefully released. 

storativity The potential storage in a confined aquifer 

Stream Depletion Factor The time when 28 percent of the recharge has accrued 

(SDF) to the stream (Jenkins, 1968) 

Sunnyside Division A division of Yakima Project comprised of Sunnyside 

Valley Irrigation District and eight other irrigation 

districts, companies, and cities. 

surface recharge with Diverting and infiltrating surface water into a 

passive recovery recharge basin during periods of high streamflow and 

allowing it to discharge naturally back to a stream. 

GL-9 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

System Operations Committee comprised of the Yakima Basin Joint 

Advisory Committee Board, Yakama Nation, Washington State 

(SOAC) Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

target flows Flows quantified in Title XII of the Act of October 

31, 1994, for two points in the Yakima basin 

(Sunnyside and Prosser Diversion Dams) 

taxa A grouping of animals or plants that share a common 

set of physical and/or life history characteristics. 

terrestrial Of or relating to land as distinct from air or water. 

thalweg The thalweg is a line drawn along the entire length of 

a streambed that defines the deepest part of the river 

channel. The thalweg is almost always the line of 

fastest flow in any river. 

threatened species A species that is likely to become endangered within 

the foreseeable future. 

Title XII target flows Specific instream target flows established for Yakima 

project operations at Sunnyside and Prosser Diversion 

Dams by Title XII of the Act of October 31, 1994 

(Public Law 103-464) 

toe plinth A concrete pedestal or footing located beneath the 

base of a dam’s concrete face. 

total capacity The total reservoir capacity or quantity of water 

which can be impounded in the reservoir below the 

maximum water surface elevation. 

Total Water Supply The total water supply available for the Yakima River 

Available (TWSA) basin above the Parker gage for the period April 

through September. 

Traditional Cultural A property “that is eligible for inclusion in the 

Property (TCP) National Register because of its association with 

cultural practices or beliefs of a living community 

that (a) are rooted in the community’s history, and (b) 

are important in maintaining the continuing cultural 

identity of the community” (Parker and King, 1998). 

GL-10 
transmissivity 

ungulate 

unregulated flows 

vesicular basaltic rock 

viremic 

wasteway 

water year 

watershed 

wet water year 

wetland 

Yakima Alternatives 

Appraisal Assessment 

Yakima fold belt 

Glossary 

The product of the thickness of the aquifer unit and 

the hydraulic conductivity. 

A four-legged, hoofed animal. 

The flow regime of a stream as it would occur under 

completely natural conditions; that is, not subjected to 

modification by reservoirs, diversions, or other 

human works. 

Rock that contains many small holes or cavities 

formed as the rock solidifies. 

The presence of viruses in the blood. 

A channel for conveying or discharging excess water. 

The 12-month period from October through 

September. The water year is designated by the 

calendar year in which it ends and which includes 9 

of the 12 months. For example, the year ending 

September 30, 1992 is called the “1992 water year.” 

The total land area draining to any point in a stream. 

A water supply in the Yakima River basin greater 

than 3,250,000 acre-feet. 

Generally, an area characterized by periodic 

inundation or saturation, hydric soils, and vegetation 

adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. 

Yakima River Basin Storage Alternatives Appraisal 

Assessment (May 2006). 

One of three informally designated physiographic 

subprovinces of the Columbia Plateau. Consists of 

northwest-southeast-trending ridges (anticlines) 

separated by broad, flat valleys (synclines) that were 

folded and faulted under north-south compression. 

GL-11 
Attachment 

SECTION IV, “RECOMMENDATIONS,” 

OF THE YAKIMA RIVER BASIN 

WATER STORAGE FEASIBILITY STUDY 

FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT REPORT 

AND RECLAMATION’S RESPONSES 
ATTACHMENT 

This attachment includes Section IV, “Recommendations,” of the Yakima River 

Basin Water Storage Feasibility Study Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report 

(CAR), October 10, 2007, prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Upper 

Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office, Spokane, Washington, and Reclamation’s 

responses to the CAR recommendations 

The CAR discusses the Joint Alternatives with respect to the environment and 

offers recommendations from the Service regarding mitigating impacts to the 

environment. 

The entire CAR report is available on the Storage Study Web site: 

http://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/storage_study/index.html 

IV. RECOMMENDATIONS 

During the process of formulating recommendations to mitigate for potential 

impacts associated with Reclamation’s three proposed action alternatives 

described in this CAR, the Service relies on established Mitigation Policy 

(FWS Manual, 501 FW 2) (Policy). In accordance with this policy, the definition 

of mitigation includes: a) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain 

action or parts of an action; b) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or 

magnitude of the action and its implementation; c) rectifying the impact by 

repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; d) reducing or 

eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations 

during the life of the action; and e) compensating for the impact by replacing or 

providing substitute resources or environments (40 CFR Part 1508.20(a-e)). The 

Service has also considered its responsibilities under Endangered Species Act, 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald Eagle Protection Act, and the National 

Environmental Policy Act (USFWS 1981). 

The Service has numerous concerns regarding adverse effects to fish and wildlife 

resources associated with Reclamation’s three action alternatives. Among these 

concerns are: (1) the continuing and cumulative loss of shrub-steppe habitat; 

(2) fragmentation and degradation of remaining upland habitat through 

introduction of non-native invasive plants; (3) likely development of the area 

(suitable for building) adjacent to the proposed reservoir sites (e.g., water based 

recreation facilities, access roads, housing); (4) increased fire danger associated 

with increased human use; (5) disruption of established migratory corridors for 

large and small mammals and other wildlife, especially the greater sage grouse, 

through the formation of barriers to wildlife movement, both during and after 

construction of the proposed facilities (e.g., large bodies of water, pipelines, 

access roads, construction activities); (6) disturbance of nesting migratory birds 

A-1 
 

 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

during construction and subsequent use of the proposed facilities; (7) Flow 

alteration in the Yakima River may change fish species composition; and 

(8) Augmentation of flows in the Yakima River utilizing Columbia River water 

may alter spawning behavior in bull trout. 

The Service considers shrub-steppe habitat as meeting the criteria of Resource 

Category 2, that is; “The habitat to be impacted is of high value for evaluation 

species and is scarce or becoming scarce on a national basis or in the ecoregion 

section.” Thus the Service’s mitigation goal for this habitat type is “No net loss 

of in-kind habitat value.” Furthermore, the Service “will recommend ways to 

avoid or minimize losses . . .” (USFWS 1981). Shrub-steppe habitat within the 

Black Rock valley, Rattlesnake Hills and Yakima Training center have been 

identified by the state of Washington as very important habitat for wildlife 

(Stinson et al. 2004, TNC 1999, WDFW 1996). 

IV-1) Service’s Recommended Alternative 

After careful consideration of fish and wildlife resources analyzed in the CAR, 

the Service has determined that the most limited and endangered resource is 

shrub-steppe. All action alternatives, if implemented, would impact this resource. 

For that reason, based on our review and evaluation of the information acquired 

during preparation of the CAR, particularly the significant loss and/or 

fragmentation of shrub-steppe habitat, the Service recommends that the “No 

Action” alternative be selected with the following qualification: The Service 

further recommends that water conservation measures continue to be explored and 

implemented as a means to increase the availability of water for native aquatic 

species in the Yakima River corridor. 

We recognize that there will likely be a net-loss of wetlands in the lower Basin as 

existing water delivery systems are made to be more efficient. To mitigate for 

any lost wetlands, the Service recommends that Reclamation consider 

reconnecting the floodplain and restore historic wetlands along the Yakima River. 

IV-2) Mitigation Recommendations: Action Alternatives 

If Reclamation proceeds with any of the three action alternatives, the Service 

recommends that the following mitigation measures be implemented: 

Aquatic 

•	 The following Service recommendations to avoid or mitigate potential 

adverse impacts or enhance these resources are based on current 

information about the proposed alternatives. If these alternatives are 

subsequently modified, the Service may modify recommendations as 

appropriate. 

A-2 
Attachment 

•	 In the accompanying Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), analyze 

additional alternatives. These would include, but are not limited to, the 

Keechelus Lake to Kachess Lake Pipeline, commonly referred to as the KK Pipeline. In addition, an analysis of aquifer storage and water banking 

should also be considered in the EIS. These alternatives have the potential 

for benefits to bull trout and resident fish. 

•	 Conduct Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) studies below 

Reclamation facilities to quantify changes in fish habitat resulting from the 

release of flow augmentation; compare results against existing model data. 

•	 Examine the effect of Black Rock or Wymer Reservoir flow releases on 

water quality in the Yakima River Basin. 

•	 Ensure Black Rock or Wymer Reservoir flow releases are compatible with 

migration, spawning, and rearing of resident fish that utilize the Yakima 

River Basin. 

•	 Investigate whether Columbia River water used for flow augmentation in 

the Yakima River Basin alters spawning behavior of anadromous fish, bull 

trout, and resident fish within the basin. 

•	 If the Black Rock or Wymer Reservoir is constructed, Reclamation should 

monitor flow augmentation releases from the reservoir and effects on 

riparian and wetland habitats in the Yakima River Basin. 

•	 Develop studies that examine the change in resident fish species 

distribution and abundance in the Yakima River Basin. 

•	 Maintain Yakima River Basin reservoirs at levels that enable adult bull 

trout to migrate into spawning tributaries. 

•	 Monitor entrainment of bull trout and resident fish in Yakima River Basin 

reservoirs and compare to flow augmentation regimes and accompanying 

reservoir levels. 

•	 Coordinate all bull trout and resident fish studies with the Service. 

Wildlife 

Wildlife Mitigation Common to the Three Action Alternatives 

•	 During construction, minimize or avoid all vegetation removal during 

avian nesting season to minimize the effect of the action on federally 

protected migratory birds. Typically nesting season in this part of 

Washington occurs between March and August each year. 

A-3 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

•	 Centralize any construction staging areas and locate them in areas that 

would provide minimal disturbance to wildlife and damage to shrubsteppe habitat. Existing degraded habitat may be the most suitable for this 

purpose. 

•	 Bury pipelines underground and restore native vegetation along the 

pipeline corridor. The Service would be willing to provide a list of native 

plants for this purpose. This measure would also require that Reclamation 

develop a vegetation maintenance and monitoring plan, performance 

criteria, and clear goals and objectives that would need to be met over a 

stipulated timeline, to ensure the success of this mitigation effort. 

•	 To compensate for the loss of shrub-steppe habitat, and also to ensure that 

residential, recreational and agricultural developments are compatible with 

Project resource mitigation objectives, an area equal to that lost to the 

project should be acquired around the periphery of the reservoir. Within 

the acquired land, agriculturally converted former shrub-steppe habitat and 

degraded shrub-steppe habitat should be fully restored. This would 

require a contiguous area of land for the purpose of providing habitat 

benefits for wildlife species displaced by the proposed action. The Service 

would be willing to assist Reclamation in identifying suitable sites as well 

as provide a list of native plants for this purpose. This measure would also 

require that Reclamation develop a vegetation maintenance and 

monitoring plan, performance criteria, and clear goals and objectives that 

would need to be met over a stipulated timeline, to ensure the success or 

this mitigation effort. 

•	 If a suitable area for shrub-steppe restoration cannot be found in the 

immediate project area, then another location will need to be selected in 

the Affected Area and evaluated in the CAR for the three action 

alternatives. If a suitable area for shrub-steppe restoration cannot be found 

in the Affected Area, then Reclamation should work with the Service to 

find a mutually agreeable location in the mid-Columbia area. 

•	 There are currently several state and federal agencies, as well several 

private organizations and public groups, that have signed a South Central 

Washington Shrub steppe/rangeland Conservation Partnership 

Memorandum of Understanding, which created a partnership dedicated to 

the protection and preservation of shrub-steppe habitat. Reclamation 

should work with that group to identify areas of shrub-steppe habitat that 

could be protected or restored as mitigation for any shrub-steppe lost 

during the creation of the selected reservoir. 

•	 Unregulated cattle grazing would continue to degrade wildlife habitat and 

would also impede development or enhancement of riparian, wetland, and 

upland habitats. Cattle should be excluded from all wildlife mitigation 

A-4 
Attachment 

lands including restored shrub-steppe habitats, created wetland/riparian 

habitats, and acquired mitigation lands. 

•	 Human activities may displace wildlife from high value habitats to less 

suitable habitat. New recreation facilities should be located away from 

important wildlife areas including wildlife mitigation lands. The Service 

would be willing to work with Reclamation to identify appropriate sites 

for new recreation facilities. 

•	 The Service recommends that Reclamation work with the Washington 

Natural Heritage Program to identify and protect any existing federal and 

state threatened and endangered candidate, federal species of concern, and 

state sensitive plant species and their associated habitats, that may occur 

within the Affected Area. 

Mitigation for each Action Alternative 

Black Rock Reservoir Site 

•	 Although there is currently limited wetland and riparian habitat identified 

within the Black Rock footprint, the creation of the reservoir could 

provide the potential for creation of at least low quality wetland and 

riparian habitats. This would attract species that utilize these habitats. 

Based on this, the Service recommends that Reclamation construct dikes 

in shallow water areas within the reservoir, and if necessary pump water 

into these areas to maintain adequate water levels for the production of 

wetland/riparian vegetation. The Service would be willing assist 

Reclamation in identifying suitable sites as well as provide a list of native 

plants for this purpose. The north boundary and upper end of the reservoir 

likely contain suitable sites for dike construction and wetland and riparian 

habitat development. This measure would also require that Reclamation 

develop a vegetation maintenance and monitoring plan, performance 

criteria, and clear goals and objectives that would need to be met over a 

stipulated timeline, to ensure the success of this mitigation effort. 

•	 Based on the significant loss of wildlife habitat that would occur with the 

creation of this reservoir, the Service recommends that Reclamation work 

to establish a wildlife management area adjacent to the reservoir in areas 

that would be able to provide suitable wildlife habitat. This would likely 

attract some replacement species associated with open waterbodies, such 

as shorebirds and waterfowl. The northern boundary of the Black Rock 

footprint falls near the southern end of the U.S. Army’s Yakima Training 

Center. Reclamation could inquire as to the availability of any lands that 

could be protected to further protect that adjacent area. 

A-5 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

•	 Based on the continuing loss, degradation and fragmentation of shrubsteppe habitat within eastern Washington, the Service recommends that 

Reclamation consider the construction of a smaller reservoir at this site, in 

order to reduce the amount of lost shrub-steppe habitat. 

•	 Although there are currently no existing trees or snags within the footprint 

of the Black Rock Reservoir, this site is an important area for several 

raptor species. The creation of the reservoir could bring in other raptor 

species (i.e. bald eagle, osprey), especially if a fishery were to be 

established. Large trees and snags are used by raptors and many other 

birds as perches for foraging and roosting. Artificial perches should be 

installed on selected areas adjacent to the new reservoir to provide perches 

for raptors. These structures would significantly enhance the habitat for 

raptors and other birds within the Black Rock Affected Area. The Service 

would be willing to work with Reclamation to identify appropriate sites 

and specifications for artificial perches. 

•	 Based on HEP analyses conducted within the potential Black Rock 

Reservoir footprint, the Service determined that 1692 average annual 

habitat units for the brewer’s sparrow would be lost if the reservoir were 

created. The Service recommends that Reclamation work to create, 

restore and/or protect the amount of shrub-steppe habitat that would lead 

to production of a similar number of habitat units, elsewhere within the 

Yakima River Basin. 

•	 Plant surveys should be conducted for Columbia milk-vetch (federal 

species of concern), prior to final selection of this alternative, in any 

habitats that are suitable for its existence within the Black Rock Reservoir 

Affected Area. The Service would be willing to assist Reclamation in the 

completion of plant surveys. 

•	 Protect any discovered populations of Columbia milk-vetch that are 

located adjacent to the Black Rock Reservoir from recreation, residential 

and agriculture field development, grazing, and invasion of non-native 

plants. Protection measures may include obtaining a conservation 

easement for the land containing the population or acquiring the land. 

The area could be fenced to exclude livestock and a weed control program 

developed to prevent invasion of non-native plants. 

Wymer Reservoir Site 

•	 The creation of a reservoir at the Wymer site would result in the loss of 

sixty acres of wetland, riparian and cottonwood forest habitat. Based on 

the loss of this habitat, the Service recommends that Reclamation design 

the new reservoir to include construction of dikes in shallow water areas 

within the reservoir, and if necessary pump water into these areas to 

A-6 
Attachment 

maintain adequate water levels for the production of wetland/riparian 

vegetation. If a similar number of acres cannot be replaced on site, 

Reclamation should replace the same number of wetland and riparian 

acres by identifying, creating or restoring similar habitats elsewhere in the 

Affected Area. The Service would be willing assist Reclamation in 

identifying suitable sites as well as provide a list of native plants for this 

purpose. The upper end of the reservoir likely contains suitable sites for 

dike construction and wetland and riparian habitat development. This 

measure would also require that Reclamation develop a vegetation 

maintenance and monitoring plan, performance criteria, and clear goals 

and objectives that would need to be met over a stipulated timeline, to 

ensure the success or this mitigation effort. 

•	 The creation of the Wymer Reservoir would result in the loss of existing 

large trees and snags within the footprint of the reservoir. Large trees and 

snags are used by raptors and many other birds as perches for foraging and 

roosting. Artificial perches should be installed on selected areas adjacent 

to the new reservoir to provide perches for bald eagles, osprey and other 

raptors. These structures would, in the short term, replace trees and snags 

that would be lost due to the creation of the Wymer Reservoir. The 

Service would be willing to work with Reclamation to identify appropriate 

sites and specifications for artificial perches. 

•	 Based on HEP analyses conducted within the potential Wymer Reservoir 

footprint, the Service determined that 378 average annual habitat units for 

the brewer’s sparrow would be lost if the reservoir were created. The 

Service recommends that Reclamation work to create, restore and/or 

protect the amount of shrub-steppe habitat that would lead to production 

of a similar number of habitat units, elsewhere within the Yakima River 

Basin. 

•	 Plant surveys should be conducted for the Sukdorf’s monkey-flower 

(federal species of concern), prior to final selection of this alternative, in 

any habitats that are suitable for its existence within the Wymer Reservoir 

Affected Area. The Service would be willing to work with Reclamation in 

completion of plant surveys. 

•	 Protect any discovered populations of Suksdorf’s monkey-flower that are 

located adjacent to the Wymer Reservoir from recreation, residential and 

agriculture field development, grazing, invasion of non-native plants and 

possible spray drift from adjacent agriculture fields. Protection measures 

may include obtaining a conservation easement for the land containing the 

population or acquiring the land. The area could be fenced to exclude 

livestock and a weed control program developed to prevent invasion of 

non-native plants. 

A-7 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

•	 Plant surveys should be conducted for basalt daisy (federal Candidate 

species), prior to final selection of this alternative, in any habitats that are 

suitable for its existence within the Wymer Reservoir Affected Area. The 

Service would be willing to work with Reclamation in completion of plant 

surveys. 

•	 Protect any basalt daisy populations, discovered during new surveys that 

are located adjacent to the Wymer Reservoir from recreation, residential 

and agriculture field development, grazing, invasion of non-native plants 

and possible spray drift from adjacent agriculture fields. Protection 

measures may include obtaining a conservation easement for the land 

containing the population or acquiring the land. The area could be fenced 

to exclude livestock and a weed control program developed to prevent 

invasion of non-native plants. 

•	 Based on the significant loss of wildlife habitat that would occur with the 

creation of this reservoir, the Service recommends that Reclamation work 

to establish a wildlife management area adjacent to the reservoir in areas 

that would provide suitable wildlife habitat. This would likely attract 

some replacement species associated with open water bodies, such as 

shorebirds and waterfowl. The U.S. Army’s Yakima Training Center 

owns property along the extreme eastern end of the potential reservoir 

footprint. Reclamation could inquire as to the availability of any lands 

that could be protected to further protect that adjacent area. 

Wymer Reservoir with the Yakima River Pump Exchange 

Bury pipelines underground and restore native vegetation along the pipeline 

corridor. The Service would be willing to provide a list of native plants for this 

purpose. This measure would also require that Reclamation develop a vegetation 

maintenance and monitoring plan, performance criteria, and clear goals and 

objectives that would need to be met over a stipulated timeline, to ensure the 

success of this mitigation effort. 

Locate any above ground structures in areas that would cause minimal 

disturbance to wildlife and associated habitats. Potential disturbances to be 

avoided include; creation of any barriers to, or fragmentation of movement 

corridors, loss of habitat, degradation of remaining habitat, and invasion of exotic 

species. 

A-8 
Attachment 

LITERATURE CITED 

Stinson, D. W. D. W. Hayes and M.A. Schroeder. 2004. Washington state 

recovery plan for the greater sage grouse. Washington Department of fish and 

Wildlife. Olympia, Wa. 

The Nature Conservancy. 1999. Species Management Abstract. Brewer’s 

sparrow (Spizella breweri). The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Va., USA. 

USFWS. 1981. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mitigation Policy. Notice of 

Final Policy, Federal Register, Vol. 46, No. 15, January 23, 1981, (As corrected 

in the Federal Register of February 4, 1981), Washington, DC. 

WDFW. 1996. Washington State recovery plan for the ferruginous hawk. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. 

A-9 
 

Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

RECLAMATION’S RESPONSES TO SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS 

IV-1) Service’s Recommended Alternative 

After careful consideration of fish and wildlife resources analyzed in the CAR, 

the Service has determined that the most limited and endangered resource is 

shrub-steppe. All action alternatives, if implemented, would impact this resource. 

For that reason, based on our review and evaluation of the information acquired 

during preparation of the CAR, particularly the significant loss and/or 

fragmentation of shrub-steppe habitat, the Service recommends that the “No 

Action” alternative be selected with the following qualification: The Service 

further recommends that water conservation measures continue to be explored and 

implemented as a means to increase the availability of water for native aquatic 

species in the Yakima River corridor. 

We recognize that there will likely be a net-loss of wetlands in the lower Basin as 

existing water delivery systems are made to be more efficient. To mitigate for 

any lost wetlands, the Service recommends that Reclamation consider 

reconnecting the floodplain and restore historic wetlands along the Yakima River. 

•	 Reclamation will continue to restore floodplains and riparian areas 

through the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Program 

(YRBWEP). This program has purchased land along the Yakima, Naches, 

and Teanaway Rivers for this purpose. 

IV-2) Mitigation Recommendations: Action Alternatives 

Aquatic 

In the accompanying Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), analyze additional 

alternatives. These would include, but are not limited to, the Keechelus Lake to 

Kachess Lake Pipeline, commonly referred to as the K-K Pipeline. In addition, an 

analysis of aquifer storage and water banking should also be considered in the 

EIS. These alternatives have the potential for benefits to bull trout and resident 

fish. 

•	 The K-K pipeline was analyzed as part of the planning study but 

eliminated from further consideration as outlined in the Draft PR/EIS. 

Aquifer storage and water banking or water acquisition are analyzed in the 

Draft PR/EIS as State Alternatives. 

Conduct Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) studies below 

Reclamation facilities to quantify changes in fish habitat resulting from the 

release of flow augmentation; compare results against existing model data. 

A-10 
Attachment 

•	 Should an action alternative be selected, further modeling would likely 

occur. 

Examine the effect of Black Rock or Wymer reservoir flow releases on water 

quality in the Yakima River Basin. 

•	 Water quality of Black Rock or Wymer reservoir flow releases has been 

analyzed in the Draft PR/EIS. 

Ensure Black Rock or Wymer reservoir flow releases are compatible with 

migration, spawning, and rearing of resident fish that utilize the Yakima River 

Basin. 

•	 Releases from Black Rock reservoir will be to the Roza and Sunnyside 

Division canals. As such they would not affect migration, spawning, or 

rearing of resident fish. Releases from Wymer reservoir in all but low 

water years will be for fish enhancement purposes. While specific 

operational details of the proposed reservoirs have not yet been developed, 

the proposed releases from Wymer reservoir assessed in the Draft PR/EIS 

provide benefits for resident fish. 

Investigate whether Columbia River water used for flow augmentation in the 

Yakima River Basin alters spawning behavior of anadromous fish, bull trout, and 

resident fish within the basin. 

•	 This issue is addressed in the Draft PR/EIS; no effect to spawning 

behavior should occur. 

If the Black Rock or Wymer Reservoir is constructed, Reclamation should 

monitor flow augmentation releases from the reservoir and effects on riparian and 

wetland habitats in the Yakima River Basin. 

•	 This may be accomplished as a part of other studies in the basin. 

Develop studies that examine the change in resident fish species distribution and 

abundance in the Yakima River Basin. 

•	 Reclamation is not a fishery manager and would not likely undertake such 

a study. 

Maintain Yakima River Basin reservoirs at levels that enable adult bull trout to 

migrate into spawning tributaries. 

•	 It is unclear what reservoir elevations are needed to enable bull trout 

migration. This appears to involve a complex interaction involving stream 

discharge, reservoir elevation, migration run timing and perhaps other 

variables. Operation details of the proposed reservoirs have not yet been 

A-11 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

developed, but consultation with fish biologists will occur prior to 

implementation to assure the best operations scenario for fish. This 

scenario will have to balance a variety of needs and tradeoffs between 

competing needs, such as spring migration flows and end-of-season 

reservoir elevations. The operations outlined in the Draft PR/EIS 

generally benefited bull trout migration from the reservoirs. 

Monitor entrainment of bull trout and resident fish in Yakima River Basin 

reservoirs and compare to flow augmentation regimes and accompanying 

reservoir levels. 

•	 Currently, such studies are not planned as part of this project. 

Coordinate all bull trout and resident fish studies with the Service. 

•	 Should such studies be conducted they will be coordinated with the 

Service and other appropriate parties. 

Wildlife 

Wildlife Mitigation Common to the Three Action Alternatives 

During construction, minimize or avoid all vegetation removal during avian 

nesting season to minimize the effect of the action on federally protected 

migratory birds. Typically nesting season in this part of Washington occurs 

between March and August each year. 

•	 Reclamation will work with the Service and other agencies to minimize 

impacts from construction activities. The period outlined, however, is the 

prime construction season and cannot likely be avoided. 

Centralize any construction staging areas and locate them in areas that would 

provide minimal disturbance to wildlife and damage to shrub-steppe habitat. 

Existing degraded habitat may be the most suitable for this purpose. 

•	 Staging areas will be designated prior to construction. For large facilities 

like the dams and reservoirs they will likely be located in the reservoir. 

Bury pipelines underground and restore native vegetation along the pipeline 

corridor. The Service would be willing to provide a list of native plants for this 

purpose. This measure would also require that Reclamation develop a vegetation 

maintenance and monitoring plan, performance criteria, and clear goals and 

objectives that would need to be met over a stipulated timeline, to ensure the 

success of this mitigation effort. 

•	 Reclamation would revegetate those areas disturbed by construction 

activities but not occupied by facilities. 

A-12 
Attachment 

To compensate for the loss of shrub-steppe habitat, and also to ensure that 

residential, recreational, and agricultural developments are compatible with 

Project resource mitigation objectives, an area equal to that lost to the project 

should be acquired around the periphery of the reservoir. Within the acquired 

land, agriculturally converted former shrub-steppe habitat and degraded shrubsteppe habitat should be fully restored. This would require a contiguous area of 

land for the purpose of providing habitat benefits for wildlife species displaced by 

the proposed action. The Service would be willing to assist Reclamation in 

identifying suitable sites as well as provide a list of native plants for this purpose. 

This measure would also require that Reclamation develop a vegetation 

maintenance and monitoring plan, performance criteria, and clear goals and 

objectives that would need to be met over a stipulated timeline, to ensure the 

success or this mitigation effort. 

•	 The Service conducted a HEP analysis for the project and mitigation lands 

should be evaluated similarly. This may result in more or less acreage 

required to mitigate for impacts of the project. This recommendation will 

be implemented as budget and land availability, allow. 

If a suitable area for shrub-steppe restoration cannot be found in the immediate 

project area, then another location will need to be selected in the Affected Area 

and evaluated in the CAR for the three action alternatives. If a suitable area for 

shrub-steppe restoration cannot be found in the Affected Area, then Reclamation 

should work with the Service to find a mutually agreeable location in the midColumbia area. 

•	 Reclamation will look for shrub-steppe mitigation in the areas outlined 

above. 

There are currently several state and Federal agencies, as well several private 

organizations and public groups, that have signed a South Central Washington 

Shrub steppe/rangeland Conservation Partnership Memorandum of 

Understanding, which created a partnership dedicated to the protection and 

preservation of shrub-steppe habitat. Reclamation should work with that group to 

identify areas of shrub-steppe habitat that could be protected or restored as 

mitigation for any shrub-steppe lost during the creation of the selected reservoir. 

•	 Should an action alternative be selected, Reclamation would work with all 

parties interested in preserving and protecting shrub-steppe. 

Unregulated cattle grazing would continue to degrade wildlife habitat and would 

also impede development or enhancement of riparian, wetland, and upland 

habitats. Cattle should be excluded from all wildlife mitigation lands including 

restored shrub-steppe habitats, created wetland/riparian habitats, and acquired 

mitigation lands. 

A-13 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

•	 Reclamation concurs. 

Human activities may displace wildlife from high value habitats to less suitable 

habitat. New recreation facilities should be located away from important wildlife 

areas including wildlife mitigation lands. The Service would be willing to work 

with Reclamation to identify appropriate sites for new recreation facilities. 

•	 Some public use of mitigation lands may be desirable but public access 

sites and recreationial areas will be sited to minimize impacts to habitat 

and wildlife. 

The Service recommends that Reclamation work with the Washington Natural 

Heritage Program to identify and protect any existing federal and state threatened 

and endangered, candidate, federal species of concern, and state sensitive plant 

species and their associated habitats, that may occur within the Affected Area. 

•	 To the extent practicable, Reclamation will undertake this action should an 

action alternative be selected. 

Mitigation for each Action Alternative 

Black Rock Reservoir Site 

Although there is currently limited wetland and riparian habitat identified within 

the Black Rock footprint, the creation of the reservoir could provide the potential 

for creation of at least low quality wetland and riparian habitats. This would 

attract species that utilize these habitats. Based on this, the Service recommends 

that Reclamation construct dikes in shallow water areas within the reservoir, and 

if necessary pump water into these areas to maintain adequate water levels for the 

production of wetland/riparian vegetation. The Service would be willing assist 

Reclamation in identifying suitable sites as well as provide a list of native plants 

for this purpose. The north boundary and upper end of the reservoir likely contain 

suitable sites for dike construction and wetland and riparian habitat development. 

This measure would also require that Reclamation develop a vegetation 

maintenance and monitoring plan, performance criteria, and clear goals and 

objectives that would need to be met over a stipulated timeline, to ensure the 

success of this mitigation effort. 

•	 The Draft PR/EIS concludes that some vegetation will naturally establish 

in the upper end of the reservoir. If this area can be expanded with the use 

of low dikes, it will be considered. 

Based on the significant loss of wildlife habitat that would occur with the creation 

of this reservoir, the Service recommends that Reclamation work to establish a 

wildlife management area adjacent to the reservoir in areas that would be able to 

provide suitable wildlife habitat. This would likely attract some replacement 

A-14 
Attachment 

species associated with open waterbodies, such as shorebirds and waterfowl. The 

northern boundary of the Black Rock footprint falls near the southern end of the 

U.S. Army’s Yakima Training Center. Reclamation could inquire as to the 

availability of any lands that could be protected to further protect that adjacent 

area. 

•	 As outlined above, Reclamation will mitigate for impacts to wildlife with 

the initial focus at the reservoir site. 

Based on the continuing loss, degradation, and fragmentation of shrub-steppe 

habitat within eastern Washington, the Service recommends that Reclamation 

consider the construction of a smaller reservoir at this site, in order to reduce the 

amount of lost shrub-steppe habitat. 

• The reservoir was sized to meet the three goals of the Storage Study. 

Although there are currently no existing trees or snags within the footprint of the 

Black Rock Reservoir, this site is an important area for several raptor species. 

The creation of the reservoir could bring in other raptor species (i.e., bald eagle, 

osprey), especially if a fishery were to be established. Large trees and snags are 

used by raptors and many other birds as perches for foraging and roosting. 

Artificial perches should be installed on selected areas adjacent to the new 

reservoir to provide perches for raptors. These structures would significantly 

enhance the habitat for raptors and other birds within the Black Rock Affected 

Area. The Service would be willing to work with Reclamation to identify 

appropriate sites and specifications for artificial perches. 

•	 Should it appear that the development of artificial perches successfully 

enhance the area for raptors, Reclamation would work with the Service 

and others to site and install the perches. 

Based on HEP analyses conducted within the potential Black Rock Reservoir 

footprint, the Service determined that 1692 average annual habitat units for the 

brewer’s sparrow would be lost if the reservoir were created. The Service 

recommends that Reclamation work to create, restore and/or protect the amount of 

shrub-steppe habitat that would lead to production of a similar number of habitat 

units, elsewhere within the Yakima River Basin. 

•	 As outlined above, Reclamation concurs that using HEP is the appropriate 

way to assess mitigation needs. 

Plant surveys should be conducted for Columbia milk-vetch (federal species of 

concern), prior to final selection of this alternative, in any habitats that are 

suitable for its existence within the Black Rock Reservoir Affected Area. The 

Service would be willing to assist Reclamation in the completion of plant surveys. 

A-15 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

•	 Should an action alternative be selected, this recommendation will be 

implemented. 

Protect any discovered populations of Columbia milk-vetch that are located 

adjacent to the Black Rock Reservoir from recreation, residential and agriculture 

field development, grazing, and invasion of non-native plants. Protection 

measures may include obtaining a conservation easement for the land containing 

the population or acquiring the land. The area could be fenced to exclude 

livestock and a weed control program developed to prevent invasion of non-native 

plants. 

•	 Populations of Columbia milk-vetch could be included in mitigation lands 

acquired, depending upon the value of the lands for mitigation and the 

availability of the lands for acquisition. A land management plan would 

need to be developed for acquired lands to address issues like weed 

control. 

Wymer Reservoir Site 

The creation of a reservoir at the Wymer site would result in the loss of sixty 

acres of wetland, riparian and cottonwood forest habitat. Based on the loss of this 

habitat, the Service recommends that Reclamation design the new reservoir to 

include construction of dikes in shallow water areas within the reservoir, and if 

necessary pump water into these areas to maintain adequate water levels for the 

production of wetland/riparian vegetation. If a similar number of acres cannot be 

replaced on site, Reclamation should replace the same number of wetland and 

riparian acres by identifying, creating or restoring similar habitats elsewhere in 

the Affected Area. The Service would be willing assist Reclamation in identifying 

suitable sites as well as provide a list of native plants for this purpose. The upper 

end of the reservoir likely contains suitable sites for dike construction and wetland 

and riparian habitat development. This measure would also require that 

Reclamation develop a vegetation maintenance and monitoring plan, performance 

criteria, and clear goals and objectives that would need to be met over a stipulated 

timeline, to ensure the success or this mitigation effort. 

•	 The lands included in the Wymer reservoir site are generally very steep 

and not conducive to impoundment by diking. While opportunities may 

exist they would likely be quite small. Some vegetation may develop 

along Lumuma Creek below the reservoir that could mitigate for losses at 

the site. Some areas along the reservoir shoreline may also develop 

wetland and riparian vegetation. Finally, depending upon which 

alternative is chosen that includes a Wymer reservoir, wetland and riparian 

vegetation may be enhanced along the Yakima and Naches Rivers as a 

result of the project. At this point it is premature to identify additional 

wetland and riparian mitigation that may be necessary. 

A-16 
Attachment 

The creation of the Wymer Reservoir would result in the loss of existing large 

trees and snags within the footprint of the reservoir. Large trees and snags are 

used by raptors and many other birds as perches for foraging and roosting. 

Artificial perches should be installed on selected areas adjacent to the new 

reservoir to provide perches for bald eagles, osprey and other raptors. These 

structures would, in the short term, replace trees and snags that would be lost due 

to the creation of the Wymer Reservoir. The Service would be willing to work 

with Reclamation to identify appropriate sites and specifications for artificial 

perches. 

•	 Should it appear that the development of artificial perches successfully 

enhance the area for raptors, Reclamation would work with the Service 

and others to site and install the perches. 

Based on HEP analyses conducted within the potential Wymer Reservoir 

footprint, the Service determined that 378 average annual habitat units for the 

brewer’s sparrow would be lost if the reservoir were created. The Service 

recommends that Reclamation work to create, restore and/or protect the amount of 

shrub-steppe habitat that would lead to production of a similar number of habitat 

units, elsewhere within the Yakima River Basin. 

•	 As outlined above, Reclamation concurs that using HEP is the appropriate 

way to assess mitigation needs. 

Plant surveys should be conducted for the Sukdorf’s monkey-flower (federal 

species of concern), prior to final selection of this alternative, in any habitats that 

are suitable for its existence within the Wymer Reservoir Affected Area. The 

Service would be willing to work with Reclamation in completion of plant 

surveys. 

• Should an action alternative involving Wymer reservoir be selected, this 

recommendation will be implemented. 

Protect any discovered populations of Suksdorf’s monkey-flower that are located 

adjacent to the Wymer Reservoir from recreation, residential and agriculture field 

development, grazing, invasion of non-native plants and possible spray drift from 

adjacent agriculture fields. Protection measures may include obtaining a 

conservation easement for the land containing the population or acquiring the 

land. The area could be fenced to exclude livestock and a weed control program 

developed to prevent invasion of non-native plants. 

•	 Populations of Suksdorf’s monkey-flower could be included in mitigation 

lands acquired, depending upon the value of the lands for mitigation and 

the availability of the lands for acquisition. A land management plan 

would need to be developed for acquired lands to address issues like weed 

control. 

A-17 
Yakima River Basin Water Storage 

Feasibility Study Draft PR/EIS 

Plant surveys should be conducted for basalt daisy (federal Candidate species), 

prior to final selection of this alternative, in any habitats that are suitable for its 

existence within the Wymer Reservoir Affected Area. The Service would be 

willing to work with Reclamation in completion of plant surveys. 

•	 Should an action alternative involving Wymer reservoir be selected, this 

recommendation will be implemented. 

Protect any basalt daisy populations, discovered during new surveys that are 

located adjacent to the Wymer Reservoir from recreation, residential and 

agriculture field development, grazing, invasion of non-native plants and possible 

spray drift from adjacent agriculture fields. Protection measures may include 

obtaining a conservation easement for the land containing the population or 

acquiring the land. The area could be fenced to exclude livestock and a weed 

control program developed to prevent invasion of non-native plants. 

•	 Populations of basalt daisy could be included in mitigation lands acquired, 

depending upon the value of the lands for mitigation and the availability of 

the lands for acquisition. A land management plan would need to be 

developed for acquired lands to address issues like weed control. 

Based on the significant loss of wildlife habitat that would occur with the creation 

of this reservoir, the Service recommends that Reclamation work to establish a 

wildlife management area adjacent to the reservoir in areas that would provide 

suitable wildlife habitat. This would likely attract some replacement species 

associated with open water bodies, such as shorebirds and waterfowl. The U.S. 

Army’s Yakima Training Center owns property along the extreme eastern end of 

the potential reservoir footprint. Reclamation could inquire as to the availability 

of any lands that could be protected to further protect that adjacent area. 

•	 As outlined above, Reclamation will mitigate for impacts to wildlife with 

the initial focus at the reservoir site. 

Wymer Dam Plus Yakima River Pump Exchange 

Bury pipelines underground and restore native vegetation along the pipeline 

corridor. The Service would be willing to provide a list of native plants for this 

purpose. This measure would also require that Reclamation develop a vegetation 

maintenance and monitoring plan, performance criteria, and clear goals and 

objectives that would need to be met over a stipulated timeline, to ensure the 

success of this mitigation effort. 

•	 Most of the pipeline corridor would be on private land, for which 

Reclamation would seek an easement, but not fee title ownership. 

Reclamation would have to work with the involved landowner on any 

revegetation plans and meet their needs as well. Large portions of the 

A-18 
Attachment 

corridor would be on developed lands including agricultural, rural, and 

urban uses. Revegetation with native species would not be appropriate in 

most of these locations. 

Locate any above ground structures in areas that would cause minimal 

disturbance to wildlife and associated habitats. Potential disturbances to be 

avoided include; creation of any barriers to, or fragmentation of movement 

corridors, loss of habitat, degradation of remaining habitat, and invasion of exotic 

species. 

•	 As noted above, large portions of the corridor would be in developed areas 

including lands being used for agricultural, rural, and urban uses. Impacts 

to wildlife along the corridor are not expected to be significant. Where 

valuable habitat for wildlife is present, above-ground structures would be 

avoided to the extent practicable. 

A-19