Yakima Fisheries Project 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

DOWEIS-0169 - 6'.\4 1 

January 1996 

In cooperation with: 

Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife and Yakama Indian Nation 

BONNEVILLE 

POWER ADMINISTRATION 
., 

... . .. 
YAKIMA FISHERIES PROJECT 

FINAL 

. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

Bonneville Power Administration 

Washington Department ,of Fish and Wildlife 

Yakama Indian Nation -~ - __-_ -I 

I DISCLAIMER -I 

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

~ Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their 

~ employees, makes any warranty, express or implied. or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or ’ process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Refer- ’ 

ence herein to any spific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, 

mendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views 

manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, reamand opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the . United States Government or any agency thereof. 

- ~ ... _I ~_-.-I_- ~. .~ ~~~~. . __ .. 

tffl . WTfWUT’fON OF WIS DOCUMENT tS UNUMED 

- . . - . 
0 
. 

YAKIMA FISHERIES PROJECT 

. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

Reader’s Guide 4 

I This document represents the final environmental impact statement @IS) for the Yakima 

Fisheries Project. Previous versions of this document were published in 1990 - 

(environmental assessment or EA), in October 1992(Dra€t EIS), and May 1995 (Revised 

Draft EIS). Extensive public comments were made on the DEIS, and the docum,ent 

revised into ’the RDEIS, Further comments were made on the RDEIS, leading to changes 

and refinements in this Final EIS. 

So that the reader who has followed this process may tracks the latest changes, the- 

. document has the following characteristics: 

I All new language is shown in double-underscored type so that itJ&.&c&. ‘ 

You will also see a vertical line in the margin, to help you find new material. 

Material that has been deleted is not marked. ‘(We could have shown deleted 

material with a strikethrough option, but it made the document veiy hard to read.) 

0 The FEIS contains a complete listing of identified comments, together with 

responses. Each comment is identified with a code number and by commenter. 

There is a comment iqdex, so that you may find comments taken from your letter 

in the text and read the response. (If you made comments but did not identify 

yourself, these are listed as “Anonymous”.) In a number of cases, commenters’ 

observations have led to changes in the document itself (marked as noted above). 

As with the RDEIS, an Index lists major topics in which you may be interested. 

You may also consult the Table of Contents to help find sections in which you 

have a particular interest. 

If this is your first opportunity to read an EIS, here are some tips for locating 

information: 

1. The p’qose of an EIS is to disclose impacts that a Federal action may have on 

the envirbnment and to designate what impacts might be significant. It also 

proposes mitigation measures to try to reduce or eliininate those impacts. 

2. Chapter 1 presents background on why the project is needed, what kinds of 

decision will be made, and who will make them. 

3. Chapter 3 presents the affected environment: all theresouices in the project 

area that might be affected by the project actio&. 

4. Chapter 4 presents, in detail, all the impacts that might occur, together with 

possible mitigation measures. 

5. Chapter 2 describes the alternatives (choices for action) and compares the impacts of those alternatives. It is based on the detailed information in Chapter 4. 

This is the heart of the EIS. 

, 

- 

i 

\ 
. 
. 

YAKIMA FISHERIES PROJECT 

REVISED DRAFI’ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

@OE/EIS-0169) 

Responsible Agency: U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). . 

Title of Proposed Action: Yakima Fisheries Project 

Cooperating Agencies: Washington Department of Fish and-wildlife, Yakama Indian Nation 

States Involved: Washington 

Abstract: BPA proposes to fund several fshery-related activities in the Yakima <Ever Basin. These activities, 

known as the Yakima Fisheries Project (YFP), would be jointly managed by the State of Washington and the Yakama 

Indian Nation. The YFP is included in the Northwest Power Planning Council’s (Council’s) fish and wildlife 

program. The Council selected the Yakma River system for attention because fisheries resources are severely 

reduced from historical levels and because there is a significant potential for enhancement of these resources. .- 

BPA’s proposed action is to fund (1) information gathering on thehplcmentation of supplemcntation techniques and 

on feasibility of reintroducing coho salmon in an cnvironmentwhcre native populations have become extinct; (2) 

research activities based on continuous assessment, feedback and improvement of research design and activities 

(“adaptive management”); and (3) the construction, opcration, and maintenance of facilities for supplementing 

populations of upper Yakima spring chinook salmon. Supplementation is a’strategy for rebuilding fish spawning runs 

by releasing artificially propagated fish into natural streams to increase natural production. 

The project has beenconsiderably revised From the original proposal described in the first draft EIS. Examined in 

addition to No Action (which would leave present anadromous fisheries resources unchanged in the Bash) are two 

alternatives for action: \(1) supplementation of depressed natural populations of upper Yakima spring-chinook and (2) . ithatmme supplementation plus a study ,to determine the feasibility of re-establishing (via stock imported from 

another basin) naturally.spawning population and a significant fall fishery for coho in the Yakiia Basin. Alternative 

2 has been identified as the preferred action. A central hatchery would be built for either alternative, as well as three 

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

Major issues examined in the Revised Draft EIS include potential impacts of the project on gcnctiGand ecological 

resources of existing fish populations, on water quality and quantity, on Uueatencd and endangered species listed 

under die Endangered Species Act, and on the recreational fishery. Only minor differences in enviroiunental 

consequences were found between Alternatives 1 and 2. .Potentially high impacts on wild, native, and non-target fishpopulations under both altcrnatives would be mitigated through careful adherence to the adaptive. management 

process outlined in the EIS. 

. 

. 

For additional information: 

Nancy Weindaub, Environmental Specialist * 

Bonneville Power Administration 

P.O. BOX 3621 - ECN 

Portland, OR 97208-3621 

(503) 230-5373 Portland, OR 97212 

Additional copies of the EIS may also be obtained by calling BPA’s toll-free document request line: 1-800-6224520. 

For information on DOENEPA activities please contact: Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA Oversight, 

EH-25, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20585, (800) 472-2756. 

Reouest additional copies from and mail 

comments to: 

Bonnevillc Powcr Administration 

P.O. Box 12999 

, Public Involycment hlnnagcr 

/ 

. _I 
-. . . 
YAKIMA FISHERIES PROJECT 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Abstract 

Table of Contents 

List of Figures 

-. 

List of Tables 

I 

Page 

1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1 

1.1 Proposed Action ,~ 1 

1.2 Need and Purposes 2 

1.3 Background 5 

1.5 Relationship to Other Documents, Including the Draft EIS '8 

1.6 Decisions to be Made . 11 

t 1.4 Relationship to Other Yakima River Basin Fishery Efforts , 6 

1.7 Scopinm Public Involvement 12 

2. ALTERNATIVES -1 5 

2.1 Introduction 15 

2.2 Adaptive Management 16 

2.2.1 Project Management Plan 17 

2.2. I. I Planning Status Report 17 

20 

2.2.1.2 Uncertainty Resolution Plan 19 

2.2.1.3 Project Annual Review r 

2.2.2 Policy Definition and Expression 20 

2.2.3 Project Management 21 

2.2.3. I Policy Group ~ 21 

2.2.3.2 Project Managers 22 

2.2.3.3 Scienceflechnical Advisory Committee 23 

2.2.3.4 Bonneville Power Ahinis tration 23 

2.2.3.5 Relationship to Other Federal Agencies 23 

I 

I 

ITable of Contents/ i 

.. 
2.3 Alternative 1: Upper Yakima Spring Chinook.Supplemenfation < '\ 

2.3.1 -- Supplementation Objectives and Strategies 

2.3-2 ~ Assumptions, Uncertainties, and Risk Analysis 

2.3.3 Monitoring 

2.3-4 Facilities 

- 2.3.4.1- Central Hatchev Facility ,. Trapping Facilities ,. 

2.3.4.2. 

2.3.4.3 Acclimation Sites 

2.3.5 Project Operations I 

2.4- Alternative 2: Upper Yakima Spiing Chinook Supplementation and 

.c 

- Cohostudy 

2.4.1 Objectives and Strategies 

'2.4. I. I 

2.4.1.2 ' Coho Feasibility Study 

2.4:2.I 

2.4.2.2 Coho Feasibility Study 

2.4.3. I . 

2.4.4 Facilities ' 

Upper Yakma Spring 'Chinook Supplementation 

2.4.2 Assumptions, Uncertainties, and Risk Analysis .- ~ 

, Upper Yakima Spring Chinook Supplementation 

2.4.3 Monitoring , . 

2.4.5 Project Operations, _. -, 

Upper Yakima Spring Chinook Supplementation 

2.4.3.2 Coho Feasibility Study ,I 

. 

2.4.5. I ' Upper Yakima Spring Chinook Supplementation 

. 2.4.5.2 Coho Feasibility Study 

2.5 No Action Altemative ' ~ 

, -2.6- Alternatives Eliminated fiom Detailed Study . 

2.6; 1 Passage Improvements and Other Activities- 

' 2.6.2 More Supplemented Stocks ,. 

2.6.3 Alternative Sites 

2.6.5 Other'Research Outside the Yakima River Basin 

- 

. 2.6.4 Research at Existing Non-Yakima River Basin Sites 

2.7 

'. 

Comparison of Alternatives and Summary of Impacts 

2.7.1 -Water Resources - , 

2.7.1. I 

2.7.1.2 - Groundivater 

- 2.7.1.3 Floodplains and Wetlands .. 

2.7.2.d Aquatic Biological Resources 

surjace water . - 

2.7.2 . Biological Resources .. 

- 2.'7.2.2 . . Vegetation 

. 

Table ofcontentsl ii 

Page 

23 

24 

29 

30 

33 

38 

38 

46 

35 

47 

48 

48 

48 

51 

51 

51 

51 

'5 1 

51 

52 

52 

' 52 

52 

52 

53 

53 - 53 

' 54 

54 

55 

55 

' 57' 

57 

58 

58 

58 

58 

59 
Page 

- 

.2.7.2.3 Wildlve 

2.7.2.4 Special Status Species 

2.7.3 Air Resources and Noise 

2.7.4 Socioeconomics 

2.7.5 Recreation and Visual ' 

2.7.6 Cultural Resources 

2.7.7 Resource Management 

3 AFFECTEDENVIRONMENT 

3.1 Introduction 

3.2 Water Resources 

3.2.1 Surface Water Resources , 

3.2. I, I Water Quantity 

3.2.1.2 Water Quality I 

3.2.2 Groundwater Resources 

3.2.3 Floodplains and Wetlands 

3.3 Biological Resources: Aquatic 

3.3.1 Fisheries Resources 

3.3. I. I 

3.3.1.2 Summer Chinook Salmon 

3.3.1.3 Fall Chinook Salmon 

3.3.1.4 Coho Salmon 

3.3. Is Sockeye Salmon 

3.3.1.6 Summer Steelhead 

3.'3. I. 7 Resident Salmonids 

3.3.1.8 Resident Non-salmonids 

Biological Resources: Wildlife and Vegetation 

Spring Chinook Salmon 

3.3.2 Other Aquatic Resources 

3.4 

3.4.1 Vegetation and Wildlife - 

3.4.2 Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species 

3.5 Air Quality and Noise 

3.5.1 Air Quality 

3.5.2 Background Sound Levels and Noise - 3.6 Socioeconomic Resources 

3.6.1 Kittitas County 

3.6.2 Yakima County 

59 

59 

59 

60 . 

60 

60 . 

60 

63 

63 

63 ' 

63 

64 

67 

69 

71 

72 

72 

72 

76 

77 

79 \ 

81 

82 

83 

85 

85 

86 

86 

90 

93 

~ 93 

93 

93 . 

94 

95 

Table of Contents/ iii 
. 

3.7 Recreational Resources 

3.7.1 'Resident Trout Fishery 

3.7.2 Aesthetics and Visual Resources 

3.7.3 Other Recreational Resources 

3.8 Archeological, Historical, and-CulGral Resources 

3.9 Resources Management 

3 -9.1 Fisheries Management 

3.9.1.1 Harvest Management 

3.9.1.2 Pre&tor Control 

3.9.1.3 Production 

3.9.1.4 ~ - Fish Passage 

3.9.2. I Quackenbush Decision 

3.9.2.2 

3.9.2.3 

3.9.2.5 Increased Streamji'ows 

3.9.3. I 

3.9.3.2 Timber, Fish and Wildlije 

3.9.4 Land Use at Proposed Project Facility Sites . 

3.9.5 Solid Waste and Hazardous Materials Management 

3.9.5.1 Solid Waste - 

3.9.5.2 Hazardous Materials and Waste 

3.9.2 Water Management 

Yakima River Basin Wate? Adjudication 

Roza and Chandler Power Plant Flow Subordination 

.. 3.9.2.4 Habitat Improvement 

3.9.3 Land Management 

Wenatchee National Forest Land and Resource 

jkhmagement Plan 

4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ', 

4.1 Direct and Cumulative Impacts 

4.1.1 

4.1.2 

4.1.3 

4.1.4 

Water Resources 

4. I. 1.1 Alternatives I and 2 

4. I. 1.2 No Action Alternative 

Fisheries Resources 

4.1.2. I Alternatives 1 and 2 I 

4.1.2.2 Cumulative Fishery Resources Impacts 

4.1.2.3 No Action Alternative 

Other Aquatic Resources 

Vegetation Resources, 

4.1.4.1 Alternatives I and 2 

4.1.4.2 No Action Alternative 

Page 

95 ~ 

95 

96 

96 

97 

98 

100 

102 

103 

103 

103 

103 

103 

104 

104 

105 

105 

105 

106 

106, 

107 

107 

108 

103 ' 

,109. 

109 - 

' 109 

109 

116 

116 

116 , 

I 137 

142 ' 

144 

145 

145 

' 1.45 

Table of Contents/ iv '. 
- Page 

145 . ~. 4.1.5 Wildlife 

4.1.5. I Alternutives I and 2 145 

4.1.5.2 No Action Aiternative' 146 

_- 4.1.6 Threatened, Endangered, .and Special Status Species 14'6 

. 4.1.6.1 Alternatives I and 2 146- 

4. I. 6.2. No Action Alternative 149 ' 

4.1.7 Air Quality and Noise , 149 

4. I. 7. I Air Quality 149 

4.1.7.2 - Noise' ~ . 149 

4.1.8 Socioeconomics 150. . 4,I.g.I Analytical Procedures 150 . 

4.1.8.2 . Assumptions Behind Direct Expenditure Models . 153 

4.1.8.3 Findings 154 

4.1.9 Recreation Resources 156 

4.1.9. I Altemtives I and 2 ~ . 156 . 

4.1.9.2 No Action Alternative . . 158 

158 

4.1.10.1 . Alternatives I and2~ 158 

4. I. IO. 2 No Action Alternative --- 159 

4.1.1 1 Resource Management .' 159 

4.1.11.1 -Alternatives I and 2. . - 160 

4.1.11.2 No Action Alternative 162 

4.2 Mitigation Measures . 163 

4.2.2 Specific Mitigation Measures 163 

4.3 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 167 

4.1.10 Archeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources 

.I 

'. 4.2.1 Management of Biological and Ecol"ogical Risk . 163 . 

4.4 Relationship of Short-Term Uses -, and Long-Term Productivity 168. .- 

4.5 . Irreversible and hetrievable Commitments of Resources 168 

5. ENVIRONMENTAL; RULES, REGULATIONS,,AND PERMITS 171 

5.1 Environmental Policy 

5.2 State, Areawide, and Local Plan and Program Consistency 

5.2.1 State and Areawide Clearinghouses 

5.2.2 Local Plans - 5.2.3 Zoning 

5.3 Water Quality and Water Appropriation 

5.3.1 Water Appropriation 

5.3.2 Permits for Discharges into Waters of the United States171 

171 

.171 

171 

172 

173 

., 

173 

173 

- Table of Contents/ v 
,~ - .. Page 

.. 

5.3.3 

5.3.4 State Permits,for Work in Stream Beds . . 

53.6 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permits for Structures or 

Recreation Resources - Wild and Scenic Rivers, National Trails, 

Wilderness Areas, Parks 176 

U. S. Army Corps ofEngineers Permits for the Discharge of 

Dredged or Fill Material 

, 174 

~. 5.3 5 Coastal Management Program Consistency- I 174 

,- 

' , - -174 . -.~ 

- Work in Navigable Waters i 75 

5.4 

5.5 Permits for Rights-of-way on Public Lands - 

5.6 River-Bottom Leases ' 

5.7 Heritage Conservation -- I. 

,. 

- ' 5.7.1 CGrrent Status . . . 

5.7.2 Discovery Situations 

* 5.8 Threatened and Endangered Species , , I. 

.. 

' 5.9 Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

5.10 - Farmlands -. 

. 5.1 1 FloodpIainslWetlands A_ 

5.12 Energy Conservation and Pollution Control 

5.12.1 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 

5.12.2 Resources Conseivation and Recovery Act (RCM) ' 

. . 5.12.3 -Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability' Act (CERCLA) 

5.12.4. Energy Co-nservation at Federal Facilities 

5.12.6 Safe Drinking Water Act 

-. 

5.12.5 Noise Control Act 

5.12.7 Clean Air Act - ' .. 

I_ 

176 

% 176 

176 

1'76 

177 

178 

178 

179 

179 

179 

179 

l 180 

180 - 

. I 180 

181 

181 

. 681 

6. RERERENCES 183 

7. PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS OF THE EIS 195. 

8. LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM 

COPIES OF EIS WERE SENT -201 , 

GLOSSARY 

.. INDEX 

/ 

Table of Contents/ vi- 

.. 

.~ - __ .. . - -. . >. . ~ 
Page 

List of Tables 

Table 1.1 

Table 1.2 

Table 2.1 

Table 2.2 

A Comparison oficurrent Hatchery Programs and Proposed 

Estimates of Historical Anadromous Fish Runs in the Yakima 

River as Compared to Recent Run Size 6 

Upper Yakima Spring Chinook Objectives and Associated 

Strategies 25 

Summary of Upper Yakima Spri?lg Chinook Monitoring Plan 32 

S 47 

Supplementation Facilities 3 

$ 

Table 2.3 Facilities Requirements for Alternatives 1 and 2 33 

Table 2.5 

I Table 2.6 

Table 3.1 

Table 3.2 

Table 3.3 

Table 3.4 

Table 31.5 

Table 4.1 

Table 4.2 

I 

Table 4.3 

' Table 4.4 

Table 4:5 

Table 4.6 

Table 4.7 

Yakima Coho Objectives and Associated Strategies 

Environmental Consequences of the Yakima Fisheries Project 

Alternatives 

Summary of Estimated Stream Plow for Surface Water Sources 

for Eraposed and AltmYakima Fishe~es Project Facilities, 

January through June 

Wetland Designations of Planned and Alternative YFP Site 

Locations Based on National Wetland Inventory Maps 

Population Trends of Affected Counties 

Earnings and Personal Income in 1992 (in Thousands of 1995 

Dollars), and as a Percent of Total, for Kittitas and Yakima 

Counties 

Location and Ownership of Land at Proposed Facility Sites 

Maximum Nutrient Discharge fkom the Cle Elum Hatchery 

Species Interaction Considerations Among Fish Potentially 

Present in the Upper and Lower Yakima River Basin Under 

the Yakima Fisheries Project 

Estimates of Construction Costs for Both Alternatives 

fortheYFP - Annual Project Costs of the YFP 

Summary of Annual Employment Impacts for Alternatives 1 and 

2, for the Two-county Impact Area 

Summary of Annual Income Impacts in Thousands of 1995 

r 

, 50 

56 

65 

.- 72 

.93 

93 

107 

'115 

132 

152 

153 

156 

Dollars for Alternatives 1 and 2, for the Two-county Impact Area 156 

Summary of Annual Income and Employment Impacts upon the 

Native American Population, in Jobs and Thousands of 1995 . 

Dollars - . 157 

Table of Contents/ vii .I- 
Page 

List of Figures 

Figure 2.1 

Figure 2.2 

Figure 2.3 

Figure 2.4 - 

Figure 2.5 

Figure 2.6 

Figure 2.7 

Figure 2.8 . 

Figure 2.9 

Figure 2.10 

Figure 2.11 

Figure 2.12 

Figure 2.13 

Adaptive Management Process for the Yakima 

Fisheries Project . Planning Cycle for the Yakima Fisheries Projecf 

Y akima Fisheries Project Management Structure 

Yakima River Basin 

Upper Yakima River and Tributaries - Project Facilities 

Cle Elum Hatchery General Site Plan 

Cle Elum Hatchery Layout , 

Clark Flat Acclimation Site Map 

Easton Acclimation Site - Easton Dam Siting Option Map 

Easton Acclimation Site - Gravel Pond Siting Option Map 

Jack Creek Acclimation Site Map 

Cle Elum Alternate Acclimation Site Map 

Keechelus Alternate Acclimation Site Map 

. ~ 

18 ' 

19 

22 

. 28 

34 

36 

37 

. 39 

40 

41 

42- 

- 43 

44 f. 45 

%re 2.15 Coho Acclimat ion Sites 49 

me 2.14 Nprth F-way &climati&e (alt-) 

Figure 3.1 Historical Distribution of Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 75 

Figure 3.2 Historical Distribution of Yakima Coho Salmon 80 

Figure 4.1 Timelines for Socioeconomic Study 152 

.. 

APPENDICES 

A 

B 

Comments on IbvisedD raft EIS and Responses 

1995 Planning Status Report; Volume 3 - Yakima Spring Chinook 

Salmon; Volume 5 - Yakima Coho Sm 

Glossary of Species: Scientific NamesBiological Assessments and Endangered Species Consultation 

I 

c. 

D 

E Harvest Management 

,I 

Table of Contents/ viii 
1. PURPOSE OF-AND NEED FOR ACTION 

1.1 Proposed Action 

The Bonneville Power Administration @PA) proposes to fund the Yakima Fisheries 

Project (YFP) to undertake fishery research and 

Basin. The State of Washington and the Yakama Indian Nation (YIN) would jointly 

direct the project. 

activities in the Yakima River I 

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

maintain anadromous’ fish production facilities in order to conduct research activities ’ 

designed to increase knowledge of supplementation techniques. These techniques would 

be applied to rebuild naturally spawning anadromous fish stocks historically present in the 

Yakima River Basin and, ultimately, to rebuild those throughout the Columbia River 

Basin. 

The protection, mitigation, and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources of the 

Columbia River and its tributaries is one of the goals of the Pacific Northwest Electric 

Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 (Northwest Power Act). That Act requires 

that the Northwest Power Planning Council (Council) develop both a program to protect 

and rebuild Columbia Basin fish and wildlife resources (the Columbia River Basin Fish and 

Wildlife Program; NPPC, 1994) and a 20-year plan for meeting the region’s electrical 

energy needs (the Northwest Conservation and-Electric Power Plan). The Act also 

requires that BPA fund protection, mitigation, and enhancement activities consistent with 

the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program, the Power Plan, and other purposes of the 

Northwest Power Act. The Yakima-Klickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP) is one of the 

projects included in the Fish and Wildlife Program; the YFP is the &st phase of the YKFP. 

- 

Although the YFP may eventually involve the supplementation of all stocks of 

anadromous fish known to have occurred in the Yakima Basin, at this time only two 

&alternatives have been proposed-.Qn * a 1 t emative: I .. 

Alternative 1 would supplement depressed naturally spawning populations 

of upper Yakima spring chinook; 

Alternative 2 would include all actions under Alternative 1; in addition, it ~ 

would add a study to dete~ne the feasibility of re-establishing a naturally 

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

Basin. 

Coho are now virtually eliminated fkom the basin. Under Alternative 2, a feasibility study 

would be conducted using smolts currently being imported from another basin under the 

1 Words underscored at their first app-xrance in the tex? are defined in the Glossary. 

Chapter 1/1 I 
J - 

- 

Columbia River Fish Management Plan (CRFMP).:! The Policy Group for the Yakima 

.Fisheries Project has identified Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative. (See 

Section 1.5 for background on defining the scope of the project.) 

1,2 Need and Purposes 

The project responds directly to a need for knowledge of viable means to rebuild and 

maintain naturally spawning anadromous fish stocks. In proposing the YFP, BPA 

strategy of supplementation in their efforts to protect& mitigate acjs on stocks 

of anadromous fish in the Yakima River Basin. As described below%tional methods 

may be less viable than originally thought. 

Conventional fish hatcheries traditionally have produced large numbers of artificially 

propagated fish to increase harvest opportunities and, in some cases, to bolster natural 

production. However, important questions regarding hatchery production have arisen in 

three areas: 

.' and the project managers seek knowledge about how resource managers can use the 

the survival'of hatchery fish after release from the hatchery, 

,e -the.impacts of hatchery'fish as they compete with wild populations, and 

the effects of hatchery propagation on the long-term genetic fitness of fish 

stocks. 

The YFP is being designed. (1) to provide resource managers withhowledge regarding , 

these issues and (2) to ident~ and apply improved methods for carrying out hatchery 

: 

,. - production and supplementation of natural production. - 

.. 

Supplementation aims to rebuild natural anadromous-fish spawning runs by raising and 

releasing artificially propagated fish into natural streams and by lncreas ing natural 

production of both naturally and artificially produced fish. Its goal (as distinct from 

conventional hatchery practices; see Table 1.1) is to increase the numbers of naturally 

spawning fish, while maintaining the long-term genetic fitness of the fish population being 

supplemented and keephg adverse genetic and ecological interactions with non-target 

species or stocks within acceptable liits. Its ultimate goal is to produce enough naturally 

spawning fish with a high enough survival rate to be able to phase out artificial 

propagation. 

~ Coho are currently being acclimated and released below Wapato Dam as part of the US. v. 

Oregon Columbia River Fish Management Plan; see Section 1.4. This coho program is intended 

to provide harvest oppodties for the Yakama Indian Nation and other fishers. 

I 

I 
.) 

Table 1.1 A Comparison of Current Hatchery Programs and Proposed 

Supplementation Facilities 

GOALS 

BROODSTOCK 

EARLY REARING 

FEED 

RACEWAYS ~ 

REARINGPONDS 

FISH RELEASE 

ADULT FISH 

Fishery agencies and Tribes throughout the Pacific Northwest consider supplementation a 

potentially important viable alternative to conventional hatchery methods for rebuilding 

salmonid runs. - .. .. -7 The Colu- and Wildlife Aumtv s Intqpted Svstm 

lCRFWA-19 , 1 .. h man- aPenc*es and Tribon to orowde over half of the tota 1 product ion inc reaseL 

91) i-t the tis 

0 The Council recognizes the value of scientifically supported supplementation 

programs for the rehabilitation of weak wild and naturally spawning populations 

(NPPC, 1994). 

The National Marine Fisheries Service WS), in its Proposed Recovery Plan for 

Snake River Salmon &S, 1995), proposes development of management 

programs involving artificial propagation and supplementation to support recovery 

of listed Snake River salmon. These programs would include specific numerical 

goals and strategies for genetic management, disease management, monitoring and 

evaluation, reintroduction.and supplementation, and facilities management. 

,Chapter 1/3 I 
Despite this support, no adequately detailed understanding of optimal techniques exists for 

all situations where supplementation may be applied. Furthermore, none of the existing 

supplementation projects in the Columbia River Basin have adequate facilities for testing 

the various rearing strategies being proposed for the YFP. (See Section 2.5.) The 

uncertainties about the technique, as well as the importance of supplementation to 

potential future mltlgatlon plans, make it imperative that existing and 

supplementation-be thoroughly evaluated using a systematic, experimental program. 

The YFP would be designed to meet both the need for rigorous research and that for 

responsiveness to changes as the project proceeds. 

.. . 

nal Research Council (NRC. 199 5) . has recommended that the poal of htdxxy 

ist recovery of wild popul&bwmd 

to inccease knowledge about salmon. Hatcheries should be thought of %LS laboratories 

Id be to ass 

The Natio 

 ati ion shou 

that can provide for study ng - juven’ de fish and fo r testing 

treatments to 

immoved environments 

LL 

f. .. - improve our undermg of w hat mens to juveds after they leave the 

salmon.” (NRC 19 95: 10) 

A significant feature of wplementatio n under the YFP is the effort to maintain the longterm genetic fitness of the salmonid populations. Some of the strategies that project 

managers would employ would be aimed at minimizing the potential for adverse genetic 

impacts. These would include, but not be limited to, the following: 

I 

identifjring and separately culturing distinct stocks of fish and returning 

them to their ancestral drainages; 

assuring that returning first-generation supplementation fish are not used 

for broodstock; 

adopting broodstock collection and natural escapement protocols to ensure 

that both components are representative of the population and contain 

adequate numbers to ensure conservation of stock characteristics and longterm fitness; 

ensuring that at least 50% of naturally spawned adults are allowed to 

spawn naturally by managing the proportion of hatchery-spawned and 

naturally spawned adults allowed to spawn naturally; 

conservivg the genetic diversity of the hatchery fish by using careklly 

planned and monitored mating strategies, and; 

creating rearing conditions that more closely resemble natural conditions. 

~ 

The project would include an extensive monitoring and evaluation program to measure 

Yakima River Basin salmonid responses to supplementation activities. Project managers 

and researchers would follow an adaptive management policy (see Section 2.2), which 

would allow goals and strategies to evolve as new information becomes available. At the 

same time, the YFP would proceed with the Council’s long-term goal of 

* 

I .. . 

Chapter 114 
-the anadromous fishery in the Yakima River Basin to increase the abundance 

of naturally reproducing salmonid stocks and to increase harvest opportunities for Yakama 

tribal members and other fishers. 

I 

The following objectives shape the purposes of the YEP: I 

1) To test the that new supplementation techniques can be used in 

Io the Yakima River Basin to increase natural production and to improve 

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

wild and native salmonid populations and keeping adverse ecological 

interactions within acceptable limits; 

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

used to wte effects on anadromous fisheries throughout the Columbia 

River Basin; 

Program; -and 

.. 

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

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

1.3 Background 

The I 

feature of the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. The Council selected the 

Yakima River system for supplementation for two reasons: 

of bcts on Yakima River Basin fisheries resources is an important 

fisheries resources are severely reduced from historic levels, and 

there is a significant potential for fniti?&on of effects an these resources. 

- .. . 

Historically, numbers of anadromous fish -the Yakima River were estimated to 

have ranged from 600,000 to as many as 960,000 per year @PA, 1990b). Current 

salmonid runs in the Yakima River have been reduced to fewer than 7,000 adults (about 1 

percent of the historical nm she). Declines in anadromous fish runs in the Yakima River 

have been attributed to activities related to irrigation, mining, harvest, forestry, and 

hydroelectric power generation. A comparison of historical and present returns to the 

basin is shown in Table 1.2. 

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

Basin. The Council considers the Yakima River system a promising location for mitigation to compensate for losses from development and operation of hydroelectric projects 

elsewhere in the Columbia Basin. The YFP would help determine the role that 

supplementation might play in increasing natural production of anadromous salmonids 

throughout the Columbia Basin. 

Chapter 1/5 '1 

_- 
, 

Table 1.2 Estimates of Historical Anadromous Fish Runs in the 

\ Yakima River as Compared'to Recent Run Size (5-year 

average, 1989-1994). (Fast, per. comm., 1994) 

- 

In 1982, the Council first encouraged BPA to "fund the design, construction, operation, 

and maintenance of a hatchery to enhance the fishery for the Yakima3 Indian Nation as 

well as-all other harvesters." (NPPC, 1982). In 1984, the Council provided further ~ 

direction by recommending development of a master plan for the YKFP. Supplementation 

research was added to its stated fish production objectives. The proposed YKFP master 

plan, reviewed by the Council in 1987, provided the conceptual fiamework for the project, 

including types of fish and numbers to be produced, facility descriptions, management 

structure, schedule, and steps for evaluating the success of planned activities (Fish 

Management Consultants, 1987). 

Following Council review, preliminary design work studies were begun to collect 

additional information needed for project planning. In 1990, the Preliminary Design 

Report @PA, 199Ob) was completed. Study results indicated that production facilities 

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

harvest benefits, and gain knowledge about supplementation techniques of benefit to the 

entire region @PA, 1990b). 

. 

- 

I 

1.4 Relationship to Other Yakima River Basin Fishery Mitigation 

Efforts 

The YFP is part of a more comprehensive effort by the U. S. Bureau of Reclamation 

(USBR), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), BPA, .the YIN, and the State of Washington to 

wte effects on fishery and water resources in the Yakima Riyer Basin. The YFP 

would test the assumption that supplementation could be used to increase natural 

production of anadromous fish in the Yakima River Basin and improve harvest 

opportunities, while maintaining long-term genetic fitness of anadromous fish.- The 

benefits of supplementation include increased natural production (greater abundance) and 

increased productivity (more surviving offspring per spawner). These benefits may 

become self-sustaining after a period of supplementation. 

.. 

- 

3 . Previously acqepted spelling for the Yakama Indian Nation. 

.Chapter 1/6 ' - 

I 

I 

I 

t 
- However, supplementation would not eliminate the need to pursue other conservation and 

mitigation measures planned for the Yakima River Basin. Sustained supplementation may I 

eventually become unnecessary, but only if substantial improvements in habitat and in-river' 

migration conditions were to reduce significantly the mortality of all salmonid stocks. 

While these improvements are not proposed as part of the project addressed in this 

environmental impact statement @IS), there are other ongoing projects, described below, 

and additional improvements may be proposed in the fiture. 

Earlier fishery and habitat mitigation efforts in the Yakima River Basin include 

Congressional legislation to authorize passage improvements (fish screening and adult 

laddeis) at numerous irrigation facilities. The USBR and BPA have prepared 

Environmental Assessments @As) for these -facilities @PA, 1991) and have 

completed construction for the first phase of these facilities. Phase 11 fish screening 

activities are ongoing at this time. Other efforts, which include measures to enhance ' 

Yakima River Basin water resources, also are expected to benefit anadromous fish 

production. In October 1994, Congress passed legislation (the Yakima River Basin Water 

and Conservation Act, Public Law 103-434) to authorize water conservation activities, 

including improvements to irrigation water delivery systems and a basin-wide water 

conservation program. The USFS, as well as State and private entities, have also 

conducted habitat improvement activities in the Basin. 

* 

I 

XI1 &the Yb River Bg&n WM Conservation Act aut- 

(throuvh the Yah River Bmiq 

focus of Ta is 4 

wng delivery svstems and on-fam 

used for instrm flows. Othe r elements contai ned in Title XrI include the 1-meter ( 3- 

practices. --five percent ofthe wl€ter saved throudl these waw-es wl11 be dedlca 

foot! rise of Cle Elum Da m. wh ich will orovide ao - proximately 18.5 million m3 (15rOO0 

.. 

of the C.ler hvdrooum WM 

dler Powerhouse: 

itle XII will certair& , 

NEPA dococ m- tobe 

GsuWsb 

Some fishery 

under the auspices of the CRJNP. This fish conservation and management plan describes 

production and harvest management actions that have been agreed to by all the parties to 

the United States Y Oregon treaty fishing rights case. The parties to the original lawsuit 

and the CRFMP are the states of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho; the United States 

activities are currently taking place in the Yakima River Basin 

I' 

Chapter 1/2 [ 
- 

through representation by the IWFS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); 

the four Columbia River Treaty Tribes (YIN, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs 

Indian Reseniation, Umatilla, and Nez Perce tribes); and, to a limited extent, the Colville 

and Shoshone-Bannock tribes. Commercial, recreational, and traditional tribal fisheries in 

the mainstem Columbia River are managed under CRF&€P provisions. The fish 

production and harvest provisions of CRFMP are intended to assist in the rebuilding of 

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

equitable sharing of harvestable fish between treaty and non-treaty fisheries. 

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

fall chinook and coho salmon. The fall chinook program includes the &production 

and release into the Yakima of 1.7 million smolts from the Little White Salmon National 

Hatchery. Between 1983 and 1994 the smolts were transported and released directly into 

the Yakima River. The YIN, with fhds provided under the Mitchell Act program, has 

developed acclimation facilities in the vicinity of Prosser Dam for final rearing and release 

I 

by 199 6, - , I of these fall chinook smolts. These fac ilities WI '11 be tested by the YIN 1 'n 1995. and are 

Since 1987, under the mandate of the CRFMP coho program, the Oregon Department 'of 

Fish and Wildlife's (ODFW) Cascade Hatchery (neafBonneville Dam) bas: provided up tq 

700.000 early-run co ho yearly for release inta the Yakima River. This program is'part of 

a larger effort to redistribute coho for release in upper Columbia tributaries rather than in 

the lower Columbia. 

mngerred apmimatelv .. 600.000 -iuven' ile co-lts) into the Yaki2n 199 5. These5 -&.t 1 Q fm imsut-p luses at lower 

Columbia hatcherie s. Of these. 2 1 0000 . were planted in the Naches River Bas 

were planted in Ahjanum Creek on the Yakama Reservati0 n- a n d 330000 I we r e moved t~ 

.. theXN fklm-ies pr 

in: 60.000 

ies at Prosser to be rdgggbsm 1996, 

' 13 Relationship to Other Documents, Including the Draft EIS 

In conjunction with the Preliminary Design Report on the YFP, an EA was prepared on 

the siting and construction of central, satellite and tratqing facilities for supplementing 

'anadromous fish populations in the Yakima and Klickitat River Basins (BPA, 1990a). The 

EA found that no significant environmental impacts would result fi-om tbs portion of the 

proposed action, and the U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) issued a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) in April 1990. 

However, BPA identified the need for additional environmental documentation to cover 

other aspects of the project, including operation of the planned production facilities and 

potential impacts from the siting and construction of acclimation facilities. Because - 

various entities have subsequently 'expressed concern over management practices planned 

for the YFP, BPA concluded that an EIS was necessary to consider issues relating to 

project management, genetic impacts, and species interactions. 

I 

Chapter 1 /& 
Accordingly, BPA prepared and then issued a Draft EIS (DEIS) for the YFP in October 

1992. The public comment period for the DEIS closed in December 1992. Comments 

were extensive. Many valid concerns were raised about the project, and several omissions 

were identified in the analysis. After reviewing these comments, BPA concluded that 

additional work and a revision in the scope of the project were needed to respond My. 

The Revised Draft EIS (RDEIS) present&, for public review and comment, a I 

I 

description of the revised YFP alternatives and additional information that was not 

included in the YFP DEIS. The RDEIS andfollow the same general format, and 

except where modified, includes the text of the earlier document. (Consequently, a reader 

. 

I 

of the WRDEIS need not refer to the DEIS to integrate the documents.) 

Below are listed the more significant changes to tke document between the DEIS and 

RDEIS. 

Changes to the alternatives in Chapter 2; 

Expansion of a cumulative impacts analysis for fisheries (see Section 4.1.2.2); . 

A revised natural production modeling effort, resulting in a more sophisticated 

description of species interactions, genetics and harvest impacts, and experimental 

design and monitoring; and 

Additional discussion on project management and water rights impacts. I 

-. 

cornmew on the RDU a Fi-document) wa .. red. S- from the WETS include; 

ion of an alternative accmonm, - I . .- . 0 

0 of the water n~m revlsed discusion on imDacts on . .. .. water avadaluhty for uugatsu 

0 jnfomatlon on imDacts of Jack C reek a nd Nort h Fork Teanawav 

0 larificat' ion wrding - the Wenuee Nat ional Forest 

ource 7 its r-r, to waterw 

Dlannill9. 

0 

The alternatives addressed in this FEIS are summarized as follows: 

Under Alternative 1, the project managers would conduct supplementaUnder Alternative 2, project managers would conduct both supplementation activities on upper Yha spring chinook and a study to determine 

the feasibility ofre-establishing a naturally spawning population and a 

~ tion activities on upper Yalcima spring c~nool;. 

. 

Chapter 1/2 I 
’ ..I . 

- sigmfickt fall fishery for coho in the Yakima River Basin. This is the 

preferred alternative. - I 

. 0 Under the No Action Alternative, no sugplementation or study activities 

would be fiinded by BPA in the Yakima River Basin under these auspices, 

The RDEIS and FETS-address in detail those issues relevant to these three alternatives. . 

Note that if Alternative 1-or 2 were selected, the project managers and BPA would 

continue to evaluate the possibility of supplementing additional stocks in the Yakima River 

Basin. Any proposals to initiate supplementation on any of the other stocks considered in 

the original DEIS would be addressed in subsequent supplementation plans and 

environmental documents. Development of detailed supplementation plans for additional 

stocks would rely heavily on the adaptive- management process and other project 

management decision mechanisms described in Section 2.2. 

Supplemental environmental analyses might also be required for other fkture activities, 

such as changes in the program that might occur as a result of feedback from the adaptive 

management process. (See Sections 2.2:2 and 2.2.3.) Uncertainties clearly exist as to the 

impacts of certain supplementation activities planned for the project. In fact, the adaptive 

management philosophy for the’project anticipates resolution of unceaainties unforeseen 

at the inception. During an annual YFP planning process, ‘a Science/Techhkal Advisory 

Committee (STAC) would identie possible unforeseen changes to the currently proposed 

‘ project activities.,‘ Actions that would trigger impacts not addressed in the YFP EIS would 

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

activities, such as supplemental analyses, supplemental documents, or emergency 

consultations with the President’s.Counci1 on Environmental Quality, if necessary. 

.~ and no facilities would be constructed. ~. 

I 

. 

1 - 

- 

’ 

Several commenters on the DEIS suggested that a comprehensive EIS should be prepared 

on all of the salmonid production and mitigation efforts in the Columbia River Basin. In 

fact, the USFWS, NMFS, and BPA are currently preparing a proarammatic EIS, called 

Interactions qf Hatchew and Naturallv Spawning Salmon and Steelhead in the Columbia 

River Basin, that will address the cumulative effects of the interaction between 

anadromous fish produced under current fish hatchery programs and naturally spawning 

salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River. The YFP will be evaluated along with all 

other existing and proposed artificial propagation and supplementation facilities being 

addressed in that programmatic EIS. The Draft Programmatic EIS is anticipated in & 

1996. The Jnteractions of Hatchei?, and Natural& Svawning Salmon and Steelhead in 

#he Columbia River Basin EIS will concentrate on cumulative impacts resulting from the 

mixing of the wild and hatchery fish stocks in the migration corridor, while the YFP EIS 

cumblative impact analysis that considers the impacts of this project on the overall 

Columbia River Basin fishery (see Section 4.1.2.2). 

addresses the sub-basinimpacts of the YFP. However, the YFP EEIS also includes a I 

Chapter 1 /J.Q 
The NMFS Proposed Recovery Plan for Snake'River Salmon and the March 1995 NMFS 

. Biological Opinion on operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System in 1995 and 

future. years.are now available. These documents address protection and recovery 

measures for the Snake River salmon stocks listed under the Endangered Species Act 

will be addressed e consI 

on the Ya-enes Proiect (see Section 4.1. 6.0. 

@SA). = potential.cts .- . QD. the YFB, 

1.6 Decisions to be Made 

Preparation of this document is intended to fulfill the NEPA requirements for BPA. The 

document also has been prepared for purposes of compliance by the Washington 

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

Policy Act (SEPA). Although neither law applies to YIN activities, the YIN have chosen 

to participate as a cooperating entity. The requirements of NEPA and SEPA are nearly 

identical. The WDFW will be the lead agency for SEPA compliance for the project.. 

Bonneville Power Administration must decide: 

0 whether to fund the project as described and, if So, 

0 whether to fund Alternative 1, which calls for supplementation of a single 

chinook stock, or Alternative 2, which calls for supplementation of that 

single stock and additionally for a feasibility study for reintroduction of 

coho. - 

If BPA were to decide not to fund the project (the No Action Alternative), the portion of 

the Council's Program that addresses the YFP would not be klfilled. WA would set& 

to mafia n resuons ibiiities. IfBPA were to choose not to fimd the 

project, it would likely not be implemented by any of the other entities, due to lack of 

funding. 

.. . . ... 

The factors that will be considered in ,making these decisions are based on the purposes 

defined for the project in Section 1.2. They are listed below. 

The ability of the alternative to: 

.. - evaluate the effectiveness of supplementation techniques for 

implementation throughout the Columbia River Bash,, 

- increase natural production of anadromous fish in the Yakima River 

Basin while maintaining the long-term genetic fitness of 

anadromous fish in the Yakima River Basin and improving harvest 

opportunities; 

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

rChapter l/U I 

... ~ . 
0 The economic factors relative to the alternative; and 

* The environmental.impacts of the alternative. _. 

-. 

1.7 Scoping and Public Involvement 

A Notice pf Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS for the YFP was issued in January 1991. 

Scoping meetings were held in February 199 1 in Yakima, Goldendale, Richland, Ellensburg, and Bellevue, Washington, as well as in Portland, Oregon. Over 200 people 

attended, these meetings, and 95 comment letters were received from the general public. 

Public comments were considered and used to determine the scope of the EIS. 

The following issues were identified during the scoping process: 

- 

\ 

Genetic risks to existing‘wild fish populations both in2and’outGde the Yakima 

River Basin (discussed in Sections 4.1 .,2.1 and 4.1.2.2). 

0 Potential negative impacts on the resident trout fishery above Roza Dam-- 

. competition for food and space, genetic risk, disease transfer, and increase in 

number of salmon and-steelhead anglers (Sections 4.1.9.1, 4.1,2.1,-and 4.1.2.2). 

EIS Scope--preparation first of a programmatic EIS for entke Columbia River ’ 

Basin, with tiered, Basin-specific and evensub-Basin-specific project 

environmental analyses; to include cumulative analysis of all supplementation and 

hatchery releases throughout the Columbia.River Basin (Section 1.5). 

Economic issues--total project costs, benefit-cost. analysis,. cost-effectiveness 

analysis in relation to other fishery projects in the Colum6ia system, and local 

economic impacts (Section 4.1.8). . 

- 

0 

0 Project de-cisioninaking--what is the process, what factors will influence the final, 

decisidn on the project, who will make the decision, why NEPA wasn’t done 

.before the project went tdthe Council (Section 1.6). 

Supplementation--definition -of supplementation ‘and how it differs from 

conventional hatchery programs, review and .evaluation of previous 

supplementation.worb how proposed supplementation efforts would differ from 

or complement existing efforts (Sections 1;2 and, 2.6). 

Water rights and claims--concern about effects of project, need for specific 

assurances that the project would.not affect private landowners’ rights in any way 

(Section 4.1.1.1). ’ ~ 

I. 

Straying fish--howsthey could affect endangered or petitioned stocks in other 

~ basins, concern that they might stray and ultimately affect’water rights (Section 

4.1.2.1). 

Other ecological resources--long-term effects on the ecosystem, particularly the 

aquatic food base, impacts on wildlife and resident fish (Sections 4.1.3,4.1.5, and 

4.1.6). - 

/ 

Chapter 1/~ 
Suggested alternatives--No Action, hatchery outplantings for extinct runs and 

habitat improvement for other runs, additional steelhead production above Roza 

Dam, smaller-scale supplementation alternative, non-hatchery alternatives, and full 

production (Chapter 2). 

The DEIS for the YFP wasreleased’in October 1992. Six public meetings were held 

throughout the region (Richland, Yakima, Portland (two meetings), -Bellevue, and 

Ellensburg). Written remarks and comments were also accepted through December 28, 

1992. BPA received a total of 107 letters and telephone calls from individuals, groups, 

and agencies during the comment period. In addition, more than 300 people attended the 

public meetings, with many individuals providing oral comments about the project. 

\ 

received focused on the EIS process, the project alternatives selected for EIS analysis, and 

the potential impacts on other ecological resources, including threatened and endangered 

species. 

lor revialwed h* DFJS was draRd and 

1995. There we 1 C 1 .. received. The followngmues received tbe most mensive comment; 

on V&I other -. 

for nv alternatives; 

jest ions 

concm about the VI- of s- and @ abilitv to mote@ - 

iect to’ other stoc ks and a 

.. -. . .. - ~- 

stoa 

ons w~ the rdent trout fisherv: and 

. .. .. water rgt&uadwadetW~ to irncil~ors. . 

., 

Chapter l/U I 
. 
2. ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 Introduction 

The goal of this YFP is to obtain knhwledge about how resource managers can use the 

strategy of supplementation in their efforts to protect,&mitigatebacts =stocks of 

anadromous fish in the Yakima River Basin. The YFP would include several artificial 

production facilities designed to test and apply supplementation techniques. Results of 

these experiments might apply throughout the Yakima Basin and Columbia River system. 

The ultimate result would increase the productivity and abundance of natural runs of 

anadromous salmonids in the Yakima River Basin. 

This chapter describes several central features of the project: 

The adaptive management process (Section 2.2) to be used under either of 

the two alternatives that have been proposed to satisfjr the need for the 

project (see Chapter 1); 

0 The two action alternatives (Sections 2.3 and 2.4); 

the No Action Alternative (Section 2.5); 

Alternatives eliminated fiom detailed consideration (Section 2.6); and 

of the alternatives (Section 2.7). 

A summary and comparison of the potential environmental consequences -- 

Adaptive Management. The proposed adaptive management policy specifies an 

ongoing, iterative approach to planning for the project. Full detailed plans for . 

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

gained fiom the previous year's activities. 'Section 2.2 below provides details. 

The most detailed planning has been completed for the upper Yakima spring chinook and 

coho stocks, the focus of the 90 alternatives mentioned below. Those stocks forwhich 

detailed supplementation planning has not been completed (e.g., summer steelhead, fall 

chinook) are not addressed in this EEIS. Ifthe project managers and BPA should decide 

in the kture to propose to undertake supplementation for any of those stocks, such plans 

would be addressed in additional environmental documents. 

I 

Alternatives. The DEIS's several project alternatives were distinguished fiom each other 

primarily by the number of stocks proposed for supplementation. In some alternatives, the 

number of smolts to be stocked also varied. The alternatives ranged fiom supplementation 

of seven stocks to supplementation of three stocks only. However, after considering 

public comments on the DEIS, BPA and the project managers concluded that these multistock options 

-h the RDJ?iS to this FETS. Consequently, Alternative 1 

.. not appropriate at tha time (see Section 2.6.2). That decision 

.- 

Chapter2/15, I 
discussed below focuses on supplementation of a single stock (upper' Yakima spring 

chinook). Alternative 2 also focuses on supplementation of that stock, .- . , but adds a 

feasibility study for the reintroduction of coho. -The No Action alternative is addressed in 

Section 2.5. '. ., 

' 2.2 Adaptive Management- .. 

The project managers would use an adaptive management policy in order to achieve 

project goals and protect the basin's fisheiy resources from unforeseen, adverse project -. 

impacts. Adaptive management emphasizes experimental interventlon into an ecosystem 

to provide insights into how it works and changes. The- effects of management actions are 

.monitored and evaluated, and programs, procedures, apd facilities may all be modified in 

response to these findings. 

Using adaptive management, the scientific methpd is incorporated into project planning 

and decision-making. It is pafticularly appropriate when attempting to Wcatb for e ffects 

motherwise declining natural resources in a complicated, large-scale ecosystem where 

complexities of the system are not fully understood. Such uncertainty may make scientists 

hesitant to act and experiment: Adaptive management is the conscious decision in 

favor of action. designed to increase -. understanding as opposed to %inaction in the face 

of uncertainty. 

.. 

.. 

There are risks inherent in such action. Such risk is best managed by collecting baseline 

data, monitoring and evaluating, and being prepared to respond to new information, even 

if it means drastic changes to a program. The success of the proposed YFP monitoring 

program would depend on the ability of project personnel to obtain valid information 

about how-the project is working, using available theory and technology. Likewise, the 

success of the proposed evaluation program depends on the commitment of project 

managers to institute a management and decision-making process that can respond . 

effectively to new information calling for change. This process must be able to 

overcome resistance to change and the apparent security afforded by stability. 

Under adaptive management, project managers propose actions in response to a set of 

agreed-upon objectives. These actions are designed as experiments to test hypotheses 

regarding their outcome: to see whether the predicted result occurs or whether some other 

result occurs. The experiments must be carefully designed to obtain valid (Le., statistically 

reliable) results in a specified period of time. The experiments are conducted and carefully 

monitored to allow statistical evaluation of the results. 

. 

' , Implementing an adaptive management policy requires the following: 

0 a project management plan; 

0 

0 

a commitment to defining and expressing policy; 

a management fiamework far carrying out the plan. 

Chapter 2/% 
These elements are described below to demonstrate how the YIN and the WDFW would 

use an adaptive management design to impIement the YFP. 

2.2.1 Proiect Manaclement Plan 

The proposed YFP Project Management Plan uses Walters’ (1986) adaptive management 

cycle: it involves adaptive 1earning.through management experiments rather than 

conservative natural resource management or basic research. The design of the 

experimental program for upper Yakima spring chinook involved the following basic 

actions (Figure 2.1): 

1) identify objectives; 

2) identify strategies to achieve the objectives; 

3) identify operating assumptions needed to accept the strategies; 

4) identify uncertainties associated with these assumptions; 

5) identify the risk of not meeting the stated objectives if the assumptions are 

6) develop a monitoring plan and process for continual review of results and 

incorrect or the strategy is not feasible; and 

- adaptation to manage the uncertainty and risk associated with 

supplementation. 

\ 

- 

The Project Managemefit Plan uses ezperiments designed to resolve uncertainties as it 

accomplishes YFP goals and objectives. The risk analysis and monitoring steps include a 

for review of the previous vear’s reshwhich may cause the objectives to be 

modified, thus restarting the process. 

2.2.1.1 Planning Status Report 

The YFP planning cycle is shown in Figure 2.2. Each year, the YFP STAC prepares a 

PZanning 

m, 

Status Report (completed in 1992, 1993, d1994- 

and h1995 for e chinook and cohq ) documenting the objectives, 

strategies, and operational assumptions for the YFP (developed through the actions 

above) consistent with the state of knowledge and information availablebe. Th Planning Status Report is completed early in each year and includes ongoing 

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

upcoming year. 

. .. 

. 
Evaluate Monitoring 

Results through 

Annual Report, Science/ 

Technical Addisory Group, Monitoring Plan 

I I and Policy Group Review 

U I Objective Chapter 3; Planning Status Report (PSR) 

(What we want) 

I' 

Chapter 4, (PSR) ' 

(What we'll do 

' toget it) 

A 

IAssumptionsIXptei (What we 'accept' 

I 5, (PSR) . Use informatlon/data to accept uncertainties 

t I I' I 

-t Decision to accept I 

Literature Review 

Lab/Field Tests 

Implement YFP for 

Selected Stock 

uncertainty) , 

Critical 

(How confident 

do we feel 

we accept?) 

about the assumptions L[ Resolvable 

I 

further information 

(What might not 

in PSR work?) 

I I I I 

Strateaies 

Identify Need for Refined Objectives ldoes not work?l I' I 

Figure 2.1 Adaptive Management Process for the Yakima Fisheries Project 
.. 

I 

Data to Resolve Uncertainties I 

I I 

Figure 2.2 Planning Cycle for the Yakima Fisheries Project 

Under adaptive management, BPA and the coopera2ig agencies would examine the 

Planning Status Report to determine whether new or revised strategy options contained in 

it are included in the scope of this FEIS. If not, BPA and the cooperating agencies would 

identify potential environmental impacts resulting fiom newly proposed project activities 

and would determine whether additional NEPA and/or SEPA work would be necessary to 

address these impacts. This FEIS is based on the 1995 Planning Status Report (revised 

upper Yakima spring chinook & cobchapterm attached as Appendix B). , 

2.2.1.2 Uncertainty Resolution Plan -- 

As needed, the STAC prepares an Uncertainty Resolution Plan that identifies strategies to I 

resolve uncertainties (identified in action 4 above) about project operational assumptions. 

These strategies can include scientific literature searches, small-scale short-term field and 

laboratory experiments, large-scale long-term studies, and learning from other ongoing 

studies. Uncertainties must be prioritizedfor attention so that work can be carried out 

promptly. Resolvable uncertainties are a near-term high priofiw they affect strategy 

implementation, and the benefits of immediate resolution are high. The Uncertainty 

Resolution Plan therefore would also be used to prepare an annual work plan for the 

project. The draft Uncertainty Resoiufion Plan used for this FEIS wa prepared in 1992 

and address4 upper Yakima qiing chinook. 

. 

- 
2.2.1.3 Project Annual Review 

Toward the end of each year, the project managers undertake a Project Annual Review, 

(completed in 1992;1993,_1994, and 1995). In this Review, project staff and consultants 

present the results of their uncertainty-resolution work (including progress reports) to the 

project managers for process and policy decisionmaking. The Review is an opportunity 

for project scientists to present and discuss with others the new knowledge gained during 

the year (1) relative to project objectives and assumptions stated in the Planning Status 

Report and (2) resulting from resolution work described and scheduled in the Uncertainty 

Resolution Plan. These results are compiled; analyzed for relevance, task completion, and 

percent of uncertainty resolution; and formally documented. 

I . 

- 

However, reviewinglanalyzing the data is only the first step. The Project Annual Review 

and its ensuing analyses are the processes that provide the feedback loop from the current 

year's cumulative learning into the following year's plans. The Project, Annual Review 

reclassifies the resolution status of specific critical assumptions and identifies spin-off 

resolution tasks for the coming year. Changes in uncertainty levels of specific assumptions 

are based on scientific evidence. Scientific documents that form the basis for management 

decisions undergo peer review. Thus, the Project Annual Review and any associated peer 

review steps formthe basis of proposed amendments submitted early the following year to 

project managers for consideration and possible incorporation in the upcoming Planning 

Status Report. 

' Consistent with the adaptive management process, YFP managers will review the benefits 

and risks of continuing the preferred strategiesto meet the project's. objectives. . Strategies 

will be retained or adopted only if potential benefits exceed foreseeable risks, and i'f therisks of failure fall within acceptable limits. Thus, risk is managed and reduced over time 

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

uncertainties) and (2) the monitoring and evaluation plan. In this way, the risk of strategy 

failure (objectives not me,t and/or strategies iricorrectly implemented) can be reduced 

'through'pre-implementation research and through risk monitorirrg and a wilfingness to , 

change duririg implementation. 

. 

.. 

2.2.2 Policy Definition and Expression 

The adaptive management policy described above would guide project planning and 

operations. Within'its context, specific strategies would be selected and new information 

identified and applied. Project objectives would then normally be reviewed and perhaps 

revised, and appropriate strategies devised to achieve them: YFP policy would be created 

.'as strategies are selected to meet the stated objectives. As objectives and strategies are 

' revised and adjusted (consistent with YFP experimentation goals), management would be 

-t .. 

adapt& and consistent underlying -policy would evolve. ,& I 

YFP adaptive management would identifl 'zkzrnatives, clarifl associated benefits and 

risks, and make fbll public disclosure of project findings and changes in policy direction. -. .. 

\ 

- Chapter2/a . . \I 
Section 2.2.3 shows the corresponding project management structure within which the 

YFP Policy Group would serve as the main body for resolving YFP policy issues. 

Information on YFP implementation and policy would be available through minutes of 

policy meetings, newsletters, and technical and planning reports. The Planning Status 

Report, Uncertainty Resolution Plan, Project Annual Review, and any other related 

materials would be published annually. The YFP Policy Group would submit an annual 

summar) of project progress and adaptive responses to the NPPC. The managers would 

be committed to public involvement through ongoing implementation under NEPA and 

other statewide and regional planning and management forums related to fisheries 

resources. As needed, the Policy Group might convene special meetings to obtain public 

input on specific issues. 

2.2.3 Project Management 

I Project management would be coordinated among several groups:. 

e 

e 

e 

e 

The YIN would manage the project as Lead Agency. 

The Policy Group, with members from the YIN and the WDW, would 

provide policy-guidance to the Lead Agency, and review akd approve 

annual planning documents.. 

The STAC, consisting of State and Tribal biologists &&others as 

determined or needed, would advise the Policy Group. 

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

YIN. 

Department managers for each fhctional area of project operations would 

report to the Project Manager. 

Several Federal Agencies, including BPA, USBR, NMFS, USFWS, USFS, 

and the Bureau of Indian Affairs PIA) would provide fimding, technical 

assistance, NEPA review, and other participation as arranged. 

* 

~ 

I. - 

The relatiogship between each level of project management is illustrated in Figure 2.3. 

2.2.3.1 Policy Group 

The Policy Group, which includes appointed YIN and State of Washington 

representatives, works with BPA. The Yakama Tribal Council has appointed the 

Chairperson of its Fish and Wildlife Committee, acting through the YKFP Coordinator, as 

its representative on the Policy Group. Because the .Washington Department of Fisheries 

and the Washington Department of Wildlie merged in March 1994, the State is now 

represented by the YKFP Senior Policy Representative, as appointed by the Director of 

the newly formed WDFW. BPA's liaison with the Policy Group is a representative from 

the Anadromous Fish Implementation Grow of the Fnvironmeno ish and Wildlife 

_Groun. 
- 

Figure 2.3 Yakima Fisheries Project Management Structure 

Yakama ' 

Indian Nation Policy Group (lead agency) 4 

I 

I Federal Agencies' 1 

Washington 

Department 

of Fish and 

Wildlife 

Advisory 

Committee .. 

I 

I' 

Research Operations - Construction 

'Bonneville Pdwer Administration, UlS. Bur&u of Reclamation, National Marine Fisheries 

Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildliie Sewice, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and U.S. ForestService. 

The Policy Group's purpose and primary responsibility is to provide policy direction to the 

Lead Agency with regard-to YFP planning, construction, operation, and maintenance. 

The Group will also reGew and approve the project planning documents and other related . project activities. 

2.2.3.2 Project Managers 

In 1987, the State of Washington and the YIN agreed to designate the YIN as Lead 

Agency for managing the project. In 1994, the State and the YIN executed a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). that delineates and apportions each agency's 

responsibilities for project management. 

Generally, project management functions include research and project development, 

planning, operations, and contract administration. The Project Manager would receive 

directions for project, operations from the Lead Agency. It is anticipated that the YIN and 

BPA would enter into an agreement similar to the MOU mentioned above; it would also 

include a mechanism for BPA to fund project activities. BPA is and would remain the lead 

agency for purposes of NEPA review and compliance (due to Federal NEPA compliance 

requirements for projects that are Federally funded). 

Chapter 212 - . I' 
2.2.3.3 ScienceKechnical Advisory Committee 

The STAC would, upon the direction of the Policy Group, review and make 

recommendations on project planning, construction, and operations, including objectives 

and strategies. In this capacity, STAC would provide general scientific oversight ofproject planning and related matters. 

2.2.3.4 Bonneville Power Administration I. 

BPA would remain an integral part of the YKFP during all phases of the project, as part of 

its requirement to hnd protection, mitigation, and enhancement activities consistent with . 

the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program and the Northwest Power Act. A representative 

from the Anadromous Fish l[mplemej&&ion Grow would serve as a liaison with the Policy [ 

Group. Technical assistance would also be provided as needed with the STAC. As 

previously stated (see Section 2.2.3. l), BPA would remain the lead agency for facilitating 

the NEPA process& ESA con- * . BPA and the YIN are presently developing an 

MOU that will more filly detail their respective roles and responsibilities. 

with Other Federal Agencies. 

The project man= rs will maintain close work 'np relationships with other Fed& 

their ove~dkxpertise in resolvin~ paoiect-relatedissues. The p ro ject mamgers will seek 

pertinent D roiect issues such as water co nservation. 

.. 

nities to bu ild Dartnersm and reach consensus with these agent' ies oa .. 

.. 

a 

2.3 Alternative 1 : Upper Yakima Spring Chinook 

Supplementation 

Alternative 1 would test supplementation on one Yakima fiber stock upper Yakima 

spring chinook. One central facility would be built for several functions: holding upper 

Yakima spring chinook adults, spawning, incubating eggs, and early and extended rearing 

of the young fish. In addition, three sites would be constructed for acclimation and release 

of the smolts. The discussion below focuses first op the adaptive management framework 

of supplementation objectives, strategies, assumptions, uncertainties, risk analysis, and 

monitoring plans; then on the facilities and their operations. . 
2.3.1 Supplementation Objectives and Strategies 

The project managers have agreed on a set of objectives and strategies for supplementing 

each of the Yakima River Basin'stocks. These objectives and strategies are reviewed, 

revised, and published annually in the Planning Status Report (see Se&ion 2.2.1). 

The objectives are statements of planned accomplishments for the basin, 

The strategies are statements of actions that the project managers believe 

will enable them to achieve these objectives. 

The objectives and strategies are intended to be precise and increasingly specific 

statements abouf the YFP in four categories: genetics, natural production, 

experimentation, and harvest. The strategies are representative of those available to 

project managers to achieve production objectives and to contain unacceptable genetic 

and ecological risks. Table 2.1 presents the latest version of the objectives and strategies 

for spring chinook (Planning Status Report 1995, Volume 3, Summary, attached as 

Appendix B). 

Under the YFP, no objective is static and absolute. This is because, under adaptive 

management, the annual planning cycle of the project regularly and repeatedly examines 

the capacity and constraints of the stock and stream system, as well as the performance of 

hatchery fish, testing and revising a theory of supplementation. The rearing and release of 

each new group of smolts always repr&ent an eTpeqmental test of the latest theory. 

New experimental insights are used to modi@ or discard ineffective strategies, to improve 

underlying theory and, when necessary, to revise objectives to conform with perceived 

possibilities. Quantitative production objectives (for most of the stocks originally 

identified to be supplemented as part of the YFP) were formulated in 1990 in the Refined 

Goals section of the Preliminary Design Report (BPA, 1990b). The Refined Goals 

objectives were based on computer simulations generated by the Council's System 

Planning Model. 

.- 

3 

However, those objectives are continually re-assessed in the light of the latest 

demographic data, suspected ecological relationships, and modeling tools. Quantitative 

production objectives for upper Yakima spi.ing chinook have been refined, based on 

computer simulations using the Ecosystem Diagnostic and Treatment Planning Model 

(EDTPM) (Lestelle et al., 1994) developed under the Regional Assessment of 

Supplementation Project (RASP) (RASP, 1992). For a number of reasons, BPA and the . ' 

project managers have used the EDTPM for YFP planning rather than the System 

Planning Model, because it tracks juvenile production capacity more closely and allows for 

variable (density-dependent) predation on outmigrating smolts. 

Chapter 2/24 
Table 2.1 Upper Yakima Spring Chinook Objectives and Associated Strategies 

I- Objectives I Strategies 

I 

Genetic 

Manage genetic risks (extinction, loss of 

within- and between-population variability, and domestication selection) to all ~. 

stocks from mqnagement of the fishery. 

Conserve upper Yakima and Naches 

stocks of spring chinook salmon. 

Conserve the American River stock of ~ 

spring chinook salmon. 

Natural Production 

Optimize natural production of spring 

chinook with respect to abundance and 

distribution. 

Optimize natural production of spring 

chinook salmon while managing adverse 

impacts from interactions between and 

within species and stocks. 

Segregate identified stocks by selecting broodstock for which the origin 

can be reasonably well determined, and release hatchery-reared progeny 

only in ancestral drainages. 

Use for broodstock onlythose fish that are not first-generation-hatchery 

fish. 

Operate the supplementation facilities using appropriate mating 

procedures, naturalized environments, and experimental numbers to 

reduce the possibility of extinction, loss of Within- and betweenpopulation variability, and domestication selection. 

Use less than'50% of the natural-origin returning adult escapement 

from each stock for broodstock purposes. 

Manage the proportion of natural- to hatchery-origin adults allowed to 

spawn naturally. 

Segregate identified stocks by selecting broodstock for which the origin 

can be reasonably well determined, &d release hatchery-reared progeny 

only in ancestral drainages. 

Collect, identify and segregate spring chinook by stock, through 

spawning, rearing and release. 

Collect, identify and segregate spring chinook by stock, through 

spawning, rearing and release. 

Develop and apply methods to maximize the likelihood that only 

American River-origin fish enter and spawn in the American River. 

Improve the physical, biol,ogical, and chemical environment on a 

priority basis. 

Use harvest controls and supplementation to optimize naturrll spawning 

distribution (temporal and spatial). 

- 

Reiease 810,000 acclimated smolts into the upper Y&a basin. 

Improve the physical, biological, and chemical environment on a 

priority basis. 

. 

Use harvest controls and supplementation to optimize na& spawnixig 

distribution (temporal and spatial). 

Release 810,000 acclimated smolts into &e upper Yakima basin. 

3 

. ,~ 

Chapter2/& I 
-- . 

Increase harvest opportunities for all 

fishers consistent with requirements of . 

genetic, natural production, ,and ~ 

experimentation objectives. 

Vatural Production (con't) 

vlaintain upper Yakima spring chinook 

iatural production at a level that would 

mntribute an annual average of 3,000 fish 

o the Yakima Basin adult return. 

Use selective and/or "status-index harvest" policies to increase harves 

opportunities for all fishers. 

Maintain natural escapement of upper 

Yakima spring chinook (hatcliexy and 

dd) at an average of 2,000 adult returns 

md consistently greater than 1,700 

ipawners per year. 

Experimentation , 

Learn to use supplementation as defined 

by the RASP (RASP, 1992) to increase 

natural production of upper Yakima sprhg 

;hinook and increase harvest , 

apportunities. ~ 

Improve the physical, biological, and chemical environment on a 

priority basis. 

Use harvest controls and supplementation to optimize natural spawning 

distribution (temporal and spatial). 

Release 810,000 acclimated smolts into the upper Yakima Basin. 

Improve the physical, biological, and chemical enviromlent on a 

priority beis. 

Use harvest controls and supplementation to optimize natural &awning 

distribution (temporal and spatial). 

Release 810,000 acclimated smol&into the upper Yakima Basin. 

Conduct experiments using upper Yakima stocks to evaluate the risks 

and benefits of supplementation as defined by the RASP (1 992). . 

Design and conduct experiments using upper Yakima stocks to compare 

risks and benefits of a New Innovative Treatment (NE) against an 

Optimal Conventional Treatment (OCT) for supplementation. The NlT 

would use methods resulting in fish that mimic natural fish. The OCT 

would use methods resulting in fish raised accoraing to the state-of-theart hatchery definition of quality. 

Collect upper Yakima broodstock atRoza Daml 

Release 18 groups of 45,000 fish each of the upper Yakima stock into 

the upper Yakima River. 

Release experimental groups of fish from separate acclimation sites 

connected to target streams. 

, 

Design experiments to detect a 50% or greater difference (with 90% 

'certainty) between test treatments for all response variables. , - 

As noted below, the supplementation program provides a multifaceted, but indirect, means 

of addressing the broadest questions related to supplementation, The YFP approach is 

designed to resolve specific uncertainties related to the effectiveness of supplementation 

and to the selection of treatments for fish in the artificial environment. The YFP 

: supplementation project would incorporate two repeated tests or treatments: a New 

~ 

Innovative Treatment using incubation, rearing, and release techniques that attempt to 

produce smolts with attributes and, consequently, survival, similar to those of wild or 

native fish, and an Optional Conventional Treatment. 

' 

.- 

Chapter 21Z 
Treatment A is an Optimal Conventional Treatment (OCT) to incubate, 

rear, and acclimate salmonids using the currently accepted "Best 

Technology" used at state, Tribal, and Federal hatcheries. 

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

, natural environment (e.g., natural cover, substrate, and structures) to 

incubate, rear, and acclimate fish. The intent of this treatment is to raise 

and release fish with characteristics and behavior similar to those of 

naturally produced fish in order to achieve improved survival and . 

productivity. 

The fish from these two treatments would be compared (e.g., in terms of physical 

characteristics and survival to returning adults) with each other as well as to the native 

fish. These comparisons would be used to determine the success of the YFP. As much as 

possible, information on variation in ocean conditions, instream flows, harvest, and other 

activities and factors would be used to provide a context for interpretation of YFP 

findings. 

There are three stocks of spring chinook in the Yakima River: an upper Yakima stock that 

spawns upstream of Roza Dam, a stock that spawns in the Naches River, and one in the 

American River (see Figure 2.4). Of these, only the upper Yakima spring chinook stock is 

proposed for supplementation at this time. This program would include construction of 

facilities to release up to 810,000 such-smolts each year. 

Natural production objectives for all Yakima River spring chinook stocks were modeled 

assuming that all upper Yakima supplementation facilities were operational and were 

producing a range of 600,000 to 1,150,000 smolts. As modeled, the proposed production 

level (810,000 smolts) would be expected to produce adult returns, spawning, and harvest 

objectives in the middle of the range of estimates that follow. Simulations indicated that 

production levels would produce a total return to the Yakima basin that would range from 

8,200 to 11,590 adults: 6,600 to 9,800 upper Yakima spring chinook, 1,000 to 1,100 

Naches spring chinook, and 600 to 690 American River spring chinook. Objectives for 

natural spawning would include 3,100 spring chinook in the upper Yakima (combined wild 

and hatcheIy fish at all production rates); 570 to 630 spring chinook in the Naches (all 

wild); and 340 to 390 spring chinook in the American River (also all wild). Spawning 

escapement (how many adult fish return to spawn) for all stocks would be above the level I 

(approximately 200-250 spawners per year) at which loss of within-population variability 

becomes a concern. Harvest objectives would include a Yakima River catch between 

2,480 and 6,440 fish over all spring chinook stocks~(2,000 to 5,900 from the upper 

Yakima, 300 to 340 from the Naches and 180 to 200 from the American River stocks), 

and a total harvest to all fisheries (Yakima River, Columbia River and ocean) of between 

4,580 and 9,620 fish. These numbers are baskd on a range of smolts released. ,. 

The quantitatke production objectives described above for upper Yakima spring chinook 

are based on the EDTPM computer simulations. These natural production and harvest 

objectives make the following assumptiops: 
.. \ 

.I 

Chapter2128 , . 

#k Cities 

@ Dams 

A 0'5 

P10 ' 

Miles . North 
1) that hatchery fish survive at half the rate of wild fish in an environment in 

which natural production is winter-limited; . 

upper Yakima River under current habitat conditions and operation of the 

river for irrigation (900.000 smolts fort he entire Bas in); and 

3) that up to 240,000 smolts (27 percent of carrying capacity) can be lost to 

density-dependent mortality inside the subbasin (Watson et al., 1993). 

2) that carrying capacity is about 543.000 smolts naturally produced in the I 

I 

Under these conditions, the EDTPM indicates that natural production and harvest 

objectives are attainable with a terminal harvest rate of 30 percent, applied uniformly over 

all stocks. The EDTPM assumptions included selective removal of between 100 and 

3,000 upper Yakima hatchery fish in order to limit the maximum proportion of hatchery 

fish in the natural spawning escapement to 50 percent or less. The impact analyses 

included in Chapter 4 are based on these assumptions. 

Note that these preliminary supplementation strategies and production objectives are 

based on modeled assumptions, not on empirical &a. The assumptions underlying the 

computer analyses represent a reasonable synthesis of what is known at present about the 

natural production and post-release survival of spring chinook in the Yakima River 

(Watson et al., 1993). Future and ongoing risk analysis and ecological research would be 

expected, through the normal operation of the annual planning and implementation cycle, 

to resultin refinements to supplementation strategies and perhaps to objectives as well. 

. 

2.3.2 Assumptions, Uncertainties, and Risk Analysis 

A set of assumptions relating to the strategies discussed above has been developed for the 

YFP. They are significant suppositions or statements of conditions or perceptions that 

affect the choice of strategies and how these strategies are to achieve specified objectives. 

Assumptions for the upper Yakima spring chinook program are listed in the Planning 

Status Report (Appendix B, Tables 5.1-4). 

Each assumption is evaluated to determine its level of certainty (how certain the project 

scientists are that it is true). Assumptions with a high level of certainty are classified as 

“accepted,” and monitoring is used to corroborate them. Other assumptions are fbrther 

divided into “resolvable” and “unresolvable” categories. Unresolvable assumptions are 

those which cannot be corroborated. The projectmanagers must decide whether or not 

the amount of risk associated with the unresolvable assumptions is acceptable. Again, 

monitoring is used to manage the uncertainty for unresolvable assumptions. Finally, the 

resolvable uncertainties are addressed for resolution through literature review, studies, and 

experiments, The Planriing Status Report (Appendix B) describes in more detail this 

uncertainty and its relationship to the benefit/risk evaluation process. 

- 

The benefithisk evaluation process includes a set of questions to be asked about the 

project’s most recent objectives, strategies, and assumptions. The evaluation weighs the 

changing balance of opposing benefitsand risks, as well as levels of uncertainty. The goal 

Chapter212 I 
is to inform, encourage, and/or caution project managers as they proceed to the next 

stage. The analysis is time-bound: it is applied to, and emerges from, the project's base of 

knowledge and recognized uncertainty at a given point in time along the project path. 

This knowledge base is reflected in the current Planning Status Report and the 

uncertainty-resolution matrix laid out in the Uncertainty Resolution Plan. However, 

adaptations to assumptions and strategies are the result of updating this benefidrisk 

evaluation process each year, along with its companion uncertainty-resolution process, to 

assist the project managers in deciding the direction for the project in the following year. 

The risk assessment for the supplementation of upper Yakima spring chinook is presented 

in Chapter 7 of Volume 3 of the Planning Status Report (Appendix B). It is summarized 

in Section 4.1.2 of this FEIS. 

- . 2.3.3 Monitoring ~ ' 

Effective monitoring is the key to a successfbl adaptive-management program. 

Monitoring enables project managers $0 determine whether an action achieved its 

objective, or whether the objective was properly developed. Monitoring should also 

provideinsight into the actual result,oCan action as well as explain the'success (or lack) in 

achieving the predicted result. In this way, new information can be gained that will 

,facilitate, better-informed decisions in the fbture. 

The Planning Status Report (Appendix B; Volume 3, Chapter 9) lays out an integrated 

multi-level moriitoring program for supplementing upper Yakima spring chinook. This 

structure ensures that strategies are implemented as intended, that experimental studies 

produce reliable results, and that risks associated with unresolved uncertainties are 

contained. It also .ensures efficiency, prevents duplication of effort, and tracks progress 

toward meeting objectives. 

,. 

I 

The monitoring. plan for the supplementation of upper Yakima spring chinook under the 

YFT addresses the following five monitoring categories: 

e 

e' 

e 

quality-control 'monitoting of both research efforts and project operations 

(to confirm that supplementation is being conducted as intended and record 

keeping is accurate and complete); 

product specification monitoring (to indicate how fish behave and survive); 

research monitoring (to determine whether the hypotheses regarding 

supplementation being tested are proven or not); 

risk containment monitoring (to evaluate whethe; supplementation is 

progressing toward the objective of increasing harvest and enhancing 

natural production while maintaining genetic resources); and 

stock status monitoring (to estimate annual spawning escapement and 

measure other biological or quantitative changes in the populations over 

time). 

~ 

\ 

Chapter 212 , . 
Since monitoring activities for these categories overlap, they will be developed into an 

integrated monitoring plan. Table 2.2 summarizes the proposed monitoring activities for 

upper Yakima spring chinook for all categories except quality control monitoring. The 

monitoring plan would be revised and expanded as part of the adaptive management 

process. 

Quality control monitors the performance of the facilities and their operators. Quality 

standards would be developed for all fish culture and data collection activities as part of 

the certification process required for the facilities. Quality control monitoring procedures 

would be included in the operations manuals for all facilities and field activities. This 

includes the broodstock collection facility at the Roza Dam; the broodstock holding, 

incubation, and rearing at the central production facility; the acclimation ponds; and the 

juvenile and adult monitoring stations at Chandler and Roza dams. 

The following product specification attributes would be monitored at the Cle Elum 

facility, the acclimation ponds, and the juvenile monitoring facilities to determine whether 

the fish produced by the project meet certain goals: 

fish health; 

morphology (size and shape); 

behavior; and 

.e survival. I 

Research monitoring activities would be designed to test the performance of two 

treatments of artificially reared fish (OCT vs: NIT) and to compare their performance with 

naturally reared fish. These monitoring activities would be performed at the Roza and 

Chandler juvenile facilities for outmigrating smolts, at the Prosser and Roza fish ladders 

and collection facilities for returning adults, and on the spawning grounds for straying 

rates and reproductive success monitoring. Research monitoring would include 

measurements of performance in four main areas: 

post-release survival (survival from time of release until the fish return to spawn); 

reproductive succesp (number of offspring produced per spawner); 

6 

long-term fitness (genetic diversity and long-term stock productivity); and 

ecological interactions (population abundance and distribution, growth rates, 

carrying capacity, survival rates, transfer of disease, and gene flow). .. 
Table 2.2 Summary of Upper Yakima Spring Chinook Monitoring Plan 

1. 

MONITORING 

LOCATIONS 

Cle Elum hatchery 

Acclimation sites 

Rozajuvenile trap- 

- 

MEASUREMENT TO BE 

. MADEb 

Adult count 

Juvenile marking 

Attributelsurvival 

hiStOrieS 

Number (timdsize) 

Random biosample 

Individually mark 

subsamples 

Attributes of hatchery 

fish 

Read marks 

Attributes of naturally 

awnedfish 

Attributes of naturally 

soawned fish 

I Readmarks 

Testfishery I Adult mark 

Adultcount . 

a Quality control monitoring.is not i 

~ 

MONITORl 

Product Research/ 

Specificatio-m Hypothesis 

Testing 

1) Fish health 1) NIT vs. OCT 

2) Morphology 2)Natural vs. 

4) Survival 3) PTA 

3) Behavior NIT 

1,2,3,4 1,2,3 . 

1,23,4 ' 

23,4 

1 

4 

I 3 

3 

G PURPOSE" 

Risk Containment Stock Status 

1) Genetics 1) Run size 

3) Experimental 

4) Harvest 

2) Ecological 2) Escapement 

,13.4 1.2 

cluded , Adultmark - sampiing ofadult fish identifying whether or not they are marked; if they are marked, the 

mark is decoded and the experimental treatment and replicate group of the fish are determined; a set of 

observations is recorded for each sampled fish including time, location, size, sex, and other benign 

measurements; subsamples may also be subjected to tissue sampling as needed. 

Adult count - count of fish by externally observable categories (e.g. marked vs. unmarked). 

Adult tafzing - application of individually unique marks to adults that are passed upstream at Ron for 

natural spawning. Representative Subsamples of each of the two treatments (NE and OCT) and 

unmarked fish are selected and marked. These fish are subsequently tracked and observed on the 

spawning grounds, where time and location of spawning are recorded; redds and carcasses may also be 

examined. 

Juvenile marking - application of unique marks to juveniles of each replicate group that can be decoded on 

returning adults (without harming the fish). 

pTA - Patient-Template Analysis. 

, 

Chapter 2/32 . I . 
c 

.I 

The risk containment portion ofthe monitoring plan was developed based on the 

-findings of the risk analysis for Yakima spring chinook, discussed above. There were four 

categories of interest identified in the risk analysis to monitor risk containment: 

0 experimental; 

genetic; 

0 harvest;. and 

0 natural productiodecological interactions. 

These four areas relate back to the objectives and strategies. The risk analysis defines risk 

in terms of the probability of failure to meet the objectives of the project for these four 

categories. . 

Monitoring of stock status includes measurements of run size and escapement to 

determine whether harvest objectives can be met without affecting naturalproduction. It 

would provide idormation essential to track the long-term performance and fitness of the 

fish populations. This monitoring would be coordinated with ongoing monitoring 

currently being conducted by the USBR. 

Implementation of the monitoring plan, annual review of the findings, and subsequent 

adjustment, as necessary, ’of the supplementation program objectives, strategies, 

assumptions, uncertainties, and risk analysis would complete the feedback loop that is 

essential to the success of the adaptive management process, and ultimately, the entire 

project. 

2.3.4 Facilities 

Alternative 1 would include the construction of a central hatchery facility at Cle Elum for 

holding upper Yakima spring chinook adults, spawning, incubating eggs, and early and 

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

each for acclimation and release of spring chinook smolts. (See Figure 2.5‘for the location 

of the proposed facilities.) Table 2.3, below, lists the facilities required for the 

supplementation activities included in Alternative 1. Alternative locations for the upper 

Yakima spring chinook hatchery facilities were addressed in the EA @PA, 1990a). These 

included hatchery sites at Thorp and Newman, ab,out 8 kilometers (km) or 5 miles (mi.) 

upstream from the city of Ellensburg. Cle EIum was identified as the preferred site, as it 

had more abundant groundwater supplies. 

- 

The candidate acclimation sites were selected based on biological criteria specified by the 

managers. These criteria specify that the location should be adjacent to appropriate 

spawning habitat, that there must be adequate flow for fish migration, and that the water 

supply must encourage imprinting and homing to the desired spawning location. Several 

alternative acclimation sites have been considered in the upper Yakima basin, including (as 

identified in the original Draft EIS) five “clusters” or groups of three sites each near Thorp 

(Clark Flat, Town Diversion Dam, and New Cascade Canal); Keechelus. (Keechelus Dam, 

Chapter2lB I 
/ 

'', . 

* Cities 

.' Dams 

0 Cle Elum Hatchery - 

Spring Chinook Acclimation 

Sites 

= Proposed 

Alternate 

A Juvenile Trapping Sites 

0. Adult Trapping Sites 

- 

0 \A - 

North 

Miles 

, 

Chapter 2/34 

/ 

~ , ".f Diversion 

Figure 2.5 

Upper Yakima River'and 

Tributaries Project Facilities 
Stampede Pass Bridge, and Mile 210); Easton (Easton Dam, Easton Gravel Ponds, and 

Big Creek); Teanaway (Jack Creek, Jungle Creek, and StafEord Creek);-and Cle Elum (Cle 

Elum Upper (hatchery site), Younger, and Mile 178). 

Central Hatchery Facility ' 

Cle Elm, 

Table 2.3 Facilities Requirements for Alternatives limd-2 

Raceways . 

20 - 

Acclimation Sites 

Clark Flat site 6 

Easton site (2 siting options) 

Jack Creek site .. 

The number of acclimation sjtes needed was reduced as the experimental design 

refined and the number of smolts proposed to be produced was reduced , giventhe , 

additional information on water constraints at Cle Elum (see Section 2.3.1)& The sites in 

Table 2.3 have been identified as the preferred sites due to experimental design, water 

availability, and fish access considerations (Dauble et al., 1994). 

llkzaiaa- North Fork Teanaway site. was 1 deDh€ued sllbseaue nt to the 

&&mLInformationn the North F mnaway s i te hasbee n added to t his Final_E1S, 

Information on two siting options for the Easton acclimation site (Easton Dam and Easton 

gravel pond sites) and on two additional alternative acclimation sites (the Cle Elum 

Hatchery site and the Keechelus Dam site) are also included in the EIS. A final decision 

on the exact acclimation sites to be us.ed will be made in the Record of Decision on the 

project. 

2.3.4.1 Central Hatchery Facility 

.. 

m. Thms now an alternatesite for the Teanawav: the Jack Creek site&ma' IU ... 

6 

6- 

Cle Elum would be the central facility for supplementation of the upper Yakima spring.- 

chinook stock. About 6 hectares (ha) or 15 acres (ac.) of land would be developed at the 

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

facilities, raceways, groundwater wells, a pump sta6on onthe river, sleanic waste pandl 

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

interpretive facilities, parking, and residences. Figures 2.6 and-2.7 show the proposed 

layout of the facility. Construction would include 20 raceways and 2 adult holding ponds. 

There is room for expansion up to a total of-45 raceways on the site, if additional facilities 

were identified as needed in the future. The proposed facility has been sited to minimize 

wetlands impacts. The'original plan described in the EA to use the onsite oxbow lakes for _' 

water supply has been-changed to include a new pump station on the Yakima River. A 

combination of surface water from the Yakima River and groundwater &om nearby wells 

is now proposed to supply water for the facility. - 

Chapter 2/35. I 
1' 

I 

I' 

I 

'T27133.HO.12 I Cle Elum General Slle I5-5-95 I CJS 1 JH I JG 

II . . I' 

\\ 

Figure 2.6 

Cle Elum Hatchery General Site Plan 

i 
'. I 

.. . Figure2.7 

. Cle Elum Hatchery Site Plan 

Chapter2la I . 
Potential interpretive facilities might be constructed in phases. The fbll complement of 

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

interpretive trails. Initial construction might include the parking lot, informational kiosks, 

walking paths, and possibly the visitor center. Additional facilities have been discussed 

and might be added in the future, depending upon fbnding availability and public use. 

These could include an outdoor amphitheater, observation blinds, aquarium, and expanded 

day use and visitor center facilities. 

' 

The undeveloped land surrounding the hatchery would be & and protected for 

wildlife habitat. BPA and the project managers would develop a management plan for the . 

site to mitigate impacts on wildlife for the YFP and for possible inclusion under the 

Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. 

,2.3.4.2 Trapping Facilities 

A major activity for the YFP is monitoring and evaluation of outmigrating smolts and 

returning adults.- Monitoring and evaluation of outmigrating smolts would occur at 

Muvenile facilities at Roza and Chandler. Monitoring and evaluation of returning 

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

at Prosser bd Roza Dams. Selective broodstock collectibn would occur at Roza Dam. 

I 

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

monitoring and evaluation needs. 

2.3.4.3 Acclimation Sites 

Acclimation raceways provide an environment for final rearing and acclimation of juvenile 

fish. The use of such sites is intended to reduce stress associated with transportation, and 

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

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

general vicinity of the acclimation sites. 

Three sites are proposed for acclimating upper Yakima spring chinook: Clark Flat, Easton 

(,Gravel Poud siting option), and Jack Creek. (See Figures 2.8-11.) Of the 16 investigated- [ 

acclimation sites, these 3 were determined to best meet project goals and have the least 

effect on the environment. Six raceways would be constructed at each of the sites: three 

€or each of the two experimental treatments (NIT and OCT). Three alternate sites =. 

Keechelus Dam, North Fo rk Teanawav -, and Cle Elum, have also been identified (Figures 

2.12-14) and are discussed in this EIS. 

- 

Chapter 2/28 

'I 
! 

! 

I 

\- 

I 

Chapter2/2 I 
I 

c 

,, 

'T27133.HO.12 /Canal Fish Facility/5-5-!35/ JQ ' , 

I 

I, 

, 

' Fish Screens 

,. . 

!, 

. ,\ Finure 2.9 

... Easton Dam Siting Option 

Easton Acclimation Site 
106488.H0.12/ 2.10 Easlon Acclimation Site I 12-5-95 I JG 

Pond 

Figure 2.10 

Easton Gravel Pond 

Siting Option (Revised) 

Easton Acclimation Site 
0 - 50 100 

Scale in Ft. 

Figure 2.11 

Jack Creek Acclimation Site 
1T27133.H0.12/Cle Elum Acclimation Site 15-5-95 1 JG 

Figure 2.1 2 

Cle Elum Acclimation Site 

(Alternate) 
I 
5 

I 

! 

I ,

I 

I 

, :I 

I! 

! 

I 

%- 
I' 

Each six-raceway acclimation site would require development of less than 0.8 ha (2 ac.) of 

land. The acclimation facilities would allow incorporation of innovative features needed 

to study experimental variables such as feeding techniques, stream cover design, and 

predator conditioning. Raceways at each acclimation site would be constructed according 

to a standardized design. During operation, the raceways would be protected by security 

fencing, alarm systems, and devices (such as ov&head wires or netting) that would protect 

the fish fkom predators. 

The raceways would be supplied by a combination of surface water from adjacent 

tributaries and rivers and groundwater from nearby wells. The preferred mode of 

supplying water to the sites is by gravity flow, an alternative to be used on the highergradient tributaries. Where gradient is inadequate, water would be pumped to the 

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

acclimation sites during winter months, which would most likely result in water being 

pumped to the sites for purposes of reliable operation. Water would be,diverted from 

streams during the winter and spring, when flows in the affected creeks or rivers are 

usually greatest. Groundwater would be used to supplement surface water supplies as 

necessary. 1 W r m ' * 11 water used would be returned to the I 

2.3.5 Project Operations 

Broodstock would be collected at Roza Dam, transported to the central facility, and held 

there for spawning. The number of naturalb produced adults used fofbroodstock would 

be large enough to be representative of the donor sto& but not so large that broodstock 

collection would impair the natural reproductive capacity of the stock. Incubation of eggs 

and rearing off& would also take place at the central facility. 

Rearing would include methods to encourage adaptation of released fish to the natural 

environment, such as teaching juvenile salmonids to avoid predators and to forage for 

food. Specific details regarding both OCT and NIT rearing protocols for both the would 

be finalized based on experiments being conducted before the facilities are built. 

- nearby river or tributary. 

I 

When ready, juvenile upper Yakima spring chinook would be transferred to the acclimaadults. When sufficiently mature, the young smolts would leave the acclimation facilities 

for outmigration to the ocean. Adult fish would be expected to return 2 to 4 years later to 

spawn. fifide in h . oroiecj: 

this time proiect manaEers a nticisate that the fi rst exr, eriment year wou Id be 1 998. Intha 

fiom the fi 

me. the first adu Its (jacks) would return to the basi n in the vear 2000. All of the adub 

rst treat ment ProuD w ould return bv 2003, &&- le24. below. shows anticipated , 

~d~ases a nd returns. bv - schedule. 

, 

. tion sites next to the spawning grounds to which they would be expected to return as 

.. .. 

\ 

Smolts and returning adults would be monitored for each experimental treatment (see 

Section 2.3.3) to determine success. Throughout the process, fish culture practices would 

Chapter 2& .I 

I 
follow guidelines established to minimize genetic change caused by hatchery rearing and to 

encourage adaptation of released fish to the natural environment. Genetic hatchery 

guidelines forthe YFP have been drafted and are documented (Kapuscinski and Miller, 

1993). 

Experiment 

Table 2.4 'Anticipated Fish Treatments. 

Treatment 

First Generation Treatments . Second Generation Treatments 

2 I 3 

Age 2 

2000 adult 

returns 

Age 3 

2001 adult 

returns . Age4 

2002 adult 

returns 

Age 5 

2003 adult 

returns 

2004 

4 5 

II 

2007 1 

2' - 

Rearing 

Release 

Age 2 

adult 

returns 

Age 3 

adult 

returns 

Age 4 

adult 

returns 

Age 5 

adult 

retunis 

3 

Rearing 

Release 

Age 2 

adult 

returns 

Age 3 

adult 

returns 

Age 4 

adult 

returns 

Age 5 

adult 

returns 

4 

Rearing 

Release 

Age 2 

adult 

returns 

Age 3 

adult 

returns 

Age 4 

adult 

returns 

, Age. 5 

adult 

returns 

,. 

5 

1 

Rearing 

'Release 

Age 2 

. adult 

returns 

Age 3 

adult 

returns 

Age 4 

adult 

I ' returns 

Age 5 

adult 

returns 

-1 

Rearing 

Release 

Age 2 

adult 

returns 

Age 3 

adult 

returns 

Age 4 

adult 

returns 

2.4 Alternative 2: Upper Yakima Spring Chinook Supplementation 

and Coho Study ' 

Alternative 2 would involve the testing of supplementation of upper Yakima spring 

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

population of coho to the Yakima River Basin. All actions relating to upper Yakima 

spring chinook would be identical to those described for Alternative 1: Discussion of the 

coho study under this alternative proceeds in the same order as for Alternative 1. 

Alternative 2 has been identified by the Policy Group as the preferred alternative 

for the YFP. 

Chapter-2/41 I . 
- 

AU approaches (adaptive management strategy, Project Management Plan, yearly Planning 

Status Report, environmental review as necessary, Uncertainty Resolution Plan, and a 

Project Annual Review) would be the same as described under Section 2.2. Monitoring 

and evaluation would be carried out to provide feedback for a successll adaptive 

management program. Policy development and expression and Project Management 

would also be the same as described earlier. 

2.4.1 Objectives and Strategies 

- 

- 2.4.1 ;I Upper Yakima Spring Chinook Supplementation 

The program for upper Yakima spring chinook would be the same as that described in 

Section 2.3.1. 

. 

2.4.1.2 Coho Feasibility Study 

Under Alternative 2, project managers would seek to determine the feasibility of reestablishing a naturally spawning coho population and a sigmficant fall fishery for coho 

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

acceptable liits. 

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

considered the result of hatchery outplantings. As described in Section 1.4, the YIN is 

now managing a program of acclimating and releasing coho pre-smolts transferred into the 

Basin under CRFMP. CRFMP mandates the release of 700,000 coho annually, to supply 

a terminal fishery for tribal and other fishers. The program uses early-run fish from lower 

Columbia River hatcheries (mainly Cascade Hatchery), and has, to date, produced very 

few adults returning to the Yakima River. However, a program of acclimating the smolts 

before release was begun in 1994; it should improve the refurns of adult coho to the basin. 

While the acclimation and release program is not being lnded by BPA under the YFP, 

and its impacts are not addressed in this EIS, the fish being acclimated and released under 

this program would be used by the YFP in the proposed studies. Tribal personnel 

conducting both the CRFMP and YFP programs are coordinating them and working 

toward the common goal of establishing naturally reproducing populations of coho in the 

Yakima River Basin. 

Under this alternative, the 700,000 smolts fi-om the ongoing YIN coho program would be 

used in a feasibility study to determine the benefits and-risks of re-establishing coho in the 

Yakima River Basin. The smolts would continue to tie acclimated at low-tech facilities 

already developed for the Tribal coho program (Granger pond, Roza Wasteway #3 near 

Wapato, and the Wapato Canal net pens,dgure 2.19, Approximately 10% of the 

smolts are marked by clipping and coded wire tags. The smolts leave the acclimation sites 

voluntarily; automatic fish counters at the exit of each acclimation facility would monitorthe number of fish outmigrating each day. Smolt survival would be monitored at the 

Chandler Juvenile Evaluation Facility. 

- 

, 

- 

I 

Chapter 2/44 
. 

v) 

m 

lti 

05 

&E Cities 

4 Dams 

0 5 10 

III A 

Miles ' North 

c 

. Figure2.15 

Coho Acclimation Sites 

Chapter2lB I 
Monitoring of the smolts released undeithe coho program would be conducted to'study 

the interactions of the coho with other fish species in the Yakima River. Stomach 

contents of the outmigrating smolts would be sampled at the Chandler Juvenile Evaluation 

Facility and at selected sites in the river, to deterniine the food habits of the smolts. This 

study would be designed to evaluate the potential risk of coho smolt predation on juvenile 

fall chinook salmon. Returning adults-would be monitored at Prosser Dam fish ladders to 

determine the smolt-to-adult survival rates. Other monitoring activities may be pursued as 

necessary to clariQ other ecological interactions. Under this alternative, juvenile coho 

would continue to be released in the Yakima River Basin only downstream from Wapato 

Dam. 

Determine the feasibility of returning natural production of 

coho salmon to the Yakima River Basin. 

Determine the potential harvest benefits from reintroduction 

of coho salmon in the Yakima River Basin. 

Determine the predation impacts of releasing 700,000 

acclimated coho smolts on fall chinook populations in the 

Yakima River Basin. 

The project managers have agreed on a set of objectives and strategies for the coho 

feasibility studies. Unlike the objectives and strategies for spring chinook, which were 

described in four categories, objectives for the coho feasibility studies are lited to one 

category, experimentation. There would be no change from the current releases of coho 

in the basin, and the planned research effort is necessary before natural production, 

genetic, or harvest objectives are developed. These objectives and strategies (which are 

reviewed, revised, and published annually in the Planning Status Report) are more 

qualitative than those for upper Yakima spring chinook, since planning for coho has 

undergone fewer iterations and thus not as much work has been done to refine them. 

They will be modified and refined through the adaptive management process. Table 2.5 

presents the latest version of the objectives and strategies for coho. 

Evaluate the survival, escapement, and natural reproduction 

of introduced coho salmon in the Yakima River Basin. 

Evaluate the survikl, escapement, and natural &production 

of introduced coho salmon in the Yakima River Bask, 

calculate the potential harvest benefits. 

Conduct food habit analyses of coho salmon released into the 

Yakima River Basin to determine the impact on fall chinook 

populations. 

. Table 2.5 Yakima Coho Objectives and Associated Strategies 

Objectives I Strategies 

Chapter 2/% 
, 

2.4.2 Assumptions, Uncertainties, and Risk Analysis 

2.4.2.1 Upper Yakima Spring Chinook Supplementation 

The program for upper Yakima spring chinook would be as described in Section 2.3.2. 

2.4.2.2 Coho Feasibility Study 

The process for documenting assumptions and uncertainty resolution for the coho 

feasibility study would be similar to that described in Section 2.3.2 for upper Yakima 

spring chinook. A risk analysis for the coho study is presented in Section 4.1.2 of this 

EIS. The assumptions and analyses documented in the coho chapter of the Planning 

Status Report (see Gpm . * 1. 

, 

I' 

2.4.3 Monitoring 

2.4.3.1' Upper Yakima Spring Chinook Supplementation 

The monitoring program for upper Yakima spring chinook would be as described in 

Section 2.3.3. 

c 

/ 

2.4.3.2 Coho Feasibility Study 

The monitoring plan for YFP'coho emphasizes tt+o mGor areas ofinterest to address the 

objectives and risks identified. These are: 

their survival through various life stages; and 

the rates of predation of released coho smolts on other species of concern. 

The survival of smolts from the time of their release to the time they pass Prosser (smoltto-smolt survival) would be evaluated by counting smolts at the Chandler juvenile 

evaluation facility below Prosser Dam. Adults returning to the Yakima basin would also 

be video-monitored at Prosser Dam. Approximately 10% of the released coho smolts 

would be tagged with coded-wire markers to facilitate their identification. The 

information obtained through this monitoring would be tracked through the STAC, and ~ 

reports prepared for the Tribal coho program. - 

A monitoring plan has been drafted to address the predation issue. It would involve 

electroshocking coho smolts at the Chandler juvenile evaluation facility as they move 

downstream from the release points, and studying the stomach contents. The STAC 

would evaluate the results of this study and consult with the Policy Group to determine 

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

management process. \ 

,- 

\ 

I- 
2.4.4 Facilities 

No major new facilities would be needed for the coho feasibility study, beyond the lowtech acclimation facilities being used for the existing Tribal coho program, and existing 

trapping and monitoring facilities at Prosser Dam. It is possible that small-scale, portable 

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

2.4.5 Project Operations 

2.4.5.1 Upper Yakima Spring Chinook Supplementation 

The project operations for upper Yakima speng chinook would be as described in Section 

2.3.5. , 

2.4.5.2 Coho Feasibility Study 

Coho smolts would continue to be imported into the Yakima River Basin under the Tribal 

Program. These 700,000 smolts would be acclimated at the three low-tech facilities 

discussed earlier (Section 2.4.1.2). When ready, the juvenile coho would leave the 

acclimation facilities for outmigration to the ocean. Adult fish would be expected to 

return to the basin the next year to spawn. 

Smolts and retukg adults would be monitored for survival rates; smolts would be 

monitored for food habits. Throughout the process, fish culture practices would follow 

guidelines established to minimize genetic change caused by hatchery rearing and to 

encourage adaptation of released fish to the natural environment. Genetic hatchery 

guidelines for the YFP have been drafted and are documented (Kapuscinski and Miller, 

1993). 

- 

2.5 No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, BPA would not knd testing of supplementation in the 

Yakima River Basin. BPA wou Id not fb nd the construct ion of sdpplementation fac ilities 

~r the product ton of fish in the Yaki ma Bas in.The activities described in Section 1.4 

would continue, including passage improvements, water enhancements, and the coho 

program under CRFMP. 

Some salmon and steelhead populations might increase because of the ongoing passage 

improvement activities and habitat jmprovement activities- r in, a * 

yell as ESA recovery efforts und -Colu m bta Rwer. but most likely at 

a slower rate than with supplementation. Harvest opportunities within the Yakima River 

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

decline. They most likely would not increase as rapid€y in the short term as they would . 

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

implementation of measure-7.4K. 1 of the Council’s December 1994 Fish and Wildlife ~ 

. 

.. 

Chapter 2/52 
Program, which acourw BPA to find constmction of an anadromous fish hatchery in. 

the Yakima River Basin. 

I - 

2.6 Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed Study 

A number of alternatives to the YFP have been proposed by the public and agencies, both 

during scoping and as comments-on the Draft EIS. Most of these alternatives were 

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

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

supplementation can be applied to the protection and won of imDacts 

=stocks of anadromous fish in the,YakimaRiver Basin; 

* 

.. . 

'. 2) they were addressed in other environmental documents; 

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

4) they were not considered feasibIe. 

2.6.1 Passage Improvements and Other Activities 

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

quality improvement, and controlling predation are all valid alternatives for increasing the 

numbers of fish in the Yakima River Basin. These activities have'been proposed for the . 

Basin as part of the Yakima Subbasin Plan (YIN, 1990), which was developed as part of 

the Council's planning effort. However, these proposed nonsupplementation activities 

would not meet supplementation research objectives or help r&ntroduce stocks that no 

longer inhabit the basin. Because they would not meet the need for the project, these 

proposed alternatives were eliminated from detailed study as alternatives to the proposed 

action. Many of these activities are, however, ongoing as part of the Columbia River 

Basin Fish and Wildlife Program and other- programs discussed in Section 1.4. 

2.6.2 More Supplemented Stocks 

As previously indicated, the DEIS included several project alternatives distinguished 

primarily by the number of stocks proposed for supplementation. The seven-stock, fivestock, and three-stock alternatives discussed in the DEIS were eliminated from detailed 

study in thg RDEIS and this €%TS because €$PA and the project managers have 

concentrated detailed planning on only upper Yakima spring chinook and coho at this 

time. Alternatives 1 and 2 were developed to address this shiR in pricrrities. Project .. s are c- the -on of s- for or the remroductmn 

chmook. fall chinook. coho. 

finds oermit. At this time. oroiect 

lhead and lower Yakim River fall chi nook as the most 

n the fbture. Add itional envi ronmentd 

Chapter 2/53 
docume ntation wou Id be prepared befo re any such add itional swplementation becm 

I pro!ect OP~atm 

The upper Yakima spring chinook stock was identified in the original Draft EIS as the 

preferred spring chinook stock for testing supplementation, given the objective of 

conserving the American River populations and concerns regarding the ability to 

distinguish between the Naches and American River populations. 

ook (as opposed to fa 11 chinook or 'steelhead) was Dursued bv the orom 

chinook than on otha 

stocks in the Ya kimaBain. Th is addition&jatmgers r mn to betta 

define risks and set ob fectives for the stoc k. which are critical to the adapt' ive manage - ment 

process. The coho feasibility study is proposed under Alternative 2 because of the desire 

of the managers to establish a fall fishery and because it would be consistent with the 

Tribes' ongoing coho acclimation and release program under the CRFMP. 

2.6.3 Alternative Sites 

Alternative sites and configurations for the central and satellite facilities were addressed in 

the EA on the siting and construction of central, satellite, and trapping facilities for 

supplementing anadromous fish populations in the Yakima and Klickitat River Basins 

@PA, 199Oa). Central hatchery facilities were proposed at Cle Elum in the upper Yakima 

watershed, and at Oak Flats and Nelson Springs in the Naches watershed. The Cle Elum 

site has been proposed in this EEIS as the preferred central facility site for upper Yakima 

spring chinook, as it would best meet the water needs and is located closer to the 

acclimation sites. The Oak Flats site might not have sufficient groundwater available for 

holding of adults through the summer months, and the Nelson Springs site was proposed 

as (and is better suited for) a fall chinook and/or steelhead facility. Several acclimation 

sjtes were investigated and rejected, either because they did not meet the experimental 

needs of the project (and were therefore not feasible alternatives), or because they wpuld 

have resulted in unacceptably high impacts on cultural resources or wetlands. 

2.6.4 Research at Existing Non-Yakima diver Basin Sites 

After reviewing public comments on the original DEIS, BPA and the project managers 

considered an alternative involving supplementation research tD be conducted at existing 

Columbia River Basin facilities outside the Yakima River Basin. Supplementation 

programs at three existing hatcheries were exainined to determine whether they could 

meet YFP research goals--the Lyons Ferry Salmon Hatchery-Tucannon River Satellite 

(located northeast of Walla Walla, Washington, on the Tucannon River); the Methow 

Salmon Hatchery (located near Winthrop, Washington); and the Rock Island Hatchery 

Complex (located on five rivers in north central Washington). These three programs were 

selected as a representative sample from the list of regional supplementation programs. 

They are operationally similar to the proposed YFP, they are located in the State of 

Washington, and information on them was readily available from WDFW. 

.. rs at thu time because there is more data availae on .. 

I 

- 

c 

Chapter 2/59 I 

'. 
However, none of the three hatcheries could meet both of the two distinct levels of 

experimentation within the YFP experimental design. The first level tests supplementation 

success in the context of four major biological response variables (post-release survival, 

reproductive success, long-term fitness, and ecological interactions). The second ' 

-experimental level tests the value of various hatchery rearing strategies. Both the Methow 

and Rock Island hatcheries could provide equivalent or greater potential than offered by 

the YFP to monitor and evaluate biological response variables. However, none of the 

three hatcheries has sufficient facilities to meet the statistical criteria for testing alternative 

hatchery rearing treatments set by the design of the YFP. In addition, the ability of the 

Lyons Ferry Hatchery to meet the supplementation success research goals has been . 

diminished with the of the Snake River sockeye stocks and the spring and fall 

chinook stocks as endangered under the, ESA. 

2.6.5 Other Research Outside the Yakima River Basin 

While it appears that there is some opportunity to conduct supplementation research 

comparable to the research planned for the YFP outside the-Yakima River Basin, this 

alternative.would not meet two ofthe purposes of the proposed action. The purpose of 

testing the assumption that new supplementation techniques can be used in the Yakima 

River Basin to increase natural production and to improve-harvest opportunities while 

maintaining genetic resourcescan be met only by suppleme-nting Yakima River stocks in 

the Yakima River basin. This alternative also would not fblfill the Council's request that 

supplementation be tested in the Yakima River Basin, which is another purpose of the 

project (see Section 1.2). Since the proposed alternative to test supplementation at other 

locations would not meet either of these purposes, and-since none of the facilities outside 

the basin could provide equal or better opportunities to perform both types of 

supplementation research, this alternative is not discussed fbrther in this FEIS. 

2.7 Comparison of Alternatives and Summary of Impacts 

This section summarizes the information in the following two chapters and presents a 

comparison of the environmental consequences of the two YFP action alternatives and the 

No Action alternative. Table 2.6 shows this comparison graphically. The environmental 

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

high, moderate, or low. These ratings take into consideration the mitigation summarized 

in Section 4.2.2. For a more detailed discussion of impacts, please see the corresponding 

discussions in Section 4.1. The following criteriawere taken into consideration in these 

ratings: 

A high impact is one that: - 

1) cannot be substantially mitigated; 

2) substantially reduces the quantity or quality ofa regionally or nationally 

significant resource; 

* Chapter 2/55 

I' 
3) would adversely Sect the long-term productivity of the environment; 3 

4) irreversibly or irretrievably .. damages significant resources; 

5) consumes substantial quantities of non-renewable natural resources. 

A moderate impact is one that: 

.1) creates an impact that can largely be mitigated; 

2) may adversely affect the quantity or quality of a regionally or nationally 

. significant resource; 

3) may adversely affect the long-term productivity of the environment; 

4) may involve some irreversible or irretrievable damage to the environment; 

5) consumes only moderate quantities of non-renewable natural resources. 

A low impact is one that: 

1) creates few or no impacts that must be mitigated; 

2) does not reduce the quantity or quality of a regionally or nationally 

3) is unlikely to adversely affect the long-term productivity of the 

4) involves little or no irretrievable or irreversible damage to the environment; 

5) consumes only minor quantities of non-renewable natural resources. 

significant resource; 

environment; 

Table 2.6 Environmental Consequences of the Yakima Fisheries Project 

Alternatives 

- .- Alternative 1 Alternative 2 No Action I I I I 

Water Resources . ' 

Surface water 

Ground water 

Floodplains/wetlands 

Biological Resources 

Aquatic biological reso.kces 

Vegetation 

Special status species. 

Air Resources and Noise 

Socioeconomics . 

Recreation- and Visual 

Cultural Resources 

Resource Management ' (Landuseand 

H = High impact M = Moderate impact L = Low or no impact 

I 

,- 

Chapter 2& / 
There are only minor differences in environmental consequences between 

Alternatives 1 and 2. Alternative 2 incorporates the same program for upper Yakima 

spring chinook as alternative 1, but adds a feasibility study for coho using the fish already 

being released into the basin under the CRFMP. It should be noted that there is no change 

in environmental impact attributable to incorporation of the coho feasibility study into the 

YFP because the coho release program is ongoing and will continue whether the feasibility 

study is included in this project, or not. Potentially high impacts on wild, native, and nontarget fish populations under both alternatives would be Jessened through carefbl 

adherence to the adaptive management process. While the No Action alternative would 

not affect resources through the construction of facilities, it could result in a moderate 

impact on anadromous fisheries in the Yakima River basin. This is because the 

anadromous fisheries are rapidly declining at present, and the No Action alternative would 

pot contnbute to reversh the decline. 

2.7.1 Water Resources I 

2.7.1 .I Surface Water 

Surface water quantityimpacts for Alternatives 1 and 2 would be low. All surface water 

use for the project would be nonconsumptive; water would be returned to the source 

stream or river immediately downstream of thepoint of diversion after it is cycled through 

the facility. There are potential pmblems with water availabilit) at the alternative 

Keechelus acclimation s’ite when reservoir releases are stopped or slowed to allow refill. 

Low flows at the mouth of the-Teanaway River in late summer and fdl might affect 

upstream migration and spawning of spring chinook salmon returning to the vicinity of the 

. 

, 

Twway and Jack Creek sites. \ 

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

Wildlife Program (Section 4.1. l), existing water rights would not’be affected by the 

proposed project, nor would-the ongoing water adjudication process in the Yakima River 

Basin. A 9- conflict ove r water ava ilability exiadue to the potent id increase is 

resolved in a foum other than the YFP, 

Surface water quality could be maderately affected by the project in the short-term during 

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

minimize this impact. Effluent fi-om the facilities would cause nutrient levels to be raised 

only slightly; the levels would remain within acceptable limits identified by the U.S. 

- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

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

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

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

’ Chapter2/= .. 

-I - 

I 
2.7.1.2 Ground-water 

Impacts on groundwater resulting fiom.Alternatives 1 and 2 were judged to be moderate, 

based on the moderate amount of groundwater to beused (0.5 m3/s or 18 cfs for the Cle 

Elum hstchery year-round and 0.06 m3/s or 2 cfs for each of the three acclimation sites 

fiomry to m) and the inability to return the water directly to the aquifer. The 

water would,^ however, be discharged to a nearby stream or river after cycling through the 

facilities. Groundwater pumping is not expected to adversely affect other wells in the 

vici&y of the Cle’Elum hatchery or the acclimation sites due to the sma 11- amount of wa 

ae 4. No impacts on,groundwater would occur as a result of the No Action 

Alternative. I. 

’2.7.1.3 Floodplains anid Wetlands 

Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in moderate impacts on floodplains and wetlands due tQ 

placement of fill , because these areas could not be avoided totally in siting the facilities. 

mc om-o,dr;rlains on lands acauired for the ggoiect m& 

-er private ownmbip. In additioag the sites for the project facilities would 

be designed to minimize impacts, and wetland losses would be mitigated through the 

construction of replacement ‘wetlands in accordance with local, state, and Federal policies. 

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

impacts at the- Jack Creek, No erk Tmwav, and Clark Flat acclimation sites would 

&even 

; 

less. --& and Cle Elum 

.. . .. 1 1 

on sites, The No Action Alternative would not affect floodplains or wetlands. , 

2.7.2 Bioloclical Resources 

2.7.2.1 Aquatic Biological Resources 

The highest potential impact, both positive and negative, of the proposed project under 

Alternatives 1 and 2 is on the aquatic biological resources of the Yakima River Basin. The 

project has a good potential for increasing knowledge about the use of supplementation 

and the adaptive management process, while increasing the number of upper Yakima 

spring chinook returning to the basin. It also has the potential to affect existing wild and 

native fish populations adversely through genetic and ecological interactions. The overall 

impacts on aquatic biological resources of Alcernatives 1 and 2 were judged to be 

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

management process to, learn fiom and continually adapt their actions to prevent or 

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

be moderate in this case, given the potential to continue the declining anadromous fish - population trends in the Yakima and’columbia River basins without the knowledge and 

results that could be gained from implementing Alternatives 1 or 2. 

- 

/’ 

Chapter 21s I 
2.7.2.2 Vegetation 

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

approximately 8 ha (20 ac.) of vegetation would be cleared for project facilities at four 

sites. None of the sites are located in rare or unique vegetative communities, and most 

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

vegetation. 

- - 

2.7.2.3 Wildlife - 

Impacts on wildlife that would result from the implementation of Alternatives 1 or 2 were 

judged to be moderate. Am 8 ha I20 ac.) pf wldiife h *would be 

permanently affected by the facilities.. Wildlife would be temporarily displaced during 

construction, and, in some cases, would be permanently displaced by the facilities. A 

wildlife mitigation plan for both the YFP and for possible inclusion in the Columbia River 

Basin Fish and Wildlife Plan is being developed for the Cle Elum site in consultation with 

the WDFW and the YIN. No impacts on wildlife would result from the implementation of 

the No Action Alternative. 

2.7.2.4, Special Status Species 

I .. 

, Few impacts are expected on the listed threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of 

the project sites. It is unlikely that listed Snake River anadromous fish stocks would be 

found in the Yakima Basin or that Yakima fish would stray into the Snake River Basin. 

None of the sites contain suitable Northern spotted owl, grizzly bear, Peregrine falcon 

nesting, or marbled murrelet habitat. The project would increase prey available for bald 

eagles. However, bald eagles wintering at the Clark Flat site could be disturbed by 

increased human activity. Gray wolves have been repoited in the vicinity of the Jack 

Creek,- and Xeechelus acclimation sites. aotted ow 1s nesting is 

ae vicm of the Jack Cree- North Fork Te-ld be disturbed by 

tructimFor these reasons, the impact was judged to be moderate. 

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

... 

i 

prior to construction. Impacts on candidate and state-listed *species are not I 

anticipated. The status of petitioned species nowunder review by NMFS and USFWS 

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

were listed. No impacts would result fiom the No Action Alternative, 

2.7.3 Air Resources and Noise 

Impacts on air resources and noise would be minor, and would be limited within the State 

guidelines. The majority of the impact would occur during construction from vehicle ' 

exhaust emissions, noise, and dust generation. No impacts would result from the No 

Action Alternative. 

Chapter212 I 

I irrigated or currently used for farming, other than grkig at the Clark Flat site. The 

project staff is consulting with Kittitas County agencies to ensure project consistency with 

County and State land use policies and regulations. A moderate amount of solid waste 

and small amounts of hazardous wastes would be generated at the facilities. No land use 

or waste generation impacts would result from the No Action Alternative. . 

.. 

I. 

,. -. 

_. 

.. 

Chapter Z/U 
, 
.- 

3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

3.1 Introduction 

This chapter describes the existing resources that may be affected by either of the 

alternatives for the proposed YFP. Siting and construction of the Cle Elum hatchery 

(Alternatives 1 and 2)'was previously discussed in the original Environmental Assessment 

@PA, 199Oa); updated information is included in this EIS. Siting and construction of 

several alternative locations for the three preferred acclimation sites for upper Yakima 

spring chinook (Alternatives 1 and 2) are also addressed in this document." 

- 

3.2 Water Resources 

Surface water resources and their current uses are described below for the Yakima River 

and its tributaries. Both surface and Prou nd water would be used for the Cle Elum 

hatchery facility and the acclimation sites. Unless otherwise noted, the information 

presented below was taken from the EA @PA, 199Oa). z. I 

3.2.1 Surface Water Resources -- 

, The Yakima River drains a 15,941-square-km (km2) (6,155-square4 (mi2))basin in 

central Washington, flowing 436 km (217 mi.) from Keechelus'Lake in the Cascade 

Mountains (elevation 746 meters(m) or 2,448 feet (R.)) to the Columbia River near 

Richland (elevation 91.4 m or 300k.) (See Figure 2.4.) Yearly precipitation in the '. 

Yakima River Basin ranges from about 20 centimeters (cm) (8 inches (in.)) in the eastern 

lowlands to over 254 cm (100 in.) in the Cascade Mountains. 

The river flows in a southeasterly direction through the Kittitas Valley from Cle Elum to 

Ellensburg. The river then turns south as it cuts a canyon through Manastash and 

Umtanum Ridges (Yakima Canyon). The river continues south past Roza Dam and Selah 

Gap to the City of Yakima. It then flows past Union Gap, Wapato Dam, and Sunnyside 

Dam and into the lower valley for the final 169 km (105 mi.) to the Columbia River. The 

river flows in a southeasterly to easterly direction in the lower valley and passes over the 

last two irrigation diversion dams at Prosser and Horn Rapids. 

_A 

Major tributaries to the Yakima River include the Kachess, Cle Elum, Teanaway, and 

Naches rivers in the upper portion of the basin and Ahtanum, Toppenish, and Satus creeks 

in the lower portion. The Naches River is the largest tributary to the Yakima River. It 

' 

As explained in Chapter 2,3 of the 16 acclimation sites originally identified for upper Yakima spring 

additional alternative acclimation sites Worth Fork T-Keechelus Dam, and Cle 

chinook have been identified as preferred: the Easton Gravel Pond site, Jack Creek, and Clark Flat. 

However, 

Elum gpper) are also discussed in this EIS. 

- 

, Chapter3/& I , 
extends about 72.4 km (45 mi.) from its confluence with the Yakima River near Yakima 

upstream to the Bumping River confluence; the Little Naches ad Bumping Rivers 

combine to form the Naches River at this location. 

Six storage reservoirs have been developed in the headwaters area of the Yakima River to 

supplement flows during the irrigation season (March to October). Keechelus, Kachess, 

and Cle Elum lakes flow into the Yakima River above Cle Elum. Bumping, Clear, and 

Rimrock lakes flow into tributaries of the Naches River. 

\ 

. 

3.2.1.1 I Water Quantity 

The average annual discharge from the Yakima River Basin is 3.54 cubic kilometers (km3) 

(2.9 million acre-feet) of water. About 2.93 h3 (2.4 million acre-feet) are diveAed from 

the Yakima River for irrigation, of which approximately 1.83 km3 (1.5 million acre-feet) 

return- r 1-n CVSJgxny Corns ofl$gmeers, 197 8). Smaller 

amounts are diverted for industrial and municipal use and hydroelectric power generation. 

Irrigation and other diversions have caused problems for Yakima River basin fish, as 

smaller tributary streams are dewatered during migration and/or spawning times. 

West flows occu r during periods ofru n off in n spn 'nc throughout the 

reaches dtrectlv below reservo- 

:occur late rin the sMma Bas' in. w 'th the possible exce-m 

r 

Typically, fluctuations in flow are large in winter, moderate in spring, and small in late 

summer. The average annual flow'in cubic meters per second-(m3/s) or cubic feet per 

second (cfs), is as follows: 

! 

I .. . - 

. 

.. dunw releases fo r imoatto n. Lowest flows occu r dunw * 

0 

'0 

65 m3/s(2,297 cfs) at Umtanum; \ 

9.6 m3/s (338 cfs) below Keechelus Lake; 

57.8 m3/s (2,040 cfs) at Cle Elum; 

71.8 m3/s (2,534 cfs) near Parker; and 

11 1 m3/s (3,921 cfs) at Kiond (7J.S. Army.Corps of Engineers (Corps), 

1978). 

\. 

Water Resources at Hatchery and Acclimation Sites 

Simulated and gauged mean monthly discharges for rivers and creeks affected by the siting 

of the project facilities are shown below, in Table 3.1. The table indicates mean monthly 

discharge for the period of operation, or during the months of January through June for all 

of the facilities except the Cle Elum hatchery. The Cle Elum hatchery would operate yearround. Mean monthly discharges are shown for all months at this site. Other specific 

information on site-specific streamflow characteristics follows. 
Table 3.1 Summary of Estimated Stream Flow for Surface Water Sources for - 

-Yakima Fisheries Project Facilities, January I 

through June 

Water 

Site Source 

Cle Elum YakiT" 

Hatchery River 

and 

acclimation 

site 

acclimation River 

site (both 

Easton YakiT" 

Requirement . 

m3/s 

2.0 (72.1)' 

Olatchw) 

0.24 

(8.7) 

.(acclimation 

site$ 

. 0.24 

(8.7) 

Average Monthly Flow Rates [m3/s (cfs)] 

January February March April May .June 

21.2 20.9 23.9 33.2 53.0 80.9 

(757) ' (748) (855) (1184) (1892) . (2890) 

July August Sept. October Nov. Dec. 

98.8' 100.9 31.4 13.6 16.3 14.4 

,. 

(3530) (3602). . (1120) (486) (583) (516) 

13.4 11.6 12.7 13.0 19.3 14.7 

t477) (414) (453) (464) (691) (526) ~* 

options) 

Jack Greek N.F. 0.24 2.5 1.8 . 2.2 4.2 6.1 5.3 

acclimation Teanawag (8.7) . (91) (65) (79) (149) (217) . (189) 

Clark Flat 

site 

(8.7) 

(8.7) 

33.7 33.3 . 38.1 58.5 83.5 84.6 

(1205) (1 191) (1362) - (2090r (2983) (3020) 

4.7 3.6 * . 1.3 6.7 15.7 16.1 

(169) (12?) (47) (240) (562) (576) 

Estimates based on stream gauge data. 

Rkduced during periods of river flow less than 9.8 m3/s (350 cfs). 

Estimates based on North Fork Rattlesnake Creek mean monthly flow data, extrapolated using USGS 

. 

equation (1978). 

'4 Estimates based on USBR hydrologic model. ' Cle Elum acclimation site would be operated during January-June only. 

, The Cle Elum hatchery site is located on the Yakima River upstream fiom the town of Cle 

Elum. The hatchery would operate year-round and would be supplied with a combination 

of surface and groundwater. The surface water requirement of 2.0 m3/s (72.1 cfs) would 

he pumped from the Yakima River, run through the facity, and then returned to the river, 

along with the groundwater used in the facility. Monthly mean flows for the Yakima 

River at Cle Elum range from an average high of about 200 m3/s (7,100 cfs) in June to an 

average low of 13 m3/s (460 cfs) in October. The lowest monthly mean flows range 

between 8.5 and 9.9 m3/s (300 and 350 cfs) during the driest years. Under current 

agreements for protection of fishery resources (the Quackenbush ruling; see discussion in 

Section 3.9.2. l), flow in the Yakima River at the Cle Elum hatchery site is maintained at 

. Chapter3/a I 
- 325 cfs (9.1 m3/s) during the typical fall low-flow period. Extreme low flows, however, 

may be as low as the 5.3 m3/s (190 cfs) observed in Octo6er 1994. 

an average low of 1.8 m3/s (6s cfs) in February. Flows fo r the North Fork 

Teanawav s ite wou Id be SI ihtlv less. since it-is upst ream of the confluence with 

-mle Creek. Simulated monthly mean flows for the Teanaway River near the 

0 Clark Flat Acclimation Site. Six raceways would be located on the banks of the 

Yakima River near Thorp. Yakima River flows in this vicinity are similar to those 

described for the Cle Elum site. Water would be pumped from the river to the 

raceways. 

I 

Cle Elum 

located next to the proposed Cle Elum hatchery site upstream of the city of Cle 

-Site. Six' acclimation raceways would be 

-, 

,Chapter 3/& 
Elum on the Yakima River floodplain Yakima River flows in this vicinity are 

similar to those described for the Cle Elum hatchery. Water would be pumped 

from the Yakima River to the raceways, using the same intake facilities as for the 

hatchery. 

Keechelus 4ikmmkLSite. Six raceways would be located along the Yakima 

River downstream of Keechelus Dam. Either water would be pumped from the 

Yakima River to the site, or gravity flow directly from the dam might be explored. 

Mean monthly flows near Keechelus Dam have been measured as high as 

46.2 m3/s (1,630 cfs) in August. Simulated monthly mean flows at this location 

range from an average high of about 20.8 m3/s (735 cfs) in August to an average 

low flow of about 1.8 m3/s (65 cfs) in March. However, low flows of about 

0.08 m3/s (3 cfs), largely from seepage, have occurred from October through April 

when releases from Keechelus Dam have been stopped after the irrigation season 

to allow the reservoir to refill. 

[ 

3.2.1.2 Water Quality 

Parameters affecting both aquatic life and human health can be analyzed to determine 

water quality conditions. The Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) has,dehed 

water quality criteria for all'surface waters in the State of Washington WOE, 1988). 

Criteria are defined for temperature, DH, turbidity, fecal coliform bacteria, dissolved oxygen, and toxicants (ammonia and selected metal and organic constituents). The criteria for 

some of these parameters depend on how a water body is classified. - All waters are 

classified as fresh or marine, and as Class AA ('extraordinary), Class A.(excellent), Class B 

(good), Class C (fair), or Lake Class. 

- 

Most of the Yakima piver and its tributaries are classified as Class A. The Yakima River 

above the Cle Elum River is classified as Class AA. The Naches River above River Mile - 

35.7 and the Tieton River are also classified as Class AA. Water quality problems in the 

Yakima River basin are largely restricted to the lower 40 percent of the river, roughly 

from Sunnyside Dam to the confluence with the Columbia River @PA, 199Oa). 

Water temperature is critical to the survival of many aquatic organisms, especially fish. - 

High water temperatures limit the amount of dissolved oxygen that can be carried in the 

water, and a low concentration of dissolved oxygen (less than 4 milligrams per liter 

(mg/L)) has an adverse effect on aquatic life. Water temperatures in most of the Class A 

, segments of the Yakima River rarely exceed 2 1 "C (70°F); the Class AA segments rarely 

exceed 16°C (61°F). However, summer temperatures at Prosser and Kiona (on the lower 

river, through which the.anadromous fish must pass on their way down from the 

supplementation areas) frequently exceed 24°C (75°F); 90% mortality of some fish species 

can occur at temperatures above 21°C (70°F) (WDF/WDW, 1991). Water tempera~res ' 

are affected by the operation of water storage reservoirs in the upper portions oflhe 

Yakima River basin and'by irrigation diversions. Diverting and reserving water for 

storage reduce the amounts of water flowing downstream; the resulting reduced amounts 

of instream water heat up more quickly. , 

'I . Chapter 3/&Z I 
Spring chinook smolt outmigration occurs at Prosser from late March through early June, 

. with the average date of 50% passage on April 22. Steelhead smolt outmigration ranges 

from early March through mid-June, with the date of average 50% passage on April 30. 

Fall chinook smolts migrate from mid-April through early July, ~th the average date of 

50% passage on May 3 1. The average monthly temperature at Prosser, as well as the 

monthly maximum and mi&mum temperatures, are as follows: 

. 

March average of 7.7 C (45.9 F), with a maximum of 12.7 C (54.9 F) and 

' hinimum of 2.0 C- (35.6 F); 

i April average of 11.8 C (53.2 F), with a ma+mum of 17.6 C (63.7 F) and 

minimum of 8.1 C (46.6 F); I.. -- 

0 . -May avirage of 15.9 C (60.6 F), with a maximum of 21.8 C (71.2 F) and -. 

minimum of 11.2 C (52.2 F); 

0, June average of 19.2-C (66.6 F), with a maximum of 26.7 C (80.0 F) and 

minimum of 13.9 C (57.1 F); and 

, July average of 22.2 C (71.9 F), with a maximum'of 26.8 C (80.2 F) and ~ . 

minimum of 17.3 C (63.1 F). 

The estimated mean monthly temperatures at RichIand in the lower river were 18.0 C 

(64.5 F) for May,'21.0 C (69.8 F) for June, and 24.5 C (761 F) in July. 

\ 

, 

- 

The dissolved oxygen level of the Class A segment of the Yakima River is at least 

8.0 mg/L during normal daylight hours. Data reported for bimonthly sampling at Union 

Gap (above Ahtanum Creek) and at Kiona from 1980 to 1985 show that dissolved oxygen 

exceeded 8.5 mg/L on every occasion. However, dissolved oxygen problems have been 

observed during summer evening hours in the lower Yakima River. A 24-hour sampling 

in August 1973 identified dissolved oxygen concentrations as low as 4.2 mgL in the river 

downstream from Mabton. A minimum value of 4.0 mdJ d is3olved oxy 

ional 

\ 

recommended for fish by the 4 73 

wdence of subacute o r chron IC dam- to several tvoes of fishbelow this concentratioa 

Extremes inpH have an adverse effect on aquatic life. Values for pH (hydrogen ion 

concent_ration in water) in surface waters generally range fiom about 6 to 9: The pH of 

the Yakima River is typically between 7 and 8, but exceeds 8.5 on rare occasions.- 

of 6.0 to 9.0 aogears to orovide co mplete protection for the life of freshwater fish 

soeaes an d bottom-dwelling: inverteb r ate fis h f ood o r g nisms. provided that thosexa~. 

dns 1 mth a pH -d ependent toxicity a r e abse n t 1-tri at rn t h at mme i let ha1 

{Thurston et al.. 1979) I 

Turbidity is a measure of suspended matter that interferes with the passage of light. (The 

direct effect of suspended matter on aquatic life is nqted below, under the discussion of 

solids.) Light interference elevates water temperatures and decreases plant growth by 

. absorbing radiant energy. The turbidity criterion for Class AA and Class A fresh waters is 

.. 

I 

i . Chapter 3/@ : -. 
- 

not to exceed 5 nephelometric turbidity units @TU) over background when the back- ' 

ground turbidity is 50 NTU or less. The backgfound turbidity in the Yakima River is less 

than 50 NTU. Bimonthly measurements in the Yakima River from 1980 to 1985 showed 

that total turbidity averaged 6.1 NTU (0.7- to 35-NTU range) at Union Gap and 8.5 NTU 

(2- to 48-NTU range) at Kiona. Measurements taken at 12 stations in the Yakima River 

from April to October 1974 showed a trend of increased turbidity at successive downstream stations. Average values ranged from a low of 2 NTU at Cle Elum to a high of 

17 NTU at Kiona. Turbidity increases downstream of Union Gap as irrigation returns 

enter the Yakima River. 

Total suspended solids (TSS) include all materials (sand, silt, clay, and organic material) 

held in temporary suspension in the water. Suspended solids have an adverse effect on 

fish health and plant productivity. Also, these solids settle out in calm water and adversely 

affect aquatic life by smothering bottqm organisms. For these reasons, guidelines have 

been recommended: maximum levels of 25,80, and 400 mg/L offer a high, moderate, and 

low level of protection for aquatic communities, respectively (Corps, 1978). Based on 

these guidelines, average TSS concentrations in the Yakima River at Union Gap offer a 

low to moderate level of protection from May through November and a moderate to high 

level of protection from January through March. Thus, aquatic life in the Yakima River is 

most likely to be affected by TSS during the winter and early spring. 

Nutrients feed the growth of aquatic plants and microbes (algae and bacteria). Excessive . 

nutrient concentrations lead to excessive plant growth. Such growth contributes to 

depressed oxygen levels from plant respiration and decomposition, and presents an 

esthetically unpleasant appearance. The principal nutrients that control plant growth are 

. nitrogen and ,phosphorus. Critical thresholds for these two nutrients are 1 to 2 mg/L 

nitrate nitrogen (Rinella et al., 1992) and 0.1 mg/L total phosphorus (USEPA, 1986; 

Rinella et al., 1992) to avoid excessive growth. - Bimonthly average nutrient 

concentrations at Union Gap range fkom 0.12 to 0.36 mg/L for nitrate-nitrogen and from 

0.067 to 0.1 13 mg/L for total phosphorus. Nitrate levels downstream at Kiona are about 

five times higher than those at Union Gap during the irrigation season, presumably from 

fertilizers in irrigation-return water. 

Yakima River Basin fish populations are potentially affected by historical use of 

chlorinated pesticides leaching from soil. Total concentrations of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) in four of the mid-watershed tributaries (Birchfield Drain, 

Granger Drain, Sulphur Creek, and Sprjng/Snipes Creek) have high enough concentrations 

to cause a chronic response in resident fish populations, although reproduction does not 

appear to be affected. Resident fish are more likely to be affected than anadromous fish 

because of their feeding habits and long exposure time.. 

3.2.2 Groundwater Resources 

-. \ 

Shallow unconfined groundwater is generally found next to rivers and streams in the 

Yakima River Basin. Groundwater sources include rainfall, snowmelt, and irrigation 

Chapter 3/a -1 
- 

water that infiltrates porous surface soils. The ready infiltration and groundwater recharge 

make the shallow groundwater susceptible to pollution from the application of pesticides 

and fertilizers to the land surface, as well as from animal and human wastes. 

Deeper and/or confined groundwater is generally derived from rainfall and snowmelt in the 

higher elevation areas surrounding the watershed. Such groundwater is likely to be less 

affected by pollution from lowland agriculture and industry because it is not hydraulically 

connected to surface sources. 

Typically, shallow unconfined groundwater is hydraulically connected to the surface 

waters. At higher elevations and in the upper parts of the watersheds, the rivers and 

streams may be maintained by discharge from groundwater. In the lower reaches of the 

rivers and streams, and from behind dams and other surface water impoundments, water 

may flow into and recharge the groundwater. 

Groundwater resources are described below in the area of the Cle Elum hatchery, which 

would require a year-round source of 0.5 m3/s (18 cfs) of groundwater fiom a proposed 

well field. Water withdrawn from wells at the site would be returned to surface waters 

through the hatchej outflow. 

- 

( 

Surface matcrial at the site consists of about 4.6 m (15 fi.) of Quaternary alluvium and 

glacial outwash. -The surface material is underlaid by a dense clay unit that acts as a 

codiring layer for a corkined (artesian) sand and gravel aquifer below. Bedrock consists 

of sedimentary rocks of the Roslyn Formation. 

The USBR investigated the site area in 1989 with a six-line resistivity study to aid in 

delineating potential locations for water supply wells (USBR, 1990a). Four potential 

drilling sites were selected, and one observation and one production well were drilled. 

A flowing artesian aquifer was found at approximately 32.6 m (107 fi.) below the land 

surface, and aquifer tests indicated.that the production *well could yield about 0.03 to 

0.04 m3/s (1.3 to 1.5 cfs) for sustained periods of time, based on a m~mum pumping 

rate of 3028 liters per minute (800 gallons per minute) during the test. 

CH2M Hill conducted additional groundwater investigations at the Cle Elum site in 1991, 

including three seismic refiaction line tests to estimate depth and configuration of the 

bedrock at the site (USDOE, 1991). Based on results from the seismic study and USBR 

results, CH2M Hill drilled a 40.6-cm (16411.) test/production well to a depth of 65 m 

(213 fi.). The well encountered flowing artesian grouqdwaterat a depth of 34.4 m 

(1 13 fi.) in the sand and gravel aquifer, which continued to a depth of 57.6 m (189 e.). 

I/ 

Aquifer pumping tests were performed at pumping rates up to 5678 liters per minute (lpm) 

or 1,500 gallons per minutes (gpm) to determine aquifer parameters. Analysis of test data 

indicated that the well could be expected to sustain a yield of up to 0.09 m3/s (3.3 cfs). 

Temperature and test data also suggested that the aquifer is effectively isolated from the 

Chapter 3/a 
Yakima River by the clay layer, and that there is insignificant leakage (recharge) at the site 

fiom the river to the aquifer. 

Based on their results, CH2M Hill recommended installation of four additional 40.6-cmdiameter (1 6-in-diameter) wells located in a lime along the Burlington Northern Railroad 

right-of-way, each pumped at 0.09 m3/s (3.3 cfs). These wells, plus two existing USBR 

production wells, would supply the groundwater requirements for the Cle Elum hatchery. 

Groundwater resources at the acclimation sites have not yet been investigated. However, 

due to the small amounts of water (0.06 m3/s or 2 cfs) necessary and the hm ited Denod of 

sufficient flows is 

anticipated to be a problem at these sites. 

3.2.3 Floodplains and Wetlands 

.. 

. 

The proposed YFP facility sites were selected to minimize floodplain impacts. Detailed 

floodplain studies have been completed for the Cle Elum hatchery facilities; they would be 

outside the floodway of theYakima River. The river pump station at Cle Elum, however, 

would be located at the edge of the floodway, and portions of the facilities would be 

located in the 1 OO-year floodplain, as designated by Federal Emergency Management 

Agency flood hazard mapping. All buildings, however, would be constructed above the 

100-year flood level. 

Although detailed flood studies have not been completed at the acclimation sites, these 

sites were selected to minimize flood impacts. Preliminary studies were conducted and the 

facilities were sited by experienced floodplain hydrologists. Detailed floodplain studies 

would be completed, as necessary, during final' design of the facilities: 

Based on National Wetland Inventory maps, a variety of wetlands has been identified in 

the vicinity of the Cle Elum Hatchery and of several of the proposed and alternative 

acclimation sites (Table 3 2). However, the National Wetland Inventory maps indicate 

only general habitat types; verification requires a quantitative evaluation (called a 

delineation) of wetland habitats. QualitaFive'habitat surveys were conducted by the 

Pacific Northwest Laboratory in fall 1991, spring 1992, and summer 1994 at each'of the 

planned and alternative acclimation sites. Based on the field reconnaissance, wetland 

habitat potentially affected by planned YF'P fathies was identified, and recommendations 

were made to relocate facilities or acclimation sites. Additionally, a wetland delineation 

was completed for the Cle Elum hatchery site facilities by CH2M Hill in 1994. 

I 
Table 3.2 Wetland Designations of Planned and Alternative YF'P Site Locations 

Based on National Wetland Inventory Maps. 

I 

I Keechelus acclimation site I no wetlands designated on site t 

\ 

-0 

.I 

Cle Elum Hatchery Site. Wetlands in the area consist 'of the oxbow ponds and 

excavated depressions that are intermittently surrounded by sedges, cattails, 

rushes, alder, bitter cherry, chokecherry, black cottonwood, red osier dogwood, 

wild rose, snowberry, black hawthorn, and blue elderberry.5 The proposed facility 

site was located to minimize losses to any wetlands in the area. It is on a terrace 

above the oxbow ponds, in an area that has previously been disturbed. A fkinge of 

riparian wetland occurs at the site of the proposed discharge from the lower 

oxbow pond. 

acclimation site. 

Easton Acclimatlon Sites - Easton gravel pond site option. Quarry ponds are 

located slightfy north of the site and an emergent marsh south of the site; however, 

there are no wetland habitats on the site. 

identified at the'site. I 

Jack Creek Acclimation Site. The Jack Creek site is located next to the riparian 

habitat along Jack Creek, in an open field. The site is located in the floodplain that 

constitutes the only potential wetland habitat. Vegetation includes primarily 

cottonwood and willow. 

between an upper and lower terrace. The lowrer terrace is located in the floodp 

-tent il a ly contains wetland hab itat. The UDDW terrace IS out of the floodD - I& 

and does not wear tomin wetlad habit& 

, I 

Cle Elum Acclimation (alternate) Site. No wetlands were identified at the I 

I 

Easton Acclimatlon Sites - Easton dam site option. No wetlands were I 

Fork Teimwav 7 The site is divided 

' 

Clark Flat Acclimation Site. The area adjoining the river at the site is designated 

palustrine by the National Wetlands Inventory and the WDFW Priority Habitats 

5 Scientific names for all mentioned species are found in Appendix C.. 

Chapter 312 
System Database (WDFW, 1994). This riparian‘area adjacent to-the river supports 

willows and mature cottonwoods. 

Keechelus Acclimation Site. Although the site itselfis not located I 

within a designated wetland, the surrounding area includes a wetland complex 

associated with Keechelus Marsh (WDFW, 1994). 

3.3. Biological Resources: Aquatic 

Supplementing the populations of upper Yakima spring chinook salmon in the Yakima 

River Basin may affect other aquatic resources. Descriptions of the fisheries and other 

aquatic resources that may be affected by the YFP are provided below. Resident trout 

resources are described in Section 3.3.1.7, and the resident trout fishery is described 

separately, in Section 3.7.1, to facilitate discussion of specific concerns raised during the 

YKFP scoping process. 

3.3.1 Fisheries Resources 

Around the middle of the 19th ce- numb e rsofsh 1 n the Yaklover 

vere wd to have ranged fram600,OOO to 960,000 annually (Bryant and Parkhurst, 

1950; USBR and USFWS, 1976; YIN et al., 1990). The Yakima River contairied spring, 

summer, and fall chinook salmon; sockeye salmon; coho salmon; and summer steelhead. 

Wild sockeye and coho salmon are now extinct; the handfbl of sockeye and coho salmon 

now present in the Yakima River Basin are the result of strays from other Columbia River 

watersheds or hatchery plants of nonlocal fish into the Yakima River. They have not 

established naturalized populations in the Yakima River. Summer chino-ok are believed to 

be extinct, but this has not been confirmed. Spring and fall chinook salmon and summer 

steelhead are present, but at a fraction of their original numbers. The J989-1994 5-year 

mean annual return of salmon and steelhead to the YalGma River system is approximately 

3.3.1.1 Spring Chinook Salmon 

Spring chinook salmon are prized ks sportfish and for commercial, ceremonial, and 

subsistence fishing. Spring chinook salmon historically comprised one of the largestanadromous fish runs in the Yakima River Basin. Smoker (1956) estimated that spring 

chinook salmon production from the Yakima River alone accounted for about 

13.8 percent of the total Columbia River spring chinook salmon run in the early lg$O’s. 

The historical size of the spring chinook salmon run has been estimated at about 200,000 

fish per yeK(YIN et al., 1990). Since 1957, however, annual returns of spring chinook 

I 

5,100 adults. Species of concern are discussed below. I 

~ 

I 

salmon to the Yakima River have ranged from 166 to 9,442 fish, with the 1990-94 

average at 2,941 fish (Fast, per. comm., 1994). 

The capacity of the Yakima River to support spring chinook salmon smolts has been 

estimated using two computer models: the Council’s - model and the instream flow 

Chapter 3l33 
, 

incremental methodology (flow model). The estimated- smolt capacity for the'Yakima 

basin, as. derived from the C.ouncil's model, ranges from 2.4 million, for current- production 

areas and present conditions to 3.8 million, including all potential -habitat with all habitat 

improvements. The flow model predicts the^ smolt capacity at 1.5 million under current 

conditions. I' i 

Based on 2 years of extensive genetic analysis by WDFW (Busack et al., 1991), there 

appear to be three genetically distinct substocks of spring chinook salmon in the Yakima 

River Basin: the American River, Naches River, and upper Yakima stocks. These stock 

distinctions are based on differences in electrophoretic data, age composition, and 

observations of spawning timing between 1989 and 1993. 

Adult spring chinook salmon begin migrating upstream pastProsser Dam in late April and 

have completed passage by late July. Spring chinook salmon begin spawning in the 

American River in late July, and the other Naches populations spawn about 4 weeks later. 

Upper Yakima River populations spawn in early-to-mid September and usually reach peak 

spawning by late September. American River and Naches populations reach peak 

spawning by mid-August and mid-September, respectively- All spring chinook salmon 

populations have completed spawning by mid-October. American River spring chinook 

salmon return primarily as 5-year old fish, while adults destined for the upper mainstem of 

the Yakima River are generally 4 years old. 

Historical and current distribution of Yakima spring chinook salmon are illustrated in 

Figure 3.1. The historical spawning areas for Yakima spring chinook salmon include the 

Yakima River upstream from the City of Ellensburg, the Naches River, the Cle Elum River 

(upstream and downstream from Lake Cle Elum); the Tieton River (north and south 

forks), Rattlesnake Creek, and the Bumping, Little Naches, Teanaway, and American 

rivers. Other areas that may have been important are the Cooper and Waptus rivers and 

PJaneu m. W ikon. Taneum, Swauk, Manastash, Wenas, Cowiche, Ahtanum (plus 

tributaries), and Logy creeks. 

Spring chinook salmon currently spawn in the Yakima River upstream from the city of 

Ellensburg and immediately downstream to Roza Dam; the Cle Elum River downstream 

from Lake Cle Elum; the mainstem Naches, Bumping, Little Naches, and American rivers; 

and Rattlesnake Creek. 

- 

Spring chinook fiy emerge from the gravel from late March through early June. The 

juveniles rear in the Yakima for 1 year before outmigrating to the ocean. The smolt 

outmigration occurs from late March through early June at Prosser. The average date at 

which 50% of the smolts have migrated past Prosser is April 30. Adults can return from 

the ocean after 1,2,3, or 4 years, with the Upper Yakima stock generally 2-year-ocean 

fish and the American River stock mostly 3-year ocean fish. 

. 

Chapter 3/2 
Figure 3.1 Historical Distribution of Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon. 

- 

. .. 

I- Chapter31z I 
- .- , 

Causes for Decline 

About 90 percent of the wries fbr -all an- 1 ni was lost between 1850 and I 

1900. A portion of this decline was attributable to lower Columbia River fisheries. The 

.- i 

in-basin causes of this decline include: 

1) construction of unladdered bx&g$$dams (especially Pomona Dam , 

. , around 1880 and Sunnyside Dam in 1893) that completely blocked adult 

migration during part of their run; 

- 

2) ’ entrainment of fiy and smolts in unscreened diversion canals (few of which 

were screened before 1934); 

.- 

- 3) periodic destruction of spawning beds by downriver log drives that forced 

‘ . large volumes of water to be released from dams like the one at Pomona; 

~< 

4) intensive local fishing; 

5) irrigation activities; 

6) ’ elimination of braids and natural floodways by diking and channelization; 

7) drastic reduction in the number of beavers and beaver ponds, and the 

resultant loss of natural water storage an,d rearing habitat @avidson, 

1953). 

. .I 

.and -I 

- ‘ 

- ,, 

.- Constraints on Natural Production 

. 

. 

Spring chinook salmon production in the Yakima River Basin is limited by both too-high 

and too-low instream flows at the wrong times of the year, lack of passage around 

irrigation diversions in tributaries, degraded riparian and instream habitat, and low oxygen 

levels from excessive water temperatures in the lower basin. 

3.3.1.2- Summer Chinook Salmon 

Little is known about the historical Yakima River summer chinook salmon population 

levels. Recent estimates for the historical run size, however, plac/e the combined salmon 

run of fall and summer chinook salmon at up to 250,000 fish. Natural production might 

result in a run of around 10,000 summer chinook salmon adults, estimated using 

parameters for the Wenatchee River stock (YIN et al., 1990). 

”- 

In the Wenatchee River, adults ascend to the middle and upper reaches of the river during 

summer and early fall. Spawning occurs in late September and early October 

(WDF/WDW, 1990). Juveniles emerge from mid-February through mid-April, rearing as 

they migrate through the Wenatchee and Columbia rivers. Peak outmigration occurs in 

June and July, with migrants continuing to pass mainstem dams through August. 

Chapter 3/E _I 
Historic spawning and rearing areas for summer chinook salmon arebelieved to have been 

in the middle reaches from Sunnyside Dam to Roza Dam on the Yakima River and in the 

lower Naches River from the mouth to the Tieton River. The last summer chinook 

spawning nest (d) was recorded in 1970, and summer chinook salmon may now be 

extinct in the Yakima River. \- 

Causes for Decline 

'. , 

The in-basin causes for historic decline include construction of unladdered dams, 

entrainment of juveniles in unscreened diversion canals, logdriving and sudden releases of 

water, intensive local fishing, diking and channelization, and loss of natural water storage 

and rearing habitat. Additionally, irrigation withdrawals resulted in low flows and high 

water temperatures in July and August, the period during which summer chinook salmon 

adults would normally migrate in the mainstem. 

Constraints on Natural Production 

Factors limiting natural production of summer chinook salmon in the Yakima River are 

high water temperatures, low flows, predation, and poor water quality downstream of 

Sunnyside Dam during July and August. The water temperature and flows in the lower 

river are affected by slow-movement and shallow-water exposure to'sunlight, as well as by 

warm silt-laden irrigation returns. Flow subordination from power plants would likely 

provide improved passage. Likelihood of improvements to water temperature in the 

middle and lower river is considered "slight" (USBWWDOE, 1987). 

3.3.1.3 Fall Chinook Salmon 

Fall chinook salmon were fairly abundant in the Yakima River Basin. Historical 

production of fall chinook salmon may have been as high as 250,000 adult fish (YIN et al., 

1990). Little is known about the historical distribution of fall chinook salmon within the 

Yakima River, although the production area is believed to have been confined to the area 

between the Sunnyside Dam and the ColumbiaRiver confluence (Fast et al., 1990). 

' There are no data describing the historical run timing, age composition, sex ratio, size-atage, fecundity, or population structure of Yakima fall chinook salmon. 

Data suggest the portion of the Yakima fall chinook salmon run that spawns upstream 

from Prosser Dam averages approximately 853 fish (based on counts at Prosser Dam from 

1983 to 1992). Some of these fish likely originated in the Marion Drain, a 27.4-km 

(17-mi.) canal carrying irrigation return water, located 58 km (36 mi.) upstream from 

Prosser Dam. Significant spawning also occurs downstream fiom Prosser Dam. Fall 

chinook juveniles rear for several months in the Yakima Basin and migrate past Prosser 

from mid-April through early July, with the average date-of May 3 1 for 50% passage of 

smolts at Prosser. 

Based on adult counts at Prosser Dam, the upper river run begins around the second week 

in September, peaks after mid-October, and is completed by the third week of November. 
. -. 

The movement of spawners into the Marion Drain may be triggered by water surges 

associated with shutting down the irrigation diversion to Satus Ridge and raising of the 

Marion Drain control gate. 

The Preliminary Design Report for the project (BPA, 1990b) assumed a single fall chinook 

salmon population with the life history traits identical to those of Hanford Reach fall 

chinook salmon (Howell et al., 1985). A reevaluation ofthis assumption reveals 

uncertainty regarding the actual adult age structure and sex ratio ofTmainstem Yakima fall 

chinook salmon. The uncertainty is due to 1) problems associated with locating and 

sampling'adults in a large turbid river system such as the lower Yakima River, and 

2) biases inherent in spawning ground sampling methods (Peterson, 1954; Chtter and 

Whitesel, 1956; Eames and Hino, 1981; Eames et al., 1981). 

/ 

New genetic information about the Marion Drain stock (Busack et al.; 1991) suggests that 

two populations of fall chinook salmon occur in the Yakima River Basin. The larger 

population is found in the mainstem Yakima River, with the highest concentrations 

downstream from Benton Ciw. The lower mainstem fish may represent approximately . 

70% of the total spawning population in the Yakima River, although there are no accurate 

census data for mainstem spawners downstream from Prosser Dam. The mainstem fish 

are genetically indistinguishable from fall chinook salmon found in the Hanford Reach area 

of the mainstem Columbia River and associated hatchery stocks (commonly referred to as 

upriver brights). The secondpopulation (Marion Drain) is genetically different from the 

mainstem Yakima River population, and is similar to fall chinook salmon populations 

found in the Snake (Lyons Ferry Hatchery) and Deschutes rivers. The Marion Drain 

population may represent original Yakima fall chinook salmon; the mainstem population> is 

composed ofa mix of original Yakima fall chinook salmon hybhdized with hatchery 

releases of Hanford Reach/Priest Rapids-type fish (including Umatilla strays). 

-..As discussed in Section 1.4, under the CRFMP of US. v. Oregon, the YIN's current fall 

chinook program in the Yakima River Basin includes the production and release into the 

Yakima of 1.7 million smolts from the Little White Salmon National Hatchery. Between 

1983,and 1994, the smolts were transported and directly released into the Yakima River. 

With funds provided under the Mitchell Act program, the YIN has developed acclimation 

facilities in the vicinity of Prosser Dam for final rearing and release of these fall chinook 

smolts; they began operation in 1994. 

Causes for Decline 

.The in-basin causes for decline of Yakima fall chinook salmon are high smolt and presmolt 

mortality fiom predation, sedimentation of spawning substrate, degraded water quality in 

the lower river, irrigation activities, and losses at lower Yakima River dams. 

Preterminal harvests have had some impact on fall chinook salmon production. 

Exploitation rates of 48% have been estimated for the lower Columbia River (below 

Chapter 31B . 

*. 

I 
. Bonneville Dam), Alaska, and ocean fisheries for the period 1984-1993. However, there 

has been no sigqificant in-river Yakima fall chinook salmon fishery for at least 40 years. 

Constraints on Natural Production 

Factors limiting fall chinook salmon production within the Yakima River Basin may 

of Sunnyside Dam, and water quality and high temperatures in the lower Yakima River. 

smolt and presmolt mortality due to sedimentation in spawning areas downstream I 

3.3.1.4 Coho Salmon L 

Indigenous natural coho salmon no longer occur in the Yakima River Basin. The only 

natural w& now occurring is thought to be the result of hatchery fish outplantings in I - 

the basin or strays from hatchery releases outside of the Yakima basin. Mullan (1 984) 

estimates that coho salmon comprised 19 percent of the total salmon runs upstream of 

Roza Dam between 1949 and 1967. This run of coho salmon may have numbered 

114,000 fish annually. Unfortunately, there are no historical data on age composition, size 

at age, or stock structure of Yakima River coho salmon. 

In recent years, 700,000 coho salmon smolts have been released into the Yakima River 

Basin annually as part of the US. v. Oregon CRFMP. ,In 1995. 'matelv 600.000 

xahd3asm bv the yn\T under the Cm. These releases were intended to promote 

and diversi@ local fishing opportunities for the YIN. The program uses early-run fish 

from lower Columbia River hatcheries (mainly Cascade Hatchery), and has produced very 

few returning adults. The average number of coho observed at Prosser Dam from 1989 to 

1992 was 140. However, as discussed in Section 1.4, the YIN initiated a program in 1994 

to acclimate these fish in ponds near Wapato. 

1 .. rr bn nee -to t& 

-+ 

1 Coho salmon spawn in late October to November. Columbia River coho salmon typically 

spend 1 year in freshwater before outmigrating as yearling smolts in the spring (AprilMay). After outmigrating, coho salmon spend about 18 months at sea before returning to 

spawn. Sexually precocious males (jacks) return to spawn after 6 months at sea. 

The historical distribution of coho in the Yakima basin is shown in.Figure 3.2. The 

historical mainstem production areas for Yakima coho salmon were probably restricted to 

the reaches upstream of the mouth of the Teanaway River. Virtually all major upper 

Yakima River tributaries (Teanaway River and Taneum, Manastash, Swauk, Big, and 

Umtanum creeks) supported coho salmon. The Naches River and tributaries upstream 

from the Tieton River also produced substantial numbers of coho salmon. Lower 

production has been reported in the upper Tieton River (upstream from Rimrock Lake), 

the upper Cle Elum River and its tributaries (upstream from Cle Elum Dam), and Ahtanum 

and Logy creeks (Bryant and Parkhurst, 1950; Smoker, 1956; Anonymous, 1967; 

Mongillo and Falconer, 1980). - 

- 

. Chapter3/2 I 
Cle 

Coho Distribution* 

0 PresenVPotential I4 

-----.-- Absent .. .*Due to the limitations of scale, all streams 

support anadmmous fish are not shown on this map 

. 

s92ososa.4 

nbia 

Figure 3.2 Historical Distribution of Yakima Coho Salmon. 

Chapter 3/8Q -- 
Causes for Decline 

The in-basin causes for decline include construction of unladdered dams, entrainment- of 

juveniles in unscreened diversion canals, sudden releases of water for log driving, . irrigation (activities, intensive local fishing, diking and channelization, and loss of natural 

water storage and rearing habitat. Factors outside the basin included the advent of the 

major dams on the mainstem Columbia and the steady increase in fishing effort in the 

ocean and lower mainstem Columbia. 

Constraints on Natural Production 

’ 

Factors limiting natural production of coho salmon in the basin are lower mainstem 

Columbia River and ocean harvest rates and smolt mortality within the mainstem Yakima 

River. An issue that affects the n&ig&km strategy for coho salmon is 

tributay spawning and rearing habitat, and water , limitations imposed by existing uses. 

3.3.1.5 Sockeye Salmon 

, 

of I .. 

The once-abundant Yakima River sockeye salmon is eztinct. The sockeye run contributed 

significantly to the Columbia River fishery at the turn of the century. Before dam 

construction, four sockeye nursery lakes were accessible to sockeye salmon: the 502-ha 

(1,240-ac.) Keechelus Lake (blocked 1904), the 11 10-ha (2,744-ac.) Kachess Lake 

(blocked 1904), the 802-ha (1,982-ac.) Cle Elum Lake (blocked 1909/1910), and the 

255-ha (63 1-ac.) Bumping Lake (blocked 1910). Sockeye salmon juveniles used 

Bumping, Cle Elum, Kachess, and Keechelus Lakes for fresh-water rearing. Spawning 

areas were probably located above these lakes. Based on the historic nursery area of the 

Yakima River Basin, and using a mean productivity rate of sockeye salmon in Lake 

Wenatchee of 38.8 adults per ha (15.7 adults per ac.) (Mullan, 1986) and an upward 

adjustment of the Wenatchee production rate (to account for losses at mainstem dams that 

did not occur historically), the historical annual Yakima River sockeye salmon run is 

estimated to have been approximately 200,000 adult fish (Robison, 1957; YIN et al., 

. 

1990). 

The sockeye salmon run was eliminated so long ago that accurate details of sockeye 

salmon life history in the Yakima River Basin are unknown. In the Wenatchee River, 

sockeye salmon adults migrate into the river from July through September, with spawning 

occurring from the middle of October to the end of November in tributaries to Lake 

Wenatchee. Eggs incubate until the end of February, with emergence occurring in March 

through May. If hatched in lake tributaries, newly emerged fry migrate downstream into 

the lake where they rear for 1 to 2 years. Smolt migration usually occurs between May 

and June of the following year. 

Causes for Decline 

Habitat destruction and overfishing drastically reduced An abundance before the early 

1900’s. Sockeye salmon runs were eliminated from upper reaches of the Yakima River - 

Chapter 3/U 

I. 
Basin with development of irrigation storage reservoirs in the early l9OO’s. Since 1986, 

the NMFS has been conducting a feasibility study to determine whether introduced 

sockeye salmon could successhlly outmigrate from Cle Elum Lake and the Yakima River 

system (Flagg et al., 1988, 1989). A final report on the study is anticipated.to be 

completed in 996. I - 

Constraints on Natural Production 

The one major constraint to natural production of sockeye salmon in the Yakima basin is 

the lack of passage for juveniles and adults at all of the major irrigation storage reservoirs 

in the system. No sknificant natural production of sockeye salmon can occur in the basin 

until both upstream and downstream passage is provided at these facilities. 

3.3.1.6 Summer Steelhead 

Historical summer steelhead runs were estimated to range between 80,000 and 100,000 

adult fish. Summer steelhead were found in all the reaches of the mainstem Yakima River 

and its tributaries that supported spring chinook salmon, as well as in many other 

tributaries. Because steelhead spawners prefer smaller streams with steeper gradients than 

do spring chinook salmon, virtually all awessible permanent streams and some intermittent 

streams once supported steelhead. Even today, some steelhead spawn in such lowervalley tributaries as Spring and Snipes creeks. There was probably no downstream limit to 

summer steelhead distribution. ~ 

The historical stock structure of wild summer steelhead in the Yakima River is unknown. 

Biological data describing age composition, length, sex ratio, or fecundity of Yakima 

. summer steelhead begins in 1979. The relative numbers of wild fish vary from year to 

year. In recent years, total returns have averaged about 1,700 fish, with hatchery fish 

contributing about 10 to 2Opercent of the total run, as monitored at Prosser Dam. 

Returns of hatchery summer steelhead to the Yakima River were from fish reared at the 

former WDW’s Yakima Hatchery. Before 1990, releases from this facility averagkd 

slightly under 100,000 (with ranges of 50,000 to 200,000) summer steelhead smolts that 

were released mainly into the Naches River. From 1991 through 1994, production from 

this hatchery was reduced to about 33,000 smolts, or the number of smolts required for 

investigations of species interactions in the Yakima River system above Roza Dam. 

No fUrther releases of steelhead smolts from the Yakima Hatchery are planned. 

Production areas for steelhead occur throughout the Yakima River Basin. Little 

production, however, occurs upstream from Roza Dam. The greatest number of steelhead 

estimated to have passed above Roza Dam in any of the past 5 years is 125 fish. 

An effort to ascertain the number-of steelhead stocks in the Yakima River was initiated in 

1989 (Busack et al., 1991). -vex B ash. three genetically distinct steelhead . 

populations have been identified in the river by electrophoretic analysis. The% three 

populations are found in Statmopp en’ _&_eek._andNaches/uo r per Yakima 

lkvsLL 

. .. . 

.. 5 

c 

Chapter 3/a 
No evidence of gene flow from hatchery steelhead has been found in kSatus 

Toppenish creekgopulatians, However, gene flow fi-om hatchery steelhead 

the Naches 

between hatchery rainbows and steelhead in the Naches and upper Yakima rivers. 

Juvenile life history traits of steelhead are more diverse-than those of Pacific salmon. 

Steelhead fiom the Satus and Toppenish systems apparently emerge during May through 

June. Steelhead in the Naches system emerge during June through August. This 

asynchrony is doubtless the result of the relatively lower water temperatures in the Naches 

River. In the Yakima Basin, naturally produced steelhead smolts migrate predominantly at 

age 2; however, some smolts also migrate at ages 1,3, and 4. Steelhead smolts migrate 

past Prosser from early March through Ad-June, with the average date of April 30 for 

50% smolt passage by Prosser. Adults can rear in the ocean fot 1 to 3 years before 

returning to the Yakima basin to spawn. Unlike Pacific salmon, which die after spawning, 

steelhead can recover and return to the ocean for 1 or more years and return to the basin 

to spawn again. 

apparent in 

In addition, some gene flow has occurred 

/ 

- 

Causes For Decline 

The in-basin causes for decline include construction of unladdered dams, entrainment of 

juveniles in unscreened diversion canals, log driving, fishing, diking and channelization, 

and loss of natural water storage and rearing habitat. Steelhead-specific causes for decline 

include diversions and riparian degradation; the completion of Roza Dam in 1940 severely 

limited access to about half of the steelhead habitat. (In 1989, steelhead access was 

improved via modification of the fish ladder system.) As the hydraulic regime of the 

Yakima River has been altered by flow management activities, high summer flows have led 

to suboptimal rearing conditions for emergent fry. In addition, low spring flows have 

affected upstream migration of adults. _- 

-- 

Constraints on Natural Production 

Natural production for most salmonid stocks in the Yakima River Basin, including 

steelhead, is limited by high summer flows and suboptimal spring flows in the mainstem, 

lack of passage around irrigation diversions, degraded riparian and instream habitat, and. 

excessive temperatures in the lower portions’of the Toppenish and Satus creek drainages. 

As noted above,’the existing hydraulic regime provides severe conditions for steelhead/ 

rainbow fiy: their life history requires that they emerge fiom spawning gravels in the 

summer. This may be a severe bottleneck to natural production of this species. 

- 

3.3.1.7 Resident Salmonids 

Eight species of resident salmonids are known to exist in the Yakima River drainage, 

including the resident form of summer steelhead, or rainbow trout. Other resident fish 

species include Westslope cutthroat trout, bull trout, mountain whitefish, and kokanee. 

Introduced species include eastern brook trout, brown trout, and lake trout. Brown and 
,. .- .a 

c 

lake trout -have a'very'liited distribution, but eastern brook trout are more widely 

distributed and occupy areas similar to those used by cutthroat trout. Cutthroat and bull 

trout generally inhabit clean cold water of.high elevation streams, whereas rainbow trout 

occupy the river's mainstem and the low- to mid-elevation areas of tributaries. Of 

p&icular interest to anglers are the resident rainbow trout in the mainstem Yakima River 

angling opportunities for *trout .~ in the State (see Section 3.7;l for adiscussion of 

, 

. ' above Roza Dam; The rainbow trout fishery in this area is arguably one of the best stream 

I ' the rainbow troutfishery). 

Preliminary genetic gnalyses of resident rainbow trout in the upper Yakima,River have 

discerned-five genetic groups (Pearsons et al., 1993). -Using electrophoretic methods, the 

analysis found that rainbow trout and steelhead were genetically similar where they 

occurred together. Hatchery-origin rainbow trout have hybridized with wild rainbow trout 

and steelhead in the Yakima River (Campton and Johnston,' 1985; Pearsons et al., 1993). 

In general, the genetic contribution of hatchery rakbow trout to wild troutappears to be 

greatest in the mainstem Yakima River and low-elevation tributaries, and least or nonexistent in high-elevation tributaries. Despite the level of interbreeding, the groups 

identified as rainbow trout still are genetically discernible from four hatchery rainbow trout 

strains that hav.e been released into-the river, in the past. 

Rainbow trout spawn throughput the entire upper Yakima basin, with the possible 

. exception of some-high-elevation portions of a few tributaries (Pearsons et al., 1993; 

Pearsons et al., 1994). In the mainstem of the upper river, rainbow trout spawn-in clean 

gravels, next to cover, with velocities averag&g about 0.6 dsecond, a waterdepth of 

0.3 m, and redd areas of 1.9 m . They spawn in close proximity to the bank, and may use 

side-channel habitat. Rainbow-trout in the upper &er spawn from February through June, 

1992; Pearsons et al., 1993). The peak time of spawning is positively correlated.with 

elevation, with spawning beginning first in lowSelevation areas and later in high-elevation 

areas (Pearsons-et al., 199a; Pearsons et al., 1994). 

Taneum and Swauk creeks have the highest densities of rainbow trout of the upper ' ' 

Yakima River (0;lO fish/m2.iri index sites) (Pearsons et ,al., 1994): In the mainstem 

-- Yakima , River, trout densities averaged-about 3 00 fish/km in five index sections (Pearsons 

et al., 1993; Pearsons et al., 1994). The length of rainbow trout at each age was smaller in 

tributaries than in mainstem sections, with the exception of low-elevation streams such as 

Cherry and Wilson creeks. Rainbow trout in the upper: Yakima basin generally do not live 

longer than 6 years, with few reaclhg lengths of over 56 cm (22 in.). 

. 

2 

although some-fall spawning mayalso occur (Hindman et al., 199l;~McMchael et al., - - ,/ 

' 

-Kokanee (landlocked sockeye) are present in a number of lakes in the Yakima River 

Basin, including Cle Elum, Kachess, Keechelus, Rimrock and Bumping lakes. 

Chapter3/% . : 1. 
,_ 

3.3.1.8 Resident Non-salmonids 

Few studies have been conducted on non-salmonid resident fish populations in the Yakima 

River. Patten et al. (1970) surveyed fish populations in the Yakima River during 1957 and 

1958 and found 33 species present. The USBR (1979) collected four new species in 

1979, bringing the total to 37 species, of which 10 were fiom the family Salmonidize. The 

six most abundant resident nonSsalmonid species present in the basin were chiselmouth, 

redside shiner, northern squawfish, largescale sucker, speckled dace, and torrent sculpin. 

Carp are the most abundant exotic non-salmonid species. Important non-salmonid sport 

species in the Yakima River below Prosser include exotics such as largemouth and 

smallmouth bass and channel catfish. 

Fish assemblages in the tributaries of the upper Yakima River are typical of coldwater 

assemblages found throughout the Pacific Northwest. In 1993, the WDFW identified 

three major assemblage types in the upper Yakima River system (Pearsons et al., 1994). 

Assemblage types were distinguished using stream elevation above sea level, temperature, 

and size. Fish species that characterized assemblages in sites that were relatively high in 

elevation and within small streams (elevation 2,040-3,620 - m-, discharge 

0.002-0.7 m3/s (0.71-24.7 cfs)., width 2.7-9.3 m (8.9-30.5 ft.1) were bull trout, cutthroat 

trout, and brook trout. Assemblages inhabiting relatively low-elevation sites 

streams (elevation 1,540-2,040 m or 5,052-6,693 R., discharge 0.001-0.01 m3/s or 0.035- 

0.35 cfs, width 1.8-3.9 m or 5.9-12.8 ft.) were represented by a high proportion of - 

speckled dace. Assemblages inhabiting relatively low elevation sites in larger streams 

(elevation 1,430-1,960 m or 4,692-6,430 R., discharge 7.3-29.4 m3/s or 258-1,038 cfs, 

width 33.8-56.6 m or 110.9-185.7 ft.) were characterized by northern squawfish, 

chiselmouth, various suckers, redside shiners, longnose dace,. mountain whitefish, and 

spring chinook salmon. Rainbow trout and sculpins were ubiquitous and were present in 

all assemblages. Bridgelip suckers make spawning migrations into some tributary streams 

such as Umtanum, Swauk, and Taneum creeks. These suckers migrate into the same 

streams as rainbow trout migrate to spawn, but shortly thereafter (Pearsons et al., 1993; 

Pearsons et al., 1994). Leopard dace have not been collected recently in areas that 

contained’them during surveys in 1957 and 1958 (Patten et al., 1970; Pearsons et al., 

1993; Pearsons et al., 1994). 

3.3.2 Other Aquatic Resources 

Little information about Yakima River aquatic resources other than fish is available. 

Available information concerning these resources and a brief description of ongoing 

studies are summarized below. 

small 

/ 

i 

‘ 

In 1975 to 1976, the EPA collected benthic macroinvertebrates fiom four sites in the 

Yakima River to develop a suitability index for swimming and fishing in the Yakima River 

(CH2M Hill, 1977). These data were not published but were later summarized by the 

United States Geological Survey (USGS) in their surface water assessment of the Yakima 

River Basin (Rinella et al., 1992). Organisms belonging to the blackfly family were 

Chapter.3/& I 
I 

dominant at the proposed Cle Elum hatchery pite in August. Caddisflies were the most 

abundant taxa in November and December samples from Cle'Elum, and in the summer and 

winter samples from Ellensburg and Yakima. Aquatic earthworms were dominant in 

August and November samples at Kiona. Caddisfly larvae were dominant in December. 

Density or abundance of aquatic insects appears to decrease in the lower Yakima River. 

For example, the average number of organisms (over three sample periods) decreased 

from 2,300 individuals and 28 taka at Ellensburg to 120 individuals and 12 taxa at 

downstream Kiona (Rinella et al., 1992). Zona also had the lowest numbers of insects 

considered to be sensitive to degraded water-quality conditions. However, other factors, 

such as increased temperature, fine sediment, and organic carbon, likely contribute to ' 

observed differences in the composition of the aquatic community (Rinella et al., 1992). 

The USGS has collected extensive data on periphyton and macroinvertebrates in the 

Yakima River at several sites from 1987 to 1990. In addition, fish tissue samples were 

collected for analysis in 1989 and 1990. -The USGS also has data concerning the 

chlorophyll pigment content and biomass of periphyton from the Yakima River at Cle 

Elum, the Naches River near North Yakima, andthe Yakima River at Kiona. Dissolved 

and suspended carbon analyses are also available for these sites. 

Information regarding the macroinvertebrate community in the upper Yakima River Basin 

has been collected through a cooperative project between the WDFW and Central 

Washington University (Paul James, unpublished data). ,This project was conducted in the 

Teanaway River over a 4-year period (1991-1994). The study found that 40-50% of the 

benthic insects by number were mayflies, with stoneflies, caddisflies, and true flies 

composing the remaining 50-60%. Aquatic macroinvertebrates found in the drift were 

composed of terrestrial insects (35-50%), mayflies (20-30%) and true flies (1525%). The 

Cle Elum District of the USFS is also initiating a monitoring program in streams, but to 

date no data have been published. 

. 

- 

- 

- 

- 

\ 

3.4 Biological Resources: Wildlife and Vegetation 

The construction of facilities for the Yakima Fisheries Project may affect vegetation and 

wildlife. These biological resources are described below. , 

3.4.1 Vegetation and Wildlife - - 

The proposed facility sites along the Yakima River and its tributaries are located in 

naturally forested and nonforested areas east of the CascadeMountains in Yakima and 

Kittitas Counties. Forested areas are characteristically dominated by conifers, and the 

nonfoiested areas by desert shrubs and grasses. Some of the forested areas have been 

logged, and much of the nQnforested -area has been grazed by domestic livestock. Some 

areas are under cultivation. A narrow band of broad-leaved, deciduous trees forms a 

more-or-less continuous riparian corridor along the shorelines of the Yakima River and its 

tributaries. 

Chapter 3/& ,I 

I. 
Wildlife use of the areas varies with vegetation and the amount of disturbance at the site. 

Riparian vegetation and adjoining cultivated fields in the Yakima River Basin provide 

habitat for elk and a variety of other big-game species. Breeding and wintering birds also 

use the Yakima River and shoreline vegetation. 

' 

Vegetation and wildlife use near the proposed-Cle Elum hatchery facilities are described in 

the EA @PA, 199Oa) and summarized below. The existing vegetation and wildiife at each 

of the proposed and alternative acclimation sites are also described. Discussion is limited 

to wildlife species of regulatory and recreational importance, with general community 

descriptions provided, where appropriate. . 

' 

Cle Elum Hatchery Site. The proposed site is located on a parcel that consists of 

an old oxbow orriver channel cut off from the Yakima River by the Burlington 

Northern Railroad. The approximately 200-ha (500-ac.) parcel includes wetlands, 

riparian forest, upland forest, and several large ponds. The proposed site for the 

hatchery development supports second-growth ponderosa pineDouglas fir upland 

forest. Black cottonwood also grows abundantly throughout the area. Understory 

vegetation is sparse. 

Wildlife observed during winter site visits included osprey, common snipe, killdeer, 

belted kingfisher, hairy woodpecker, northern flicker, red-breasted nuthatch, raven, 

black-capped chickadee, golden-crowned kinglet, varied thrush, and Douglas 

squirrel. One beaver dam was noted. 

The riparian area along the Cle Elum River below Cle Elum Lake and the 

mainstem Yakima River in the vicinity of the Cle Elum site is used by wintedng 

bald eagles and cavity-nesting waterfowl. Large ponderosa pines and . 

cottonwoods along the river that provide perches for wintering bald eagles are 

limited on the site. A pond on the northeast end of the site about 610 m (2000 R.) 

away from the proposed developed area contains two large snags that support 

osprey nests. The area is used by cavity-nesting waterfowl that nest along the 

John Wayne Trail, about 2 km (1.2 mi.) from the site. 

The site is located within an elk wintering area (WDFW, 1994); about 100 animals 

use the area along the Cle Elum River below Cle Elum Lake Dam. The elk range 

on either side of the river and wander into the southern portion of the site. 

Large woody debris abundant on the site provides habitat for reptiles and 

amphibians. Reptile and amphibian species observed on the site include sharptailed snakes, alligator lizards, Western fence lizards, garter snakes, and rubber 

boas (Rekow, 1994). 

Easton Gravel Pond Acclimation Site. The western half of the Easton gravel 

pond option is surrounded by a forested stand of approximately 90% canopy. 

Understoq vegetation includes snowberry, bedstraw, alder, vine maple, 

cottonwood, blackberry, thimbleberry, oceanspray,' and rose. Several large- 

. .- . . . . . . 

, 

Chapter 3/82 -1 
diameter cottonwoods are located at the periphery of the site, and a'section of 

alder adjoins. the site. Several snags occur throughout this stand. The site is 

I located next to the 1-90 corridor, and adjacent forest 1&d has b;een heavily logged. 

The eastern half of the site is characterized byhighly disturbed soils that have been 

imported by physical deposition or fi-om flooding. Cottonwoods occur along the 

eastern edge of the site. Ground and understory vegetation is patchily distributed 

and includes daisy, fireweed,: mullein, aster, goldenrod, and dock. The western 

. edge of the site is bordered by a willow, cottonwood, and alder thicket that adjoins 

a backwater of the river, . The'backwater is vegetated by rush, willow, and cattail. 

_. A-forested-stand adjoining this pond includes young-age-class cottonwood. I , 

Understorywegetation includes snowberry, vine maple, haivfhorn, coltsfoot -and 

thimbleberry. Based on observations at the site, great blue herons, downy 

- woodpeckers and other cavity-nesting species, and amphibians are found at the 

site. 

Easton Dam Acclimation Site. ' The site is located next to existing facilities and 

may be the location of a former switchyard. The river is about -0.16 to 0.2 km 

. - (one-tenth to one-eighth of a mile) downslope and to the north of the site. 

- Location of the return pipe would require removal of about 10 trees fi-om the I 

adjoining sideslope that descends.at a 45-degree angle about 4.6 to 6 m (15 - 

20 ft.) to the river. The. site is opposite Lake Easton State Park and is highly 

disturbed. Vegetation was likely planted with both woody and evergreen as well 

as herbaceous species. Vegetation includes mullein; clover, vetch, thistle, daisy, . 

squkrel tail, strawberry, rush, pearly everlasting, tumblemustard, cottonwood, . snowberry, Ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, ki&ckinnick, Oregon grape, blackberry, 

knapweed, 'willow, bursage, and .lupine. NO wildlife species, were observed during 

, the site visit. c 

0 . Jack Creek Acclimation Site. The shoreline vegetation along Jack. Creek I 

consists of cottonwood and alder, The site is located in an open field. The 

adjacent forest is dominated by Douglas fir and ponderosa pine with some grand 

fir. Some of the more mature trees in the area may provide perch sites for bald 

eagles.- The' common shrubs are snowberry, red osier dogwood, hawthorn, andvipe maple: The grassy area supports wheatgrass, knapweed, yellow sal&@, and 

yarrow. . I, .- 

-. 

-, 

, 

-~ ., 

- 

. 

, 

- - 

,. 

- 

The Jack Creek site is open range and has been heavily grazed by cattle, Overgrazing likely has altered the complement of wildlife in the area. The area is also a 

hunting area and receives repeated recreational use by campers, hunters, and 

anglers. 

located_onaver. n It' is ma rselv treed 

yith Doug las firr grand firr and ponderosa p ine: cottonwoods are found on a lowe r 

.. .. 0 wav Ac-e) Site. Themontv of the site Q 

fernace next to t he river. The u- bland vegetat' ion SD ecies are =ne rallv invah, 

wth an approx imate 6 0% cover of knapweed, - 

Chapter 3/88 I 
Ie 

e 

e 

- .. ect1mty. 

mted atthe site. 

e b1r-P common vellowthroat) and emdence of use bv elk we= 

Clark Flat acclimation site. The shoreline vegetation at the Clark Flat site consists of a narrow corridor of cottonwood and alder associated with shrub willows, 

wild rose, snowberry, red osier dogwood, choke cherry, and mock orange. There 

is some reed canary grass, a wetland indicator species, growing along an irrigation 

ditch. The site is in an open area with scattered shrubs of bitterbrush. The 

common herbs include knapweed, Carey's balsamroot, Sandberg's bluegrass, cheatgrass, and Russian thistle. The site is not in the coniferous forest zone, but there 

are a few scattered ponderosa pine trees and a single oak treein the general area. 

The adjacent slopes support bitterbrush and bluebunch wheatgrass. 

The Clark Flat site is situated in a fieid that shows sign of overgrazing. The few 

bitterbrush in the area may attract deer in the winter. Tall trees along the Yakima 

River likely provide perch sites for bald eagles during the winter and fall. A 

private home is located within 0.8 km (0.5 mi.), and a railroad track traverses the 

north side of this site. The adjacent slopes are grazed by livestock and may also be 

used by mule deer and elk as winter range. 

Cle Elum Acclimation 'te. The shoreline vegetation at the Cle Elum 

acclimation site is characterized by a corridor of tall cottonwood and shorter-. 

stature alder trees. The site is located in a swale probably formed by excavation to 

create a levee located between the site and the river. Herbaceous plants are 

sparse, with knapweed dominating the herbaceous vegetation growing on the 

levee. The nearby slopes are vegetated with ponderosa pine and Douglas fir. 

' 

The Cle Elum site has previously been disturbed and is situated between two 

gravel roads that show signs of fi-equent use. There is a large marsh within a 

kilometer of the site, but the project facilities are not likely to affect the wildlife 

. quality of the marsh. 

Keechelus Acclimation -Site. Shoreline vegetation at the Keechelus 

Dam site is sparse because extremely steep banks confine-water flow to the main 

stream channel. Several cottonwood trees are rooted in the slope opposite the 

acclimation site. The site would be located in a small clearing in the adjoining 

coniferous forest, east of the creek. The forest stand includes a mixture of 

Douglas fir, western hemlock, western red cedar, lodgepole pine, western white 

pine, grand fir, and Pacific yew. The understory consists primarily of bracken fern, 

Oregon grape, blackberry vines, and bear grass. 

The Keechelus Dam site is situated next to the concrete banks of the existing 

outflow, outside of the adjacent timber stand. The timber stand contains critical 

habitat for the spotted owl, but no birds were observed during site surveys (see 

Section 3.4.2). A pair of osprey was observed nesting within 1.6 km (1 mi.) of the 

.. 

- 

- Chapter3/E I 
. site. A gray wolf adult and two juveniles were reported about 3.2 km (2 mi.) from 

the proposed acclimation pond site in 1992 (WDFW, 1994). 

3.4.2 Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species , 

Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act @SA) (16 CFR 1536) requires Federal 

agencies to consuli with the USFWS and/or the NMFS, as appropriate, to ensure that 

actions they authorize, knd, or carry out do not jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species or result in the adverse modification or destruction of their critical habitat. 

Upon determination that an endangered or threatened species may be present in the area 

of a proposed action, the responsible agency must prepare a Biological Assessment (BA) 

to identify how the listed species might be affected. A BA is being prepared for this 

project to address the listed species discussed below, and any necessary consultation will 

be completed prior to the Record of Deas~o n.Candidate and petitioned species rn not ’ 

addressed in fil in the BA; their status would be monitored and consultation would be 

initiated if they were added to the threatened or endangered species list. 

_. 

Population segments of several anadromous fish species haveleen listed under the ESA in 

the upper Columbia River system in recent years (e.g. Snake River sockeye, fall and 

spring/summer chinook). None of the listed species or population segments or their 

critical habitats are present in the Yakima subbasin, and it is unlikely they would be 

affected by the proposed project. Most other anadromous species in the Columbia River 

system have been included in coastwide status reviews now being conducted by the 

NMFS. These species include steelhead, coho, chinook and sockeye salmon in the 

Yakima River Basin. Decisions regarding potential listings have not yet been made by 

NMFS. The occurrence of these species in the Yakima Rber drainage is discussed in 

Section 3.3.1 ofthisFEIS. 

The USFWS recent1y.determined that listing of bull trout under the ESA was “warranted 

but precluded,” This species exists in the Yakima River system. Nonmigratory 

populations of bull trout are primarily restricted to cold, headwater streams across the 

Pacific Northwest. Bull trout populations exist in the upper Yakima (e.g., Cle Elum, 

Waptus, Kachess, and Keechelus lakes; Kachess River; and Box Canyon, Mineral, Rocky 

Run, and Gold creeks). -A resident population exists in the upper reaches of the North 

Fork of the Teanaway River and has been encountered during recent sampling activities of 

ongoing species interactions studies (Pearsons et al., 1993) (see Section 3.3.1.7). For 

example, bull trout have been collected in juvenile outmigrant sampling operations in the 

North Fork of the Teanaway River and Jungle Creek. Also, a small number of individuals 

has been observed in index sections of the mainstem Yakima River near Ellensburg and ’ 

Cle Elum; aingle individud was sampled from the mainstem of the Yakima River near 

the mouth of the Naches River during steelhead broodstock collection effort‘s in 1993. 

Finally, researchers observed a single bull trout while monitoring a trap located at the 

mouth of Swauk Creek near its confluence with the Yakima River mainstem. Bull trout 

o occur in the Naches and Ahtanum subbww 

Chapter 3 /!&I ’J 

, 
\ 

According to the USFWS, several Federally listed bird species may occur in the vicinity of 

the various facilities. These include the bald eagle, northern spotted owl, marbled 

murrelet, and peregrine falcon. The gray wolf may occur in the vicinity of the Jack Creek, I 

North Fork Te- and Keechelus Dam sites (M. Hinchberger, USFS, pers. comm.). 

The grizzly bear. may occur near the Cle Elurn,- and Jack Creek 

sites. 

. 

According to the list provided by the USFWS, wprox imately 24 Federal candidate species 

may also occur within the project area (see Appendix D for list).Eand 

- managers would perform all awpri ; r il i 

The species listed by the USFWS as threatened or endangered are discussed below. 

I 

\ 

Bald Eagle. During the 1988 Midwinter Bald Eagle survey, 38 bald eagles were 

counted in the Yakima River Basin. The 5-year average (1984-88) was 33 eagles. 

Wintering eagles are attracted by fish, waterfowl, and big-game and domestic 

livestock carcasses. Their movements depend largely on available food sources 

such as those listed above, perches, and roost sites. A BA of the project's effect 

'bn bald eagles was prepared as part of the EA @PA, 199Oa). BPA determined 

that the project would have no effect on nestidg or wintering bald eagles, their 

habitat, or food supply. 

\ 

- 

Surveys were conducted by the Pacific Northwest Laboratory fiom December 

1991 through May 1992 to determine bald eagle use of habitat near proposed 

acclimation sites. All tributaries of the YakimaRiver and the Yakima River itself 

with proposed acclimation sites were surveyed. Primary concentrations of eagles 

were observed on tributaries to the Yakima River. All eagles observed were 

perched in large trees, with the exception-of two adults: one was found soarkg 

over Nile Creek, and a second near Nelson Springs. Additionally, a survey for 

bald eagle nesting activity was conducted in May 1993 by the Pacific Northwest 

, Laboratory. The aerial survey covered the entire Yakima River mainstem fi-om 

Stampede Pass to the Columbia River, and the Naches River. No bald eagle 

nesting was observed. 1 

ave been identified by &e WDFW (1994) as bald eagle 

wintering areas. The floodplain and associated wetlands betweema 

-LCD&ee 'te) are used by 

approximately 25 to 30 wintering eagles (WDFW,'1995). An add itional 10 to 15 

-e 1 Ung upstreah m Swau k Creek and dow nstrm 

fiom Cle Hum (Easton and Cie Elum sites),, 

Northern Spotted Owl. The USFS and the WDFW Were contacted regarding the 

occurrence of northern spotted owls in the vicinity of the proposed acclimation and 

hatchery sites. No suitable habitat is present at either the Cle Elum acclimation or 

, 
. 

0 

hatchery sites, or at the Clark Flat or Easton acclimation sites. The Jack Creek 

3-y sites included within both the 2.9- and 4.3-km (1.8- 

and 2-74.) radii for habitat management for the Teanaway and Jack Creek owls. 

The most recent observations for Jack Creek were recorded in 1993 (WDFW, 

1994). The Cle Elum site is located within the 2.9- and 4.3-km (1.8- and 2.7-mi.) 

radii for habitat management for the Prospect Creek and Os0 Creek owls. The 

most recent sighting of the Prospect Creek owl was during 1994 (WDFW, 1994). 

The Keechelus site is located within the 2.9- and 4.3-km (1.8 and 2.7-mi.) radii for 

habitat management for the Mosquito Creek, Jack Creek, Cold Creek, and Little 

Kachees Lake Owls. Habitat surveys were conducted at all sites in 1993 by the 

Pacific Northwest Laboratory. No suitable owl habitat was identified at of any of 

the sites; however, suitable habitat was located in the vicinity of the Keechelus, 

-North Fork Te- and JackCreek sites. A calling survey was also conducted 

at the Keechelus site by Pacific Northwest Laboratory in 1993; no spotted owl 

activity was recorded. Calling surveys have been conducted at the Jack Creek ad 

North Fork Tea nawaysites by others. 

Peregrine Falcon. Peregrine falcons require rocky cliffs or outcrops for nesting 

and use marshes, lakes, rivers, and open habitat for foraging. Peregrine falcons 

may travel up to 16.1 km (10 mi.) between nesting and feeding habitat.. The 

WDFW inventoried portions of the Wenatchee National Forest for active nest 

sites; however, no active nests have been identified. Individuals migrate through 

the region during August and October, and have been observed in the forest. Use 

of habitat by peregrine falcons can be affected by timber harvest, road construction, and recreation. 

Marbled Murrelet. No observations of marbled murrelets have been reported in 

the WDFW database for the project sites; however, specific surveys for marbled 

murrelets have not yet been conducted. Murrelets use mixed stands of mature and 

old-growth conifers and range a maximum reported distance of 80.5 kni (50 mi.) 

from ocean waters (Pacific Seabird Group, 1994). Murrelet habitat would be 

expected only at the Jack Creek, North F orkil'eanamg, and Keechellis sites. The 

Jack Creekmorth Fork Te- sites out of the range of the species. 

Although the Keechelus site may border murrelet nesting area, the proposed 

activity would not remove mukelet habitat from the site. 

.. Grizzly,Bear. Surveys .for suitable grizzly bear habitat in the vicinity of the . 

proposed acclimation sites were conducted during spring 1992. No recent 

sightings of grizzly bear have been reported near the-Keechelus, C€ark Flat, or 

Easton sites. In 1989, one'grizzly bear sighting was reported for the Teanaway ' 

Butte area, approximately 16 km (10 mi.) nod of Cle Elum (Almack, 1990). The 

home range of the individual would overlap the Cle Elum*=Fork Te-. 

and Jack Creek sites. 

Gray Wolf. Gray wolf howling surveys were conducted inthe Teanaway . ' 

watershed (Jack Creek and Nod h Fork Tea naway sites) during early summer 

1992. An unconfirmed siting of a gray wolf was reported for the vicinity of the 

0, . 

- 

- .j 

Chapter 31% I J - 

., .I 

I 

I. 

I' 
North Fork of the Teanaway River during 1992. No recent sightings have been 

confirmed in this area, but the site lies within the known historical range of the 

species. One adult and two yearling gray wolves were reported near the Keechelus 

site in 1992 (WDFW, 1994). 

Sharp-tailed snakes, a State “monitof’species, have been reported to occur at the Cle 

Elum site (Renfrow, 1994). . A number of rare vascular plant species are known to occur in Kittitas County. These are 

listed by the Washington Department of Natural Resources as endangered, threatened, or 

sensitive species (see Appendix D). These include Hoover’s tauschia, pine broomrape, 

green-fruited sedge, swamp saxiffage, adder’s tongue, and Victorin grape-fern. Hoover’s 

also a Federal canuate wes. However, none of these Mknownpto 

occur at any of the proposed sites (WDFW, 1994), although the Keechelus and Easton 

gravel pond sites may provide habitat for unique species in the adjacent wetlands. 

3.5 Air Quality and Noise 

3.5.1 Air Quality 

Air quality in the Yakima River Basin ranges from good to excellent. Air quality at all 

YFP sites complies with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Washington 

State standards. Higher elevation areas in the upper basin have excellent air quality. 

Lower valley areas can have high levels of natural windblown particulates originating fiom 

fallow croplands during windy periods. Burning crop and forest residues and vehicle 

travel on gravel roads are often sources of particulates during the summer and fall: The 

urban Yakima are< which is surrounded by hills and ridges, can experience poor 

atmospheric dispersal of pollutants ffom automobiles and industry during winter 

inversions. Occasionally, standards for carbon monoxide and suspended particulates are 

exceeded for short periods in the Yakima metropolitan area. 

3.5.2 Background Sound Levels and Noise- . 

Ambient noise levels at the potential facility sites in the Yakima River Basin are probably 

typical for rural to semi-urban locations and range ffom 40 to 50 decibels (A-weighted) 

(dBA) at rural locations such as the Cle Elum hatchery site, to 50 to 60 dBA at more . 

urbanized locations closer to highways (such as the Easton gravel pond site). . 

3.6 Socioeconomic Resources - 

The YFP may affect socioeconomic resources in Kittitas and Yakima Counties. The 

population trends of these two counties are summarized in Table 3.3. Yakima County is 

classified as metropolitan, while Kittitas County is classified as nonmetropolitan. While 

some economic impacts could extend to other counties in the area, Kittitas and Yakima 

Chapter31B I 
- Counties would experience the greatest-economic impact because df the size and he of - 

proposed facilities in these counties, the size and nature of the 1Qcal economies, and the 

interaction of econot&c flows @PA, 19904 Appendix D). Current socioeconomic - 

I 1960 , I 20.467 I .- '145.112 

resources for these areas are described below. - 

1930 

1940 

. Table 3.3 Population Trends of Affected Counties 

18,154 77,402 . 

20,23 0 . 99,019 .- 

1930 

1940 

1950 

18,154 77,402 

20,23 0 99,019 

1950 22-23 5 135-723 

1960 

22,23 5 135,723 

20.467 .- '145.112 

1980 . 

1990 - 

1993 . 

3.6.1 Kittitas County 

I Kittitas County covers 6009 km2 (2,320 mi2). The estimated total E 

24,877 172,508 

26,725 ~ 188,823 

- 29,200 197,000 

< 

uul tion for th 

Industry 

Agriculture 

Mining 

Construction 

Manufacturing 

Kittitas County Yakima County 

$22,806 4.7% $356,371 9.8% 

$72 0% $483 0% 

- $9,775 2.0% $96,545 * . 2.7% 

$25,357 * 5.2% $284,961 7.9% 

Trans./Utilities 

Trade 

Services 

Government 

& Misc. 

Transfer Payments 

Source: Regiond'Economic Information System on CD by the US Bureau of Economic Axhysis, 

Economics arid Statistics Division 

The inclusion of Central Washingon University accounts for the high percentage of 

governnient activity. Per-capitahcome is $10,490; the county ranks 32 out of 39 

- 

- Chapter3/% I I. 

$17,812 3.7% $102,066 2.8% 

$53,119 10.9% $452,074 12.5% 

$44,650 9.2% $549,685 15.2% 

$103,085 21.2% $372,3 14 10.3% 

$209,712- 43.1% $1,348,489 37.2% 

.I 
Washington counties. With a 1993 unemployment rate of 11.1%, Kittitas County is 

designated a distressed area. % / 

3.6.2 Yakima County - 

Yakima County covers 11,067 km2 (4,273 mi2). The estimated total population in 1993 

was about 197,000. Population density is about 17.8 persons per km2 (46.1 persons per 

mi*). Thirty percent of the population is of Black, Indian, or Hispanic origin. The 

principal economic activities in Yakima County are agriculture, food processing, wood 

products, and manufacturing. Yakima County is one of the nation’s richest agricultural 

counties, and leads the State in apple, pear, peach, and grape production, while other 

agricultural specialties such as hops and mint also play a major role. The 1992 personal 

income sources are shown in Table 3.4. Per capita income was $10,380. With an 

unemployment rate of 12.5%, the Yakima Metropolitan Statistical Area is the only 

Metropolitan Statistical Area in the State to be designated a distressed area. 

The Yakama Reservation lies primarily within Yakima County. It comprises a significant 

cultural, social, and economic subset of the county, and will receive a large portion of the 

YFP economic impact because of the YIN’s status as the Lead Agency for the YFP for 

operations, maintenance, monitoring, and evaluation activities. 

Because of the Yakama Reservation, Yakima County has a significant Native American 

population of 8,420, or 4.5% of the population. Per-capita annual income for the Native 

American population fiom the 1990 census was $5,676; this is 53% of Yakima County’s 

per-capita annual income and only 38% of the Washington State per-capita annual income. 

The Native American population has low labor participation rates, and unemployment 

rates exceeding 15%. Of all persons living on the Yakima Reservation, 32.8% have 

incomes below the poverty level. 

3.7 Recreational Resources 

Recreational activities near potential YFP sites include sportfishing, rafting, and floating. 

The Yakima River is not designated as a Wild and Scenic River. The following sections 

discuss aspects of the wild trout fishery (a primary sportfishery), aesthetics and visual 

resources, and other recreational resources in the Yakima River-Basin. Unless otherwise 

noted, information is taken fiom the EA @PA, 199Oa).. 

3.7.1 mident Trout Fishery 

The primary recreational fishery in the Yakima River Basin is trout; yith whitefish- 

(winter) fished to a lesser extent. There is presently no recreational steelhead fishery in 

the Yakima River. The WDFW considers the Yakima River trout fishery of special significance to the State. The Department estimates that 330,000 recreation angler trips are 

made per year on the Yakima River and tributaries. They also estimate that 108,000 

angler trips per year are made to fish above Roza Dam on the mainstem Yakima River. 
- 

. In 1990, the Yakima River was designated a catch-and-release fishery to, preserve trout 

. . populations in the area. At the same time, the river was opened for year-round fishing. ,- 

.- 

ti - 3.7.2 Aesthetics and Visual Resources ’ 

The-Wenatchee National Forest has inventoried the visual quality of the forest lands in the 

vicinity of some of the project sites. -h their. Forest Plan, the Gle Elum Valley is classified 

as having “slightly altered” visual conditions. The visual quality objective for the forest 

lands in the valley is classified as partial retention. This classification~allows for minor 

disturbances that may be noticeable but that do not attract attention. 

The Cle Elum Hatchery hd acclimation sites are located in the vicinity of the Milwaukie, 

St. Paul, ,and.Pacific railroad hght-of-way. Unregulated,use and recreation disturbance 

limit the aesthetic value of the site, although3 is~located in a natural-appearing setting. 

, ., 

Both of the Easton site options lie within a scenic corridor designated by the Washington 

State Department of Transportation (WDOT). The gravel pond site option is situated in 

and next to an active WDOT gravel operation. It is bisected by a road maintained fof 

commercial hauling. The Easton Dam site option is located next to a diversion dam, fish 

screening facility, and the railroad tracks. 

The Jack Creek North For- and Clark Flat sites are located adjacent to 

areas disturbed previously by agriculture&g&g and/or grazing. The sites are 

immediately adjacent to USFS recreation and county roads, respectiveIy, and provide 

access for recreation upstream within the watershed. 

The Keechelus Dam site lies within a scenic corridor designated by WDOT. However, 

existing recreation disturbance and disturbance associated with dam maintenance and 

unregulated use of the site limit the aesthetic value of the site. 

3.7.3 Other Recreational Resources 

As mentioned above, the Yakima River is used extensively for fishing. Other recreational 

activities in the Yakima Basin include hunting, camping, cross-country skiing, and off-road 

vehicle (ORV) use. \ 

Hunting near the Yakima River includes upland bird, elk, deer, some waterfowl and a few 

bighorn sheep. Many campgrounds along the river are managed by the U.S. Bureau of 

Land Management (l3LM) in the mid-summer for river rafters and in the autumn and 

winter for fishers and hunters. 

The upper portions of the Yakima River Basin are used for winter snowmobiling and 

cross-country skiing. There is a snow park below Keechelus off Interstate 5. The North 

pork -let *Tean 1 1 riln a ort hfrmLi o ckCeek., r 

417 hi ch i s south of the Jack Creek and North For k T-% lim i n i 

Chapter 3/% 
The Yakima River and its tributaries also.are used for rafting and floating, occasionally 

near project sites. In the stretch of the Yakima River around Cle Elum and Ellensburg, 

boating is discouraged because of potentially dangerous obstructions. However, boaters 

continue to use this area. The river level drops substantially in September when the flow 

from the three large upstream reservoirs is curtailed, and raftiig activities diminish along 

this stretch of the river. The heaviest rafting and floating use on the Yakima River occurs 

in the stretch between Ellensburg and Roza Dam. No potential sites for the YFP are 

located along this portion of the river. 

3.8 Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources 

' A series of cultural resources surveys and test excavations-was conducted at proposed 

central and satellite facility sites for the YFP by personnel from Archaeological and 

Historical Services (AHS), Eastern Washington University, during 1988-89. Additional 

work has since been conducted for the proposed acclimation sites. The findings from 

these activities are discussed below. As required by the National Historic Preservation 

Act (see Section 5.7), all cultural resources discovered were evaluated as to their 

eligibility for the National Register of Historic Properties (NRHP). AHS has consulted 

with YIN officials and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding all 

prehistoric cultural resources identified at the proposed facility sites. 

The findings and recommendations for the Cle Elum hatchery site were discussed in the 

EA @PA, 199Oa). Surveys were also conducted for the acclimation sites by AHS. A 

summary of these findings and results of additional surveys follow, - 

Cle Elum Hatchery Facility. No cultural materials were found during the initial 

site visit in 1989. An additional survey of the proposed expansion site by AHS in 

1991 also revealed no cultural resources. No cultural resources are likely to exist 

intact on the property because it has been severely disturbed. 

Easton sites. No cultural resources were observed at the Easton gravel pond site I 

option, and none are likely to exist. The site has been completely disturbed by 

gravel excavation for construction of Interstate.90.- ri 

itoft he Drc&&mea - and .. 

not be affected by the proiect 

A portion of an abandoned-railroad siting was located at the Easton Dam site 

option, but it is not one of the significant property types affiliated with the 

Milwaukee Railroad. The archaeological report concludes that there would be no 

effects of the proposed project on significant cultural resources. 

.. .. Jack Creek Site.Prehlstonc_culturalsed at tk site duui~ag 

yanous IlthlC maten 

evs in fall 1995. Sutfbce conc-f litluc a-E taols d ... ional types. were fou nd in the v icinitv of the ae rid .. 'als and hnct 

J 

,. Chapter3/g I 

, 

\ 

.. 
.\ 

s11- r the south end of the are oroDosed for Dond develouw .. .. imited numbm of 1- wemed from subs-ce shovel test Ma 

ce testing would be needed to deteligibility if the a rea (am rox imately 150 x 60 m) conta ining the 

Eoncentration of cultural -1 were to be affected bv Droposed uod 

develbpmegt 

CWm 

were found dun ng survevs at the site. Gwen the amount of lithic m atend 

gbserved on the gou r a cons iderab le area (m 

60 ite& 

nd surface scattered ove 

400 x 200 meters>. and that recovered from subsprface testitlp (over 

meetugIWmd 

.. 

.. meter and shovel .. rs to have the poteatla1 to yeld 

Re&er elgbdity rea-r Cntd 

Clark Flat Site. No cultural resources were observed at the Clark Flat site, and 

none appear likely to exist. The site has been considerably disturbed. 

Cle Elum lakmakUite. No cultural resources were observed'at the site, and 

none are likely to-exist, since it appears to be heavily disturbed. 

Keechelus f alkmaUSite. Two historic resources were noted at the Keechelus 

Dam site. An historic dump is recorded as part of the Keechelus Lake Construction Camp (USFS Site 0617:03-23, Houck and Gamble, 1984) at the 

proposed location for facility development. Presumably associated with 

construction of Keechelus Dam, the dump hw been disturbed by logging activities 

and does not appear likely to yi'eld information important to the history of the dam. 

The dump does not meet criteria for inclusion in the NRHP; the SHPO determined 

that the site was not eligible for the NRHP. A steel pony-truss bridge with wood 

plank deck spans a small creek on the aqcess road connecting the site with 

Interstate 90. The bridge is an excellent example of a significant bridge type and is 

potentially eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. 

Load limits of vehicles using the pony-truss bridge should not exceed 10 tons as 

posted. Should need arise to exceed that tonnage or to replace or alter the bridge, 

a determination of eligibility for the NRHP would be prepared for the bridge. 

. . .. .. 

I 

I - 

. .3.9 Resources Management 

Resource management activities related to the YFP include fisheries management, landuse management, and solid and hazardous waste management, all of which are discussed 

below. 

The State and Tribal project managers have regulatory authority over fisheries and 

fisheries production in the Yakima River Basin, but not over many land and water uses 

that may affect the fisheries resources. Water quality and quantity issues are subject to 

laws administered by the WOE. Instream and nearstream activities are subject to the 

1 

c 

Chapter 3/% I ,- ., , 

. - .. --- I-- 
State Hydraulic Code and other State and Federal laws. Section 404 of the Clean Water 

Act (CWA) authorizes the Corps to issue dredge and fill permits for United States waters. 

The USFS controls land-use activities on National Forest System lands. 

There are numerous ongoing cooperative programs to protect and promote fish and fish 

habitat in the Yakima River Basin. These include the following: 

. 

e Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement PrQject - This project is a result of 

Federal legislation passed in 1994. When hlly implemented, the emphasis of the 

project will be to increase the reliability of irrigation water for farmers and for fish 

by emphasizing conservation through modernization of equipment and delivery 

systems. Besides the USBk, participants include the state-and Federal agencies, 

the YIN, irrigation districts, and individual landowners. 

Timber/FisWildlife Agreement - This agreement, commonly referred to as TFW, . 

provides a forum and adaptive management context to address a multitude of 

Washington’s forest practice issues and their interaction with other forest values, 

including fish resources. It provides a linkage to the Forest Practices Act and is 

advisory to its regulatory body, the Forest Practices Board. In the Yakima River 

Basin, a wide range of participants are involved, including state agencies, YIN, . 

USFS, timber companies, environmental organizations, irrigation interests, and 

universities. 

Yakima Resource Management Cooperative - This group was formed to develop 

and implement a cooperative management review process for forested areas of the 

upper Yakima River Basin. The group is co’mprised of representatives fiom the 

timber industry, state and federal resource agencies, the YIN, and environmental 

groups. Fish habitat interests include road management, watershed analysis and 

restoration, stream sedimendtemperature management and monitoring, and 

database management. 

- 

Fish Habitat Enhancement Programs - Several projects are currently being 

undertaken that are directly aimed at instream and riparian habitat improvements. 

First, the YIN recently implemented projects under the “Jobs for the Environment” 

program, which is directed at improving degraded elements of the upper Yakima 

River floodplain. Specific activities have been directed at improving nursery 

habitat for newly emergent salmon f?y, and creating and improving their 

overwintering habitat. The YIN has led this effort and collaborates with WDNR, 

Plum Creek Timber Co., Washington Central Railroad, WDFW, USBR, BLM, and 

Kittitas County. A second major effort is the Salmon Corps, a part of the 

Americorps program, whereby local volunteers work to restore and enhance 

salmon habitat. Examples of their activities in the Yakima River Basin include 

fencing projects to protect streambanks and &prove riparian vegetation, and 

planting of trees and other vegetation along streams to stabilize streambanks, 

provide shade, and trap inflow of sediments. This program is directed by the YIN, 

and involves local landowners, the City of Yakima, Yakima County, BPA, and 

USBR. Finally, the Yakima River.Salmon Enhancement Project is a joint venture 

among the WDOT, the Yakima Greenway Foundation, the YIN, and the Salmon. 

Chapter 3/% I 
4 

Corps. This project is attempting to improve overwintering habitat for salmon by 

introducing large woody debris into selected side - channels of the Yakima River 

. between Union Gap and Selah. 

System Operations Advisov Committee Resulting from court decisions regarding 

water resources in the Yakima River Basin, this group advises USBR on matters 

pertaining to flow and its impacts on fish resources. Participants include 

representatives from the YIN, WDFW, USFWS, and irrigation districts. ~ 

, 

0 Proposed Lower Teanuway Flow Enhancement Project - This proposed project is 

intended to improve flows for fish while maintaining delivery for irrigation needs. 

Cooperators include BPA, landowners, irrigation district, WDFW, and YIN. 

0 Proposed Re-regulation Reservoir Below Sunnyside Dam - This project has 

progressed through its design stage but has not yet been implemented. It is 

intended to bolster flows in a particular section of the river to stabilize'those 

needed for fish. This project involves the YIN, USBR, WDFW, irrigation districts, 

- andWDOE. 

0 Operation of Adult and Juvenile Fish Counting Facilities - Cooperative 

agreements exist to monitor adult and juvenile fish at various existing facilities in . 

the Yakima River Basin. These efforts involve the USBR, BPA, irrigation 

districts, YIN, and WDFW. , 

0 Snoaualmie Pass Adaptive Managgk 

P urocesses rnm 

Datura1 product'on 1 of sa lmonids has been ident' ified as a n- 1- 

uowde an opp ortuniw-&ab*t-w-p 1 

Production a?? roaches that w11 benemock recoverv in the upper Yak ima 

.. 

C 

fiver Basin. 

3.9.1 Fisheries Management 

3.9.1.1 Harvest Management 

Fisheries management activities are outside the scope of the proposed project. However, 

changes in policies and planned efforts would influence mitigation efforts in the basin. The * 

YFP is designed to operate within the constraints of existing harvest management regimes. 

BPA has no harvest regulatory authori~. The Tribal and state fishery managers recognize I 

the need for adequate harvest management regulations and will regulate the fisheries to 

assure that YFP objectives are met. 

- In the Yakima River Basin, salmon and summer steelhead harvest management is a 

cooperative venture between the YIN and the WFW. A subbasin harvest management 

planning process currently exists for spring chinook salmon and summer steelhead. 

- 

- \ 

A summary ofthe status of specific resource management activities in the Yakima River 

Basin is below; a more detailed discussion is presented in Appendix E. 

Chapter 3/N 
Existing Harvest Management ,and Managers 

Existing harvest is managed by several agencies with different (and sometimes 

overlapping) jurisdictions. 

, Ocean Harvest Management 

The coastal states regulate harvest in ocean waters out to 4.8 km (3 mi.) from the U.S. 

coast. The North Pacific Fishery Management Council and the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council regulate harvest from 4.8 to 322 km (3 to 200 mi.) offthe U.S. 

coast. Decisions on management in U.S. waters are made in the context of public 

hearings and review. Canadian ocean waters are managed by the Canadian 

Department of Fisheries and Oceans. All of these fisheries are regulated under the 

guidelines of the Pacific Salmon Treaty. 

Columbia River Harvest Management 

The Washington and Oregon Departments of Fish and Wildlife independently regulate 

non-Indian recreational harvest for salmon, steelhead, and other species in the 

Columbia River system. The WDFW controls recreational salmon, steelhead, and 

other fisheries in the Washington tributaries of the Columbia River. ODFW regulates 

recreational fishing for salmon, steelhead, and other game species in Oregon 

tributaries. Their regulations are also adopted in the context of public hearings. 

Technical staff of Tribal, state, and Federal co-managers develop recommendations for 

Indian and non-Indian commercial fisheries. The Columbia River Compact, a 

Federally sanctioned compact between the states of Washington and Oregon, is 

empowered to approve regulations for non-Indian commercial fisheries. 

The YIN and other Columbia Basin Treaty Indian Tribes (Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm 

Springs) regulate Indian treaty hshing in Zone 6 (Bonnedle to McNary dams) within 

the bounds set by the Columbia River compact. Tribal regulations generally are 

adopted also by the states into state law. Other Tribes in the Columbia Basin also 

have treaty fishing rights. 

Yakima River Basin Harvest Management 

In the Yakima River Basin, salmon and steelhead harvest management is a cooperative 

'venture between the YIN and the WDFW. A subbasin harvest management planning 

process currently exists for spring chinook salmon and summer steelhead. 

Tribal subsistence fishing regulations for the Yakima River are adopted by the Yakama 

Nation Tribal Council. Technical staff prepare a set of options for fisheries that will 

.provide for tribal fishing opportunity while meeting conservation needs. The Tribal 

Council reviews each option and adopts the one .. that best balances the needs of tribal 

anglers with the needs of the resource. 

The annual harvest plan for Yakima River spring chinook salmon'is pa& -of a larger 

process aimed at providing equitable harvests for treaty and nontreaty anglers io terminal fisheries above Bonneville Dam. The State and Tribal co-managers have agreed 

Chapter 3/m 
, 

that treatyhontreaty harvest sharing need not be 50/50 in each terminal fishery,-so 

long as the sum of projected harvests across all Go-managed terminal fisheries is 

approximately 50/50 or is considered "equitable." This allows flexibility between the 

parties to prioritize harvest needs in terminal areas. ' (For details on the subbasin 

harvest planning process, see Appendix E.) 

Relationship between Harvest Management and Supplementation 

Without supplementation, harvest management alone could not serve to rebuild spring 

chinook status above current levels. In,the Yakima River Bash, current harvest levels on 

example, the CRFW requires that harvests of Yakima River spring chinook salmon in the 

Pacific Ocean and mainstem Columbia River: remain below 12 percent when the. amregate 

upriver spring chinook salmon run does not reach the Bokeville Dam escapement goal of 

128,000. This has been the case every year since 1977. Since 1989-94, the average 

ter4ninal harvest rate in the Yakama River Tribal subsistence fishery has been 7.9 percent 

of the total adult run returning to Chandler. ' Despite these low harvest rates, spring 

chinook salmonstock abundance in the Yakima River is not increasing. (For information 

on steelhead, see-.Appendx E.) ~ ' - 

As mentioned.& previous sections, coho are believed to be extinct-in the Yakima River 

Basin;_.Under the CRFMP, there is no formal harvest allocation scheme for upper 

Columbia River coho stocks, and the YFP coho program would be unlikely to materially 

affect current management. As part of the preferred alterhative for the YFP, the feasibility 

. of increasing coho returns to 'improve harvest opportunities in the basin will be evaluated. 

Positive results fiom the evaluation may lead to future consideration of coho restoration 

or supplementation using broodstock obtained fiom Yakima River returns. . 

Non-Sup.plemented Harvest 

Harvest of a wide variety of species not targeted for supplementation is also managed 

within the Yakima subbasin by the WDFW. These include ,warmwater game fish species 

such as bass, perch, channel catfish, resident coldwater fishes.(e.g. rainbow trout, bull ' 

trout), whitefish and s,quawfish. These species must be.managed concurrently. to achieve a 

balance among objectives such as recreational opportunity, resource- protection and 

maintenance, and impacton YFP supplementation activities or target stock rebuilding. 

3.9.'1.2 Predator Control 

Predation was identified as an important factor potentially influencing current and 

potential production of anadromous fish in the Yakima River Basin (Watson et al., 1993). 

Predators (e.g., northern squawfish, channel catfish, bass, and gulls) may be responsible 

for highlosses ofsmolts before they leave the Yakima River Basin. Low flows in April 

and May-may 'exacerbate smolt losses in the Yakima River. ~ 

. wild and- naturdly spawning populations of chinook salmon are relatively minor. For 

. 

I. 

. 

. 

-, 

Chapter 3 /m 
't - 

Although no program has yet been implemented,' a study of the potential impact of 

predators on anadromous salmon would provide valuable information on the extent to 

which predation influences smolt mortality and production potential, and would help 

identifjl possible means to reduce smolt losses (e.g. predator management). 

3.9.1.3 Production 

The CRFMP was negotiated in 1987 as an interim settlement to the US. v. Oregon 

litigation. This plan provides for the yearly release of 1.7 million uppver bright fay 

chinook and 0.7 million'coho smolts into the Yakima River Basin. The fall chinook and 

cohosmolts are currently being imported from out-of-basin hatcheries on an annual basis. 

Steelhead previously produced at the WDFWs Yakima hatchery were not produced after 

1994. ~ 

' 

3.9.1.4 Fish Passage 

The Council's 1982 Fish and Wildlife Program included the construction of new fish 

passage facilities in the Yakima River Basin, _with a goal of providing protection for 

rearing and migrating adults and juvenile salmon and steelhead at diversion dams and 

canals. Construction was begun in 1984. By 1989, construction of new fish ladders and 

screens was completed on most of the major diversion dams and canals in the Yakima 

Basin. In 1990, construction began on screening over 60 medium and smaller diversion 

canals and ditches. Construction of these screens is projected to extend through the year 

2000. Ihirteea of the Phase 11 screening projects will be operational by outmigration in 

1994. 

~ 3.9.2 Water Management 

A number of water management activities affect the fisheries resources in the Yakima 

River Basin. These include the following. 

- 

3.9.2.1 Quackenbush Decision 

In November 1980, U.S. District Judge Quackenbush entered a ruling (Kittitas v. 

Sunnyside Valley Irrigation Dist.) that requires the USBR to operate the Yakima 

Irrigation Project in such a way as to protect spring chinook redds in the upper Yakima 

River. This ruling has given .rise to the annual "flip-flop" operation, in which releases from 

basin storage. reskrvoirs are manipulated to prevent dewatering of spring chinook redds. 

/ 

3.9.2.2 Yakima River Basin Water Adjudication 

The adjudication of surface water rights in the Yakima River Basin was initiated by the 

.WDOE. On October 12, 1988, under the caption of Department of Ecology v. 

Acquavella et al., Yakima County Superior Court No. 77-2-01484-5, the DOE filed its 

Statement of Facts, which contained the names of all known claimants of water rights in 

the basin, including the United States of America. In addition to other Federal .claims, 
the United States filed a claim for instream flows on behalf of the YIN. This claim was 

based upon t& Yakama’s reserved water rights as established by the Treaty of 1855 (I2 

Stat. 951, June 9, 1855), which included water rights for fish, wildlife (and other natural 

resources), irrigation, and other non-agricultural uses. 

In Noyember 1990, Yakima Superior Court Judge Walter Stauffacher issued an 

Amended-Summary Judgment in Acqumda, supra. In his decision, Judge Stauffacher 

defined the treaty-reserved instream flow rights for fish as follows: 

\ 

“The maximum scope of the diminished treaty water right for fish is the specific 

‘minimum instream flow’ necessary to maintain anadromous fish lifesin the river, 

according to the prevailing conditions as they occur. . . .’, Ibid. \ 

However, the court did not quantify specific instream flow levels, but lee the flow level 

determinations up to the USBR, which relies upon the advice of the Systems Operations 

Advisory Committee (SOAC). The Partial Summary Judgment was appealed to the 

Washington State Supreme Court, which upheld Jub Stauffache r’s decaston in & 

pinion dated Ap 1323. 1993, 

.. . . 

i ri’n ii 

nbutarv - Order. which affecjed the wat agn r tributaria t~ &Ya kima 

Ever. includi ng, but not 1 imited to, t he Teanawav Rive r. Swam Manastd 

3 

Cmributary 0 rder. &e Stauffacher ruled that the Yakama Indian Nation, 

ded to rn-11 ‘Guald .-hhgbcations 

dentified in the Yakama Indian Nat i on ’ s Pet ii t o nfile d i n Docket 1 4 7. 

.I d a diminished treaty water right fo r fish that was re lated to the seh .. 

.. . .. 

ffacher’s rulings up0 n Yakima River Basin fish resources are 

h n r ffect his decisions 

The‘impacts o f Judge Stau 

uu n n er i m ‘1 .. 

9 mm e m 

3.9.2.3 Roza and Chandler Power Plant Flow Subordination 

For the past several years, the USBR has, in response to drought, curtailed power 

production at Roza and Chandler power plants in order to provide increased instream 

flows in sections of the Yakima River. Discussions concerning the level and duration of 

subordination are continuing. 1 

3.9.2.4 Habitat Improvement 

In 1987, the Council initiated the development of an integrated system plan for the 

Columbia River Basin. The Council’s Integrated System Plan (YIN et al., 1990) is based 

6n recommendations fiom fishery agencies and Tribes for each of the Columbia Basin’s 3 1 

subbasins.’ System planning is intended to specifL mitigation projects and priorities for 

I . 

, 

/ 

\ 

. Chapter 3/U -I 
implementation over the next several years. Habitat enhancement activities for the 

Yakima River Basin are identified in the Yakima Subbasin Plan. 

The Plans' habitat improvement strategies were prioritized, based on expected smolt 

capacity increases and other juvenile and adult contributions; estimated costs; and other 

biological and ecological objectives. Implementing these habitat improvement activities is 

expected to increase the effectiveness of the YFP. The project managers would integrate 

the habitat improvement activities with management and planning of the proposed YET, 

but these activities would proceed regardless ofwhich YFP alternative were chosen. 

3.9.2.5 Increased Streamflows A 

Fisheries biologists generally agree that unseasonably high or excessively low instream 

flows (due to irrigation releases and withdrawals) are the largest single in-basin constraint 

on natural production in the Yakima River Basin. In low-water years, the demand for 

water for consumptive uses exceeds the water supply available fiom the Yakima River. ~ 

Thus, attempts are being made to address instream flow needs through legislation, 

cooperation, and other means. Other efforts, which include measures to enhance Yakima 

River Basin water resources, also are expected to benefit anadromous fish production. In 

October 1994, legislation was passed by Congress (the Yakima River Basin Water and 

Conservation Act, Public Law 103-434) to authorize water conservation activities, 

including improvements to irrigation water delivery systems and a basin-wide water 

conservation program. Title th' IS Act focu n 

- . 

- 

percent afthe water saved throldgh these measu res will be ded icated a nd used for instream 

1E-t (3 -fO Ot) 11 .. 

which wll Drovlde -' (1 5.000 acre-feet) of w- .. mstreamflows:andler hyd r opummsh 1 wll i-ve mtreaq . 

ws betwe-r PowerhoUo im-am 

3.9.3 Land Management 

Land management activities can affect fisheries habitat in the Yakima River Basin. Several 

programs are ongoing in the Yakima Basin, including those 'discussed below. 

3.9.3.1 Wenatchee National Forest-Land and Resource I 

Much of the salmon and steelhead spawning and rearing habitat in the Yakima River Basin 

is located on or near the Wenatchee National Forest. Lands controlled by the Wenatchee 

National Forest are managed pursuant to tbe Land and Resource uement Pla. This 

plan includes protection of and improvement to-salmon and steelhead spawning and 

rearing habitat. 

IxudhUn~~~W Forest La-uanagement Plan 

I 

- .. 

ura 

- , -- 

Chapter 3/m 
, - _, 

\. , , 

ement Plan ninzr Docu ments W ithin the Ra nzre of the Northern SPotted Owl 

(1994) [-erred WifiG he “Presi 1 n” r 

somponents oft h e P r es i de n’ t s Forest 1) lan that affect land and aauatic resou rce suecia 

Dfrem fo r at-risk fish mecies and stocks : 3) Wate rshed Analvs iund 41 Watershed 

B Jta nts ar 1 n and r estore 

;h 1 a994), 

.. .. .. 

3.9.3.2 Timber, Fish and Wildlife 

The Timber, Fish and Wildlife agreement was developed in concert with State agencies, 

Tribes, citizen groups, and the timber industry. The group has assembled to try to develop I 

forest practice rules that accommodate competing demands on resources while 

maintaining salmon and steelhead spawning and rearing habitat, among other resources, 

located on state and private timberlands. 

3.9.4 Land Use at Proposed Project Facility Sites 

I 

Construction of the project facilities would involve a number of sites and land-use policies, 

plans, and procedures. For example, the Keechelus and Easton Dam sites are owned by 

. the USBR. Ethese sites were chosen, a grant of .a right-of-way would be required for 

each site. other land-use policies affecting the Cle Elurrf hatchery site were discussed in 

the EA @PA, 1990a),’and are,’updated and summarized below. Current land-use - ’ 

management at acclimation sites is also discussed below. Ownership and location of the 

- facility sites are summarized in Table 3.5. Consistency with.loca1 land use plans is 

addressed in Section 5.2, and farmlands are addressed~in Section 5.10 of this EIS. 

,. 

.~ 

Cle Elum Hatchery and Acclimation’ hkmatdSite. The Cle Elum hatchery . I 

and acclimation site is located on private land within a forested area. The site is not 

improved for recreation, but there is some recreational use. 

Easton Site. One alternative tract for the Easton gravel pond site option is oyned I 

by the WDOT;-the other alternative tract is privately owned. 

,‘ 

‘ 

* 

The Easton Dam site option is located on the south side of the Yakima River just 

downstream of Easton Dam. It issin a field situated between the fish screens for 

the Main Canal, a dirt road paralleling the river, and some railroad tracks. It is 

Jack Creeuite. The acclimation site is owned by Boise CascadeJ&a&a 

lrazed. Box e_Casca&srm its cam- 

. owned by USBR. < 

.. .. 

Pork’Jkanayave. The site is owned by B&iSasade. It 

elv forested and‘hm and mazed, 

Chrk Flat Site. The Clark Flat site is situated in a privately owned field that has 

been extensively grazed. An illegal dump site on the property appears to have 

been cleaned up. 

,. 0 

- 

0 

- \ 

Chapter 3/J& I 
0 Keechelus mite. The Keechelus Dam site lies on Federally owned 

land, but is too close to the dam to be of recreational significance. Public access to 

I 

Site 

Cle Elum hatchery ' 

this location is generally closely controlled by the USBR. 

Table 3.5 Location and Ownership of Land at Proposed Facility Sites 

~ 

Location 

T20N, R15E, Sections 27,28,33,34 

Easton gravel pond 

site option 

Easton Dam site 

I - site 

Clark Flat acclimation 

site 

T20N, R13E, Section.12, SE/4, SW/4 

T20N, R13E, Section 11, NW/4* SE/4 

T21N, R€6E, Section 8, E/2, E/2 

T 2- Secti~_45W/4 of NW/ 4 

and Sect ion 5. S E/4 of NE/4 

T19N, R17W, Section 28, SW/4 

Ownership 

Burlington Northern 

RR', Plum Creek 

Timber 

Roslyn, WA * 

WDOT and private 

USBR 

Boise Cascade Corp. 

Yakha, WA 

sa& CQhIZ 

Yakima WA 

Privately owned . 

Plum Creek Timber 

Roslyn, WA 

USBR 

3.9.5 Solid Waste and Hazardous Materials Management 

Facility operation would generate a number of waste materials. The following subsections 

describe current solid waste and hazardous materials management plans developed for the 

YFP. 

3.9.5.1 Solid Waste 

Because most of the proposed facility sites are currently vacant or have very little, 

development, a limited amount of solidwaste generation, collection, and disposal is 

occurring at facility sites. However, solid waste collection and disposal service is available 

in each of the counties in which facilities are proposed 

In Kittitas County, an exclusive franchise has been granted to Waste Management of 

Ellensburg, Inc., for solid waste collection and disposal., Under this agrkement, Waste 

Management is required to provide seMce'to any location in the county when requested. 
3.9.5.2 Hazardous Materials and Waste 

The Gle Elum hatchery site was audited in 1990 for the presence of hazardous substances. 

None was identified at either of the sites. Hazardous substance audits were also conducted at the alternative acclimation sites in 1993. No evidence of hazardous materials or 

toxic substance contamination were discovered at the Easton Dam, Jack Creek, North 

Fork Te-Clark Flat, Cle Elum, 81: Keechelus sites. The Eakon gravel pond site 

was found to have been used for asphalt batching over the last 2O.years, and concern was 

raised regarding the potential for hydrocarbon contamination. If this site were selected, 

and hazardous substances were identified at the site, they would be disposed of aid the 

site would be remediated, if necessary, in accordance with applicable regulations. The 

location of the acclimation site or the site layout would be adjusted, ifnecessary. 

Several chemicals would be used in conjunction with the fish handling facility operations. 

The chemicals and their handling are discussed in Section 4.1.11.1, Theme of herbicides, 

lubricant oils, and greases at the facilities is also discussed in this section. 

>\ I 

~ 

- 

Chapter 3/m 

.- 
4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

This chapter contains an analysis of the potential environmental consequences of each 

project alternative, organized by resource. Potential impacts resulting from the project 

alternatives (Alternatives 1 and 2) include the impacts of construction and operation of 

acclimation sites and fish culture facilities, as well as biological and ecological impacts on 

the aquatic ecosystem. Project impacts for the No Action Alternative are also discussed, 

as well as cumulative impacts. 

4.1 Direct and Cumulative Impacts 

4.1 .I Water Resources 

4.1.1.1 Alternatives 1 and 2 

- The proposed project would affect both water quality and quantity in the Yakima River 

- basin. A combination of surface and ground water would be used for the proposed 

facilities. Both water quantity and water quality impacts are discussed below for both 

alternatives. - 

Surface Water Resources 

Water Quantity 

Low or, at times, insufficient instream flows for fish passage, spawning, and rearing 

result from irrigation diversions and currently affect fish production in the Yakima 

River Basin. Efforts are underway to correct some of these problems (see discussion 

in Section 3.9.2); however these efforts are independent’of the Yakima Fisheries 

Project, and the facilities proposed for the YFP are designed to operate with or 

without increased instream flows. All YFP facilities are designed to be “water neutral”: that is, operation of project facilities would not affect the existing instream flow 

levels in adjacent streams (except ’in short bypass sections) or the delivery of water to 

&gation districts, canal companies, and individual farms, Operation of these facilities 

would be consistent with the existing pattern of water deliveries and water 

management in the Yakima River Basin. Project operation would require withdrawal 

of water from surface resources during certain times of the year. All facilities, 

however, are designed to be nonconsumptive: the water would be returned back to the 

source after it flows through the facility. Consequently, operation of the facilities 

would not adversely affect surface water, supplies available for other uses. BPA or the 

project managers would apply for a permit for non-consumptive appropriation of 

surface yaters from the WDOE for each of the sites. 

Section 3.2.1.1 presents information on flows for the stream segments that would be 

tapped to supply surface water to YFP facilities. Given the nonconsumptive use of 

water, and the timing and amount of withdrawals, hatchery and acclimation site 

. 

Chapter 4/ M 
operation and maintenance are not expected to affect flows adversely, The 

acclimation sites would be operated-only from January through June, when surface 

water flows are typically greatest. At the Cle Elum 'site, water would be required year- 

. round, but surface water would be supplemented by groundwater, and surface water 

withdrawals would be reduced during periods of river flows 1ess.than 350 cfs (9.8 

m3s). Water for facility sites would^ be pumped fiom,an adjacent location on the river 

or stream and returned directly to- it. 

Except for the Keechelus site,, streamflows for facility sites are adequate to'support 

operations without affecting aquatic resources in the bypassed reachesof the source' 

stream, Distances between the diversion (intake) and return (outfall) points would be 

* 

Keechelus site, streamflows would not be available at those times when the reservoirreleases are stopped to allow refill. The possibility of using. water piped~directly from 

the reservoir is being explored. 

At the Jack Creek and North Fork T eanawq sites, low flows in the Teanaway River 

downstream of the sites near the confluence of the Teanaway and the Yakima Rivers 

during the late summer and fall months might affect uphream migration and spawning 

of spring dinook salmon. Water consekation measures (such as converting irrigation 

from surface to groundwater use) are being.studied to see whether they could improve 

flows in this reach. 

Water rights in the Yakima River Basin,'including rights for instream flows, are the 

subject of a general stream' adjudication begun by tlie State of Washington in 1977 

(see Section 3.9.2.2). The adjudication process is 3 means by which instream flow 

' rights would be established in the basin. Furthermore, project facilities are designed to 

- . operate under current water management practices and would be reviewed in light of ' 

any fbture changes in water management. The adjudication process will proceed 

totally independently of the YF?. BPA is not a participant in the adjudication process, 

and project facilities would not sect that'process in any way. 

Increased instream flows would benefit fish resources in the Yakima kver Basin, 

regardless of the fbture of the YFP. Attempts are being made to address instream 

flow needs through legislation, cooperation, or other means. BPA and the project 

managers support such efforts and encourage all entities in the Yakima River Basin to 

pursue such measures. In the meantime, however, tlie YFP is .designed to operate with 

existing instream flows, and would obtain the non-consuqptive water use permits 

required by the State of Washington for the hatchery and'acclimation site facilities. In 

summary, operation of project facilities would not affect existing water rights in 

~ . 

b. 

. 

.- ; ~ minimized to reduce adverse effec,ts .on aquatic life in the source streams. At the 

' 

I. 

I, 

.. .I 

I - 

-- 

- the Yakima River Basin. ~~ - 

Several members of the public expressed concem about YFP fish moving into 

tributaries that cukently do not support anadromous fish, and consequently increasing 

the demand for instream flows in these tributaries for fish. -, BPA recocnizes that fbture I I. 
- (I, 

-ssa .. patterns, Droh wth water delivery ws.tm.u and effects ofwater conswation innovations. Water 

dability would also be a-y the actions *f o other -us in the wcinitv, 

be attribuueries Project. Other actiwties may 

... 

. .. 

uch as the followinP. 

e the Yakim 

.. .. e water flow cond itions in the mtem Columbia Rve r, 

e streets at mainstem d- 

.. e e screeninE W0ve-s wth the Yakima bw 

e -r&&dg-otectiw mee rewamm in g efforts. and 

tat or fishproduction activtta . .. e Ot errelated 

the intent to return more ad- 

$0 the Yakha bash , 

The YFP fkh moduction activities would be conducted within the cowlex izetwork Qf . .. 

mmovement e- 1 

Water Quality . The construction and operation of the proposed pfoject facilities might result in 

impacts on surface water quality. Construction can cause erosion, which can result in 

increased turbidity in receiving streams. A General Permit issued by the WDOE is 

required forxonstruction on 2 or more ha (5 or more ac.) that result in discharge of 

storm water offsite, unless they are covered under an individual permit. Some 

construction activities would unavoidably violate state water quality standards on a 

short-term basis. In such cases, a Water Quality Modification would be obtained from 

the WDOE, as required. 

Primary effects from operation of the facilities might include impacts on receiving 

streams from nutrient loads coxping from the various fish hatchery, rearing, and 

acclimation facilities. This movement of nutrient load into receiving streams can result 

in excessive algal growth. However, no definitive information exists concerning 

impacts of this type under the operating conditions planned for this project. Potential 

Chapter 4/ JJl- 

\ 
effects would be largely mitigated by hatchery management practices, dilution in 

receiving waters, and- natural processes, including degradation. National Pollution 

Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) permits would be obtained from EPA 

Region 10 for the. discharge of any pollutant regulated under the Clean Water Act, and 

all facilities would operate within the parameters permitted. 

The approach used for assessing .- potential cumulative impacts ofthe YFP on water, 

.qualitl was based on flow volumes. and nutrient concentrations of both the facility 

, effluents and the receiving water. Estimated concentrations of nutrients in the 

receiving water were then compared with levels known to produce changes in 

receiving ecosystems: "Worst-case" scenarios (when effluent contributions are 

greatest, usually during. periods of lowest river flow) were developed to calculate 

"worst-case" impact. Since resulting concentrations were below. problem levels, no 

krther calculations were made for other times. of the year. 

In the .analysis, ,predicted nutrient levels were compared against the following .. criteria 

.. 

,, 

@PA, 1986; Rinella et al., 1992): , ~ 

~, 0 Maximum nitrate levels should not exceed 1 to 2 mg&. 

Upper critical level of phosphate is 0.1 mg/L. * 

A discussion of the calculations for the planned facilities and an estimate of the 

potential impactsare presented below for Alternatives 1 and 2. Flow conditions and 

estimated nutrient concentrations are summarized for the Cle Elum hatchery in Table 

4.1 (below). \ 

Cle Elum Hatchery facility. Discharge from this site would be near the upper end of 

the oxbow ponds located at the site (Figure 2.5). In order to reach this discharge 

point, approximately 300 m (1,000 R.) of new stream channel would be created 

between the hatchery and an isolated pond. The pond would be reconnected to the 

rest of the oxbow system through 90 m (300 R.) of former river channel that is 

currently dry. Approximately 300 m (1,000 R.) of the oxbow pond system would be 

converted back into a riverine condition by the effluent flows from the hatchery. The 

discharge fi-om the hatchery of 2.0 m3s (72 cfs) would be 5 to 12 times greater than 

the existing flows through the oxbow syste,q and would increase the flushing rate of 

the lower two oxbow ponds ten-fold or more. 

The effluent would be discharged back to the Yakima River through a modified outlet 

structure at the location of the existing oxbow pond outlet. Retention time of the 

effluent in the oxbow ponds would be less than 12 hours. 

r 

The maximum concentrations ofthe nutrients nitrogen and phosphorus fi-om the 

hatchery would occur during August through October (Table 4.1). Calculations were 

' based on a production level of 810,000 fish and the scheduled feeding rates shown in 

Appendix A of the Preliminary Design Report @PA, 1990b). The flow through the 

oxbow pond system would be 80 to 90 percent hatchery effluent, so it is appropriate 

Chapter 4/ 612 
to compare the effluent nutrient concentrations with the target concentrations for 

avoiding excessive plant growth of 1 to 2 mg/L of nitrogen and 0.2 mg/L of 

phosphorus. Maximum concentrations of nutrients in the hatchery effluent (Table 4.1) 

would range between one-fifth and one-tenth the target values for flowing waters 

(USEPA, 1986; Rinella et al., 1992), and should not cause excessive plant growth in 

the oxbow ponds. 

Further dilution of the effluent would occur after discharge from the oxbow ponds to 

the Yakima River. Historic low flows during September through November have been 

very low in some years. However, under current management agreements, the 

minimum flow at the Cle Elum site has been set at 325 cfs (9.1 m3s) for protection of 

spring chinook eggs in the river. Return of the hatchery flow of 2.0 m3s (72 cfs) to 

the river would result in a 3.5-fold dilution of the effluent at the 9.1 m3s (325 cfs) total 

flow. .. 

' Table 4.1 Maximum Nutrient Discharge from the Cle Elum Hatchery 

(Concentrations as mg/L Nitrate-Nitrogen and Total 

.Phosphorus)" 

August I Sentember October . 

NOS-N 

Total P 

" , Assuming background concentrations in the source water (Yakima River) of 

0.03 mg/L nitrate-N and 0.01 mg/L. phosphorus 

0.10 0.13 0.11 

0.014 0.016 0.015 

Acclimation Sites. Nutrient loading to tributary streams from o eration of acclimation raceways were estimated using an effluent volume of 0.24 m s 

(8.7 cfs) and lowest stream.flow values in March, April, and May. Nitrogen and 

phosphorus concentrations for effluent from the acclimation raceways were based on 

fish feeding rates at full production capaci6 and over an average of known water 

temperatures during the acclimation period (H. Senn, Fish Management Consultants, 

pers. comm.). These values are 0.30 nia nitrogen and 0.021 mgL phosphorus for 

each acclimation site. 

Y 

Estimated concentrations in receiving waters were based on previously measured 

values: 0.03 mg/L nitrogen and 0.01 mg/L phosphorus for the Yakima River and 

tributaries. Based on these values, none ofthe sites was estimated to exceed recommended levels for nitrogen or phosphorus. Thus, it is highly unlikely that any 

problems involving excessive nutrients and resulting algal growth would be 

encountered in receiving waters as a result of discharges from acclimation raceways. a_ 

. 

Chapter 4/ 
Cumulative Surface Water Qualitv Effects 

The additive effects of effluents from the fish culture facilities on the Yakima River 

and its tributaries were analyzed to determine the potential for cumulative effects for 

both alternatives. Total cumulative nutrient discharge to the Yakima River system 

from the hatchery-and acclimation sites would be highest during March and April when 

nitrate-N concentrations would be 0.22 to 0.30 mgL in a total effluent of 65 cfs. 

However, these discharges would be distributed throughout the upper Yakima basin. 

Results of these calculations indicate that hatchery effluents under either alternative 

would not adversely affect the aquatic ecosystem as a result of increased nutrient 

loading. For small streams, any increase in nutrient would be localized and of short 

duration. Additionally, nutrient inputs for low-nutrient headwater streams might 

increase primary production, leading to jncreasedpotential for fish production. I 

Groundwater 

Yakima River Basin floodplain soils and sediment are highly permeable. Consequently, its 

groundwater resources are susceptible to contamination from pesticides, fertilizers, and 

animal and human wastes. Project managers would implement measures to ensure that 

project facility construction and operation do not adversely affect groundwater quality, 

including treatment of runoff from access roads and other impervious surfaces. Operation 

of acclimation sites is not expected to alter local groundwater conditions because small 

volumes of water would be used. No adverse effects on shallow groundwater aquifers are 

expected from the construction and operation of the acclimation sites. 

The Cle Elum central facility would’obtain groundwater from wells in a confined aquifer 

that is hydraulically isolated from other Yakima River Basin water resources. To 

determine whether pumping of this aquifer would affect existing wells, well logs of 44 

existing wells in the vicinity of the site were investigated. Of the 44 logs, only one showed 

characteristics indicating that the well might be drawing from the same aquifer as the 

hatchery site wells. Computer simulations show that the’hatchery wells are sufficiently 

separated in distance from this residential well that it would not be affected by pumping at 

the hatchery wells. ’ r 

r, 

due to the ma-f water ( 

,Groundw =ces at t he acclimation s ites have not yet been inveswted. Howeve 

0.06 m3/s or 2 cfs) necasa-ted uerioa 

(Januarv to Mavh p roundwate r deu letion if not anticipated to be a problem 

&!a 

.. 

FloodplainMletlands Assessment 

In accordance with the Department of Energy regulations on Compliance with 

FloodplaWetlands Environmental Review Requirements (1 0 Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) 1022.12), BPA has prepared the following assessment of the impacts 

of the Yakima Fisheries Project on floodplains and wetlands. A notice of floodplaid 
. 

wetlands involvement for this project was published in the Notice of Intent to prepare the 

rzgraDh below on floodD lain effects also serves as t he Floodplain Stateme4 

reauired bv - 10 CFR 1922.1 5(6>& 

EIS. Thepa 

Three alternatives for the project, including the No Action Alternative, are described in 

Chapter 2 of this EIS. The floodplain and wetlands locations are described in Section 

3.2.3. Since no additional facilities would be constructed under Alternative 2, there would 

be no difference in floodplaidwetlands impacts between the two alternatives. The No 

Action Alternative would not affect floodplains or wetlands. 

Floodplain effects 

Under Executive Order 11988, Federal agencies must avoid or minimize adverse 

impacts associated with short-termor long-term modification and occupancy of 

floodplains. Modification and destabilization of the floodplain could have potentially 

adverse effects not only near the disturbance, but in the stream channel and floodplain 

great distances downstream. Adverse impacts include the potential for flood damage 

to the facilities, increased flooding due to displacement of water from the normal 

floodplain by the construction of the facilities, and increased potential for erosion of 

floodplain soil and sediment near the construction sites. 

After detailed studiesof the site, CH2M Hill determined that the river pump station at 

the Cle Elum hatchery site would be the only facility located in the 100-year floodplain 

for the Cle Elum site (Weigum, 1994). Detailed studies have not yet been conducted 

at the acclimation sites; development and operation of these facilities would occur 

outside the floodway but possibly within the defined 100-year floodplain. County . 

authorities and the Federal Emergency Management Agency would be contacted to 

ensure that any new construction would not alter floodplain characteristics or channel 

flow capacity, Certain design restrictions or limitations may apply. If facilities were 

located within the floodplain, they would be designed to withstand flooding. 

Construction impacts within the 100-year floodplain would be mitigated by ensuring 

that construction would not raise the expected level of the 10OLyear flood and would 

include minimal use of impervious surfaces. Overall, the proposed project activities 

would not adversely affect human life, property, or natural floodplain values. 

Wetland effects 

Wetland vegetation was observed near the Cle Elum hatchery facility and Clark Flat, 

Worth Fork Tea nawav - and Jack Creek acclimation sites (see Section 3.2.3). The 

proposed Cle Elum hatchery is sited on a terrace above the oxbow ponds, in an area 

that has previously been disturbed, to minimize loss to any wetlands in the area. - 

Wetland delineations conductea by CH2M Hill in 1994 indicate that impacts on 

wetlands would occur from the siting of the water discharge structure and the access 

road. Total wetland impacts at these two areas would be 0.1 ha (0.24 ac.). The 

discharge of hatchery water through the oxbow ponds might result in inundation of 

, wetland vegetation, decreased flushing time for nutrients in the wetlands, higher 

channel velocities, and iricreased siltation and sedimentation. The current site of the 

Chapter 4/ a5- 
proposed interpretive center facilities could potentially affect adjacent wetlands 

through septic system and parking lot drainage. 'These impacts would be mitigated 

through carekl design and siting-of the facilities, which would -ace durinp the 

the site would be mitigated by constructing 0.2 ha (0.54 ac. or 1,000 lineal feet) of 

outflow channel to the 0xbo.w system with 0.14 ha (0.34 ac.) of flinging riparian 

emergent wetland, and by constructing an additional 0.06 ha (0.14 ac.) of isolated 

emergent wetland. 

wetlands Derm ittin? proca . The loss of 0.1 ha (0.24 ac.) of riparian wetland at I 

Detailed delineations of the acclimation sites have not yet been completed, but 

preliminary characterizations were considered during selection of the sites. 

Delineations would be completed before facility final design, siting, construction and 

operation to avoid impacts on wetland habitat. Information from delineation surveys 

would be used during final design to develop mitigation measures, ifnecessary, to 

ensure that the project would result in no net loss to wetlands. Review and 

concurrence through the Corps permit process would be completed as necessary 

before site development. Disturbance of wetlands during construction activities would 

be avoided whenever possible. kdisturbance could not be avoided, the area of 

disturbance would be minimized to the extent practicable. Most disturbance would be 

temporary and would not constitute any net loss to wetlands. Upon completion of 

construction, excavated areas would be backfilled, and disturbed land restored to its 

previous condition wherever possible. 

4.1 .I -2 No Action Alternative 

-- 

Under the No Action Alternative, current surface and groundwater resources practices 

would continue, including the water rights adjudication process and legislative efforts to 

improve instream flows. Some measure of habitat enhancement (through increased flow, 

improved water, quality, or physical habitat changes) would be implemented through the 

Council's Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. 

Since no project facilities would be constructed under this aliernative, there would be no 

impacts on surface or groundwater resources from the use of these resources. Water 

quality would not be afEected by the release of nutrients from the facilities. Floodplains 

and wetlands also would-not be affected under the No Action Alternative. 

.-> 

4.1.2 Fisheries Resources 

4.1.2.1 Alternatives 1 and 2 

Introduction 

, Several concerns were raised in the YFP EIS public s 

-- 

.~ 

., 

.. 

pingm stings and on the DEIS 

'about potential project -, impacts on existing fisheries resources. Major concerns included 

- 

Chapter 4: U .. -~ 
I 

genetic and ecological risks to wild fish populations and potential impacts on resident 

trout resources upstream from Roza Dam. 

The hatchery-released fish and naturally produced offspring of returning adults fkom the 

YFP could interact genetically and ecologically with existing naturally spawning fish 

populations. In some cases, potential impacts could be considered adverse (for example, 

could result in decreased growth rate or numbers for existing resident trout populations). 

In other situations, however, existing populations might increase in response to increased 

natural production of chinook fry that could serve as prey for resident trout or squawfish 

populations (Martin et al., 1992). 

At present, estimation of the actual effects of proposed supplementation activities on 

Yakima River fish populations (both resident and anadromous species) must be largely 

speculative because applicable data is scarce, and the field of study has limitations, as do 

theoretical analytical approaches needed for accurate predictions. However, it is likely 

that the released supplementation fish themselves, coupled with a possible increase in 

natural production (approaching the carrying capacity of the basin) from returning adult 

hatchery spawners, would affect pre-existing fish populations to some extent. This section 

of the EIS discusses the risks identified and other potential impacts of both Alternatives 1 

and 2 and summarizes the results of recent studies that address them. 

1 

Risk Analysis 

As a part of the adaptive management framework adopted for this project, the potential 

impacts mentioned above and others were addressed in risk analyses (see Section 2.2 for a 

discussion of adaptive management as it applies to this project). The risk analyses - 

systematically examined the objectives, strategies, assumptions, and uncertainties for the 

proposed actions. They also addressed the risks of the project not meeting its objectives. 

While these analyses do not directly address the risks of the project on the Yakima River 

Basin ecosystem, the objectives that have been adopted for the project do address these 

risks. A risk analysis was prepared for upper Yakima spring chinook supplementation as 

proposed in both Alternatives 1 and 2 in 1993 (Mobrand, 1993), and a risk analysis for the 

coho study as proposed for Alternative 2 was prepared in 195-. n I 

Project objectives for the YFP spring chinook program were identified in four categories: 

genetics, natural production, harvest, and experimentation. Accordingly, the spring 

chinook risk assessment document discussed in detail the risks of not meeting the 

objectives in all four of these categories, as described below: ~ 

Experimentation risk - the risk of not being able to meet the experimentation 

objectives for the project, which are to learn how to use supplementation as a 

stxategy to increase natural production and harvest opportunities. 

0 Hawesfrisk - the risk of not being able to meet the harvest objectives for the 

project, which are generally defined as increasing the harvest opportunities for all 

/ Chapter 4/ 112 ’. I 
. 

anglers consistent with the requirements-of the genetic, natural production, and 

0 Genetic risk - the risk of not being able to meet the genetic. objectives -. for the * 

~ project, which are generally defined as maintaining the long-term fitness of the 

target populations while keeping the ecological and genetic impacts on non-target 

, .=, ' .populations within specified biological limits. 

0 - Naturalproduction/ecological interaction risk - the risk of not being able to meet 

-. 

' - experimentation objectives. 

the natural productiordecological interaction objectives for !he project, which are 

generally defined as optimizing natural production while managing adverse impacts- ' 

fi-om interactions between ,and within species and stocks. 

The coho study is muchsimpler than the spring chinook program. Since it is solely a 

monitoring effort, its objectives can be most concisely summaized in one category: 

experihentation. Specifically, the experimentation objectives of the coho study are: -, 

0 to determine the feasibility of returning natural production of coho salmon to the 

Yakima-River Basin; ' 

0 to determine the potential harvest benefits fi-om reintroduction of coho salmon in 

the Yakima River Basin; and 

to determine the predation impacts of releasing 700,000 acclimated coho smolts on 

fall chinook populations in the Yakima River Basin. 

1 

0 

' The purposeof the coho risk analysis, then, is to evaluate and discuss the risk of the coho 

program not being able to-meet these experimentation objectives. 

To address the identified risks, three different approaches were used. ldsmkmg ~ 

measures were identified; objectives were refined; and/or alternative strategies were 

selected. Not all of the identified monitoring measureSwere feasible; these would be 

considered for.fbture research and development. Feasible measures were incorporated . 

into a monitoring plan. The monitoring plan for upper Yakima spring chinook is discussed 

in Section 2.3.3, and the plan for coho monitoring in Section 2.4.3.2. 

.. . 

Experimentation Risks and impacts 

The experimentation rhks were identified as the.risks of not meeting the 

experimentation objectives for the project. Since the objectives of the spring chinook 

program and coho study are different, their experimentation risks are discussed 

separately below. 

Upper Yakima Spring Chinook. Two types of experimentation risks were 

identified for this program: 

-. the risk of not being able to test that (1) production levels have increased 

in sections of the river where supplementation has occurred or (2) there 

are sigdicant differences between the Optimal Conventional Treatment 

and the New Innovative Treatment; and .I 

.~ I 

. C.hapter 4/ I ,- 

.I 
0 the risk of not learning about the quality of the supplemented fish and 

about their impacts on the ecosystem. 

The first risk addresses the success of the supplementaGon project in terms of 

numbers of fish returning to spawn. The second risk addresses the quality of the 

supplemented fish, as judged on the basis of four categories: survival of the fish 

after they are released until they return to spawn; reproductive success- of the fish 

(number of offspring produced per spawner); long-term fitness of the fish (genetic 

diversity and long-term productivity); and ecological interactions of the fish with 

the existing ecosystem (as measured by population abundance and distribution, 

growth rates, caving capacity, survival rates, transfer of disease and gene flow). 

The second type of experimentation risk is based on the assumption that the 

naturally spawning fish represent the'best quality for the system. Therefore, in 

order to determine the success of this aspect of supplementation, the 

supplementation fish would be compared with the naturally spawning fish to 

determine whether the YFP has reached the goal of creating fish as close as 

possible to the naturally spawning fish, as judged by the four categories listed 

above. 

# 

In order to address these risks for supplementation of upper Yakima spring 

No new or refined strategies were proposed by the risk assessment, but several 

measures were identified to be incorporated into the monitoring plan, 

c chinook under Alternatives 1 and 2, an experimental design has been developed. .L 

Lower Yakima River Coho Salmon. For the coho study under Alternative 2, the 

experimentation risks have been defined as the risk of not being able to meet the 

experimentation objectives for coho, which are listed above. 

. Coho are currently considered to be extinct in the Yakima River Basin, but 

approximately 700,000 hatchery-spawned yearling coho have been released there 

since 1982 (except in 1984), as part of the US v. Oregon CRFMP. Before 1994, 

these released coho were not acclimated, and their survival rate from smolt to 

returning adult has been about 0.04% (Watson, 1993), or about 280 fish fiom a 

release of 700,000. Strategies to meet the first two objectives are based on the 

detection and counting of retuhng adults fiom the annual smolt release of 

700,000. Clearly, knowing the survival rates of these fish is essential to meeting 

these objectivbs, so understanding the overall survival picture is a key element of 

the risk analysis: 

Several factors potentially affecting the survival of coho have changed since the 

1993 estimates, which may lead to increased survival in the future. First, the 

' acclimation of the smolts definitely resulted in an increase in their survival from the 

time of their release to their passage through the smolt monitoring facility at 

Prosser Dam. A recent 3-year study comparing survival of acclimated and 

nonacclimated early stock coho in the Umatilla River demonstrated that 

Chapter41lJ.2 I 
,. 

.. 

'acclimation increased survival by 50% (Technical Advisory Committee, 1995). 

Second, the ocean and river harvest of coho was greatly reduced in 1994, due to 

the poor returnsof adult fish throughout the Columbia River Basin. Third, the 

WS is re~ewing apetition to list coho as an endangered species coastwide. If 

this occurs, there could be a substantial reduction in the ocean and river harvest 

.On the other hand, there is considerable'uncertainty in predicting survival rates to . 

adulthood of any fish in the Columbia basin. Major factors influencing survival 

include survival through outmigration in both the Yakima-and Columbia Rivers, 

ocean survival, future harvest levels for both spoqt and commercial fisheries, and 

'upstream migration survival of adults returning to the Yakima basin. All of these 

Risks to Research Objective 1 - determining ihe feasibility of returning natural 

immediate concern is that thesmival rate to adulthood will be so low as to 

preclude sufficiently precise estimation-of survival rates. Imprecise estimates are 

likely to give an unduly pessimistic view of survival to be expected from a potential 

fiiture expansion of the coho program. 

quotas- in the -future. ,- 

, 

I 

.I. 

-,- factors are outside the control of the project. * .. ~ 

. 

.- production of coho salmon to the Yakima River Basin. I The risk .of most 

The second major risk to this objective is the inability to evaluate the reproductive % 

success of the returning adults. This is a very real risk in that the coho smolts are 

currently being acclimated inareas that would not support natural production of 

coho (due to low flows and high temperatures in summer).. If coho adults return 

to spawn neartheir acclimation release site, the resulting progeny would either 

. . have to migrate out ofthe Yakima basin or die-dui-ing the summer rearing period. 

Estimates of natural produc6on from returning adults would clearly be better if the 

- fish were released in areas that are determined to be good coho spawning and 

rearing habitat, but this is not possible under the current release program. 

Both of these risks could be reduced substantially by the release of larger numbers 

of smolts, butlat this time the~potential increased risk to other species due to 

interactions seems too great to permit these larger releases. 

A 

- 

\ ~- 

.- 

\ 

c Risks to Research Objective 2 - determining the potential harvest benefis from 

reintroduction of coho salmon in the Yakima River Basin. Estimation of 

potential harvest benefits fromxeleasing coho depends entirely on the rate of return 

of adult fish to the local fisheries, so the risks to this objective are identical with 

the first risk listed for objective 1. If accurate information on the number and rate 

of returning adult coho salmon cannot be obtained, the ability ofthe managers to 

.make an informed decision on whether or not to expand coho releases would be 

impaired. An incorrect decision has obvious consequences for the long-term 

objective of increasing coho salnion harvest opportunities for all- anglers. ' 

Chapter 41 120 . 
Risk to Research Objective 3 - determining the predation impacts of releasing 

700,000 acclimated coho-smolts on fall chinook populations in the Yakima 

River Basin. Coho releases have been approached cautiously because of the 

possibility that coho smolts may prey upon juvenile fall chinook as the coho 

migrate through fall chinook production areas in the lower reaches of the Yakima 

River Basin. Objective 3 calls for a monitoring program designed to resolve this 

question of predation. Since the research would be carried out entirely on the 

released smolts before they leave the basin, survival to adulthood is not a factor 

here. Risks to objective 3 all relate to the possibility that sufficiently precise . 

estimates of the predation impact from coho releases cannot be obtained through 

the monitoring. The consequences of this are clear. The managers could decide to 

expand coho program when expansion would depress fall chinook production, or 

they could decide not to expand (and thus forego) production and harvest 

opportunities when expansion is warranted. 

Development of a sufficiently extensive and powerful research program to obtain 

the necessaryinformation on coho predation is a difEcult task. Therefore, the 

study would occur in stages. The first stage would essentially be a feasibility study 

conducted during the first year of the program. During this stage, preliminary data 

would be collected ian$ used to design a more sophisticated second-stage study 

that would yield the desired information needed to decide upon expanded coho 

releases. Even with the benefit of the first-stage preliminary information, there 

could still be a risk of not gaining the information needed to determine precisely 

the predation impact ofcoho on the fall chinook population. However, this risk 

cannot be evaluated unti1;he first stage work is completed. It is important to 

understand that the staging of the research is a risk reduc&oQ strategy. The first 

stage work would be used to reduce the risk of the full study. 

’ Harvest Risks and Impacts 

The harvest risks identified in the risk analyses are defined as the risks of not meeting. 

the harvest objectives for the spring chinook and coho programs. . 

Upper Yakima Spring Chinook. Two types of harvest risks were identified in 

the risk assessment: - 

the risk of not being able to control harvest access that could affect longterm sustainable harvest yields through harvest policy and reslations; and 

the risk of not obtaining accurate data on harvest by stock in order to 

estimate harvest rates that will be sustainable in the long term. 

The first risk addresses the expectation that a regulatory package and 

complementary policy can be put in place that will ensure implementation of the 

harvest strategy. The assumption is that fisheries in the basin can be managed and 

. regulated and that laws can be enforced. A hnctional regulatory presence can be 

.I 
' effective in supporting project objectives only if certain underlying assumptions are 

effective and in place to guide and support regulatory management: 

Spawner recruit or stock productivity relationships must be developed to 

establish appropriate harvest rates for each stock component. 

A status-indexed or selective harvest policy must >- I be described in sufficient 

detail to allow effective implementation. 

. Methods to develop pre-season forecasts and in-season updates of run size 

. and composition must be available. 

The second risk addresses the necessity to secure accurate information about 

harvest numbers so managers can evaluate the impacts of harvest on each stock to 

assess strategies that assure long term sustainability of harvest while achieving 

. complementary project objectives. Some kndamental assumptions must be in 

place to facilitate collection of pertinent information. Most importantly, the 

project would supply the following: 

All first-generation adult fish resulting from the supplementation project 

would be readily identifiable by origin for selective harvest, purposes. 

All harvest of Yakima spring chinook would be monitored through catch 

sampling. . 

The project monitoring plan (Section 2.3.3) would include a harvest monitoring 

program designed to detect 'specific levels of harvest impacts. A monitoring 

program sufficient'to address each element of risk and to veri@ assumptions would 

include'adult monitoring to determine the timing and identification of 

marks on fish in a test fisheK 

. adults returning to Prosser; 

fish inthe harvest; and 

adults returning to Roza. 

It should be noted that the YFP Policy Group does not exercise control over 

harvest regulations. The assumptions and monitoring plan would provide 

necessary data to assess project strategies and would be a primary source of 

information for managers to implement harvest policy. A current Memorandum of 

Understanding between the YIN and the WDFW captures the manager's intent to 

coordinate project objectives with harvest management functions. 

Lower Yakima River Coho Salmon. The harvest risks for the coho program are 

discussed under the experimentation risks and impacts section, above. 

Chapter 4/.m . 
r 

Genetic Risks and Impacts 

Four types of genetic impacdrisk are relevant to YFP planning (Busack, 1990; 

Busack*and Currens 1995 (in press)): 

1) extinction, 

2) loss of within-population variability, 

F 3) loss-of between population variability, and 

.. 4) domestication selection: 

Extinction represents the most extreme type of risk. Once a population is extinct, all 

its genetic variability is irretrievably lost. Extinction can be caused by any activity 

that reduces a population below a minimum viable leyel. Although extinction is a 

genetic impact, it typically has demographic rather than direct genetic causes. , 

I 

Loss of within-population variability is commonly associated with hatchery 

production. Loss can be due to.genetic drift as a consequence of small population 

size or to non-random selection of hatchery broodstock. Since genetic variability is 

the raw material upon which selection acts, this loss in variability may manifest itself 

as a decreased responsiveness to natural selection, with a resulting drop in fitness. 

Loss of between-population variability is also called loss of population identity. If 

two populations are mixed, there may be no loss ofgenetic material overall, but the 

genetic distinctness of the two populations will be lost. The mixing will cause a 

recombining of genes that had formerly occurred in combinations called “coadapted 

complexes.” Particular desirable genotypes distinguishkg a population, such as run 

timing or body size, might become absent or less frequent. The new combinations of 

genes might result in lower fitness in the mixed population, a phenomenon called 

ccmaladaptation.” The most extreme form of this type of impact is genetic extinction: 

the fish are still present, but their genetic distinctness is lost. 

Domestication selection needs to be considered in assessing the impact of hatchery 

operations on salmon and steelhead. Hatcheries, despite careful attempts to avoid 

causing genetic change, may impose new selection regimes on the fish in the course 

of standard fish culture techniques, causing increased fitness in the hatchery 

environment, but decreased fitness in the wild. , 

The four types of genetic risk differ widely in theoretical basis, daculty of 

measurement, and empirical evidence in salmonids. Thus, opinions vary widely 

among geneticists and managers as to the extent to which a population is damaged 

by sustaining a specified level of impact. Domestication selection is the most 

controversial; loss of within-population variatjility, the least. Intermediate in 

controversy is the importance of loss of between-population variability. Extinction 

risk, the most theoretical and thus least amenable to- evaluation at the project level, is 

difficult to rank in this context. At this point, the project managers have not 

conducted population viability analysis to analyze extinction risk, and have made the 
- 

simpli@iing assumption that, by minimiZing type 2,3 and 4 genetic impacts, 

extinction risk is adequately. controlled. For purposes of this discussion, any severe 

type 2 impact should also be considered a type 1 impact. 

Quant%ng genetic risks and impacts of salmon production programs currently is a 

crude art. Potential impacts can be described in genetic terms (e.g., percentage loss 

of variability). Predicting the consequent reduction in fitness, however, is very 

tenuous, in part because a genetic impact’s severity is determined not only by 

magnitude and duration of a hazard, but probably also by the initial condition of a 

population, which geneticists have only a limited ability to measure. Nevertheless, it 

is possible to identify potential genetic risks, and to rate the relative reduction or 

increase in risk of alternatives. It is also possible generally to rank Gsk types in 

terms of probable effect on fitness. Although the ranking could be changed by 

relative magnitude, type 2 impacts probably have the largest effect on long-term 

fitness of the population and type 4 the smallest effect. Type 3 is again intermediate. 

In order to address these risks for the YFP, a genetic inventory of the stocks to be 

supplemented in the Yakima River Basin has been prepared, as well as genetic ’ 

guidelines for hatchery operations. Genetic risks have been addressed in two risk 

assessment documents which discuss both upper Yakima spring chinook and coho 

(Busack, 1990; Currens, 1993); and in the overall risk analysis prepared for upper 

Yakima spring chin0o.k (Mobrand, 1993). The risk analysis for upper Yakima spring 

chinook identified four new or redefined strategies for meeting the genetic 

objectives. Genetic risks were also addressed in the monitoring plans for each stock. 

These activities were conducted by geneticists at WDFW, in cooperation with 

consulting academic geneticists, and are characterized below. 

Genetic inventory. Genetic research has been conducted since 1989 to 

enumerate and characterize the salmon and steelhead stocks in the basin. With 

completion of spring chinook sampling and lab work in 1993, a fill generation of 

data is available. Three spring chinook stocks--American River, Naches, and 

upper ,Yakima--have been identified. 

.Genetic Hatchery Guidelines. Several aspects of hatchery operations, such as 

- broodstock selection and mating protocols, can have profound impacts on the 

maintenance of genetic diversity. Given the overall genetic conservation goal of ‘ the project, a comprehensive set of hatchery operational bidelines must be 

developed and designed to minimize genetic risks. A draft genetic guideline 

document for the YFP was completed in 1993 (Kapuscinski and Miller, 1993). 

These guidelines, developed in consultation with several geneticists, rely heavily on 

ihe hatchery guidelines being developed in the Council’s genetic workshop 

program. They provide hatchery personnel with specific recommendations or 

guidelines for hatchery personnel in making operational decisions in a genetically 

. sound manner. All aspects of hatchery production from broodstock collection to 

- 

L 

release are addressed. 

Chapter 41 J2l , . , 
Genetic Risk Assessment. Project planners have called for two levels of risk 

operational assessment. Level I (also called the qualitative genetic risk 

assessment) was developed to outline the potential genetic risks of the project 

(Busack, 1990). This document first described the four categories of genetic risk, 

and described the risks posed by the fill project as it was understood at that time. 

This was the first risk assessment in the basin, and has been used as a model for 

other assessments. 

. assessment: level I for a general statement of risk, and level II for a detailed 

The level I assessment addressed the features of the project designed to minimize 

genetic risk, including extensive substock identification work, separate culture of 

substocks and release into natal areas only, complete tagging of hatchery releases 

for assessment and control of straying, and a variety of broodstock management 

practices to maximize effective population size an'd limit the effects of domestication selection. The adaptive management strategy outlined in Section 2.2 

would be used to ensure that methods and research are continually reviewed and 

refined as the project progresses. A long-term genetic monitoring program would 

also be implemented to evaluate changes in within- and between-population 

variability, as well as changes in variability in quantitative fitness-related traits. 

A level 11 document (or quantitative risk assessment) was produced for the project 

in 1993 (Currens, 1993). This document linked genetic risk assessment to other 

types of biological risk assessment, clarified terminology, and went much farther in 

quanti@ng risk than the 1990 document. It emphasized the importance of a 

management structure in controlling risk, but dealt in much less detail with specific 

risks posed by specific actions in the project. ~ 

An overall risk analysis which included all four types of risk (experimentation, 

genetic, harvest, and natural productiodecological interaction) was ais0 prepared 

in 1993 (Mobrand, 1993), as discussed above. This analysis deals with the specific 

risks posed by the supplementation of upper Yakima spring chinook, and builds 

upon the previous two risk assessments. . 

The genetic risk assessmenthnalysisresults for upper Yakima spring chinook 

supplementation'under Alternatives 1 and 2 and for the coho program under 

Alternative 2 are summarized below (Busack, 1993). 

Upper Yakima Spring Chinook. The spring chinook program under both 

Alternatives-1 and 2 (supplementation of the Upper Yakima stock by annual 

release of 8 10,OO smolts, but no supplementation of the Naches or American River 

stocks) poses genetic risks to all three stocks. 

The types and magnitude of risk vary with success of the program in returning 

adult fish to the basin. Ifthe program were to return fewer adults than are taken 

as broodstock @e., "mining" broodstock), the genetically effective size of the 

population would be reduced. Assuming a worst-case scenario of no returns at all, 

- 

I 

1 
and current mean population levels, each full generation of the program would 

decrease the population by 50 percent. The population could withstand one * 

generation of this activity without incurring serious genetic impacts, but type 2 

impacts would become serious in the second generation. No type 3 or 4 impacts 

would be sustained by the population, as the assumption is that very few adult 

hatchery fish would return to spawn. 

The two unsupplemented stocks @aches, American River) could also be reduced 

in size as an indirect effect 'of the reduction of the Upper Yakima stock if effective 

in-river harvest rates for them were increased substantially. However, for this to 

happen, smolt-to-adult survival of Upper Yakima hatchery fish would have to be 

close to zero. 

In summary, the Upper Yakima supplementation effort could perform very poorly 

for a full generation without- serious genetic impacts, assuming current average 

escapement levels were maintained for all three stocks. .. ~. \ 

. .- 

. - Under an assumption of a ~cces&Z Upper Yakima supplementation program - 

(i.e., project returns more spawners than are taken as broodstock), the risk picture 

is quite different. Type 2 risks to 'the Upper Yakima stock diminish with increasing 

. program success, but the risk of domestication selection, inherent in all hatchery 

~programs, increases. The magnitude of this type 4 impact depends on the intensity 

of the selective forces present, and the exposure-of the population to them. The 

latterfactor is a consequence of what proportion oftime, on average, a gene in the 

population spends in the hatchery environment. This risk would be limited by the 

strateges of using only naturally spawning fish as broodstock, by limiting the '~ 

percentage of Wild or native fish removed for hatchery broodstock, ind'by 

. 

-, 

- 

'.managing the percentage of hatchery fish on the spawning grounds. 

' - 

, 

- - 

As the success ofthe Upper Yakima spring chinook supplementation program 

increases, type 3 risk to the other spring chinook stocks would-increase if the 

effective stray rates into them were to increase, either as'a result of agreater 

tendency of hatchery fish to stray or as a result of increased numbers of Upper 

Yakima spring chinook straying into these populations at current rates, 

. Domestication selection could also spread into these stocks as Upper Yakima fish 

-,stray in. Current stray rates among the three.stocks.are unknown; however, spring . 

chinook appear, fkom the limited data available, to have very low straying rates 

- 

(0-5%), especially when they have been acclimated. . .~ 

I\ 

Straying'to other basins could also increase.because of the causes mentioned 

above. However, acclimated spring chinook have very low straying rates. There 

are no known incidences of spring chinook straying fkom the Tucannori hatchery 

into other watersheds (Busack and Hopley, pers. comm. 1994). 

- ~ 

, . 

Chapti? 4/ 626 
The increased Upper Yakima spring chinook stock poses another type of risk. As 

that stock becomes more numerous, the American River and Naches stocks make 

up a smaller percentage of the'in-river mixed-stock fishery. Type 2 impacts could 

occur if the fishery were not managed for acceptably high minimum escapemerzts 

of these stocks. For the YFP, however, it is anticipated that moderate harvest 

levels can be monitored and regulated closely enough to reduce this risk. 

The situations above assume a model of three independent stocks. The spring 

chinook natural production modeling exercise described iq Section 2.3.1 took a 

different approach, considering that a key feature of spring chinook juvenile 

mortality may be density-dependence due to a type 3 functional predator response. 

This means the three stocks are linked because juvenile mortality (from predation) 

in a given stock is determined not only by its abundance but also by the abundance 

of the other stocks. 

Modeling the spring chinook stocks this way changes the risk picture considerably. 

It is theoretically possible, then, to achieve substantial production increases in the 

two unsupplemented stocks as a result of the Upper Yakima stock supplementation, because the unsupplemerited stocks would make up a smaller percentage of 

the mixed group, therefore lowering the potential for them to be preyed upon. 

More of the unsupplemented fish would survive and return to'spawn and produce 

more offspring. This would allow higher harvest rates on the Naches and 

American River stocks, greatly reducing the potential of he 2impact from 

mixed-stock fisheries. I 

Lower Yakima River Coho Salmon. As discussed in the introduction to the risk 

analysis'section, there are no genetic risks imposed on the project, or the Yakima 

River ecosystem, from the proposed monitoring of the existing coho acclimation 

and release project. 

Genetic Monitoring. Several measures for monitoring-genetic risk were proposed 

in the risk assessment for upper Yakima spring chinook. These were incorporated 

into the overall monitoring plan (see Section 2.3.3). 

Genetic monitoring of coho is not necessav; there are no genetic risks to coho 

since the original coho stocks are extinct in the Yakima and surrounding basins. 

Measures to monitor the genetic impact of thezoho program on other stocks are 

being developed along with the study to determine the predation impact of coho 

. on these stocks. ~ 

Natural ProductionlEcoloqical Interaction Risks and Impacts 

Two main types of natural productiodecological interaction risk were identified in the 

risk analysis: 

Limitations of abiotic (non-living;) and biotic (living) components of the 

environment: There are factors (e.g. inadequate passage conditions, poor 

water ,- quality, and limited over-wintering habitat) that limit the production of I 

Chapter4/L2;! . I 
, 

upper Yakima spring chinook and coho in the Yakima River Basin. The risk 

lies in either not recognizing,these limitations and attempting to increase 

production ~thout removing them, or attempting to remove these limitations 

without understanding the structure and hnction of the environment and its 

role in production orupper Yakima spring chinook and coho, thereby either 

'making things worse (less production) or wasting resources. ,I 

0 Adverse ecological interactions: There is a potential risk of affecting wild and . 

, . native populations of fish in the Yakima Basin through an increase of upper 

. - Yakima spring chinook and/or coho production. This risk might occur through 

sever4 mechanisms, including an increase in competition for limited resources 

or an alteration in the behavior of these other species. 

\ 

, . 

1 

' - - 

Environmental Limitations. The abiotic and biotic limitations of the Yakima 

-. River Basin are being addressed in the context of the habitat jmprovema and 

passage improvement activities that 'are ongoingin the Yakima River basin ' 

(discussed ip Section 1.4). They are not directly a part of this proposal; however, 

.YFP scientists. and managers are involved in coordinating the planning for many of 

these activities with those of the YFP. 

Ecological Interactions. The possibility exists that hatchery &nd resident 

'salmonids. may interact through several mechanisms, including the following: 

1' -* 

.* 

.* 

0 hatchery and resident fish might compete directly for food and space during 

the freshwater rearing phase (Bachman, 1984; Vincent, 1987; Irvine and 

Bailey, 1992); 

they might prey on one another (Cannamela, 1992; Martin et al., 1993); 

hatchery fish might alter migratory responses of non-target fish (Steward 

and Bjornn, 1990); 

0 hatchery fish might alter habitat use, thereby making non-target species 

more susceptible to predators (Hdlman and Mullan, 1989); 

0 . hatchery fish might alter movement pattems of non-target fish (Hillman and 

hatchery fish might increase transmission and susceptibility to disease of 

Mullan, 1989); I- 

- 

. 

- non-target fish (Krueger and May, 1991; Pearsons et al.; 1993); and 

I hatchery fish might interbreed with non-target fish (Krueger and May, 

1991; Pearsons et al., 1993). - 

Specific exmples of possible species interaction scenarios for Alternatives 

. . 1 and 2 include, but are not liited to, the following: 

0 Hatchery fish might not readily diqerse from the acclimation site, possibly 

increasing the potential for competitive and predatory interactions with, 

resident salmonids. A rapid dispersal-and outmigration of hatchery fish 

following their release-would reduce the potential for these interactions. -. 

., 

-. 

. .. 

,- 

Chapter 4/ .128 ' -. I c 
e 

e 

e 

An increase in the overall standing crop of introduced salmonids might 

result in a reduction in the population of resident species. This could occur 

as natural production approaches stream-carrying capacity and as densitydependent mechanisms (e.g. competition) affect one or more species.- This 

impact springs from the differences in the relative amount of time the two 

groups would share common food and space resources. Compared to 

project smolts, naturally produced offspring of project adults might share 

resources with resident fish during one or more life history stages. The 

greatest impact on resident fish might not occur immediately following 

release of project smolts from acclimation sites, but after YFP-produced 

adults have returned to spawn naturally and their progeny have emerged. 

The extent of impacts would be expected to increase as overall production . 

reaches or exceeds the carrying capacity of the habitat. 

Residualism is the tendency of hatchery smolts to delay or avoid what 

would otherwise be normal outmigration in the spring. The spatial and 

annual incidence of residualism is typically highly variable. When fish 

residualiie, they become a part of the stream-reared fish community, 

competing with resident fish for resources such as food and space, and' 

becoming potent'ial predators (or prey). However, based on work of 

Cannemela (1 993) and Martin et al. (1 992), the natural occurrence of 

residualism in spring chinook salmon has been found to be low, particularly 

in the headwater areas, and is not expected to pose a significant risk to 

resident fish. Residualism for coho has not been reported in the literature. 

,Hatchery fish may cause premature or involuntary migration of other 

salmonids if the project smolts that migrate downstream create a "pied 

piper" condition whereby resident or other wild anadromous salmonids 

migrate downstream with them (Kuehn and Schumacher, 1957; Hansen and 

Jonsson, 1985; Hillman and Mullan, 1989). This condition could prove to 

be detrimental to resident fish that would not otherwise migrate or to 

anadromous fish that would not normally migrate at that time. 

A positive or negative change in the growth and condition of resident fish 

through a change in their diet or feeding habits could occur following the 

introduction of hatchery fish. Effects on target populations would depend 

on the degree of dietary overlap, food availability, size-related differences 

in prey selection, foraging tactics, and differences in microhabitat use 

(Steward and Bjornn, 1990). 

Potential species interactions among fish in the Yakima River are summarized 

below (Table 4.2) for Alternatives 1 and 2. This table is not intended to reflect 

the full range of possibilities for species interactions under these alternatives; 

however, the combinations listed &e generally indicative of potential interactions . 

anticipated. The table lists target vs. non-target species combinations and also 

identifies interspecific target vs. target species combinations where the potential 

for their occurrence exists. 

. . . ._ 

Chapter 4/ lac 

. 
Table 4.2 Species Interaction Considerations Among Fish Potentially 

Present in the Upper and Lower Yakima River Basin Under the 

Yakima Fisheries Project 

General 

Location 

SDecies Assemblage (tarpet vs. nontarpet) Interaction Potential a - 

Upper 

basin 

Spring chinook vs. steelheadb 1 competition, predation 

a Potential mechanisms of interaction . 

b Species.combinations for Alternative 1. All combinations apply to Alternative 2. ., 

To describe quantitatively tbe competitive interactions and actual .impacts between 

fish populations is ,extremely difficult, and requires rigorous monitoring and 

.evaluation. For this reason, a baselhe species interaction study has been started 

- for the YFP. As project activities were initiated, they would be moriitored closely 

.and modified (if necessary) to better understand and contain the risks of ecological 

interactions between target species ,and other species of concern. 

Investigations of species interactiqns above Roza Dam were initiated by the WDW 

in September 1989, and have continued to date (Hindman et al., 1991; McMichael ' 

et al., 1992; Pearsons et al., 1993; Pearsons et al. 1994). This work, funded by 

BPA, has emphasized potential interactions involving resident trout, but has alsoincluded work on spring chinook and other species of concern in the area above , 

Roza Dam.. Major objectives -of this research have been as follows: 

, 

. 

,- 

.- 

to characterize the spatial and temporal. distribution of rainbow trout 

spawning;. .. 

Chapter 4/ 130 
, 

to characterize movement patterns of rainbow trout (e.g. within and 

between mainstem and tributary areas); 

to characteee the distributionaid abundance of rearing rainbow trout, 

and the species associated with them (e.g. spring chinook) during this 

period; and 

via experimentation, to increase understanding of potential interactions 

among target and non-target species, to aid development of methods to 

assess and monitor interactions following implementation of the YFP. 

Part of the species interactions study involves experiments designed to examine 

interactions among target and non-target species. In 1991, a field experiment to 

'assess basic aspects of interactions among hatchery-reared steelhead and naturally 

rearing fish was begun in the North Fork of the Teanaway River (McMichael et al., 

1992; Pearsons et al., 1993; Pearsons et al., 1994). Approximately 33,000 

hatchery-reared steelhead were released into a small tributary of.the North Fork 

Teanaway River. The number of steelhead released and release loc9ttion were 

selected to reflect the YFP plans existing at the time (Appendix A of BPA, 1990b). 

Hatchery steelhead smolt release experiments continued over a total of 4 years, - 

with final smolt releases occurring in 1994 and fiflal data collection in 1995. The 

work aims to develop assessment procedures and experimental designs for longterm monitoring and to learn as much as practicable about potential interactions 

prior to implementation of the YFP. In addition, small-scale competition 

experiments between various groups of salmonids have been conducted in the 

North and Middle forks of the Teanaway River during 1993 (Pearsons et al,. 1994) 

and 1994. To the extent that these studies pertain to Yakima River spring chinook 

and coho, a summary of information is provided below., 

Upper Yakima Spring Chinook. The distribution of upper Yakima spring chinook 

overlaps that of three other species of concern (resident rainbow/steelhead, 

cutthroat, and bull trout) above Roza Dam, which suggests that interactions might 

occur. Spring chinook juveniles are generally found in the mainstem of the 

Yakima River and in low elevation portions of some tributaries (Pearsons et al., 

1993; Pearsons et al., 1.994). Two species of concern, cutthroat and bull trout, 

inhabit parts of the range of spring chinook, although they are generally found in 

clear, cold, high-elevation streams (Pearsons et al., 1993). Little information is 

ivailable about the intensity and outcome of juvenile interactions among these 

species in the areas of overlap (Martin et al., 1992). The other species of concern, 

rainbow trout (both anadromous-steelhead, and resident forms) has a wider . 

distribution than spring chinook (Hindman et al., 1991; McMichael et a1.,.1992; 

Pearsons et al., 1993; Pearsons et al., 1994) that overlaps the distribution of spring 

chinook above Roza Dam entirely. 

Interactions between migrating hatchery spring chinook and resident salmonids 

appear to be minimal, based on two small-scale feleases of hatchery spring chinook 

- , 
I I 

(WDFW; unpubl. data). Most previous work examining interactions between 

juvenile chinook salmon and rainbow and steelhead trout suggests that interactions 

are minimal because coexisting fish of different species spawn at different times 

and occupy different microhabitats. This differentiation occurs because of 

differences in total length and body morphology between species @erest and 

Chapman, 1972; Hillman et al., 1939% 1989b): However, environmental 

conditions and an overlap in rainbow trout, juvenile steelhead, and spring chinook 

sizes in the upper Yakima River might force these species to use similar 

microhabitats, leading to unusually high levels of interaction. Releases bf water 

from reservoirs during the summer months means that discharge in the upper 

Yakima River is substantially higher than that under natural conditions. High 

discharges produce high water velocities, which might lit the availability of 

habitat for small fish. Small fish such as young salmon, resident trout, and 

steelhead might be forced to occupy the limited amount of slow water habitat 

available and compete for food and space. However, preliminary results do not 

-support this hypothesis (WDFW, unpubl. data). Spring chinook and rainbow trout 

were most closely associated with each other during the.fal1, when water levels 

were relatively low. ., 

Observations and experiments in the North and Middle forks of the Teanaway 

River and upper Yakima River mainstem (McMichael et al., 1992; Pearsons et al., 

1993; Pearsons et al., 1994) indicate that aggressive social interactions occur 

between wild juvenile spring chinook and steelhead and rainbow trout, but that 

interactions may not greatly affect the growth of certain size classes of trout, at 

least in the studied tributaries. Juvenile spring chinook dominated approximately 

half of the observed interactions with rainbow trout in the Middle Fork of the 

Teanaway River and slightly more than half of the observed interactions with 

experiments (Pearsons et al., 1994) in small enclopures in Teanaway River 

tributaries suggest that the presence of juvenile spring chinook did not significantly 

alter growth of the slightly larger-sized age 1+ and age 2+ trout (Pearsons et al., 

1994), or of smaller-sized O+ to 1+ age trout (WDFW, unpubl. data). 

Hatchery-reared spring chinook salmon and their naturally spawned offspring may 

interact with pre-existing naturally produced spring chinook salmon. For example, 

releases of hatchery spring chinook smolts have been shown to alter the movement 

patterns of naturally produced spring chinook in the Wgnatchee River system 

(Hdlman and Mullan, 1989). Competition for food or space may be particularly 

intense among members of the same species because of their similar ecological 

requirements at corresponding life history stages. If the juvenile hatchery-reared 

spring chinook are larger than their naturally produced counterparts, then the 

hatchery chinook may dominate behavioral interactions and force naturally 

produced .fish to occupy less optimal habitats. Studies of species interactions in 

the Middle Fork of the Teanaway River have documented aggressive social 

interactions among juvenile spring chinook salmon, with larger fish generally 

- 

, rainbow trout in the mainstem Yakima River. Results from competition . 

* 

Chapter 41 m. 
, 

predominating (McMichael et al., 1992; Pearsons et al., 1993; Pearsons et al., 

1994). Residual hatchery spring chinook significantly affected growth of naturally 

produced spring chinook in small-scale competition experiments (WDFW, unpubl. 

data). Residualism by hatchery spring chinook juveniles is known to occur, but 

generally at low levels. In the Tucannon River residual spring chinook juveniles 

dominated interactions with their naturally produced counterparts (Steven Martin, 

WDFW, pers. comm.). -- 

In summary, based on the information available, it appears probable that spring 

chinook produced from the YFP would compete with pre-existing naturally 

produced fishes, particularly spring chinook salmon and perhaps rainbow and 

steelhead trout. The specific outcome of this competition is largely unpredictable 

at this time, but it is reasonable to expect that growth, abundance, and/or 

distribution of affected stocks would be altered to a small extent. Also, even 

minimal interaction impacts on steelhead may be.significant to the population at 

large because steelhead numbers in the upper Yakima River Basin are currently 

controlled through the implementation of the adaptive management process. 

very low. The risks posed by these interactions would be monitored and I 

Lower Yakima River Coho Salmon. Coho salmon juveniles in the lower Yakima 

River might interact ecologically with fall chinook, spring chinook, steelhead, and 

resident fishes. During their period of stream residence (for hatchery coho 

releases, generally in the spring outmigration phase), coho juveniles may prey upon 

newly emerged spring chinook, summer steelhead, and particularly fall chinook. 

Stream-reared juvenile coho salmon may compete for food and space with these 

other species as well. However, these interactions result fi-om the ongoing coho 

acclimation and release program, and the proposed coho study would not change 

these interactions. There would be no increased ecological interaction risk posed 

by the coho study under Alternative 2. 

, 

- 

In fact, under the coho program proposed'under Alternative 2 for the YFP, the 

interactions of hatchery coho with other fishes would be closely monitored to 

determine the rate at which released hatchery coho smolts prey on the others. The 

study would emphasize juvenile coho interactions with recently emerged fall 

chinook, ranging primarily in the lower Yakima River. The following information 

on coho interactions is provided as background for understanding the need for the 

monitoring proposed under Alternative 2 for the YFP. 

The ongoing coho acclimation and release program has the potential to affect the 

survival ofjuvenile fish of other target and/or non-target stocks. The coho could 

conceivably be eating a sizable proportion of the juvenile fall chinook 

production. The current status of the mainstem fall chinook stock is unclear, but 

the Marion Drain stock appears to be at a low-enough population level that a 2Q30 percent reduction in juvenile.surviva1 could result in a type 2 genetic impact 

on that stock. 

, Chapter 4/ B I 
A small-scale investigation was conducted in 1992 to obtain preliminary 

.information on the occurrence of predation on fish by juvenile hatchery coho, and 

to assess options for fbture stydies. The stomach contents of 323 coho smolts 

sampled at the Chandler Juvenile Collection Facility during the spring were 

examined (James, 1992). No fish were positively identified in the stomach 

contents, but the capture methodology may have biased the results, since much 

digestion had occurred prior to stomach content .analyses. 

Juvenile coho salmon are known to be highly aggressive compared to other 

juvenile salmonids; thus they may compete with hatchery or naturally produced 

spring and fall chinook, steelhead or rainbow trout, and resident fishes under 

certain conditions. For example, in a study conducted by Stein et al. (1972) in an 

artificial stream, coho socially dominated fall chinook, and fall chinook grew faster 

alone than with coho present. Lister and Genoe (1970) suggested that coho and 

fall chinook do not interact because of size-related differences in microhabitat 

selection. Coho salmon displaced spring chinook from preferred microhabitats in 

the Wenatchee River drainage but did not affect their growth or density (Spaulding 

et al., 1989). In the same study, steelhead occupied different microhabitats than 

salmon. Other workers have documented intergctions between coho and 

steelheadrainbow trout (Fraser, 1969; Allee, 1974). - 

In summary, it appears that hatchery coho pose the greatest interaction risk as 

potential predators on naturally produced fall chinook. If naturally reproducing 

coho become established in the Yakima River, then a broader range of species 

interactions would be expected. The risks of these interactions could be 

-through the proposed monitoring of predation by coho under Alternative 2 and 

through monitoring the status of these other species. 

Other species of Concern. The potential for interactions involving other fish 

species of concern exists and will be subject to continual review by project 

managers, Bull trout, redside shiner, sculpins, northern squawfish, smallmouth 

bass, largemouth bass, and mounta’k whitefish have been identified as resident fish 

that may interact with spring chinook and coho in the Yakima River Basin. 

Data exist but are limited on the distribution and abundance of bull trout in the 

Yakima River basin. Bull trout are a sensitive species receiving increasing 

attention, as exemplified by the recent determination by the USFWS that their 

listing was “warranted but precluded” under the Endangered Species Act. Little is 

known about the likelihood or outcome of their interactions with fish potentially 

produced by the YFP. Further information on bull trout in the upper Yakima basin 

is found in Section3.4.2 of this FEIS. Smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, and 

mountain whitefish also are abundant sport fish in the Yakima River and may 

interact with or prey on anadromous populations. 

I 

~ 

- 

I 

P‘ 

z. ‘. ,1 

.- I 

Chapter 4/ 134 ‘ 

.. 
- 

Northern squawfish are known to be dominant predators on juvenile salmonids, 

and have been the subject of considerable research with regard to predator control 

in the reservoirs of the Columbia River system (Willis and Nigro, 1993). As 

mentioned earlier in this EIS, no work has been done in the Yakima River Basin to 

ascertain the abundance and distribution of the squadsh population, particularly 

the segments of the Yakima mainstem below Roia Dam where mortality of 

outmigrating salmonids is known to 6e high. Similarly, no research has been 

conducted in the Yakima River to assess predator consumption rates and the 

actual relationship of predators to prey (e.g. spring chinook) density, including the 

associated impact of this relahonship on the YFP. However, natural production 

modeling activities described in Chapters 2 and 3 (Watson et al., 1993) . 

incorporated reviews of available information on predator-prey relations and 

developed assumptions amenable to risk analysis and hypothesis testing in the 

context of the YFP monitoring and evaluation plan. This review and modeling 

effort indicated that up to 240,000 smolts (27 percent of estimated carrying 

capacity) could be lost to density-dependent mortality in the Yakima River 

subbasin. (See also discussion in Chapter 2, Section 2.2.3.) Research to assess the 

occurrence and extent of non-salmonid predation on target species as it relates to 

specific modeling parameters and the density of prey (Le., predator swamping) 

would be highly valuable; however, no research is'currently planned to address 

these issues. 

The ecological interaction risks identified above can be addressed through 

monitoring. .However, the risk analysis pdints out that a monitoring plan to 

contain or manage the risks of adverse ecological interactions on non-target 

species can only be developed after specific objectives for these species have been 

defined or identified. The project managers are in the process of identlfling 

objectives for management of the key non-target species and developing 

comprehensive monitoring plans. Without monitoring and implementation of the 

adaptive management process, impacts on non-target species fi-om ecological 

interactions with the supplemented species could be high. 

.. - 

Transfer of Disease. Another concern identified for the YFP is the transfer of 

disease through ecological interactions between hatchery and wild fish. The 

introduction of artificially propagated salmonid stocks to the Yakima River Basin 

under either alternative poses risks to the health of wild fish in the basin. Hatchery 

practices increase the risk of disease, which may be transmitted to wild pbpulations 

after the hatchery fish are released into the natural environment. Generally, 

artificially propagated fish are more prone to contracting diseases and parasites 

because they live under unnaturally crowded conditions. Thus, transmission of 

disease and parasites is easier in the hatchery environment. Hatchery rearing 

conditions may also adversely stress and affect the physical condition of the 

hatchery fish and their resistance to disease organisms. Despite the comparatively 

high incidence of disease in hatchery stocks, however, there is relatively little 

- Chapter4/m I 
-/ 

.~ evidence that diseases or parasites are routinely transmitted fiom hatchery fish to 

- wild fish. 

Both Alternatives 1 and 2 pose some degree of risk to existing stocks through the 

potential for transfer of diseases through the use of the hatchery to propagate 

upper Yakima spring chinook. This risk would be minimized by the use of local 

broodstock. The possible introduction of non-indigenous strains of pathogenic 

organisms under either alternative would be minimized by stringent inspection and 

quarantine procedures. This section discusses diseases of concern to salmonid 

resources, the use of preventative measures, and the potential risks associated with 

the YFP to existing populations. 

Bacterial kidney disease is a particular concern because the causative bacterium 

(Renibacterium salmoninarum) is transmitted in the eggs fiom infected females to 

offspring. The disease is considered a significant hazard to cultured salmonids, and 

is a primary health concern of the YFP. Bacterial kidney disease is often 

diagnosed as a cause of mortality in fish that are reared for more than a year under 

hatchery conditions (i.e., spring chinook salmon, coho salmon, and steelhead). 

This chronic disease may be responsible for mortality at any time during the 

freshwater rearing of salmon and steelhead, and is also known to affect survival 

after seawater entry. Bacterial kidney disease can be controlled by antibiotic 

treatment of female salmonids and avoiding the use of heavily infected fish as 

broodstock. Preliminary evidence suggests that these husbandry methods may 

increase survival of fish during culture and result in a reduction of infectious 

bacterial kidney disease organisms available for dissemination to future generations 

of hatchery and wild fish. 

Project managers are also concerned about infectious hematopoietic necrosis and 

infectious pancreatic necrosis. Infectious hematopoietic necrosis can cause 

mortality in rainbow trout, steelhead, sockeye salmon, and chinook salmon; losses 

due to the disease usually occur in juvenile fry. Mortality resulting fiom infectious 

pancreatic necrosis disease(s) is limited to rainbow trout and steelhead fry; both 

diseases are most often manifest in hatchery situations. Both viruses have been 

isolated fiom maturing wild chinook salmon and hatchery steelhead in the Yakima 

River system, but an actual occurrence of viral disease has not been observed. As 

with bacterial kidney disease, acclimation of wild fish,to the hatchery environment 

may eventually lead to the occurrence of viral disease and mortality. The relative 

risk of transfer of infectious hematopoietic necrosis or infectious pancreatic 

necrosis virus from diseased hatchery fish to wild salmonids is unknown; however, 

the relatively low-density fish rearing facilities planned for the YFP would probably 

reduce thkse risks. 

Finally, hatchery-reared fish are prone through proximity, to contract parasitosis. 

Fungal, protozoal, and helminth Fxzsites are relatively easy to diagnose, and 

chemical treatment of the holding water is normally effective. The risk of 1 

- 

Chapter 4/ 136’ 
extension of most internal and external parasites of salmohd fish fiom hatchery to 

wild situations is confined to the brief period during outmigration and is therefore 

limited. 

A recent literature review by Miller et al. (1990) found that, in spite of the comparatively high incidence of disease among hatchery stocks, there is little evidence 

that diseases or parasites-are routinely transmitted from hatchery to wild fish. This 

review found a number of studies indicating that infectious pancreatic necrosis and 

bacterial kidney disease were not transmitted fiom infected hatchery outplants. 

All phases of artificial propagation, fish transfers, and supplementation procedures 

for both Alternatives 1 and 2 would follow the fish health policy documented in 

Policies and Procedures for Columbia Basin Anadiomous Salmonid Hatcheries 

(MOT, 1994). Rigorous sanitation and use of disinfection procedures combined 

with optimum husbandry, isolation and quarantine practices and a strong 

diagnostic and therapeutic program would miniriize fish health concerns and 

reduce the potential for adverse impacts on wild and hatchery-reared fish fiom 

disease during operation of the YFP under either alternative. 

' 

- 

4.1.2.2 Cumulative Fishery Resource Impacts 

Regulations implementing NEPA require Federal agencies to consider the cumulative 

impacts of their proposed actions. 40 CFR 3 1-508.25(~)(1991). The regulations define 

cumulative impacts as follows: 

"The impact on the environment which results fiom the incremental ' 

impacts of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or nonFederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can 

result fiomjndividually minor but collectively significant actions taking 

place over a period oftime." 40 CFR 3 1508.7 (1991) 

As described in Chapter 1, the YFl? is part of an unprecedented effort by the Council, the 

BPA, the project managers, and other state and Federal agencies and Indian tribes to 

rebuild salmon and steelhead runs on the Columbia River. The YFP, together with other 

supplementation, rebuilding, and mitigation_ projects, would contribute to this effort and to 

the Council's goal of doubling current runs while maintaining the genetic diversity of the 

Columbia River anadromous fish stocks. As mentioned in Section 1.4, commenters on the 

original 'draft of this EIS suggested that a comprehensive EIS should be prepared on all of 

the salmonid restoration and mitigation efforts -in the Columbia River Basin, including the 

Council's Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. This comment is being 

addressed in part by the dd 

USFWS, NMFS, and BPA. A draft of the ProTammatic E4S is antic mated - in ea rlv 199 6, 

8eelhe ad I 'n the Columbia River Bas in Prowam matic currently being prepared by the .. 

- 

Chapter4/m ' I . 
The Programmatic EIS will address the cumulative impacts of salmon and steelhead 

hatcheries and supplementation projects in the Columbia River Basin on wild and 

naturally-spawning stocks. Nevert helm-ndeue n dent 1 v btifiablebecaan experiment employ ing the scientific method to test SWD lementat' ion as a 

.. .. . .. .. 

is -on miect ul-ed tu IS comed tQ 

determ'ne 1 how best to preserve aaprove naturallv sDawning and wild stoh. Thr: 

YFP action alternatives would release a tota 1 of only 810,000 spwook smolts. This 

Columb 

1s le an extr 1 Dercen 7 ii 11 

ia Wve r svste m. Conseauent ly. the proiect manacle rs do not ant iciuate imuacts w 

spxs ofsarlmon listed under the ESA impacts in the maion comdor. incrW 

mL ed smolts is unldsdy: because the np chinook smolts would lack sGcient me to urev on smolts of 1- 

SPecies. The YFP would not bew showtnrz - res& unt il2000, so it would not prejud Ice 

the ultimate dec isions made in the P romammat ic EIL 

The YFP would be designed to be consistent with and be evaluated along with all other 

artificial propagation and supplementation facilities being addressed in the comprehensive 

analysis. While this FEIS specifically addresses the impacts of the YFP, it includes the 

following cumulative impact analysis that considers the impacts of this project on {he 

.. e-n d&rent rem stratem attwt to 

.. .. 

.. .. 

- 

I' 

I. 

. overall Columbia River Basin fishery. 

Increasing Supplementation Knowledge 

The YFP aims to develop, knowledge about how supplementation techniques can be 

applied to anadromous fish stocks in the Yakima River Basin. This knowledge may be 

applicable throughout the Columbia Basin. The stock-by-stock adaptive management 

approach and flexible physicd design proposed for the YFP facilities would provide a 

robust and unique platform for supplementation research. When taken in combination 

with other current and fbture supplementation activities within the region (and regardless 

of the actual outcome of the YFP in terms of the. degree of success achieved in stock 

rebuilding), the' cumulative effect of the YFP would be to increase the chances that other 

supplementation projects would succeed, and that concomitant resource risks would be 

reduced.. The YFP research, monitoring, and evaluation facilities would serve to answer 

critical uncertainties associated with fbture supplementation activities approved by the 

Council and fbnded by the BPA. 

In addition, the experimental, stock-by-stock adaptive management approach of the 

proposed YFP alternatives would allow project managers to discover and correct impacts 

resulting fiom the supplementation of one stock and possibly apply this knowledge to 

other stocks before supplementation is initiated on them. Also, the adaptive management 

approach would result in constant monitoring, review, and revision of the supplementation 

program, which could help prevent some cumulative impacts fiom occurring. - 

I .I 

.- 

Chapter 4/ 

\ 

., ~. 

- .. .. ~- 
I Genetic Fitness -. 

, If successful, the YFP would help maintain long-term genetic fitness for Columbia River 

salmonid resources. The project would track genetically distinct populations; it includes a 

goal to protect each stock. The project would help to rebuild weak stocks, reducing the 

threat of extinction, and would sustain the diversity of stocks in the bask. Furthermore, 

the supplementation approach would test a mitigation alternative that could minimize or 

control adverse impacts on the genetic composition of supplemented natural stocks, when 

compared to potential risks posed by traditional mitigation hatcheries. It is expected that 

the cumulative effect of a successfil YFP, taken together with other ongoing and fiture 

projects in the Columbia Basin, would be to further protect and maintain within- and 

among-stock genetic fitness. 

. 

Ifthe YFP were unsuccessful for one or more stocks, however, the YFP would add 

nothing to the genetic fitness of Columbia River salmonid resources. Furtherrhore, if 

unforeseen adverse genetic impacts were realized and not contained, and if project 

operations were continued, the net result would be increased erosion of genetic fitness and 

greater probability of extinction of affected stocks. The adaptive management'process for 

the YFP has been developed to prevent this through ongoing monitoring and feedback 

into the management process on an annual basis. 

- 

Straying of supplemented Yakima Basin fish into other basins and dilution of their gene 

pools by these fish is not considered to be a problem for upper Yakima spring chinook, as 

discussed in the section above on genetic risk analysis. Straying of coho is not considered 

to be a problem because there are nwwild stocks remaining in the Yakima or surrounding . 

basins. 

Production and Habitat . 

In Section 7 of the 1994 version of the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program, 

the Council reiterated its determination that implementation of production and habitat 

actions be fully coordinated (NPPC, 1994). Relevant Yakima Basin production and 

habitat measures in the 1994 Program includcconstruction and evaluation of a 

supplementation hatchery for the Yakima Basin' (Section 7.4K), additional water storage 

(7.11 A), construction of fish passage projects (Section 7.1 lB), flows to protect spawning 

and incubation (Section 7.1 lC), and production and habitat projects developed through subregional planning (Section 7,OB). I> 

The YFP, if successful, would integrate hatchery and natupal production and increase 

stock abundance, productivity, and use of available habitat. However, results would be 

amplified when coupled with environmental improvements. The cumulative effect of the 

YFP with ongoing habitat improvement projects in the Yakima River Basin would be to 

increase the chances for recovery of salmonid resources in the basin. Successful 

supplementation would be expected to accelerate the population-rebuilding process and 

ensure that improved habitat is fully used and runs are restored to harvestable levels. On a 

. 

> -- 

Chapter4/B I 
regional basis, successful supplementation and other artificial production projects, 

together with habitat and passage improvements, would help to achieve the full natural 

and hatchery production potential of the Yakima Basin and the Columbia River system in 

general. The cumulative effect would’be to amplifL the basin-wide shift toward optimum 

habitat utilization and reduced reliance on traditional hatchery production. 

Efforts to protect fish produced in supplementation facilities could have side benefits for 

wild docks. For example, management actions taken in the past to improve the survival 

of hatchery fish have not been effective for wild fish, due to differences in life history 

patterns induced by hatchery rearing. Water management decisions often have been 

influenced by the tiniing of peaks in total juvenile gbundance in the mainstem. The peaks 

in abundance frequently represent mass movement of hatchery-released fish and not 

necessarily the timing of wild juveniles. Fish produced by successful supplementation 

projects, however, should better reflect the behavioral and biological characteristics of 

wild progenitor stocks: To the extent that supplementation projects produce fish with 

characteristics similar to those of wild fish, efforts to improve survival of supplementation 

fish can be expected to benefit wild fish as well. 

If the YFP were unsuccessful for one ’or more stocks, and hatchery and/or natural 

production increases were not realized, then the rate of stock rebuildingin the Yakima 

River Basin would remain at levels consistent with ongoing habitat improvement efforts 

and other external management actions. If the YFP were unsuccessful in increasing 

natural production in the Yakima Basin, releases of artificially produced fish from the 

project would still increase the potential for adverse ecological interactions and disease 

transfer to naturally reproducing fish in the Yakima and Columbia River systems. The 

Project’s hatchery operational procedures, monitoring plan, and adaptive management 

process have been designed to identify and contain such risks in the Yakima River Basin. 

The Interactions of Hatchew and Naturallv Suawninp Salmon and Steelhead in the 

zpact Statement will address 

cumulative impacts of all Columbia River Basin hatcheries on naturally spawning stocks 

migrating in the Columbia River mainstem. As an exp erimgntal hatchery that wod 1 add 

pnly 810.000 smolts to t he nearly 200 million smolts already being releasedwto the 

Colum uver svste m. tkelyFp IS not exD ecled to have adverse cumulative effects OK 

i 

. .. !’ 

Harvest 

The cumulative impacts of the YFP and other similar projects outside the Yakima River 

Bash may be adverse for some unsupplemented wild stocks. If the YFP and other 

supplementation projects were successful, the relative proportion of fish from 

supplementation facilities in aggregate runs returning to the Columbia Basin would 

increase, and the runs would provide more harvestable fish. Under the CRFMP, catch 

ceilings in Columbia River fisheries are adjusted in response to observed total run sizes. 

supplementarion produces more fish, and thus expanded harvest opportunities, harvest 

pressure on unsupplemented wild stocks in mixed-stock fisheries might proportionally , 

- - Chapter4/m 

If 

I 

\ 
increase. Increased harvest pressure triggered by larger aggregate run sizes might 

incidentally result in overharvest of less productive stocks within stock mixtures (Walters, 

vsr Harvest -. us inP the flex ibility provid ed by the CRF", 

have been able to red-tslgnlficantlv on enbdWe River chiwok stocks 

1988). C0-h .. .. 

.If successful, the YFP would be expected to produce significant numbers of retiirning 

spring chinook annually to the aggregate upper Columbia River run. Depending on 

several factors, these increases have the potential to alter current harvest regimes. 

Contributions of adult fish from other proposed supplementation programs currently are 

unknown. Consequently, it is impossible to project the cumulative impacts of the YFP 

with other proposed supplementation projects on Columbia River runs and fisheries. 

Conceivably, the YFP and other regional supplementation projects could also result in 

positive cumulative benefits for some weaker stocks. Mixed-stock fisheries can be 

managed so as to protect such stocks. When stock-specific differences in run timing, 

geographic distribution, or other characteristics are known to exist, fisheries can be 

structured by regulatory measures (collectively termed "time-area-gear restrictions") to 

increase harvest pressure selectively on stronger stocks and to reduce pressure on weaker 

stocks. -west rates have a Is0 bee n succ&l in protectinmve 1 r

stocksuch measures currently are applied to commercial and sport fisheries, 

Cumulatively, successful supplementation production might lower the harvest rate on 

weak stocks due to a proportional dilution of weak stocks in the aggregate stock mixture. 

. .. 

If the YFP were unsuccessful for one or more stocks, and incieases in harvest benefits 

were not realized, there would be no positive or negative harvest-related cumulative 

impact on existing Yakima and Columbia River stocks. 

Estuary and Nearshore Habitat 

It has been suggested that increases in certain runs could also result in acadromous fish 

populations that cumulatively tax the carrying capacity of the Columbia River estuary and 

nearshore marine habitats. Excessively large smolt populations could have adverse 

consequences for survival and for the ecology of the estuary generally. The pro-iect 

2Deculat ri ir i o n but li tt 1 es cientific; 

we- il cmsernin? the overa 1 1 effects of hatc h &fish in the Columb ia nve r .. 

corndm and estuarv. .. 5 .. is unavawle because it would cost 

r in8 - wophistic- n 

Such hfom ion would be va luable in manaau 

; inf - i fh 

there is a riskthat ove r- ut iSzati I on of such habitat might ultimately .. Ute to the -ofsome e stocks and to reduced numbers of retua 

as well amssibly CO-Q reduced-size ad -fit to 

Chapter 4/ 
Sumve upnver mioration. There& so little accmted research on mv cauacity 

$hat fUrt her discussion of the consequences o f estuary ove r-utilization would be pure 

Con!ecture 

lhe Council has identified the need to conduct a carrying-capacity study that will include 

estuary research (Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Section 7.iA.2; 

7.1A.1, 1994). The Council has called for a preliminary evaluation oftributary, mainstem 

(including reservoirs), estuary, plume, nearshore ocean and make salmon survival, 

ecology, carrying capacity and limiting factors. The evaluation would include analysis of 

existing data, identification of critical uncertainties and research needs, and estimates of 

incremental gains from improvements in each area. 

The Council expects a draft carrying-capacity study plan based on critical uncertainties 

and research needs to be presented in earlv 1996, with a final plan duein spring of 1996. 

Currently, however, the means to obtain information on the cumulative impacts of . 

supplementation projects on carrying capacity is unknown. The carrying-capacity study 

itselfwill be extraordinarily complex andis expected to be a long-term activity: In the 

meantime, information to conduct a more intensive cumulative impacts analysis of these 

issues is unavailable. 

Ifthe YFP were unsuccessful for one or more stocks, and increases in the production of 

either artificially produced or naturally-produced juvenile salmonids emigrating from the 

Yakima River to the estuary were not realized, there would be no adverse cumulative 

impacts on the carrying capacity of the Columbia River estuary and nearshore habitat. 

.. 

I 

I 

I 

c 

/ 

4.1.2.3 No Action AlternativeImpacts on Supplem,entatisn ,. Knowledge ' 

The No Action alternative would not allow fish managers to test the principles of' 

supplementation in the Yakima basin. Knowledge about how supplementation can be 

used to reestablish naturally producing fish populations in both the Yakima basin and the 

Columbia River basin would not be gained. This lack could affect fish restoration and 

recovery goals throughout the Columbia River basin by delaying much-needed research 

into useful-fish management tools at ST time when populations are rapidly dwindling. 

Production and Harvest Impacts 

Without-supplementation and the much larger outmigrations necessary to absorb large 

losses while still leaving a substantial number -of survivo~-s, the situation in the Yakima 

River would remain essentially as it-is-today. The Yakima River sprhg chinook would 

most likely remain at current population levels without achieving their productiqn 

potential. That failure would have two causes: existing patterns of water management in 

the Yakima River Basin compromise,rearing habitat throughout much of the mainstem 

Yakima River, and more important, they substantially depress smolt-to-smolt survival in 

~ 

.. 

-. 

Chapter 4/ 

r 
the mainstem Yakima River below Sunnyside Dam. Providing better juvenile and adult 

passage though diversion dams would help, but recent Court decisions may guarantee 

that no more water than the present amount would be available for fish production. If the 

estimated current losses of outmigrating smolts are correct, predation would play a significant role in population dynamics. Small returns generate small outmigrations, which 

suffer proportionately high losses, thereby resulting in small returns and the perpetuation 

of the current, depressed cycle. In turn, low returns would continue to Sect harvest 

levels for the terminal fishery. 

Yakima River spring chinook would make no contribution to the Council's goal of 

increased production and associated harvest benefits 'fkom the Columbia Basin. Coho 

production, however, would continue at its present level under the No Action alternative. 

Constrained by passage mortality, the full natural spawning and rearing potential of spring 

chinook would not be realized in the Yakima River. The alternative of doing nothing 

would substantially delay critical learning about methods to increasenaturally reproducing 

fish populations in the Columbia or Yakima Basins. 

* 

Genetic Impacts 

Hatchery operations present some genetic risk. Consequently7 the decision not to 

construct and operate YFP facilities would, by definition, eliminate certain potential 

genetic risks. Such a decision, however, wouId increase other risks. A population with a 

chronically low escapement because of habitat loss, harvest pressure, and passage 

impediment might be at substantial risk of severe genetic driR, inbreeding, or extinction. 

A carefully designed supp1ementation.program could potentially rescue such a population. 

The Yakima chinook salmon and steelhead populations are at depressed levels, and recent 

years have seen a pronounced downward trend in the runs. It is unclear whether this is 

just a fluctuation or the start of a long-term decline. 

Another concern is the effective population'sizes of the substocks. A more complete 

picture of the genetic health of the substocks of the Yakima.RiGer Basin in terms of . 

probable effective population size is still being developed. If research should show that 

the Yakima River substocks were not in immediate danger, and harvest management could 

be guaranteed to keep them out of danger, taking no action to supplement healthy stocks 

1 

' would be a viable alternative. .. 

Under the No Action Alternative, all risks described earlier (as directly related to 

operation of the hatchery) would Got exist, but neither would any of the potential benefits. 

However. some improvements in production would likelv be realized in the near fbture. 

fkom the completion of the Phase 11 screening of irrigation canals and other habitat 

improvement work now underwayw 1 

mw undswav fixl.utedlu.du&~~~o ben -Va 

salmon_stocks. ) 

.. .. 

Chapter 4/ 'I 

.~ _-__ ..... 
Despite their depressed condition relative to historic- levels, the spring chinook stocks in 

-the Yakima basin appear to be-genetically healthy. Procedures for estimation of effective 

population size are still being' developed, but preliminary results indicate .that the effective, 

size of all three stocks is adequate for conservation of within-stock genetic diversity. 

There is no evidence to suggest that they are being affected, by gene flow from other ' 

stocks. .However, recent 'downward trends in abundance, if not reversed within the next 2 

or 3 years, could put the stocks at risk of losing genetic diversity due to low effective size. . 

As population size decreases,. there-is also a greater risk of extinction. Thus, without a 

reversal of current downward trends in abundance, the No Action alternative could pose 

,. more risk to the spring chinook than the supplementation alternative. .\- 

-The only genetic risk associated with coho producGon is the risk to other species through 

ecological interactions. Coho @Toduction under the US. v. Oregon CRFMP will exist in 

the basin no matter which alternative is adopted, so tks risk will always be present. 

Alternative 2, because it inchdes .. monitoring the ecological impacts of coho production, 

and thus allows for changes to reduce these interactions, therefore involves less risk than 

either Alternative 1 -or the No Action alternative. 

Species Interactions Impacts . 

- ..

.. 

,- 

There would be no increased risk from direct or indirect impacts, or impacts on long-tefm 

natural production on current populations of trout, steelhead, and salmon under the No 

Action Alternative. 

Transfer of Disease 

The risk'of impact on salmonid populations from the introduction of non- indigenous 

strains of pathogens would not be increased under the No Action Alternative. 

, 

4.1.3 Other Aquatic Resources ~ 

It is highly unlikely that the proposed project would result in adverse impacts on other 

aquatic organisms. A detailed analysis of the potential for wastewater to enter the Yakima 

River from the hatchery and rearing facilities to enhance algal growth indicated that the 

resulting concentrations of nitrates and phosphates would not enhance algal production. 

Further, effects would be short-lived because of rapid dilution in the Yakima River. 

Dominant invertebrates identified in the Yakima River include insects belonging to the 

orders Diptera and Trichoptera. The dipterans are mainly black flies, and the trichopterans 

are caddisflies. Both of these groups obtain their food by filter-feeding, removing 

suspended fine particulate organic matter (F'POM) from the water column. Because there 

there is no indication that these g?oups would be affected by project operations. Higher 

numbers of salmonids produced by the project could, however, result in increased 

predation of invertebrates used as food. ' 

- - 

' is no indication that FPOM concentrations would be by the proposed action, 

Chapter 4/ M 
Given that it is unlikely that the lower trophic levels of the Yakima River aquatic 

ecosystem (algae and invertebrates) would be'affected by project operations, it follows 

that there would be no reason to expect that overall ecosystem processes within the 

Yakima River would be altered by operation of facilities as part of the proposed project. 

4.1.4 Vegetation Resources 

4.1.4.1 Alternatives 1 and 2 

YFP facilities would be located in a variety of habitat types, including those that support 

riparian and wetland plant comhunities, forested zones; and agricultural areas. 

Construction of the Cle Elum.hatchery site would require clearing of approximately 6 ha 

(1 5 ac.) of vegetation for the acclimation site, the main hatchery facilities, the access road, 

the water intake structure, and the interpretive center facilities. Construction of the 

acclimation raceways and pipelines to deliver water to the racewaysat the three 

acclimation sites would also destroy existing stands of vegetation. The total disturbed 

area would-be approximately 0.4-0.8 ha (1-2 ac.) at each site. Surveys of the sites 

revealed that no unusual or rare habitat types would be affected as a result of these 

activities. Some of the proposed sites, especially along the Yakima River, have been 

previously disturbed or developed. Vegetation removal impacts would be the same for 

- both Alternatives, since no additional facilities would be constructed under Alternative 2. 

Impacts on wetlands are addressed under the FloodplainlWetlands Assessment in 

Section 4.1.1.1, and impacts on special status plant-species are addressed in Section 

4.1.6.1. 

4.1.4.2 No Action Alternative 

There would be no potential impacts on vegetation under the No Action Alternative. 

4.1.5 Wildlife 

4.1.5.1 Alternatives 1 and 2 

Constmction of the Cle'Elum hatchery facilities and acclimation site would affect wildlife 

at the site. Species observed using the area (see Section 3.4.1) would be temporahly 

displaced during the period of construction. Permanent loss of wildlife habitat would 

occur on 4-6 of 200 ha (10-15 of 500 ac.) at the site. However, the remaining acreage is 

propo'sed to be managed for wildlife mitigation for both the YFP and possible inclusion in 

the CRBFW. The facilities would be located more than 610 m (2000 rt.) away fiom the 

ponds and osprey nests at the northeast end of the site, and therefore would not affect 

them. The riparian area created by the constructed discharge channel to the oxbow system 

would increase the habitat available for riparian wildliie at the Cle Elum site. 

. Chapter_4/ M I 
The acclimation sites would be constructed' in or immediately adjacent to disturbed area: 

that, in most cases, receive unregulated use by humans.. About 1.2 ha (3 -ac.)-of potential 

wildlife habitat would be disturbed by construction' at the three acclimation sites (about 

0.4 ha (1 ac.) at each site). Because the acclimation sites would receive only seasonal use- 

'and low levels ofhuman activity, potential operational impacts on wildlife would be 

relatively minor. Wildlife impacts resulting from Alternatives 1 and 2 would be the same. 

Impacts on special stat& wildlife species are addressed in Section 4.1.6, below. 

4.1 3.2 No Action Alternative 

There wouldbe no potential impacts on wildlife under-the No Action Alternative. 

I 

,. .- 

\ 

,- 

4.1.6 Threatened, Endangered, and Special Status Species 

4.1.6.1 Alternatives 1 and.2 - 

Federal agencies are required to consult regarding effects of proposed actions on listed 

threatened and endangered species under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The 

NMFS is consulted regarding impacts on marine animals and anadromous fish, while the 

USFWS is consulted on all non-marine plants, animals, and residentfish. 

Informal consultation with NMFS was initiated in December 1992, regarding project 

effects on listed Snake River chinook salmon. Issues that NMFS raised included potential 

interactions of YFP fish with listed Snake River salmon in the Columbia River corridof 

(competition, disease transmission, and predation); the potential for returning adult YFP 

fish to stray into the Snake River basin; and the potential for taking listed adult Snake 

River salmon while collecting broodstock for this project. 

I 

It is unlikely the listed Snake River salmon would be significantly aected'by the proposed 

project. The best available information indicates that spring chinook have very low 

straying rates, so it is very unlikely they would stray into the Snake River basin. For the 

same reason, it is also very unlikely that adult Snake River salmon would be collected in 

the upper Yakima basin while collecting broodstock for the YFP. Interactions of YFP fish 

with listed Snake River salmon in the Columbia River corridor through competition, 

disease transmission, and predation are possible, but the relatively low numbers of upper 

. Yakima spring chinook being added to the system would make the probability of these 

ihteractions occurring with any fiequency very low. 

NMFS is currently completing stock status assessments for chinook, sockeye, steelhead, 

and coho salmon throughout the ranges of these species. Chinook and summer steelhead 

in the Yakima River might be indirectly and adversely affected through competition, 

predation, or disease transmission from project fish. Since sockeye and coho are extinct in 

the YakimaRiver basin, there would be no adverse impact expected on them under the 

YFP. Possible indirect risks to sockeye and coho include interactions (competition) in the 

Columbia Piver corridor and straying of YFP coho into streams other than the Yakima 

' 

, 

Chapter-4/ M I -. I- 
River. Before the BQZZ, BPA will complete consultation with NMFS on all currently 

listed anadromous fish species that might be affected by the project. Subsequent listings 

may require additional consultation. 

As discussed in Section 3.4.2, bull trout, a Mate species for which the USFWS has 

determined that listing was “wai-ranted but precluded” under the ESA, exist in various 

parts of the Yakima River Basin as does another Federal cdidate spek. the wesdoat trout. To the extent that the YFP leads to increased natural production of target 

species and their expanded use of available habitat, it is possible that spatial and temporal 

overlaps with bull -trout would increase. Increased abundance and 

distribution of target species would heighten the probability that adverse competitive 

interactions with bull d cutt hroat trout would occur. Proposed acclimation facilities 

have been sited to minimize the potential for adverse interactions, while still achieving 

natural production objectives for target species. Ifand when the USFWS should decide to 

list bull or cutth roat trout as a threatened or endangered species, the project managers 

would perform all appropriate environmental surveys and 6iological assessments.Pacific 

other caw sueqes are also bown to be in the Yaluma Bw 

In 1989, BPA prepared and submitted a BA to the USFWS, to evaluate potential effects . 

on wintering bald eagles in the Yakima River Basin as a result of construction of proposed 

YFP central and satellite facilities. BPA determined in the BA that construction of these 

facilities would have no adverse effect on wintering bald eagles @PA, 199Oa). 

Later, additional information was requested from the USFWS on the presence of Federally 

listed threatened and endangered species that may occur in the vicinity of the proposed 

acclimation sites. Six listed threatened or endangered species may be present--bald eagle, 

northern spotted owl, peregrine falcon, marbled murrelet, grizzly bear, and gray wolf. 

’Consultation with the WDFW and the USFWS is ongoing, and a new BA, summarized 

below, is be& submitted to USFWS for the following listed species, 

Bald eagle. Pacific Northwest Laboratories began surveys of wintering bald 

eagles in December 1991 for all mosed project &. No nest sites were 

observed near any of the proposed acclimation or facility sites. Project activities 

would increase numbers of anadromous fish in the Yakima River Basin, a benefit in 

terms of increased prey base for wintering bald eagles. Thus, results indicate that 

there would be no adverse effect on the bald eagle as a result of either alternative. 

However, wintering bald eagles might be disturbed at the Clark Fork acclimation 

site, through increased human activity around project facilities. 

Northern spotted owl. The USFS and WDFW were contacted regarding the 

historic occurrence of spotted owls and the distribution of suitable spotted owl 

habitat in the vicinity of the acclimation sites. Historic accounts of spotted owls at 

the Keechelus site warranted a survey of that site. A one-year calling survey 

conducted by the Pacific Northwest Laboratories in 1993 did not elicit responses 

fiom owls. The Keechelus, Cle Elum, &rth Fork TeanawaLand Jack Creek sites 

occur within the 4.9- and 4.3-km (1.8- and 2.7-mi.) median home range for 

spotted owls (WDFW 1994). However, none of the proposed sites is located 

‘ Chapter 4/ 141, 

I 

I 

-1 

I 

I 

.* 

I 

I 

I 

I 
within suitable owl habitat or contains trees suitable for spotted owl nesting. The 

Keechelus, Nort h Fork Teanaway, and Jack Creek sites are proximal to suitable 

owl habitat; however, there is a very low probability that construction would affect 

owls at these sites because mtrees suitable for use by owls would be affected by 

site development. As a precaution, =construction surveys would be conducted 

at these two sites-nc owls we re found w ithin 0.8 km (0.5 mi.): 

mu1 tation wou Idbeco moleted before co nstruction. 

Peregrine falcon. There are no suitable nesting sites (cliffs) for peregrine falcons 

near any of the project sites.,-of 1 t he prsposed hatchery 

decrease the p rev - base far th IS 

habitat 

Marbled murrelet. Surveys for marbled murrelets were not conducted at the 

project sites. Murrelets require old-growth habitat within SO km (50 mi.) of 

saltwater. The Keechelus site may be on the margin of a known murrelet territory; 

however, there is a very low probability that construction would affect murrelets at 

these sites because no suitable trees used by murrelets would be affected. As a 

precaution, construction at the Keechelus site would be timed outside the murrelet 

breeding season (April 1 to September 15), if necessaryz to minimize the potential 

for impact on murrelets in the vicinity. 

I 

.. 

- 

.. acclimation oQg.g&delv to alter the use of the area by falwns. wll nat 

and wll not disturb anv ootential nestlng 

- 

, Grizzly bear. Surveys of grizzly bear habitat in the vicinity of the acclimation 

sites were conducted during spring 1992. No definitive sightings of grizzly bear 

have been reported in the vicinity of the sites. The ,home range of the grizzly bear 

sighting near Teanaway Butte in 1989 would overlap the Cle Elum, North Fork 

Teanaway, and Jack Creek sites. However, characteristics essential to grizzly bear 

habitat (Craighead et al., 1982)--isolatioh, space, denning, and safety--would not 

be met within the Cle Elum site. Also, although riparian and upland vegetation 

would provide forage for @y bears at these 

typified by species that constitute primary forage of @y bears (i.e., 

huckleberries, kinnickinnick, sedges) (Servheen, 1992). The potential for grizzly 

bears to use a of these fhree sites is likely limited. 

sites, of the sites is 

Gray wolf. Pacific Northwest Laboratories conducted surveys of gray wolf 

habitat in the vicinity-of the proposed project facilities during spring 1992. USFS 

also conducted surveys in the vicinity of the Cle Elum,site in 1989 and 1990. 

Responses were received during the USFS surveys in the vicinity of Matthews 

Creek, about 6.4 km (4 mi.) northwest of Jack Creek. An unconfirmed siting of a 

gfay wolf was reported for the vicinity of the North Fork of the Teanaway River 

during 1-992. One adult and twb juvenile gray wolves were confirmed about 

3.2 km (2 mi.) from the proposed Keechelus site during 1992. More recent 

surveys have not been completed. The construction of the facilities would only 

temporarily alter gray wolfhabitat, and would not affect denning or wolf prey 

base. .' 0 

Chapter 41 148 
Specific surveys for the Federal candidate j&h and wildlife species were not conducted at 

each site; however, during field reconnaissance, none of the'species or signs of them were 

observed. The proposed activities are not anticipated to affect Federal or state monitor or 

candidate *species. The potential for imDacts on bull trout have been minimize$ 

car--Proposed acclmn facw and macts gIbOther ccies are not 

. construction and/or a biologist would be on site to monitor construction of the facilities. 

I 

.L. 

.. .. .. . .. If necessary, sites would be resurveyed prior to 

Surveys were conducted for Hoover's tauschia, a Federal candidate plant species, and for 

the state-listed threatened plant species at suitable-sites during May and June 1992. None 

were found. Proposed activities are not anticipated to affect these species. 

4.1.6.2 No Action Alternative 

No adverse impacts are expected on threatened and endangered species under the No - 

Action Alternative. However, there would be no potential benefits to bald eagles fkom 

increased foraging opportunities resulting fkom increased numbers of adult fish. Ongoing 

recovery planning for the listed species would qontinue, and proposed species would 

continue to be reviewed and listed as warranted. . 

- 

.. 

4.1.7 Air Quality and Noise 

4.1.7.1 Air Quality 

Building the fish hatchery and satellite facilities proposed under either alternative would 

result in periodic short-term local increases in the vehicle exhaust emissions of vehicle . 

exhaust associated with site clearing and excavation. Dust could also be generated. Site 

clearing would be minimized to reduce the potential for these impacts. Major earthmo&g 

and heavy construction activities would be completed in 4 to 6 months. Completion of 

construction and the operation of facilities should have negligible effects on local air 

quality, and air quality standards would not be exceeded. No significant health-related air 

pollution problems are anticipated to result fiom construction activities. 1 

- 

Operation of the facilities proposed under either alternative would continue air pollutant 

emissions primarily associated with vehicle exhaust (carbon monoxide, volatile organic 

compounds, nitrogen oxides, sulfbr oxides, and particulate matter). However, emissions 

would be minor, and no significant impacts on air quality of the surrounding region are 

anticipated. 

There would be no potential impacts on air resources under the No Action Alternative. 

4.1.7.2 Noise 

The effect of Alternatives 1 and 2 on noise levels would be largely lited to the 

construction phase. The use of heavy equipment during site preparation and construction 

Chapter 4/ 649 
/. 

FACILITY 

Cle Elm Hatchery (upper Yakima 

spring chinook) " 

Acclimation sites (upper Yakima . 

spring chinook - 3 sites) 

Total construction Cost 

Engineering/Legal/Administration 

(25% of total] 

-- 

COST 

12800 

2500 

15300 

3825 

might temporarily produce elevated noise levels, but these would not affect residential 

areas. For most sites, construction impacts on wildlife would be minimal because of the 

lack of noise-sensitive species in the vicinity of the proposed sites. Noise effects during 

operation of the proposed facilities would be the result of occasional traffic to and from 

facilities, and from the operation of electrical pumps at some sites. Because activities at 

the proposed facilities would be low in intensity, these impacts would be minimal and not 

exceed State of Washington noise guidelines. 

No noise impacts would result from the No Action Alternative. 

4.1.8' Socioeconomics 

Land Acquisition 

Grand total cost a 

An economic impact analysis was conducted in order to show the total employment and 

income-impacts that would result from direct expenditures made during various stages of 

YFP development and operation. The study prepared as part of the Operating Plan for th 

project (Mack et al., 1989))was updated in 1995 (Mack and Robison, 1995) to reflect the 

changes made to the proposed project. Economic expenditures arising from project 

construction, operations and maintenance, monitoring and evaluation, and harvest were 

analyzed; impacts were then projected from 1996 to the project maturity year of 2010. 

Yakima spring chinook supplementation and evaluation comprised Alternative 1; coho 

monitoring and evaluation activities were added to Alternative 1 to comprise Alternative 

2. This section reviews the analytic i procedures, assumptions and findings of the impact 

analysis. 

- ._~ 

1450 

20575 

4.1.8.1 Analytical Procedures 

The analysis used BPA cost estimates for project activities to estimate the employment 

and income impacts of both initial and subsequent rounds of spending (see Tables 4.3 and 

. 4.4). For initial spending, models were developed that allocated direct expenditures by 

function for specific years. 

Table 4.3 Estimates' of Construction Costs for 

Bath- 'ves for the YFP (in 

' thousands of dollars) 

-. - . -. 

~~ 

Chapter4/65p ' . 

., 

I 

/ 
I I 

Monitoring and Evaluation 

Total Annual Cost 

The USFS's IMPLAN input-output economic model was used to estimate the secondary 

effects upon the economy when direct expenditures cause additional rounds of economic 

activity'in an economy. The IMPLAN model also used the direct expenditures to estimate 

the induced impacts which would result when the project expenditures were respent in the 

study area. The sum of direct expenditures plus indirect impacts plus induced impacts 

equaled total impacts, which were measured as potential increases in jobs and income. 

The total impacts were then added to a baseline model, a projected portrayal of the 

economy of the impact area from 1995 to 2010 as it would have developed without the 

project. The baseline model was developed around the county level projections made by 

the Regional Economic Information System, Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. 

Department of Commerce. 

~ 

1500 2000 

1780 2280 ~ 

The designated two-county impact area was comprised of Yakima and Kittitas counties, 

since all structures and activities for the two alternatives would be situated within this 

area, Although some project expenditures and impacts would occur outside the study 

area, the vast majority would occur within it. Special consideration was made of the 

impacts upon the Yakama Reservation, an area comprising almost two-thirds of Yakima 

County. The YIN would be the Lead Agency for managing operations and maintenance 

as'well as monitoring and evaluation activities. As the YIN is also expected to account for 

' half of the harvest of fish from the project, it is appropriate to separate the effects on the 

Yakama Reservation from the overall effects on the Yakima-Kittitas County areas. 

The modeling was also broken down by 'activities into construction, operations and 

maintenance, monitoring and evaluation, and harvest. Figure 4.1 shows how the 

individual activities fit into the time lines of the project lifetime. 

. 

.- 

Chapter 4/ 151 
2 

0 

2 0 

0 

N 

F) 

0 

0 

N 

N 

0 

0 

N 

F 

0 

0 

N 

r 

0 

0 

N 

a 

a 

a 

hl 

a 

Q: 

Q: 

c 

Q: 

Q: 

a 

r 

fi 

Q: 

Q: 

.- 

(E 

m 

a 

r 

A 

h 

a 

a 
4.1.8.2 Assumptions Behind Direct Expenditure Models 

Construction 

BPA was the primary source for -construction costs in aggregate. Aggregated costs were 

broken down into 22 industrial sectors according to expenditures made on, similar 

hatchery-related constpxtion over the last decade. Twenty-five percent of total 

. construction costs were allocated to Engineering, Legal, and Administrative activities. 

Local capacity factors were developed, based upon the scenario that the construction 

contract would be awarded to an out-of-area contractor. A 1-year construction period 

(June 1996 to May 1997) was assumed. dthough some acclimation sites would be built 

later in 1997, their expenditures would be minor compared to the bulk of 1996 

expenditures. 

Operations and Maintenance 

Detailed operations and maintenance expenditures were obtained fiom BPA and 

disaggregated into seven sectors based upon operations and maintenance expenditures of 

similar projects. It was assumed that operations and maintenance expenditures begin upon 

completion of construciion. The YIN would be the lead agency for operations and 

maintenance of the facilities. 

Monitoring and Evaluation 

Aggregated monitoring and evaluation costs obtained from BPA-were broken down into 

line-item expenditures on a basis of cost allocations recorded in similar programs over the 

past decade. Historically, a significant portion of monitoring and evaluation contracts was 

issued to consultants residing outside the region. Accordingly, impacts were generated by 

these consultants' in-region expenditures plus the expenditures of in-region monitoring 

and evaluation staff and contractors. Monitoring and evaluation expenditures for 

Alternative 1 were assumed to begin in 1999, reach their maturity level by 2000, and 

continue through 2010. Monitoring and-evaluation activity by in-region-staff was .assumed 

to displace consultant acthities as the activities proceeded. For Alternative 2, monitoring 

and evaluation activities were assumed to begin in 1996 and continue through 2010. 

. 

. 

Harvest Expenditures 

The harvest model, which apportioned harvestable fish by harvest methods and then into 

expenditures, was based upon a number of assumptions: (1) a 50/50 Native American to 

recreational split; (2) an 80/20 recreational boat/ bank angler split; (3) catch rates of ' 

.19/.09/2.2 salmon per trip for boat/bank/native anglers, respectively; and (4) 50 percent 

of recreational anglers coming from outside the study region. Expenditures per trip was 

an eclectic compilation of findings from a number of parallel studies. It was assumed that 

the spring chinook harvest would begin in 2004. No coho harvest was attributed to the 

YFP. 
I. 

~. 

Table 4.6 Summary of Annual Income Impacts in Thousands of 1995 Dollars for 

Alternatives 1 and 2, for the Two-county Impact Area I 

Year Alternative Baseline Change.over. % Change over 

Employment Baseline Baseline .. .. 

- i9964997: _. : . I.. - 1 . .. .I... . -. - 1 p3;245 ' . . 386 ,:: .: j . ' '0.32% . .&a :. . '-. .. . ' 

* 1gp6-xqj71 - :_, ..-_ . 2 . .' .- .. , 119,245 . .. I . , ., . . 0.34% 

: 29;l.O - :- -- 1 ,'. -. . 124,426 -' 76 .. ' -- 0.06% . . 

-.-: . 201:() -.! 2 I : 1, 124,426 .. ,,76. 1 .. .. . 0.06% - 

' ~ Year 

3996-I997 

1996-:199? 

.' 20-1.0 -. - 

-. . 20:10 . : 

In the construction year, Alternative 1 would generate annually $10,686,000 of additional 

earnings, &d 386 new jobs. When coho moriitoring and evaluation activities, concomitant 

with the spring chinook construction activities, are added to the impacts for the 

construction activities, the total construction year effects are 400 new jobs and 

potential sub-sector impacts of the construction period. The sectors with the greatest 

impacts would be construction and services. Although the greatest income and 

employment effects ($3,837,000 and 145 jobs) would occur in the construction sector, the 

second greatest income and emploment changes would accrue to the service sector in the 

form of $2,451,000 of new income and 105 additional jobs. Because the service sector 

requires more employment per dollar of output, more new jobs would be generated by the 

service sector per dollar of income. 

. 

$1 1,229,000 in additional annual income. Not shown in these summary tables are I 

,. 

Alternative ' . Baseline . Change over . % Change over 

Employment Baseline . Baseline 

1. . ,I' :... '5,164;534. . , 10,686. . -:. 0.21% - 2 '. f . 5,1.64,534 . .'$1,y& , - .. 0.22% 

".1 . . -1 - 5,73%,259 .. ; ~ . --:-.. z,og5.. . . ' . 1 ;., - 0,04% 

I . : 2; . ', .. 5y731,259 . : - .j;-)Ss. , . . _I ~ O:'a4% 

. 

I 

Chapter 4/ 154 ' I 
Projected annual results for the 2004-2010 maturity period are also summarized in Tables 

4.5 and 4.6. These total impacts are comprised of the impacts of 0 & M, monitoring and 

evaluation, and harvest expenditures. In 2004, the beginning of thematurity period, the 

project would produce annual impacts of $2,085,000 in income and 76 jobs. &i compared 

to the construction period expenditures, maturity period expenditures have relatively more 

impact on the service and trade sectok 

Year 

1996-1997 

Taken on a basis of the impact area as a whole, even the largest of these impacts (for the 

1997 construction year) amount to a maximum of one-third of a percent of either total 

employment or total income for the area. However, the impacts upon the Native 

American population of the area ate considerable. Table 4.7 details the estimated impacts 

upon the Native American population in the construction and the maturity period. I 

,Employment Income 

26 $754: 100 i 

Table 4.7 Summary of Annual Income and ’ 

Employment Impacts upon the Native 

American Population, in Jobs and 

Thousands of 1995 Dollars 

.\ 

The considerable impacts upon Native American employment and income in the maturity 

period stem from the role of the YIN as Lead Agency in operations, maintenance, 

monitoring, and evaluation activities. In summary, the employment impacts upon this 

relatively small population (8420) and labor force (3 886) are significant. 

The study also indicates th’e following: 

e 

e, 

The project would increase employment in an area that generally suffers from high 

unemployment and youth out-migration. 

The project would stimulate some entrepreneurial activities in the study area. 

There would be no construction boom and bust, but a slight increase in jobs and 

income relative to the size of the study area economy. 

The new jobs would bring a mixed quality of employment to the region: highincome employment would be associated with construction, -operations and 

maintenance, and experimentation and monitoring, while lower income 

employment would stem from service sector and trade activities during the harvest 

period. 

The project would aid in the structural evolution of the study area’s economy. 

Chapter 41 

-- I 
Even during the construction phase, the impacts would represent less than 1% of 

total area employment and income; there would be less than a 3% change in these 

variables for the construction sector itself 

Although the impacts would be small relative to the two-county study area, the 

impacts would be far more significant to the Yakama Indian Reservation,. a subarea of low incomes and high unemployment rates. 

4.4.9 Recreation Resources 

4.1i9.1 Alternatives1 'and 2 

ResideuLTrout Fishery 

Potential impacts on resident trout are discussed under in Section 4.1 1, under Species 

Interactions. Since it appears that the YkP might affect resident trout to some extent, it 

is likely that the resident trout fishery would also be affected. Potential impacts include 

reduced size, reduced catch rates, and reduced angler satisfaction. 

The risk of impacts on the resident trout fishery (particularly in the upper Yakima River) 

would be similar for both alternatives, since no additional coho would be released under 

Alternative 2. Also, coho released under the current YIN program are being released only 

in the lower Yakima River, outside the primary area of the dent trout fishery. 

Successfbl supplementation of Upper Yakima spring chinook would increase the rate at 

which the natural carrying capacity of the river in areas of species overlap would be 

reached or exceeded. Consequently, the likelihood would increase of adverse ecological 

and genetic interactions that could affect positive attributes of the a trout fishery. - - 

The resident trout fishery in the upper Yakima River is managed under year-round catch- 

, and-release and selective fishery regulations (retention of caught fish is prohibited; only 

artificial flies or lures-with a barbless hook are allowed). If returns of YFI? fishwere to 

jeopardize this fishery seriously, additional resource protection measures might be applied. 

These might include closing areas now open to fishing, imposing restrictions or reducing 

the time periods open to angling. Project managers would use the YFI? adaptive 

management process (see3ection 2.2, Adaptive Management) to identifjr unforeseen and 

unacceptable advprse impacts on resident trout populations and associated fishery 

attributes. As a part of that process, potential adjustments in YFP objectives and 

strategies which might reduce such impacts to acceptable levels would be considered, and 

adjustments would be made as appropriate. 

. 

. 

Although there is a risk of adverse impacts on the ~-esde.nt trout fishery from successfbl 

supplementation under the YFP, positive impacts on resident trout might occur. If 

successfbl supplementation result4 in increased abundance of spring chinook, it is 

possible that resident trout populations would benefit from the increased prey base 

afforded by increased abundance of chinook fry or smolts. To the extent that successfbl 

supplementation results in positive impacts on resident trout populations, the 

~ 

7 

- 

I 4 

I, ~ 

I" 

I 

I 

I 
trout fishery might also benefit. Such benefits might include increased trout size and 

abundance, increased catch rates, and increased angler satisfaction. 

Esthetics and Visual Resources 

Since most of the project facility sites are located in natural-appearing settings, the . 

facilities would alter the visual settings of the sites. Except for the Cle Elum hatchery, 

however, the facilities would be on a small scale, and several of them would be located 

near diversion dams, fish screens, and other man-made facilities. The Keechelus Dam site 

is located in a scenic highway corridor designated by the WDOT, but the site would be 

overshadowed by the dam and screened fiom the highway by trees: The Easton site 

, options are also located in the scenic highway corridor, but both sites have been 

previously disturbed. The Easton gravel pond site is located next to the fieeway, but has 

been highly disturbed by the asphalt batch plant and excavation of gravel, and is screened 

fiom the highway by trees,- The Easton Dam site is surrounded by the diversion dam, fish 

screens, railroad, and a gravel accessioad. It is not visible fiom the fieeway. The.visua1 

impacts of the sites would be mitigated by facility design, minimizing ground and plant 

disturbance during construction, and providing vegetative screening around the facilities. 

Other Recreational Resources 

The project facilities are not located near, nor would they affect, any National Trails, 

Wilderness areas, state-designated parks, or natural areas. The Cle Elum hatcEery facility, 

mh Fork Te- and Jack Creek acclimation site might displace some dispersed 

recreational and hunting use. The remaining sites identified for facilities currently have 

little or no recreational use. 

.. acts on winter snowmobihg could occur at the Jack Creek and North Fork Teanaway 

to the Jack Cree k siter and both the Nort h Fo rk Tea n away bad a naYSFS Road 

<.er 

ites because the Nort h Fomk Tea naw wou Id need to b e gbwed kx 

h h 1 Curre nl ty+ 

+d wlth the -Gke-Ect. to develoo an accw o h Fork Teanaway s' ites that 

District Recreat ioml Director ha 

lan for the Jack Creek and Nort 

reation use. The USFS 

ted with local snowmob ile Prow - an d has wuo sed that the prole C t construct 3 

lowed wh Fork Team 

e roads are de

r 

as 

e 

comlzaible with 

the 

winter 

Jack Creekate. 

rec 

and create a snowmob 4 

BPA is discussing the possibility of allowing the Mountains to Sound Greenway 

Association to construct a trail that would cross the Cle Elum site on the south side of the . 

river. The trail would connect the John Wayne Trail with a new trail to Roslyn. ~ 

Chapter-4/ d52 

I, -- 
Pump stations and outlet pipes on the banks of the river are the only in-river structures 

proposed as part of this project. Therefore, impacts on recreational boaters would be 

limited to minor, temporary construction activities. 

Interpretive facilities are being planned for the Cle Elum site in conjunction with a &oup 

of interested agencies including the U.S. Department of Agriculture - Forest Service and 

the City of Cle Elum. The interpretive information would contribute to public education 

as to how the facilities work and their contribution to fishery resources. A public use 

policy for the undeveloped portions of the site would be initiated as a part of the wildlife 

management plan. Plans for minimizing impacts on recreational resources at the Jack 

Creek site would be developed in consultation with the landowners. 

4.1.9.2- No Action Alternative 

, 

Potential impacts on the resident trout fishery from NO Action would depend on 

management policies implemented in the Yakima River Basin. Recreational opportunities 

for anadromous sport fishing might be affected if-the stocks continued to decline. Visual 

.- resources would not be affected, because no supplementation facilities would be built and 

operated. 

4.1 .I 0 Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources .. 

Archaeological, historical, and cultural resources are .protected through a number of 

Federal regtilations, including the National Historic Preservation.Act, the Archaeological 

Resources-Protection Act, and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. (See Section 

5 -7.) These regulations safeguard-historical and archaeological resources from damage or 

removal from Federal lands, and ensure that Federal activities do not impair access to Native Pimerican religious sites. 'In addition, theNationa1 Historic Preservation Act requires 

that the effects of any Federal or Federally assisted undertaking affecting cultural, historic 

or prehistoiic resource be evaluated before project inception. 

4.1.10.1, Alternatives 1 and 2 

. 

,. 

-. )I 

An analysis of potential impacts at the proposed facility sites for both alternatives resulted 

in the following conclusions: 

~ No impacts would occur on cultural resources at the Cle Elum, Easton, or Clark Flat 

sites, , 

0 Prehistoric lithic materials were found in one area at t he Jack Creek site. 'If pwible, 

this area wou Id be avo ided in sitin. theacclimat ion facilities. If avoida nce 1s not 

Tnbe and SHPO ws ne 

Potentially eliible for NRHP 1istingIfthissitected -el fh or t q 

acclimation facilities. extens've 1 co n su 1 t;b tiin and mitigation would be required 

' 

.. 

rther testing would be condu C ted to determ' IneNRHP el igibility? and the 

0 he extensive Drehisto ric cultural maten 'als at th e North Fo rk Teawwav s ite are 

Chapter4/ ' '' 

. 
0 The pony-truss bridge at the alternate Keechelus acclimation siteis potentially 

eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Should the need arise to exceed the posted 

tonnage (10 tons) or to replace or alter the bridge, a deterhination of eligibility for 

the NRHP would be prepared for the bridge, or alternative access would be \ 

* explored. - 

If, after construction has started, BPA should discover the project would have an effect on 

a previously unidentified but eligible property, BPA would hlfill its responsibilities under 

36 CFR 800 of the National Historic Preservation Act by suspending work in the area of 

the impact, consulting with the SHPO and other involved agencies to assess the 

significance of the resource, and developing mitigation measures if warranted. Should 

human remains be discovered, work would stop, and the SHPO and the YIN would be 

notified. If human remains are discovered on Federal or Indian land, work must be 

suspended for a minimum of 30 days, as required by the Native American Graves 

Protection Act (1 99 l), and appropriate mitigation measures adopted. 

4.1 .I 0.2 No Action Alternative 

No impacts on cultural resources are expected from the No Action Alternative. 

4.1 .I 1 Resource Management 

The fisheries, land use, and water management actions described in Sections 3.9.1,3.9.2, 

and 3.9.3 would not change under the YFP. The state and Federal fisheries agencies and 

the YIN are responsible for anadromous fish habitat protection. The authorities for 

habitat protection in the Yakima River Basin include the YIN Treaty-reserved rights, and 

state and Federal laws and regulations. The basic laws that govern protection of fisheries 

habitat are adopted by either the Washington state legislature or the US Congress. 

Existing laws and regulations dealing with habitat protection will not be modified by the 

YFP, nor will the YFP create new regulations. 

- 

W1M-B WOUMB 3s authorities under the Northwest Power Act to 

blement the project 1 fan act'on i a kernatimdmt e hex ecord of Decisiatl, 

%ion lO(e) of the Act requ ir es t h at " [ n 10th ingin this wt s hall be co nstrued to affec_ts, r 

any tre 1 n ri streatyo f 1855. the Yakarna 

wn mshinuhts in the project a rea, 

.. .. 

.. rrcc 

v, Oregon - ID. Or. Cause NO. 68-53 1 - the Yakama Nation is making releases o f coho in thg 

1 

Yakima Bas in. Wh il e BPA is not a Dartv to U 8. v. Oregon or the CRFMP. it is 

1 nn h h 

r. ated that these same fish would be the subject of stud ies hnded bv BPA unde r 

Neither the shdies no r the hd ing would in anv wav alter the Yaba's Treatv nghu 

A's oldgations under the Northwest Power Act. .. 

Chapter 4/ 159 . I 

\ 
4.1 .I 1 .I Alternatives 1 and 2 

Land Use Policies, Plans, and Procedures 

Construction and operation of the proposed *P facilities under either alternative .would 

have minor impacts on existing land uses. Some impacts on dispersed recreation would 

occur at the Cle Elum ~ North Fork Teanaway. and Jack Creek sites (see Section 4.1.9.1). 

Each acclimation site would use less than 0.8 ha (2 ac.) of land (including access roads). 

Consistency with local land use plans is addressed in Section 5.2, and farmlands are 

addressed in Section 5.10 of this EIS. 

- - 

[ 

Solid Waste and Hazardous Materials 

.I ' 

Solid Waste ' 

Each YFP facility is anticipated to generate solid waste requiring disposal. For the 

purposes of this analysis, three types of solid waste were considered: refuse generated 

by the residences at the Cle Elum hatchery facility, refuse resulting from daily facility 

operations, and fish carcasses resulting from seasonal fish prdcessing operations. The 

volume of waste generated by the residences would depend on the number of persons 

in each household, and could vary seasonally. Based on data from a number of rural 

counties in Washington State, a generation rate of between 1.8 and 2.7 kilograms (kg) 

(4 and 6 pounds (lb.)) per person per day can be used to estimate the amount of refuse 

generated. Actual refuse generation would be likely to vary somewhat from this 

estimate. The amount of solid waste generated by employees depends on the number . 

of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff employed at each facility, and would vary seasonally 

with changing operations at the hatcheries. The amount of this waste could range 

from 2.7 to as much as 3.2 kg_(3 to as much as 7 lb.) per day per FTE employed. It is 

anticipated that approximately 13.4 metric tons (14.8 short tons) of fish carcasses 

would be generated annually at the Cle Elum hatchery facility under either alternative. 

Solid waste collection, transport, and disposal services are available for the Cle Elum 

hatchery facility from Waste Management of Ellensburg. Wastes would be transferred 

to a baliig operation near Ellensburg and disposed of at a landfill 

27 km (17 mi.) east of Ellensburg. For the disposal of fish carcasses, specific disposal 

arrangemenis would be required annually. Fish carcasses could also potentially be 

incorporated into local composting programs or used as fertilizer, rather than disposed 

of by conventional means. Contracts would be arranged with local solid waste 

disposal companies for disposal of the small amounts of wastes generated at the other 

project facilities. 

. 

Facility operation would also generate domestic sewage. Septic tanks and drainfields 

would be constructed for each residence and main buildings to dispose of domestic 

sewage. Contents of the septic tanks would be periodically pumped out by a licensed 

contractor and disposed of at a local sewage treatment plant. 

' 

Chapter 4/ 660 %- 

c 

__ - ., 
Routine facility operations would result in generation of fish feces and unconsumed 

fish food. Most of these fish wastes would settle to the bottom of the rearing tanks 

and raceways; with a small percentage remaining suspendid and discharged. Through 

routine cleaning practices, waste products accumulating in rearing structures would be 

pumped to the facility settling basins. The basins would detain raceway cleaning 

effluent and allow fish wastes to settle out of the water column. Wastes that 

accumulate in the settling basins would undergo biological degradation, but might 

require periodic removal and disposal every 5 to 10 years. This waste material might 

be suitable for agricultural fertilizer, and could be offered to local farms or applied to 

facility land. It could also be placed in a certified landfill. 

The project managers would develop and implement a recycling policy, which would 

clearly state the type and quantities of products to be procurea by the program or 

facilities. In addition, source separation of recyclable products would be practiced 

onsite by using separate containers for aluminum, glass, paper, and other recyclable 

materials. The appropriate recycling or solid waste collection company would then be 

contacted for materials pickup. 

Hazardous Materials and Waste 

Normal facility operation under both alternatives might require the use of several 

chemicals classified as medicines for fish disease prevention and control. These . 

substances include fish disease chemotherapeutants such as acetic acid, Diquat, Epsom 

salts, formalin (a saturated formaldehyde solution), iodophor (Betadine, Wescodyne, 

Argentyne), potassium permanganate, quaternary ammonium compounds,’ and sodium 

chloride and antibiotics such as oxytetracycline HCl (Terramycine) and oremetroprim 

(Romet). Several of these chemicals can be applied by a licensed operator only. 

Tricaine methane sulfonate (MS-222), a fish anesthetic, and chlorine (sodium - 

hypochlorite or HTH) also are likely to be used-at project facilities, MS-222 is approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and is used primarily during 

transport of fish. MS-222 would be used in accordance with FDA requirements to 

calm fish and reduce stress during their transport fkom-the central or satellite fac;ility to 

the acclimation facility. Chlorine is likely to be used on a limited basis, primarily for 

disinfecting equipment. 

Of the specific materials identified above, oply formalin is considered a potentially 

dangerous waste. The formalin would probably be considered a listed hazardouswaste as formaldehyde and classified as a U122, EHW (extremely hazardous waste) 

dangerous waste. Project facilities must comply with the dangerous waste generator 

requirements of WAC 173-303-070(8) if it becomes necessary to dispose of more than 

1 kg (2.2 lb.) of formaldehyde at one time. Because the formalin is expected to be 

used up by the facility during operations, the facility is not expected to be a dangerous 

waste generator. 

* 

. 

Chapter 4/ 161 ‘I 
-. 

Because of their associated hazard, several of the compounds. identified above are 

listed in 40 CFR 302 as requiring a report to be filed with the National Response 

Center within 24 hours if a spill above a certain amount'(or reportable quantity) 

occurs. These compounds and their repohable- quantities are listed below: ~ . 

Comuound Reportable Ouantitv 

.- 2268 kg (5,000 lb.) 

formalin (formaldehyde) 45.4 kg (100 Ib.) 

potassium permanganate - ' '45.4 kg(100 lb.) 

.. - acetic acid 

Diquat .. '--453.6 kg (1,000 lb.) 

_. .. 

The amount ofthese chemicals present at any of the facilities at any one time is 

expected to be below these ~ -. reportable- quantities, except for formalin. 

Chemicals applied in project facilities would be handled, applied, and disposed of in 

accordance-with FDA, EPA, and the WDOE regulations. Consequently, project . 

managers do not anticipate adverse environmental effects fi-om chemical use at project 

facilities. 

Facility operations would not likely require the use of herbicides and pesticides for 

terrestrial applications., Mechanical eradication of nuisance species (for example, 

weeds,, mice) is preferred; only in extreme cases would pesticides be used.- If use of 

such a herbicide or pesticide were required at the facilities; a readily available EPAapproved product (for example, Monsanfo's Roundupm) would be used. The use, 

. - storage, and disposal .of these products and their- containers would be in accordance 

with EPA or FDA regulations and the instructions on the product labels. 

. .' .. 

.. 

' 

* 

-, 

Limited use of lubricant oils and greases is expected to occur at the facilities. Use of 

these materials would be limited to maintenance of pumps and other moving equipment that might need to be lubricated periodically. These materials would be stored in 

an area such-as a- storage locker for flammable materials, away from the hatchery 

contracted out and would not occur onsite. Thus, it is not expected that oil and/or 

gease.would;have an adverse effect at any of the facility sites. 

- . ' . .waters and storm drains. .'Maintenance of vehicles used by the facility would be 

4.1 .I 1.2 .No Action Alternative 

Land use and resource management policies would not be expected to change in the 

Yakima River Basin as a result of the No Action Alternative. State and Federal fisheries 

agencies and the YIN are currently involved'in implementation of several habitat 

protection lam and .regulations. . It should be noted that,. while implementation of these 

laws and regulations may have beeiuneven over recent years, they.pre-date the YFP and 

implementation would not be avoided,if the YFP is not constructed. Fisheries habitat 

protection laws include the following: Water Resources Act of 1971, Revised Code of 

-Washington (RCW) 90.54; Hydraulic Approval Act, RCW 7520; Minimum Water Flows 

.. 

I .. 

-. -. 

Chapter 4/-162 ', I 
and Levels, RCW 90.22; RCW 90.03.247; and RCW 90.03.345. Federal laws which may 

apply include: Endangered Species Act of 1973; Clean Water Act; Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act; National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; and Section 10 of Rivers 

and Harbors Act of 1886. 

Land uses at the proposed facility sites would not change under the No Action 

Alternative. The proposed facilities would not be built, and the sites would remain in their 

current condition unless developed in-the future. No generation of solid or hazardous 

waste or use of hazardous materials would result under the No Action Alternative. 

' 

.4.2 Mitigation Measures 

4.2.1 Management of Biological and Ecological Risk 

The biological and ecological effects of the YFP or any other supplementation. program 

are a fbnction not only of the direct hazard (e.g., straying, +disease transmission, 

competition), but also of the entire risk management structure of the project. Key 

elements of the risk management structure are a monitoring program and an adaptive 

management process for responding to results from the monitoring. ,While an effective 

risk management structure cannot promise to avoid fully all possible risks posed by a 

project, it would significantly reduce the intensity and duration of impacts. 

The YFP has a well developed risk management structure,-described in Section 2.2. The 

operation of the project according to the objectives developed for the project. The 

monitoring plans described in Sections 2.3.3 and 2.4.3.2 will provide feedback for the 

adaptive management process. 

I risk analyses presented in Section 4.1.2.1 describe the potentialrisks arising from 

4.2.2 Specific Mitigation Measures c 

The mitigation measures below have been identified by the various resource specialists 

working on this EIS; the impact analyses are based on implementation of these measures. 

If an action alternative should be selected for the YFP, BPA would detail in the Record of 

Decision which of these measures would be implemented. BPA and the project managers 

would work with the regulating agencies and affected parties to develop detailed plans for 

implementing these or similar measures. All measures apply to both Alternatives 1 and 2, 

unless otherwise specified. See also discussions under regulatory compliance in Chapter 

5. 

' Water withdrawals from the Yakima River for the Cle Elum hatchery would be 

reduced during periods of river flow less than 350 cfs (9.8 m3s). 

I- 

- Surface water withdrawals would be nonconsumptive; water would be returned to 

the source stream or river after it flows through the facility. BPA or the project 

managers would apply for a permit for nonconsumptive appropriation of surface 

Chapte; 41 
, 

e 

e 

‘a 

‘e 

waters fiom the VOE for each of the sites, and comply with the conditions of 

the permits. 

E-the alternative Keechelus acclimation site were used, the possibility of using 

water piped directly fi-om the reservoir would- be explored to avoid fbrther 

dewatering of the Yakima River during extreme low flow’periods whenthe 

reseryoir is being refilled. 

Project managers would implement measures to ensure that project facility construction and operation do not adversely affect surface or groundwater quality, 

including treatment of runoff fi-om access roads and other imperirious surfaces. 

County authorities and the Federal Emergency Management Agency would be 

contacted to ensure that any new construction would not alter floodplain-= 

floodwav characteristics or chanpel flow capacity. Certain design restrictions or 

limitations may apply. If facilities were located within-the floodplain, they would 

be designed to withstand flooding. Construction impacts within the 100-year 

floodplain would be mitigated’by ensuring that constnktion would not raise the 

expected level of the 1 00-year flood, and would include minimal use of impervious , 

surfaces. 

The loss of 0.1 ha (0.24 ac.) of riparian wetland at the Cle Elum hatchery site 

would be mitigated by constructing-0.2 ha (0.54 ac. or 1,000 lineal feet) of outflow 

channel to the oxbow system with, 0.14 ha (0.34 aq.) of fi-inging riparian emergent 

wetland, and by constructing-an additional 0.06 ha (0.14 ac:] of isolated emergent 

wetland. . , 

To avoid impacts on wetlands at-acclimation sites, delineations would be 

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

Information fi-om delineation surveys would be used during final design to develop 

mitigation measures, .if necessary, to ensure that the project would result in no net 

loss of wetlands. Reiriew and-concurrence through the Corps permit processwould be completed as necessary before site development, Disturbance of 

wetlands and buffers from construction activities would be avoided whenever 

possible. E disturbance could not be avoided, the area of disturbance would be 

minimized to the extent. practicable. Upon completion of construction; excavated 

areas would be backfilled, and disturbed land restored to its previousjondition 

SI 

.A 

.. 

, 

11. 

‘ 

. - 

wherever possible. .- I. 

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

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

monitoring plan can be developed and implemented. 

The possible introduction of non-indigenous strains of pathogenic organisms under 

either alternative would be minimized by stringent inspection and quarantine 

procedures. 

AI1 phases of artificial propagation, fish transfers, and supplementation procedures 

for both Alternatives 1 and 2 would follow the fish health policy documented in \ 
.- 

e 

e 

e 

e 

e 

e 

e 

e 

Policies qnd Procedures for Columbia Basin Anadromous Salmonid Hatcheries 

(MOT, 1994). Minimal use oFsurface water, rigorous sanitation, and use of 

disinfection procedures combined with optimum husbandry, isolation and 

quarantine practices, and a strong diagnostic and therapeutic program would be 

incorporated into the project operations. 

Specific recommendations for wildlife mitigation at the Cle Elum hatchery site 

have been prepared as a result of consultations with the WDFW (Redtow, 1994) 

and the YIN, and would be reviewed for applicability and modified as necessary 

’ for implementation during site development. Mitigation plans for the net loss of 

riparian and other wildlife habitat at the acc1;mation sites would be developed and 

implemented in consultation with WDFW and YIN personnel. For the purposes of 

the YFP, and to be consistent with the CRBFWP, wildlife mitigation is defined as 

achieving and sustaining the levels of habitat and species productivity for the 

habitat units lost as a result of the construction and operation of the YFP facilities 

and interpretive trails. Habitat Units, as defined under the Habitat Evaluation 

Procedure, would be the preferred unit of measurement for wildlife mitigation 

accounting. The mitigation obligation would be considered as met only when the 

effects are llly addressed, i.e., when mitigation actually offsets the loss caused by 

a YFP facility. 

Any loss 01 unavoidable disturbance of riparian habitat would be compensated for 

by either acquisition or -tion of other riparian habitat in the Yakima River - 

basin. 

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

the ESA before implementing the project. 

In th- before G onstruction at the Jack Creek, North Fo rk Teanawav -.a 

Keechelus sitesHfow r 1 n 1sa-c 

-uo ue.-f&ms&bon wth.U~ 

would be initiated 

As necessary, the acclimation sites would be iesurveyed for special status species 

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

the facilities. e 

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

during construction due to dust and vehicle exhaust. 

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

plant disturbance during construction, and providing vegetative screening around 

the facilities. 

Interpretive information has been proposed for the Cle Elum site to help the public 

understand how the facilities work and their contribution to fishery resources. A 

public use policy for the undeveloped portions of the site might be developed as a 

part of the wildlife management plan. Plans for minimizing Fmpacts on recreational 

. 

Chapter 41 165. * I 
.. 

'. 

.- 

resources at the Jack Creek gr North Fo rk TeanawaL sites would be deyeloped 

with the landowners. 

The pony-truss bridge at the Keechelus Dam site is potentially eligible for inclusion 

in the NRHP. Should the need arise to exceed the posted tonnage (10 tons) or to 

replace or alter the bridge, a determination of eligibility for the NRHP would be 

prepared for the bridge. Alternative access might be investigated. 

The extens' ive me - historic cultu ral mate rials at the Nort h Fork Teanawav site 

Potent ially elicjble for NRHP listing, If th 1 sSite were to be selected for & 

acclimation fac ilities, exte ns ive consultation and mitization would be requ' l& 

- I 

.. .. 

.- Prehisforic lithic maten 'als were found -in one area at the Jack Creek site. If 

possible, * this ar 1 c'm * &es. If avoidance 

m. 

were not pp 

a nd tkeLI'ribe and SHPO wou Id be consulted o n an -m 

wement Plan, 

The project managers would develop and implement a recycling policy, which 

would clearly state the type and quantities of products to be procured by the program or facilities. In addition, source separation of recyclable products would be 

practiced onsite by using separate containers for aluminum, glass, paper, and other 

recyclable materials. The appropriate recycling or solid waste collection company 

would then be contacted for materials pickup. 

Chemicals applied in project facilities would be handled, applied, and disposed of 

in accordance with FDA, EPA, and WDOE regulations. 

Where possible, an attempt would be made to locate facilities out of the 60-m 

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

following measures would be taken, when practicable, to assure consistency with 

the Kittitas County's Shoreline Master Plan. 

. .. .. . 

.. 

, 

1) Location of structures within the identified shoreline would be avoided if 

possible. If locations within the shoreline area could not be avoided, BPA 

would consult with the appropriate state and local agencies to determine 

the best placement of the structure. 

2) In shoreline areas, disturbed land would be restored as closely as possible 

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

However, there might be locations where site topography would require 

near-bank'disruption. A restoration and monitoring plan would be 

prepared-before shoreline areas were disturbed. 

shoreline area. 

3) Erosion control measures would be implemented within the 60-m (200 ft.) 

Construction equipment exhausts would. meet applicable regulatory requirements. 

Any kgitive dust caused by construction would be mitigated by water sprinkling, 

as necessary. -- 

Chapter 4/- 146 
4.3. Unavoidable Adverse Effects 

Implementation of the YFP as proposed under Alternatives.1 or 2 in this DIS would 

result in the unavoidable adverse effects discussed below. 

Dewatering of the Yakima River below Keechelus.Dam would occur if this alternative site 

were chosen, minimum flow agreements for protection of fishery resources were not 

maintained, and alternative water sources were not found for the raceways at this 

acclimation site. Some construction activities would unavoidably violate State water 

quality standards on a short-term basis as-erosion from the construction site entered 

nearby water bodies. Construction of pipelines and other facilities would disturb 

floodplains and small amounts of riparian habitat. Small amounts of wetlands would be 

lost, but would be mitigated through replacement. - 

Construction of the facilities for the YJT would result in the destruction of approximately 

8.5 ha (21 ac.) of vegetation and wildlife habitat, including potential habitat of two 

endangered species: grizzly bear and gray WOK However, there is no known use of the 

habitat by grizzly bears or wolves. Some disturbance of wintering bard eagles at the Clark 

Flat acclimation site would result from increased human activity in the vicinity of project' 

facilities.&e disturba nce of nearbv nestin? Northern suotted ow Is could result from 

Crezk or North Fork Tea nawav s ites, 

The project would increase the likelihood of ecological and genetic interactions that could 

affect positive &ribUtes of the wild trout fishery. The facilities would alter the visual 

settings of the sites. Some impacts on dispersed recreation would occur at the Cle Elum, 

Jack CreekAnd North Fo rk Teanaway - sites. Each YFP facility is anticipated to generate 

solid waste requiring disposal. 

Jwav s ites cou Id be disturbea 

il' . '1 .. .. ork fi exe so -ficant bt they would not be avoided 

thuu.gksr_tma-!2b.eaznssrhle at the Jack C reek site. however. s ince t& 

-Dear to be loca lized, 

.. 1 

The following biological risks to fish have been identified for the project. While an - 

effective risk management structure would greatly minimize these risks, it cannot promise 

to hlly avoid all possible adverse effects that might result'from implementing the project. 

Therefore, these risks are included here. The project managers believe that, with the 

implementation of the risk management structure outlined in Section 2.2, the benefits of 

* the YFP would greatly outweigh the potential adverse effects of these risks. The Upper 

Chapter 41 Ujl I- 
Yakima spring chinook program poses genetic risks to all three spring chinook stocks in 

the basin. The amount and effect of straying of Upper Yakima hatchery fish on other 

stocks cannot be predicted and could genetically affect the other stocks, both in the 

Yakima River Basin and in other basins. Spring chinook produced from the YFP would 

compete with pre-existing naturally produced fishes, particularly- spring chinook salmon 

and perhaps rainbow and steelhead trout. The specific outcome of this competition is 

largely unpredictable at this time, but it is reasonable to expect that growth, abundgnce, 

and/or distribution of affected stocks would be altered to some extent. The likelihood or 

outcome of interactions between fish produced by the YFP and wild and native nonanadromous fish is unknown. The fish produced by the YFP pose a low degree of risk to 

existing stocks through the potential for transfer of disease. The increased number of YFP 

fish available for harvest might result in increased harvest of unsupplemented wild stocks. 

The cumulative impact of the YFP and other supplementation projects on theLcarrying 

discussion in sect ion 4.1.2.2). 

. 

capacity .. 

4.4. 

of estuary 

. .Relationship 

, 

and nearshore habitat is 

of Short-Term Uses and Long-Term 

unknown 1 

Productivity 

One of the goals of the YFP is to increase the long-term productivity of anadromous fish 

in the Yakima River Basin and, ultimately, in the Columbia River Basin, by providing 

knowledge about the use and application of supplementation theories. In the short term, 

the YFP would cause relatively minor impacts on water quality, quantity, vegetation and 

wildlie habitat, wetlands, and possibly the wild trout fishery. Yakima River Basin 

fisheries could also be negatively affected by genetic and ecological interactions that could 

result fiom implementation of the project. However, the commitment of the project 

managers and BPA to the use of the adaptive management process, including systematic 

risk assessment and monitoring, should minimize long-term genetic and ecplogical 

impacts. In fact, implementing the YFP through an adaptive management process may 

result in less impact on the long-term productivity than the No Action alternative, 

especially if the current decline in anadromous fish populations should continue. 

.4.5. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

The YFP would result in the irreversible and irretrievable codtment of the materials 

needed for the construction of the facilities, although some of the materials would be 

recyclable after they complete their usefbl lives. Fuel used to construct and operate the 

project would not be renewable. Depletion of groundwater resources might occur, 

depending on the rate of recharge of the aquifer being used to provide water for the 

project. However, the most significant commitment of resources would be that of the 

genetic resources of the wild and native Yakima River Basin spring chinook stocks. The 

genetic makeup of the three stocks, especially the Upper Yakima stock, could be 

irreversibly-and irretrievably altered by the implementation of the project. While all 

practicable means to minimize this impact would be taken by the project managers, there - 

Chapter 4/ && 
is no way to eliminate this risk totally. The project .managers and BPA., as a first 

priority, will consider the3sks ofthis commitment hmaking decisions on this project. 

\ 

Chapter4/M . I 
, 

\ 
5. ENVIRONMENTAL RULES, REGULATIONS, AND PERMITS 

This chapter discusses laws, regulations, and permits that may apply to the Yakima 

Fisheries Project. Regulatory citations are in parentheses. As lead Federal agency for the 

EIS, BPA would take the lead role, as appropriate, in acquiring all necessary permits. . 

5.1 Environmental Policy 

The proposed project would be developed in a manner consistent with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, following the “Regulations of Implementing the Procedural 

Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act.” These rules were issued by the 

President’s Council on Environmental Quality. It would also be consistent with the 

Department of Energy National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures 

(10 CFR 1.021). 

5.2 State, Areawide, and Local Plan and Program Consistency I 

No unresolvable conflicts with state, areawide, or local plans are anticipated. The project 

would be coordinated with State and local government agencies to ensure that all 

applicable requirements are met. 

5.2.1 State and Areawide Clearinghouses 

BPA distributed the RDEIS to the Washington clearinghouse for State and local agency 

review and consultation, as required by Executive Order 12372.- The clearinghouse ws 

notified when the RDEIS 

addressed in the FEIS. The clearinghouse will also be informed of the availability of the 

FEIS and the Record of Decision. 

ready for review, and clearinghouse comments wm 

5.2.2 Local Plans 

BPA’s proposed activities would be located inareas covered by the 1993 Kittitas County 

Comprehensive Plan. The comprehensive plan is a declaration of policies, and as such, 

contains no regulations or minimum standards. .. 

The Cle Elum hatchery site, acclimation site, caretakers’ residences, most of the wells and 

water-transIqission pipelines, and access roads are located in an area designated as Forest 

Multiple Use on~the Upper Kittitas County Comprehensive Plan Map. The purpose of this 

designation is to protect and conserve-natural resources, provide appropriate areas for 

residential and recreational development, and promote development in harmony with the 

natural environment. The pump station, one or more wells, and portions of one or more 

water transmission pipelines are located in an area designated Floodplain. The purpose of 

the floodplain designation is to minimize flood damage, reduce the. need for flood control 

, 

., I 

Chapter 5/m I 

.~ . . _-__- ___- ~~- ~ . - . - ~ . . ~. .~-.. ~__II___.. 
I 

structures, assist the unhindered flow of flood waters, and limit costs of recovery fkom 

flooding. __ 

The acclimation sites have the following Comprehensive Plan designations: 

Easton acclimation site 

Gravel Pond siting option . Forest Multiple Use 

Easton Dam siting option Forest Multiple Use - 

Jack Creek acclimation site 

North Fo rk Teanaway 

Clark Flat acclimation site 

Cle Elum acclimation site 

- Keechelus acclimation site 

Forest ResourceEorest Multiple Use 

.. acclimation site Forest Resource 

Open Range 

Forest Multiple UseFloodplain 

'Forest Multiple Use 

The purpose of the Forest Resource designation is to ,focus.on the importanc-e of sustained 

yield forestry and associated forest values including watershed, wildlife, mining and 

. recreation. The open range (rangeland) designation objective is to follow a policy of 

encouraging low intensity uses and activities on range 'lands. Where heavier land uses can 

be supported, such uses might be allowed following environmental review., 

5.2.3 Zoning 

Current zoning and comprehensive plan designations are not always consistent with each 

other. Work underway for the Washington Growth Management Act would correct that. 

The proposed and alternative YFP facilities would be located within the following Kittitas 

County zoning districts: 

Cle Elum hatchery site 

Easton acclimation site 

Forest and Range 

Gravel Pond siting option Forest and Range 

Easton Dam siting option Rural - 3 

Jack Creek acclimation site Commercial Forest 

e& 

ork Temawav 

'1 

Clark Flat acclimation site Agricultural (A20) 

Cle Elum acclimation site 

Keechelus acclimation site e. 

Forest and Range 

Commercial Forest .- 

Fish hatcheries or aquaculture facilities are not addressed in the Kittitas County Zoning - 

Code as either permitted or conditional uses under any of the county's zone designations. 

BPA and its consultants have and would continue to coordinate the proposed actions with 

the County planning department to address any zoning concerns. 

Chapter 5/ JJ2 
5.3 'Water Quality and Water Appropriation 

Several regulatory requirements apply to water quality, water appropriation, and to work 

in stream beds and on shorelines. 

5.3.1 Water Appropriation 

BPA would secure permits from the Washington Department of Ecology as required for 

the nonconsumptive appropriation of river water required for the YFP (RCW 90.03). 

Permits would also be secured fiom the WDOE for the appropriation of groundwater in 

amounts over 18,927 liters (5,000 gallons) per day (WAC 173-160). The necessary 

notifications for water-well drilling (WAC 173-160) would be provided. . 

5.3.2 Permits for Discharaes Into Waters of the United States 

The Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates discharges into waters of the United States. (See 

Section 5.3.3 for compliance with Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1-344)). 

BPA would acquire National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits 

from fie WDOF,as required, for the point discharge of any pollutant regulated under the 

CWA (33 USC 1251 et seq.) to the Yakima River or its tributaries from YFP facilities. 

Under Section 401 of the CWA, a Federal permit to conduct an activity that results in 

discharges into navigable waters is issued only after the affected State certifies that 

existing water quality standards would not be violated if the permit were issued. Some 

construction activities would unavoidably violate state water quality standards I 

(particularly the turbidity criteria) on a short-term basis. In such cases, a Water Quality 

Modification may be required by the WOE (Chapter 90.48 RCW, . Chapters 173-201; 

173-222 WAC). 

Section 402 of the CWA authorizes storm water discharges associated with industrial 

activities under the NPDES. For the State of Washington, the EPA, Region 10, has a 

general permit (# WA-R-10-OOOF) authorizing Federal facilities to discharge storm waters 

from construction activities disturbing land or2 or more ha (5 or more ac.) into waters of 

the U.S., in accordance with various set conditions. BPA would comply with the 

appropriate conditions for this project at all sites meeting this criterion, such as issuing a 

Notice of Intent to obtain coverage under the EPA general permit and preparing a Storm 

Water Pollution Prevention (SWPP) Plan. - 

The SWPP Plan helps ensure that erosion control measures-would be-iniplemented and 

maintained during construction. The SWPP Plan would address Best Management 

Practices for stabilization practices, structure practices, stormwater management, and 

other controls. 

Chapter 5/ -1 
5.3.3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permits for the Discharge of Dredged 

or Fill Material 

Minor amounts of dredged or fill material may be discharged to the Yakima River, its 

tributaries, or wetlands during construction or operation of the YFP. These activities 

would most likely be authorized by Corps nationwide permits (number 14 for access roads 

and number 7 for intake and outlet structures) under CWA Section 404 (33 CFR 320- 

330). As in the case ofWDES permits, certification (that the discharge would not violate 

- State water quality standards) is required from the State of Washington. Other conditions 

may apply to the nationwide permits. 

5.3.4 State Permits for Work in Stream Beds 

Hydraulic project approval fi-om the WDFW would be obtained to construct any form of 

hydraulic project or perform other work that would use, divert, obstruct, or change the 

natural flow of the Yakima River or its tributaries (RCW 75.20.100, WAC 220-1 10). The 

WDFW would also require that water-diversion devices be equipped with a fish screen to 

prevent fish from entering the diversion device (RCW 75.20, Chapter 77.16 WAC). 

'5.3.5 Coastal Management Program Consistency 

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 requires that Federal actions directly affecting 

the coastal zone be undertaken in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent possible, 

with the State's coastal zone management program. Washington's coastal zone * 

management program is implemented through the provisions of the State Shorelines 

Management Act, including shoreline management programs developedadministered by 

the counties. The Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 also require 

that proposed Federal facilities hlly comply with Federal consistency requirements as 

determined by and through consultation with a designated coastal zone management 

- 

agency. 

BPA and the WDOE have a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that provides a process 

for State and local rehew of BPAprojects in and directly affecting shoreline areas in the 

State: BPA would fblly meet its obligations under the MOA, but no permit would be 

required. . - . 

The State's Shoreline Management .Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW) identifies "Shorelines,of 

Statewide Significance" and "Shorelines of the State" near the proposed project. In 

addition; the Kittitas County Shoreline Master Plan regulates development in areas 60m 

(200 e.) landward of the OKdinary High Water Mark of the Yakima and North Fork 

Teanaway Rivers, including the floodway and asso'ciated wetlands. Facilities at the Cle 

Elum hatchery and all of.the acclimation sites may be located within the 60-m (200-R.) 

jurisdictional area on the Yakima River and North Fork Teanaway Riyer for the Shoreline 

Management Act and Shoreline Master Plan. 

.- ., 

,. 

Chapter 5/ I 
The Cle Elum hatchery would have an intake structure and pump station located at river 

mile 184.7 and an outfall structure located at river mile 183.3. _In addition, the oxbow 

system at the Cle Elum hatchery site is considered to be an associated wetland of the 

Yakima River, so the discharge from the constructed outflow channel would be located in 

the shoreline zone. The portions of the Cle Elum hatchery site that fall uhder the 

jurisdiction of the Kittitas County Shoreline Master Plan are designated Conservancy 

Environment. Aquaculture (including fish hatcheries) is a permitted use in the 

Conservancy Environment, provided operation does not involve major construction or 

other activities that would substantially change the character of the area. 

Actual structure locations for the acclimation facilities would not be finally determined 

until the detailed design stage of project development (afler the final EIS). Where 

possible, BPA would attempt to locate structures out of the 60-m (200-ft.) jurisdictional 

area. Also, BPA would take the following measures, when practicable, to assure 

consistency with the county's Shoreline Master Plan. 

~ 

. 1) Location of structures within the identified shoreline would be avoided ifpossible. 

If locations within the shoreline area could not be avoided, BPA would consult 

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

the structure. 

2) In shoreline areas, disturbed land would be restored as closely as possible to preproject contours and replanted with native and local species. However, there 

might be locations where site topography would require bank disruption. A ' 

restoration and monitoring plan would be prepared before shoreline areas were 

disturbed. 

shoreline area. (See Section 4.2, Mitigation.) 

3) Erosion control measures would be implemented within the 60-m (200 e.) 

. 5.3.6 U.S. Army Corps pf Engineers Permits for Structures or Work in 

Navigable Waters 

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) requires permits for 

structures potentially affecting navigation on waters of the United States. The Rivers and 

Harbors Act requires the applicant to prevent the obstruction or alteration of a navigable >- 

water without the specific authorization from the Corps. The Corps has identified 

navigable waterways and issues permits for actions affecting them (33 CFR 322). This 

project would not require any structures in a navigable waterway because the Yakima 

River and its tributaries above the city of West Richland are not classified as navigable 

waters according to the Corps definition in 33 CFR 329. 

Chapter 5/m I 
5.4 Recreation Resources -Wild and Scenic Rivers, National 

I_ Trails, Wilderness Areas; Parks 

A review of the Wild and Scenic River inventory of listed and proposed rivers (16 U.S.C. 

Sec 1273 (b)) shows no rivers 0: portions of rivers quali&ing for Wild, Scenic, or 

Recreation River status within the study area. The Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail, 

inventoried in the National Trail System (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1242-1245), passes within 

several miles of the Keechelus and Easton acclimation sites, but these sites would not be 

visible from the trail. No designated dderness or parks are located nearthe facility sites. 

5.5 Permits for Rights-of-way on Public Lands, 

BPA would secure necessary use permits from the USBR for the Keechelus and Easton 

Dam acclimation sites. A use permit may be required for the Easton Gravel pond site 

. from the WDOT. \ 

5.6 River-Bottom Leases, 

Leases of the state-owned aquatic lands are administered by the Washington Department 

of Natural Resources. If necessary, a lease to use these public lands would be issued by 

the Department's Aquatic Lands Division (Chapter 79.90 RCW, Chapter 332.30 WAC). ~ 

5.7 I Heritage Conservation 

Federal historic and cultural preservation acts include the National Historic Preservation 

Act (16 USC 470-470w-6), the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (16 USC 470aa47011), the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (1 6 USC 469-469c), the 

American Antiquities Act (16 USC 43 1-433), and the American Indian Religious Freedom 

Act (42 USC 1996). 

5.7.1 Current Status 

The National Historic Preservation Act requires that Federal agencies review the 

consequences of an activity on property that may be listed on the National Register of 

Historic Places m) or eligible for listing. The State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO) of Washington has been contacted regarding the presence of properties currently 

listed in the NRHP. At this time, no previously identified NRHP properties are located 

within BPA's area of potential effect. However, historic and previously reported, 

potentially eligible NRHP properties are known to exist in the vicinity of the Keechelus 

site (seesection 3.8). Surveys have been completed at all sites, and no other historic or 

prehistoric resources were discovered. Historic or prehistdric sitesidentified have been 

inventoried on the appropriate Washington State Cultural Resource Inventory Form, and 

Determinations of Eligibility have been prepared. for potential NRHP properties. The 

- 

Chapter 51 
Washington SHPO has been consulted for findings of effect to the resources in question, 

and has concurred regarding. their eligibility. BPA has also consulted with the YIN to 

ensure that none of the project activities would affect sites that have religious or cultural 

significance to them. The YIN is aproponent of this project, and a cooperating agency 

for the preparation of this EIS. 

5.7.2 Discovery Situations 

If, during construction, previously unidentified cultural resources are identified which 

would be adversely affected by the proposed project, BPA-would follow the procedures 

set forth in the following regulations, laws, and guidelines: Section 106 (36 CFR Part 

800) of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U,S.C. Section 

. 

~ 

470); the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. Sections 4321-4327); the 

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (PL 95-341); the Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 47Oa-47Om); and theNative American 

GrBves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (PL 101-601). 

1) To the maximum extent possible, BPA would redirect work so that it would not 

affect the resource. Other work or work in areas that would not affect the 

resource may continue. 

2) BPA would immediately obtain fiom BPA's contract cultural resource specialist an 

evaluation of sigrzlficance for the site and determination of potential impacts on 

eligible properties. 

3) BPA would immediately initiate consultation with the Washington SHPO and 

other FederaVstate agencies that may be involved in the project regarding the 

eligibility of the site to meet specific NRHP Criteria. Such consultation would be 

initiated by telephone or in person, and corroborated with written documentation. 

document this decision and construction may proceed. 

- 

4) ' If the SHPO and BPA both agree that the site is not eligible, BPA would 

5) IfBPA, the SHPO, or both consider the site NRHP-eligible, that determination 

shall be documented and BPA would proceed with protection and mitigation. 

BPA would firther consult with SHPO on the determination of effect as follows: 

a. If BPA and SHPO agree that there would be no effect, construction may 

proceed. 

b. If BPA, SHPO, or both consider that the project would affect an eligible 

property, they would confer to identi@ appropriate mitigation measures. 

Recommended mitigation measures would then be provided to the ACHP. 

c. \ If the ACHP agrees with the proposed mitigation, then a Memorandum of 

Agreement addressing mitigation of the affected resource would be drafted, 

and the project may proceed. 

Chapter 5/ 

- 
5.8 Threatened and Endangered Species 

The Endangered Species Act requires that Federal agencies review theconsequences of an 

activity on threatened and endangered species and the ecosystem on which these species 

depend; it also gives review authority to USFWS and NMFS. In their letter of October 7, 

1994, the USFWS identified the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Northern spotted 

owl (Strix occidentali$ caurina), gray wolf (Canis lupus), grizzly bear (Ursus arctos = U. 

a. horribiliis), marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus maimoratus mannoratus) and Peregrine 

falcon (Falcoperegrinus) as the threatened and endangered species in the area. 

I 

Biological Assessments have been prepared and =included in Appendix D of thE 

FEIS. The BAS have begn submitted to USFWS a ndNMFS. a nd informal consultation, 

will be completed prior to the ROD. NMFS bas been consulted regarding impacts on any 

listed anadromous fish species. While none of the listed species are present in the Yakima 

River Basin, several species-in the basin are under review for listing. 

Should any changes that might affect a species occur to the proposal, or if any other 

species hown to occur in the close vicinity of the project becomes officially listed before 

completion of the project, BPA would reevaluate its activities to ensure that its actions do 

not ‘?jeopardize the continued eiistence of any endangered species or threatened species,” 

and are in compliance with Section 7(a) of the Endangered Species Act. 

State-listed special status species will be addressed under the SEPA guidelines. The State 

program and SEPA guidelines were developed to improve quality and consistency in and 

validate methods for evaluating impacts of development on wildlife. Xhe Final EIS, along 

with the Biological Assessment for Federal threatened and endangered species, will be 

adopte-bnhBTA r e-uion to comdv with ma-~rerne-. 

5.9 Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Provisions of the Pacific Northwest Elect& Power Planning and Conservation Act (16 

U.S.C. 839 et seq.) are intended to protect, mitigate, and 

Columbia River and its tributaries. This project is proposed as a part of the Columbia 

River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program to fulfill these obligations. 

The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 2901 et seq.) encourages 

Federal agencies to conserve and to promote conservation of nongame’fish and wildlife 

species and their habitats. Measures proposed to mitigate potential impacts on wildlife 

and on vegetation do this to the maximum extent possible within BPA’s statutory 

responsibility. 

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.) requires that Federal 

agencies consult with the USFWS whenever an agency p!ans to conduct, license, or permit 

an activity involving the impoundment, diversion, deepening, control, or modification-of a 

fish and-wildlife of the I 

, 

- 

stream or body of water. BPA is coordinating potential changes in bodies of water with 

Chapter 5/ I 
the USFWS to ensure species protection as required by this act by providing the USFWS 

with a copy of this FEE. 

5.10 Farmlands 

Section 154 (a, b) of the Farmland Protection Policy Act requires BPA to identi@ and 

quanti@ adverse impacts of the proposed actionon farmlands. The location and areal 

extent of Prime and other important farmlands as designated by the 

Conservatio n Serv ice NRCS : formerly Soil Conservation Service (SCS)) were obtained 

from soils surveys for the Kittitas County area. The Clark Flat and Easton Dam 

acclimation sites are the only project sites that would affect potentially prime farmland 

soils. However, since these sites are not irrigated, they are not considered to be Prime 

farmland (Gentry, pers. comm., 1995). Approximately 0.8 ha (2 ac.) of land would be 

affected by construction at each site. No unique or other designated (i.e., statewide or 

local) important farmlands would be affected. 

. 

. 

I 

5.1 1 FloodplainsNVetlands . 

1 

. 

Both floodplains and wetlands are found in the project area. These are specially protected 

resources. For complete assessment of their significance and of impacts, see the 

floodplaidwetlands assessment under Section 4.1.1. This assessment constitutes the 

Federal review required by 10 CFR 1022 and Executive Orders 11988 and 11990. A 

statement of finding with respect to floodplains will be included in thefinal EIS. 

Wetlands, frequently flooded areas, and riparian habitat are all designated as 

environmentally sensitive “critical areas” under the Kittitas County Interim Critical Areas 

Development Ordinance. TKe ordinance establishes a “zero net loss of natural wetland 

fbnctions and valuesy’ approach to regulating wetlands. Wetland buffer widths and 

replacement ratios are designated. Frequently flooded areas are defined as the 100-year 

floodplain, and are protected by a “no net loss of floodplain storage” concept for new 

construction. Structures must be floodproofed. Riparian habitat buffers are also 

designated; for the Yakima River they are 12.2 to 61 m (40 to 200 fit-) from the Ordinary 

High Water Mark. Riparian buffers are to be retained in their natural condition; however, 

uses that do not cause a significant adverse impact on the habitat may. be allowed in the 

buffer (subject to approval by the Director of the Planning Department). These 

requirements would be met for the YFP. 

. 

5.1 2 Energy Conservation and Pollution Control 

5.1 2.1 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 

. 

, FIFRA provides for the registering of pesticides’and regulates their use to ensure that 

unreasonable environmental impact does not result. Herbicides (a kind of pesticide that 

Chapter 5/U I 
kills plslnts) would be used for the YFP only in a veiry limited fashion and under controlled 

circumstances. Herbicides would. b'e used to control weedslat project facilities, to corltrol 

noxious weeds, and to maintain landscaping. at various facilities. If herbicides were 

applied, the use, (storage, and disposal of these products and their containers would be in 

accordance with EPA or FDA regulations and the instructions on the product labels. 

Herbicide containers would be disposed of according to Resource Conservation and 

Recovery Act (RCRA) standards.. 

5.12.2 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

This a& is intended-to bring about: 

0 

0 

0 

the recovery of usefid materials which are often needlessly buried in landfills; 

the recovery of solid &el, oil, and gas that can be converted into energy; and 

environmentally safe disposal of non-recoverable waste residues, particularly 

those which are toxic or hazardous. 

See the discussion of these topics in Section 4.1.1 1 of the EIS. BPA does not anticipate 

that any hazardous wastes, as defined by RCRA (42 USC 6901 et seq.), would be 

generated by the YFP. However, any such wastes that might be generated would be 

manifested, packaged, and shipped offsite for disposal under the appropriate regulations 

(40 CFR 260-268,40 CFR 270-272, WAC 173-303). 

5.1 2.3 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 

Liability Act (CERCLA) . 

CERCLA was enacted and is generally employed primarily,to address past contamination 

with current releases of hazardous substances. 

. from past activitiesat inactive sites; however, it can also be used to address active sites i 

BPA assesses existing fee-owned properties and property planned for acquisition in order 

to determine the likelihood that hazardous substances may be present. ~ All of the sites 

proposed for acquisition under this project have undergone an Environmental Land Audit; 

potential for contamination was discovered only at the Easton Gravel ponds site. If this 

site were selected for an acclimation site, the extent of contamination would be assessed 

and, if necessary, cleaned up before construction is started. 

5.1 2.4 Energy Conservation at F'ederai Facilities 

It is the policy of BPA to set an example in the Pacific Northwest for energy-efficient 

construction. All of BPA's new construction will use thermal conservation measures 

based on regional cost-effectiveness as well as on life-cycle costing within the region's 

three climatic zones. BPA will exceed the requirements of the latest version of BPA's 

Energy Smart Design (Commercial Model Conservation Standards) or the DOE 

* 

~ ChapterY3.80 
c 

mandatory standards for Federal facilities for individual building components of the YFP, 

whichever is mdre stringent. 

5.12.5 Noise Control Act 

WDOE regulates maximum environmental noise levels (WAC 173-60). Allowable levels 

depend on land use of the source and receiving property. Noise levels associated with the 

YFP are discussed in Section 4.1.7.2. Given the low level of noise expected to be 

generated and the lack of nearby sensitive receivers, State noise levels would not beexceeded. y 

5.12.6 Safe Drinking Water Act 

The Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. sec 300f et. seq.) is designed to protect the 

quality of public drinking water and its sources. In the State of Washington, the 

Department of Health is responsible for implementing the rules and regulations of the Act 

(WAC 246-290). This project would not affect any Sole Source Aquifers or other critical 

aquifers, or require an underground injection well. 

5.1 2.7 Clean Air Act 

Neither construction nor operation of the YFP would result in significant air emissions 

that would require air quality permits under the Clean Air Act (42 USC 7401 et seq.). 

Construction equipment exhausts would meet applicable regulatory requirements. Any 

hgitive dust caused by construction would be mitigated by water sprinkling. 

Chapter 5/u I 
*. . 
Chapter 6.0 ' 

, 

References- . 

Allee, B.J. 1974. 

Spatial requirements and behavioral interactions of juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus 

kisutch) and steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri). Ph.D. Dissertation, University of 

Washington, Seattle. 

Almack, J. 1990. 

North Cascades grizzly bear investigations: 1989 Progress Report. WashingtonDepartment of Wildlife. Olympia, WA. 35 pp. 

Anonymous. 1967. 

Supplementary follow-up report for Yakima Project, Roza Division, Yakima River, 

Washington. USFWS, Portland, OR. 

Bachman, R.A. 1984. 

Foraging behavior of free-ranging wild and hatchery brown trout in a stream. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 1 17:262-273. 

BPA (Bonneville Power Administration). 1990a 

Yakima-Klickitat Production Project Environmental Asseshent and Finding of No 

SigniJicant Impact. DOEEA-03 92, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. 

. 1990b. 

. Yakima-[Klickitat Produkon Project Preliminary Design Report and Appendices. - . 

Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. 

. 1991. .. 

Yakima Basin Fish Passage Project--Phase I1 Environmental Assessment. B onneville 

Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. -. 

~L Division of Fish and Wildlife. 199 1. 

Yakima Fisheries Groundwater Reports. Prepared by CH2M Hill, Inc., Corvallis, Oregon: ., 

Bryant, F.G., and 2. E. Parkhurst. 1950. 

' Survey ofthe Columbia River and its Tributaries. Areas III Washington Streamsfrom the 

Klickitat and Snake Rivers to Grand Coulee Dam, with the Notes on the Columbia and its 

Tributaries above Grand Coulee Dam: 'USA Special Scientific Report Fisheries, No. 37. 

1 

. .. 

Bureau of Reclamation. See U.S. Bureau of Reclamation I 

-. <. 

,I 

* 

*. . 

,. Chapter. 6/'183 

.- .. 
Busack, C.A. 1990. 

"Yakima/Klickitat Production Project Genetic Risk Assessment." Yakiha Klickitat 

Production Project Preliminary Design Report, Appendix A. Bonneville Power 

Administration, Portland, Oregon. l 

L and C. Knudsen,.A. Marslfiall, S. Phelps, and D. Seiler. 1991 

Yakima Hatchery Experimental Design. Annual Progress Repoyt, BPA project No. 89- 

082. 266pp. _- 

. 1993. 

Genetic Issues Associated with Implementation of Phase I of the YFP and other 

Aspects of the SDEIS. Memorandum to the Yakma Fisheries Project. 

and C. Hopley. Personal Communication, September,' 1994. \ 

- , andK.P. Currens. 1995. .- 

- Genetic Risks and Hazards in Hatchery Operations: Fundamental Concepts and Issues. 

In: American Fisheries ,society Symposium 15: in press. 

Campton, D.E., and J. M. Johnston. 1985. 

"Electrophoretic Evidence for a genetic^ Admixture of Native-and Nonnative Rainbow 

Trout in the Yagma River, Washington." Transactions of the American. Fisheries Society 

114:782-793. 

Cannamela, D.A. 1992. 

.Potential impacts of releases, of hatchery steelhead trout "smolts" on wild and natural 

-juvenile chinook and sockeye salmon. Idaho Fish and Game, Unpublished Report. . 

Cannamela, D.A. 1993 

Hatchery steelhead smolt predation of wild and natural juvenile chinook salmon fry in the 

-upper Salmon piver, Idaho. Idaho Department of Fish and Game Fishery Research 

Report. 

. CHZMHill. 1977. 

Yakima Valley Water Mhagement Stud'y, AJtatus Report on Water Quality 

Investigations, Yakima River Basin, Washington. U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, 

Washington, D.C. 

Clutter, C.J:, andL.E. Whitesel. 1956. 

Collection and interpretation of sockeye salmon~scales. -Bull. Int. Pac. Salmon Fish 

Comm. 9:l-159. .. 

- .~ . 

Chapter6/ 184 
Corps. See U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Craighead, J.J., J.S. Sumner, and G.B. Scaggs. 1982. - 

A definitive system for analysis of grizzly bear habitat and other wilderness resources. 

Wildlife-Wildlands Institute. Monogr. No. 1. University of Montana Foundation. - 

University of Montana, Missoula. 279 pp. ' 

Currens, K.P. 1993 ., Genetic Vulnerability of the Yakima Fishery Project: A Risk Assessment. Washington 

Department of Fisheries, DraR'Manuscript. 

Dauble, D.D., R.P. Mueller, and G.A. Martinson. 1994. 

Evaluation of Water Quality Conditions Near Proposed Fish Production Sites Associated 

with the Yakima Fisheries Project. Final Report. Bonneville Power Administration 

Publication DOEBP-00029-1. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. ' 

Davidson, F. A. 1953. 

The development of the Yakima River Basin for Irrigation and its Effect on the Migratory - 

Fish Populations in the River. Prepared for the YIN, Toppenish, WA. 

Eames, M., and M. Hino. 1981. 

An evaluation of the effects of four tags used ?or marking-juvenile chinook salmon 

(Onchorhynchus tshawytscha). Washington Department of Fisheries. Technical Report 

#61. 

Eames, M., T. Quinn, K. Reidinger, and D. Haring. 1981. . ' Northern Puget Sound 1976 adult coho and chum tagging studies. Washington 

Department of Fisheries. Technical Report #64. 

Everest, F.H., and D.W. Chapman. 1972. 

Habitat selection and spatial interaction by juvenile chinook salmon and steelhead trout in 

two Idaho streams. J. Fish Res. Board Can. 29: 91-100. 

Fast, D.E., J.D. Hubble, M. S. Kohn, and B. Watson. 1990. ~ Yakima River Spring Chinook Enhancement Studj. Project 82-16. 199O.Annual Report 

to Bonneville Power Administration. Yakha Indian Nation, Toppenish, Washington. 

L L L and- . 1991. 

Yakima River Spring Chinook Enhancement Study. Project 82-16. 1991 Annual Report 

to Bonneville Power Administration: Yakama Indian Nation, Toppenish, Washington 

Fast, D.E. Personal communication to N. Weintraub. August, 1994. 

Chapter 6/ 1-85 
r 

Fish Management Consultants. 1987. 

. Yakima and Klickitat Rivers Central Outplanting Facility ProposedMaster Plan. 

Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, Oregon.' r 

Flagg, T.A., J. L. Migheil, E. S. Slatick, and L. W: Harrei. 1988. 

. 'Cle Elum Lake Sockeye Salmon Restoration Feasibility Study, 1987-1988. Report to the 

Boimeville Power Administration, Contract DE-A179-BP64840. Available from 

Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Wa&ington. 

,-L..W. Harrell, J. L. Mighell, andE. Slatick. 1989. - . 

.. 

Cle Elum Lake Sockeye Salmon Restoration Feasibility Study, 1988- 1989. Annual 

Report, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, Washington. 

- ,- ,. _- - Foerster, R.E. 1968. - 

The sockeye salmon, Onchorhynchus nerka: Fisheries Research Board of Canada. 

Bulletin 162. ' 

- 

Fraser, F. J. 1969. .~ 

Population density effects on survival and growth of juvenile coho salmon and steelhead 

trout in experimental stream-channels. pp. 253-265. In: Salmon and Trout in Streams 

-(T. G. Northcote, ed:), H.R. MacMillan Lectures in Fisheries, University of British 

Co!umbia, Vancouver. 

. 

i 

Frederick, D.C. 1994. 

Letter of October 7, 1994 to R. MGaika on USFWS letterhead. Olympia, Washington. 

Gentry, H.A. 1995.' Personal Communication, February, 1995. ~ ' 

Hansen, L.P., and B. Jonsson. 1985. 

"Downstream Migration of Hatchery Reared Smolts of Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar L) in 

the Sver Imsa, Norway." Aquaculture 45:237-248. 

Hillman, T.W., D.W. Chapman, J.S. Griffith. 1989a. . Seasonal habitat use and behavioral interaction of juvenile chinook salmon and steelhead. 

I: Daytime habitat selection. Pp. 43-82 in Don Chapman Consultants, Inc. Final report 

to Chelan County Public Utility District, Washington. 

~ , ,and . 1989b. 

Seasonal habitat use and behavioral interaction of juvenile chinook salmon and steelhead. 1 

II:, Nighttime habitat selection. Pp. 84-1 08 in-Don Chapman Consultants, Inc. Final 

report to Chelan County Public Utility'District, Washington. 

Chapter61 186 ,. 
.. .~ 

. ,\ 

., 

L and J. W. Mullan. 1989. 

Effect of hatchery releases on the abundance and behavior of wild juvenile salmonids." In 

Summer and Winter Ecology of Juvenile Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Trout in the 

Wenatchee River, Washington. Report to Chelan County PUD by D. W. Chapman - . 

Consultants, Inc.. Boise, Idaho. 

Hindman, J.N., G, A. McMichael, J. P. Olson, and S. A. Leider. 1991. 

Yakima River Species Interactions Studies Annual Report FY 1990. Bonneville Power 

Administration, Portland, Oregon. ' 

., .. .- 

Houck, J. and N. Gamble. 1984. 

Map of Keechelus Lake Construction Camp Historic 'Site 06-1 7-03-23. Wenatchee 

National Forest Supervisor's Office, Wenatchee,' Washington. 

.~ 

Howell, P., K. Jones, D. Scarnecchia, L. LaVoy, W. Kendra, and D. Ortmann. 1985. 

Stock Assessment of Columbia River Anadromous Salnionids, Volume I: Chinook, Coho, 

Chum and Sockeye Salmon Stock Summaries.-Final Report to Bonneville Power. 

Administration; Project No. 83-335. 

- 

IHOT (Integrated Hatchery Operations Team). 1994. . 

Policies and Procedures for Columbia Basin Anadromous Salmonid Hatcheries. 

Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority, Portland, Oregon. 

Irvine,' J.R., and R.E. Bailey. 1992. 

Some effects of stocking coho salmon fiy and supplemental instream feeding on wild and 

hatchery-origin salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12: 125-130. 

James, P. 1992. 

1992 Coho predation feasibility study. Report of the Natural Environment Team, 

Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project. Unpublished report. 7 pp. c 

Johnson, A., D. Norton, andB. Yake. 1988: 

"Persistence of DDT in the Yakima River Drainage, Washington." Arch. Environ. 

Contam. Toxicol. 17: 289-297. 

Kapuscinski, A.R., and L.M. Miller. 1993. 

-. Genetic Hatchery Guidelines for the Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project. Washington 

Department of Fisheries. Draft Manuscript. 

beger, C.C., and B. May. 1991. - 

Ecological and genetic effects of salmonid introductions in North America. Canadian 

Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48 (Supplement 1):66-77. 

Chapter 6/ 187 
Kuehn, J.H., and R. E. Schumacher. 1957. 

Preliminary Report on a Two-Year Census on Four Southeastern Minnesota Streams. 

Investigational Report 186, Minnesota Department of Conservation, Division of Game 

Fisheries, St. Paul, Minnesota. 

Lestelle,-L., J; Lichatowich, L. Mobrand, and C. Cullinan. 1994 

Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment Planning Model as Applied to Supplementation. 

Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. 

Lister, D.B., and S. Genoe. 1970. 

Stream habitat utilization by cohabiting underyearlings of chinook salmon (Oncorhinchus 

tshawytscha) and coho (0. kimtch) salmon in the Big Qualicum River, British Columbia. 

Journal' of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada-27: 12.15-1224. 

Mack, R.S., D. J. Cocheba, D: Green, and D. W. Hedrick. 1989. 

"An Economic Impact Analysis of the Proposed'-Yakima/Klickitat Fishery Enhancement 

Project." YakimaiiYIickitat Production Project Pre liminary Design Report, Appendix D. 

' Bonneville Power Administration, Poflland, Oregon. 

, and M.H. Robison. 1994' . . 

c 

- 

An Economic %Impact Analysis of the.Yakima Fisheries Project. Bonneville Power 

Administration, Portland, Oregon. . 

~ 

Martin, S.W;, MA. Schuck, K. Underwood, and A.T.-Scholz: 1992. 

Investigations of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), steelhead trout (Onchorhynchus 

mykiss), and. spring chinook salmori (d. tihawytscha) interactions in Southeast 

Washington streams: 199 1 :Annual Report to Bonneville Power.Administration. Project 

NO. 90-53. 

,. 

Martin, S.W., A.E. Viola, and M.L. Schuck. 1993. 

-Investigation of the interactions among hatchery reared summer steelhead, rainbow trout, 

~and--wildspring chinook salmon in southeast Washington. Washington Department of 

Wildlife, .Olympia, Washington: 

- _. 

McMichael, G.A., J.P; Olsori, E.L. .Bartrand, M.. Fischer, JXHindman, -and S.A. Leider. 1992. * 

Yakima River species interactions studies. Annual-report for FY 1991. Project No. 89- 

105. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. 177 pp. 

Miller, W.H., T. C. Coley, H. L. Berge, and T. T, Kisanuki. 1990. 

AnaIysis of Salmon and Steelhead Supplementation: Emphasis on Unpublished Reports 

and Present Progrims. Project 88-100, U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power 

. Administration, Portland, Oregon. - 

Chapter61 188 
I .- Mobrand, L. 1993. 

’ “Uncertainty and Risk Analysis Applied to Supplementation of Upper Yakima Spring 

Chinook Salmon.” Chapter 7 of Volume 3, YakimdKIickitat Fisheries Project Planning 

Status Report 1993. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. 

Mongillo, P., and L. Falconer. 1980. 

Yakima fisheries enhancement study final report. ’ Washington Department of Game, . 

Yakima, WA. October 1980. 

,- .. 

Mullan, J.W. 1984. 

Overview of artificial and natural propagation of coho salmon (0:’ kimtch) in the MidColumbia River. Rep. No. FRVFAO-84-4, USFWS, Leavenworth, WA. 

1986, 

- ~ 

. “Determinants of Sockeye Salmon Abundance in the Columbia River, 1880s-1982; A 

Review and Synthesis.” BioZogical Report 86 (12), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Leavenworth, Washington. 136 pp. - 

.I 

.. . 

~mam

~~~~~~~~.~,,~g~~~~,

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). .1995. ., 

Proposed recovery plan for Snake River salmon.’ National Marine*.Fisheries Service,, 

Portland, OR. 

NPPC (Northwest Power Planning Council). 1982. 

Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Adopted November 15, 19.82. 

Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, OR. 

. 1987. 

Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program: Adopted November 15, 1982. 

Amended February 1 1, 1987. Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, OR. 

I 

. 1992. 

Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlie Program.-Adopted November 15, 1982. 

Amended September 9, 1992. Northwest Power Planning Council, Portland, OR. . 

. 1994. I 

Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Adopted November 15, 1982. 

Amended December 14, 1994. Northwest Power Planning Council. Portland, OR. 

Chapter 6/ 189 
1- 

Pacific Seabird Group, Marbled Murrelet Technical Committee. 1994. 

Methods for Surveying for Marbled Murrelet in'Forests: A Protocal for Land 

Management and Research. USFS, Pacific SW Forest Experiment Station. Arcata, CA. 

30 pp. + appendices.. . ,- 

,. 

Patten, B.G., R:B. Thompson, &d W. D. Gronlund. 1970: 

Distribution and Abundance of Fish in the. Yakima River, Washington, April I957 to May 

1958. Special Scientific Report-Fisheries No. 603, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Washinhon, D.C. 

I 

~. 

Pearsons, TIN., G.A. McMichael, E.L. Bartrand, M..Fischer, J.T. Monahan, and SA. Leider. 

1993. 

- . Yakima species interactions study, annual report 1992. Project No.' 89-105. Bonneville 

. I Power Administration, Portland, OR. .98 pp. .. 

Pearsons T-.N.,.G.A. Mcuchael, S. W. Martin, E.L. Bartrand,? M. Fischer, and S.A. Leider. 1994. ', 

Yakima Riverspecies Interactions Studies. Annual report for FY 1993. Project No. 89- 

105. - Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. ,243~~. 

Peterson, A.E. 1954. ' ~. 

. - - The selective action of gill nets on Fraser River sockeye salmon. Bull: Int. Pac. Salmon 

Fish. Co&. 5:1-101. 

RASP (Regional Assessment of Supplementation Project). 1992. 

~ - Supplementation in the Columbia Basin: Summary Report Series. Bonneville Power 

. AdGstratidn, Portland, Oregon. , -.- I. , 

.- 

Renf?ow, B.D. 1994. 

Letter to D.R. Hehe dated December 19,1994 on Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife lekerhead. ". 

,~ 

Rekow, B.D. 1995. 

Personal communication with S. Leider, April, 1995. 

Rinella, J.F.,'S. W;McKenzie, and G. J. Fuhrer. 1992. 

~ Surface-Water-Quality Assessment,of the Yakha River Basin, Washington: Analysis of 

Available Water-Quality Data through 1985 Water Year- Open File-Report 91-453, U.S. . 

. Geological Survey, Portland, Oregon, . 

Robison, P.E. 1957. 

The Yakima River. Historical and Present Indian Fishery. Washington Department of 

Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. 

I 

Chapter6/ 190 
Ryman, N., and L:Laikra. 199 1. 

Effects of supportive breeding on the genetically effective population size. Conservation 

Biology 5 (3):325-329 

Servheen, C. 1992. 

Grizzly bear recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Nat. Sci. Publ. 3 12. Univ. 

Montana, Missoula, MT. 200 pp. 

Smoker, W.A. 1956. Evaluation of the Potential Salmon and Steelhead Production of the 

Yakima River to the Commercial and Recreational Fisheries. Washington Department of 

Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. 

Spaulding, J.S., T.W. Hillman, and J.S. &ffith. 1989. 

Habitat use, growth, and movement of chinook salmon and steelhead in response to 

introduced coho salmon. Pp. 157-208 in Don Chapman Consultants, Inc. Final report to 

Chelan County Public Utility District, Washington. 

Stein, R.A., P.E. Reimers, and J.D. Hall. 1972. 

Social interaction between juvenile coho (Oncorhynchus kimtch) and fall chinook (0. 

tshawytscha) salmon in Sixes River, Oregon. J. Fish-Res. Board Can. 29: - 173711748. 

Steward, C.R., and T. C. Bjornn. 1990. 

Supplementation of Salmon and Steelhead Stocks with Hatchery Fish: A Synthesis of 

Published Literature. Project 88-100. U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power 

Administration, Portland, Oregon. 

. Technical Advisory Committee. 1995. a 

Review of Coho Reprogramming, 1988-1992. 'U.S. v. Oregon Technical Advisory 

Committee, Portland, Oregon. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 1978. 

Yakima Valley Regional Water Management Stu&. Volumes 1-IV. US. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Seattle, Washington. 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). 1979. 

Final Environmental Statement, Proposed Bumping Lake Enlafgement, Yakima Project, 

Washington, Regional Office, Boise, Idaho. 

Chapter 6/ 191 
, and Washington'Department of Ecology (USBWWDOE). 1987. 

Yakima River Sub basin Early Implementation Program: Executive Summaiy, Supporting 

. Material, and Environmental Analysis. U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest 

Region, Boise, Idaho,and Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington. 

. 1990a. 

Comprehensive Geologic Report for Groundwater EvaIuation of Selected Sites: 

I 

. Reclamation, Boise, Idaho. - 

YakimdYlickitat Production Projects, Washington. -Prepared by the U. S, Bureau of 

.. 1990b. 

Water Supply AnaQsis to Bonneville Power Administration.. YakimdKlickitat Production 

Projeci Prepared by the U.S:Bureau of Reclamation, Boise, Idaho. 

,. . , and U.S. Fish &d Wildlife Service. 1976. - ' Joint Feasibility Report, Bumping Lake Enlargement, Supplemental Storage Division, 

Yakima Project, Washington. U. S. Bureau of Recla,mation,'Boise, Idaho. - 

USEPA,(U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1986. 

Quality Criteria for Water 1986. EPA 440/5-86-001: USEPA Office of Water 

Regulations and StandGds, Washington DC 

USGS -(U. S. Department ofthe Interior, Geological Survey). 1978. 

Evaluation &d Design of a Siremflow ,Data Network in .. Washington. USGS Open File 

Report 78-167. .b -. 

Vincent, E.R. 1987.. - 

. . Effects.ofstocking catchable-size hatchery rainbow trout on two wild trout species in the 

Madison River and O'Dell Creek, Montana: -North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management 7: 9 1 - 105. , . 

Waiters, C.- 1986,. - 

1 . York,NY.' 

Walters, C. 1988. 

. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. Macmillan Publishing Company. New .% 

*. - 

Mixed Stock Fisheries and the Sustainability of Enhancement Production for Chinook and 

Coho Salmon. in Salmon Production, Management, and Allocation: Biological, 

Economic, and Policy Issues. Edited by W. McNei1:- 

WOE (Washington Department of Ecology). 1988. 

('Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington." Washington 

Administrative Code 173-201, Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia, 

Washington. ' 

,. 

~. 

' Chapter6/ 192 
1 WDF (Washington Department of Fisheries) and WDW (Washington Department of Wildlie). 

1990. 

Columbia Basin System Planning Salmon and Steelhead Production Plan: Wenatchee 

River Subbasin. Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. 

. 1991. 

Yakima Hatchery Experimental Design. BPA Project No. 89-082. Annual Progress 

Report, Washington Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. , 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 1994. 

Washington Wildlife Priority Habitat System Database. Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife. Olympia, Washington. 

Watson, B., and the Yakima Fisheries Project Natural Production Work Group. 1993. 

Natural production objectives for upper Yakima spring chinook. Yakima Fisheries 

Project. Unpublished report. I 

Weigum, Ken 1994. - 

CH2M Hill Technical Memorandum No. 2, September 2, 1994. .. Bellevue, Washington. 

6PPWillis, C.F., and A.A. Nigro (eds.)' 1993. 

Development of a system-wide predator control program: stepwise implementation of a 

predation index, predator control fisheries, and evaluation plan in the Columbia River 

Basin. Annual report for 1991. Project No. 90-077. Bonneville Power Administration, 

Portland, .OR. 599 pp. ' 

Yllj (Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation). 1990. 

Yakima River Subbasin Salmon and Steelhead Production Plan. Prepared by the 

Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation, Toppenish, Washington; 

and Washington Departdent of Fisheries and Department of Wildlife, Olympia, 

Washington; for the Northwest Power Planning Council and Agencies and Indian Tribes 

of the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority. 

I .' . 

/ 

Chapter 6/ 193 
~- 'I , 

, 

.- I 

.. , 

. 
Chapter7.0 ' 

Name, AtEliation 

Jan A. Aarts 

CH2M Hill 

8 Preparers and Reviewers of the Environmental Impact Statement 

This chapter lists and presents credentials for those who prepared and reGewed this EIS. 

EIS Responsibility \ 

Permitting . 

The original DEIS (November, 1992) was prepared'by staff of the Pacific Northwest Laboratory 

(PNL), which is operated forthe U.S. Department ofEnergy by Battelle Memorial Institute under 

Contract DE-AC0676RL0 1830. Subsequent revisions were made by a group of consultants and 

BPA staff. Listed below are people who contributed to writing and reviewing both the original I 

and revised DEIS, the areas in which they contributed, and their qualifications. t f 

David M. Anderson 

PNL 

Randall S. Anderson I 

Anderson & Associates 

The revised envirorhental impact statement underwent a series of reviews before it was 

published. Reviewers included staff of the Bonneville Power Administration, members of the 

Yakama Indian Nation, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and various consultants 

to the Yakima Fisheries Project. 

I 

Socioeconomics, PNL 

Technical writing, comment analysis 

Table'7.1. EIS Contributors-and Reviewers 

Robert J. Austin - Project management 

BPA 

Craig Busack 

-I I 

Genetics 

WDFW 

Natalie A. Cadoret . 

PNL 

James C. Chatters 

PNL 

Cultural Resources 

Archaeology, Historic, and Cultural 

Resources 

~ 

Oualifications 

Master of Urban Planning; 

12 years experience in urban 

and environmental planning 

M.S. in forest economics; 10 

years experience with 

environmental issues 

M.S. in Natural Resource 

Management; 12 years 

experience in environmental 

research and technical 

writing, consultant to BPA 

since 1990 

M.S. in biology; 17 years .' . 

experience in fishery biology 

Ph.D.; 10 years experience in 

fish genetics research 

B. S . in geology; 13'years. 

experience in cultural 

resource evaluation 

Ph.D. in anthropology; 25 

years experience in cultural 

resource evaluation and 

management 

Chapter 71 195 
Colbeyt E. Cushing 

PNL ~ 

Mark Danley 

BPA ' 

Dennis D. Dauble 

PNL 

David E. Fast 

YIN 

Richard E. Fitzner , 

PNL 

Cixlene Fleskes 

BPA' 

Robert Gatton 

&l2MHill 

Lauren Gaylord 

CH2MHill 

DavidR. Geist . 

PNL 

Jeff GislasonBPA 

Robert Hagar 

Hatcbery Operations 

Consulting 

Lee Harrell \ 

NMFS 

4quatic Ecology 

Public Involvement Specialist 

EIS Management, Fisheries, Water 

Quality, 

Fisheries biology, Science/Technical 

Advisory Committee 

Wildlife 

\ 

Public Utility Assistant 

, 

Engineering aspects 

Solid and hazardous waste 

Fisheries . I 

Project Manager 

Fish Culture, Facility Operations 

Fish health aspects 

Ph.D. in biology (limnology) 

3-1 years eipinence in aquatic 

ecology research 

M.S. in forestry; 8 years 

experience in public 

involvement coordination ' 

Ph.D. in fisheries; 18 years 

experience'in fisheries . 

research 

Ph.D. in fisheries sciences; 18 

years experience in fisheries 

management 

Ph.D. in zoology; 22 years 

experience in wildlife 

research 

3 years experience in 

environmental compliance 

activities and public 

involvement 

M.S. in water resources 

engineering&& S. 

management; 20 years 

experience in water resources 

and fisheries engineering 

M.S. in urban planning; 5 

years experience in water 

resources and fisheries 

engineering 

M.S. in biology; 7 years 

experience in fisheries 

research and management 

Ph.D. in fisheries; 15 years of 

experience in fisheries 

research and management 

B.S. in fisheries; 32 years 

experience in fishery biology 

and fish culture 

Doctor of Veterinary 

Medicineh4.S. in fisheries 

biology; 28 years experience 

in fisheries veterinary 

medicine and fish health 

research 

Chapter7/'196 
Donald Heinle 

CHZM Hill 

Kaen A. Hoover 

PNL 

Charles (sill) Hopley 

WDFW 

Water Quality 

Water Quality 

Fisheries biology, Science/Technical 

Advisory Committee 

Craig Holstine 

Eastern Washington - 

Univer si tv 

Katherine B. Miller 

Archaeology, Historic, and Cultural 

resources I. 

Recreation, PNL 

William Koss 

WDFW - 

Steven Leider 

WDFW . 

Project direction and management 

Species interactions; Project 

direction and management 

Susan Lewis 

CHZM Hill 

Regina E. Lundgren 

PNL - 

Duane A. Neitzel 

PNL 

Richard S. Mack 

Central Washington 

Universitv 

Surface water hydrology 

Technical communications 

..I 

Adaptive Management 

Socioecohomic study 

Wildlife biology 

Ph.D. in zoology; 26 years 

experience in aquatic ecology 

and water quality 

MA in history; 15 years 

experience in resource 

management and history 

M.S. in geological sciences; 6 

years experience in waterrelated research 

B.S. arid M.S. in Fisheries 

Science; 19 years experience 

in hatchery production 

programming and 

evaluations, harvest 

management, and 

supplementation research 

M.S. in forest economics; 18 

years experience in natural 

resource management, policy, 

and administration . . 

B.S. in fisheries; 19 years - 

experience in fisheries 

research 

M.S. in water resources; 5 

years experience in fisheries 

research 

BA in scientific and technical 

communications; 7 years 

experience in risk 

commnunication 

M.S. in zoology; 20 years 

experience in fisheries and 

Pfi.D. in economics; 25 years 

experience in regional 

economics 

M.S. in wildlife ecology; 7 

years' experience in wildlife 

research and management 

limnology 

M. S. in marine affairs; 4 

years experience in 

environmental compliance 

Chapter 7/ 197 
LarsMobrand - Project planning 

Mobrand Biometrics 

Ph.D. in biomathematics; 12 

years experience in fisheries 

research 

Judith H. Montgomery Technical writing and editing ~ Ph.D. in American Literature; 

15 years of experience in 

writing and editing 

envjronment a1 documents 

Ph.D. in physical chemistry; 

36 yearsexperience in * 

govemment regulations and 

project management 

B.S. in mechanical 

engineering; 25 years 

experience in engineering and 

management, 16 years 

experience in research and 

management 

Emmett B. Moore 

PNL 

Regulations and permits. r 

Marvin E. Nelson 

BPA - 

Project management .- 

PatrickOshie ’ . 

YIN 

Tribal law J.D., U. of Washington; 15 

years experience in working 

with tribal,.state, and other 

governments in natural , 

resources 

B.S. in fisheries; 10 years 

experience in harvest 

management 

PhD in fisheries-science; 10 

years experience in fish 

Steve Parker 

m-. 

Harvest management 

Todd Pearsons 

WQpW 

Species interactions 

research 

Project management B.S. in fisheries science 35 - Lloyd Phinney. 

Phinney Fish 

Consultants 

William H. Rickard 

PNL . 

-, 

years experience in fish 

habitat and fishehes 

management 

‘Ph.D. in botany; 42 years 

experience in ecosystem 

research 

Vegetation ’ 

Kirk Robinson 

BPA 

Engineering M.S. in Civil Engineering; 14 

years of experience in project 

engineering and management , 

Melvin Sampson Project direction and management 

YIN 

Tom Scribner , 

YIN 

t 

Anadromous fisheries M.S. in fisheries; 14 years 

experience in fisheries 

research 

Chapter7/ 198 

.- 
Harry Senn 

Fish Management 

Consultants 

Patricia Smith 

BPA 

Lonna G. (Jodi) 

Stroklund 

BPA 

Robert L. Tuck 

Eco Northwest 

Richard W. Wallace 

PNL 

Kevin Ward 

BPA 

Bruce D. Watson 

YIN 

Nancy H. Weintraub 

BPA 

Fish culturing 

EIS editing/NEPA compliance and 

Biological Assessment . . 

Fish biology, contract management 

Water issues 

Land Use, Geology 

~ 

,I , EIS development 

Habitat enhancement 

Technical writing and editing, 

NEPA compliance coordinator 

B.S. in biology; 35 years 

experience in fish culture 

practice 

Four years en~ronmental 

project planning/* 

development; 15 years data 

gathering and analysis. 

BX'in biology; 10 years 

experience teaching biology, 

8 years COTR, 3 years ~ 

fisherv biolo& 

B.S. in biology; 14 years 

experience in fisheries 

research and management 

Ph.D. in hydrogeology; 20 

years experience in geology 

and hydrology research 

B.S. in Resource 

Management; 11 years 

experience in NEpA/ 

environmental coordination 

B.S. in fisheriks biology; 20 

years experience in fisheries 

management 

M.S. in zoology; 16 years 

experience in NEPA . , 

compliance and aquatic 

ecolom ~ 

. 

, 

~ Chapter 7/ 199 

I 

I 
I- 

- 

r 
Chapter 8.0 

Agencies, Organizations, and Individuals to Whom 

This Environmental Impact Statement Was Sent . . 

This chapter lists those to whom the draft EIS was sent. Additionid busi'nesses, organizations, 

and individuals will be sent copies of the RDEIS as they request it. 

PederaVRegional Agencies 

Northwest Power Planning Council 

Portland, Oregon 

Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee 

Portland, Oregon 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service 

Wenatchee National Forest,: Washington 

U. S. Department of Commerce/National. Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/ 

Seattle, Pasco, and Manchester, Washingtoflortland, Oregon 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC 

. National Marine Fisheries Service 

U.S. Department of the InteriorBureau of Reclamation 

Boise, Idaho/Yakima, Washington 

, U.S. Department of the InteriorRish and Wildlife Service 

Vancouver, Olympia, and Moses Lake, Washington 

U. S. Department of the InteriorEnvironmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC 

U, S. Department of the InteriorEnvironmental Protection Agency, Regional Office, Seattle, WA 

State Agencies 

State of Idaho . 

Department of Fish and &me 

State of Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Chapter 8/ 201 
State of Washington 

Department of Agriculture 

Department of Community Development 

Department of Ecology 

Department of Ecology, Water Resources 

Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Eastern Washington State College, Bonneville Cultural Resources Group 

Washington Sea Grant . 

Washington State University 

Central Washington University 

Tribal Agencies ~ 

Yakama Indian Nation 

Fisheries Resources Management Program - 

Toppenish, Washington 

Yakama Indian Nation 

Law and Order Committee 

Toppenish, Washington 

Yakama Indian Nation Confederated Tribes 

Tribal Council, Fish and Wildlife Committee 

Toppenish, Washington . 

Local AgenciesCity of Cle Elum, Mayor's Office 

City of Yakima, Assistant City Manager 

Cle Elum Chamber of Commerce . 

County of Kittitas Board of Commissioners 

County of Kittitas Department of Planning . County of Yakima Department of Planning 

Douglas County PUDNo, 1 . Ellensburg Water Company Board of Directors 

Halverson and Applecate, Ellensburg Water Company 

Roza Irrigation District 

Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District 

Yakima River Basin Association of Irrigation Districts 

. 

Organizations and Businesses 

Burke and Sons Herefords 

Cle Elum, Washington 

Chapters/ 202 
Cascade Irrigation District 

Ellensburg, Washington 

CH2M Hill Northwest, Inc. 

Bellevue, Washington - 

Chinook Engineering 

Mukilteo, Washington 

Clark Skamania Flyfishers Association 

Vancouver, Washington 

Federation of Fly Flshers 

Seattle, Washington 

Fiander Enterprises, Inc. 

Harrah, Washington 

Fisheries Resource Management 

Granger, Washington 

Hickey Engineering Sales, Inc. 

Bellevue, Washington 

Mobrand Biometrics, Inc. 

Vashon, Washington 

Northwest Rivcrs Council 

Seattle, Washington 

Oregon Stei, Coalition 

Bandon, Oregon 

Oregon Trout 

Portland, Oregon 

Pacific Northwest Laboratory 

~ Richland, Washington 

Pentec Environmental 

Edmonds, Washington 

Royal Coachman Outfitting Company 

Renton, Washington 

. Chapter 8/ 203 
R. W. Beck and Associates 

Seattle, Washington 

I TroutUnlimited 

. ~akima, Washington 

Washington Cattlemen's Association ' 

Ellensburg, Washington ~ 

Washington State Council of the Federation of Flyfishermen 

. Seattle; Washington 

Washington Fly, Fishing Club . 

'Redmond, Washington 

Washington Water Resources Association 

Yakima, Washington 

Yakima River Alliance 

Seattle, Washington 

Yakima valley canal company 

Yakima, Washington 

Libraries, State and Federal Congressional Staff, and Private Individuals 

ChapterX/ 204 
. GLOSSARY 

This appendix contains .a list of acronyms, abbreviations, and technical terms used in this EIS. 

Words that would be defied in a desk-size dictionary (for example, the College Edition of the 

American Heritage Dictionary) are not included. 

. 

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

-' AHS 

BPA 

BLM 

CEA 

CFR 

CWA 

cfs 

corps 

CRFMP 

&A 

DEIS 

EA 

'EDTPM 

EIS 

FDA 

FONSI 

am 

ha 

HTH 

m3/s 

mdL 

MOU 

NEPA 

NIT 

MS-222 

NMFS 

NO1 

Northwest Power Act 

NPPC 

NRHP 

NTU 

OCT 

Archaeological hd Historicd Services 

Bonneville Power Administration 

Comprehensive Environmental Analysis of Anadromous Fish 

Production 

Code of Federal Regulations 

Clean Water Act 

cubic feet per second 

US. Army Corps of Engineers 

Columbia River Fish Management Plan 

decibels (A-weighted) 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Environmental Assessment 

Ecosystem Diagnostic and Treatment Planning Model 

Environmental Impact statement 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

gallons per Il?inute 

hectares 

sodium hypochlorite 

cubic meters per Fecond 

milligrams per liter , 

Memorandum of Understanding 

tricaine methane sulfonate 

National Environmental Policy Act 

new innovative treatment (one of the experimental treatments for 

the project) 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Notice.of Intent 

Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 

1980 (Northwest Power Act). 

Northwest Power Planning Council 

National Register of Historic Places 

nephelometric turbidity units 

optimal conventional treatment (one of the experimental treatments 

for the project) 

Bureau of Land Management - 

Glossary/ 1 'I 
ORV 

RASP 

RCW 

RDEIS 

SEPA 

SHPO 

STAC - 

TSS 

USBR 

USC 

USDOE ”- 

USFS 

USFWS 

USGS 

WDFW 

WDOE 

WDOT 

YFP -’ 

YKFP 

YIN / 

off-road vehicle 

Regional Assessement of Supplementation Project 

Revised Code of Washington 

Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

State Environmental Policy Act 

State Historic Preservation Office 

Sciencenechnical Advisory Committee 

total suspended solids 

- Bureau of Reclamation 

U.S. Code of Regulations 

U.S. Department of Energy 

U.S. Forest Service 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Washington Department of Fish-and Wildlife (formerly consisted of 

Washington Department of Fisheries and Washington Department 

of Wildlife; the two agencies have now merged) 

Washington Department of Ecology 

Washington Department of Transportation 

.Yakima Fisheries Project 

Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project 

Yqkama Indian Nation 

/ 

Glossary/2 I 
Technical Terms 

100-year floodplain. That portion of a river valley adjacent to the stream channel which is 

covered with water when the stream overflows its banks during a 100-year flood event. A 100- 

year flood event is one that has a 1 in 100 chance of happening in any 1 ‘year. 

acclimation site. Sites at which young fish are held in artificial ponds to allow them to imprint so 

that they return to that place to spawn. 

acclimation. Allowing fish to adjust to environmental variables. Older hatchery practices 

resulted in high mortalities because the young fish were-released directly from the hatchery, 

without a chance for them to adjust to the natural stream environment. Acclimation is a process 

which is used to allow the fish to gradually adjust to a more natural environment and imprint on . 

the area in which the acclimation site is located, rather than on the hatchery, so that the fish will 

return to the area to spawn. 

.acre-feet. Quantity of water (43,560 cubic feet) that would cover 1 acre to adepth of 1 foot. 

adaptation. Genetic change over generations through natural selection that results in a 

population better suited to its environment. 

aggregate. Multiple frsh stocks-within a species or race. -. 

anadromous. Fishes that migrate from fresh to salt water when young, spend the majority of 

their adult life in the ocean; and then retum to their ancestral drainage to spawn. 

ancestral drainage. Basin in which fish spawned, historically. 

biomass. Total weight of organisms per unit volume. 

broodstock. Fish that will be spawned to create hatchery stock. 

carrying capacity. The average maximum level of a particular population sus~nable within an 

ecosystem over a long period. \ - 

central facility. Fish culture facility used for incubation and rearing of salmon and steelhead. 

density-dependent mortality. ,Predation on fish that varies depending upon their density. It is 

theorized that predators ignore prey species that ar& rare, and begin to prey on them only when 

- 

they reach a certain density. 

domestication selection. Natural selection for traits which affect survival and reproduction in a 

human-controlled environment, 

donor stock. Specific stock’from which broodstock are chosen. . 

_- 

- fingerling. Juvenile salmonid; usually refers to pre-smolt fish. 
d 

floodway. - A river channel active only during a flood 

fry. Juvenile salmonid life stage following absorption of yolk sac. 

imprinting. The physiological and behavioral process by which migrating fish assimilate 

environmental cues to aid their return to their stream of origin as adults. 

kelt. Spawned-out adult. 

long-term genetic fitness. A measure of the abiliw of a population to survive natural selection 

over a number of generations. 

maximum sustainable yield. The maximum harvest rate at which a population can remain viable 

over an extended period of time. 

native populations. Populations of fish that have adapted to a particular habitat and that have 

spawned naturally in that habitat over many generations. 

naturally-spawning populations. Populations of fish that spawn in the naturd habitat as 

opposed to being spawned through a hatchery program. They may be offspring of fish spawned 

in either natural or hatchery environments. 

new innovative treatment. A treatment that incubates, rears, and acclimates spring chinook 

salmon using natud-like environments (e.g., natural cover, substrate, in-water structure) to 

produce fish that mimic attributes of naturally produced spring chinook salmon. 

\ 

. 

optimal conventional treatment. A treatment that incubates, rears, and acclimates salmonids 

using optimal conventional fish-culture methods derived from artificial propagation experiences 

within the Columbia River Basin. 

pH. The symbol for the chemical measurement of the acidity or alkalinity of a solution. 

population. A group of individuals of a species living in a certain area. 

presmolt. Juvenile salmonid before undergoing metamorphosis into saltwater fish. 

’ 

- 

~ 

F 

- 

predation. The harm, desfruction, or consumption of: a prey organism by an animal predator. 

production. Number of individuals produced from natural environment or fish culture faciliiies. 

programmatic EIS. An EIS that addresses a program, or a broad range of actions, rather than a 

. specific project or proposal. 

race. A group of individuals within a species, forming a permanent variety; aparticular breed. 

raceway. Holding area or rearing facility for juvenile or adult salmonids- in a hatchery. 
redd. A salmon nest. 

reproduction. The process of forming new individtlals of a species by sexual or nonsexual 

methods. - 

ESh Wi&x ... 

riparian. Growing on or living on banks of streams and rivers. 

residualism. When anadromous juveniles do not outmigrate to the ocean and instead remain in 

freshwater €or extended periods. In some cases, they may become resident fish, and never 

outmigrate .to the ocean. 

run timing. The distinct period during which a population of anadromous fish passes through or 

returns to a specific location. 

. 

salmonid. Belonging to the family salmonidae, Le., salmon, trout, steelhead, whitefish. 

satellite facility. Fish culture facility used for rearing and acclimation of juvenile salmon or 

holding of adult broodstock. 

I 

I smolt. Juvenile salmonid undergoing metamorphosis into a saltwater fish, usually during the 

downstream migration period. 

species. A group,of interbreeding individuals not interbreeding with another suFh group; similar, 

and related species are grouped into a genus. 

status-indexed fishery. A fishery- based upon harvest policy that determines the rate of harvest 

. 

on the basis of the strength of all run components. 

stock. A distinct management or genetic unit of-fish. 

subordination. To put the item referenced behind something else, in terms of importance. 

supplementation. The use of Micia1 propagation in the attempt to maintain or increase natural 

production while maintaining the long-term fitness of the target population, and while keeping the 

ecological and genetic impacts on nontargetpopulations within specified limits. ‘megional 

Assessment of Supplementation Projects definition) 

-. 

terminal fishery - A fishery that occurs in a terminal area, such as a tributary, where the stocks 

of fish have been disaggregated so that the harvest is considered to be on a single identified stock 

rather than on mixed stocks of fish; fishery conducted near or in the natal-stream as anadromous 

fish return to their point of origin. 

/ 

Glossary/ 5, 
. 

terminal harvest rate. The proportion of a migra-xy population harvested in a terminal fishery. 

trapping facility. Facility used to trap and handle juvenile or adult salmonids during downstrek 

or upstream migration period. 

wild population. Genetically unique populations of fish that have maintained reproduction 

successfully without supplementation from hatcheries. 

within population variability. The quantity and variety of alleles, chromosomes, and 

arrangement of genes on the chromosomes that ire present in populations. 

-_ 

Glossary/ 4 

/ 
. INDEX 

A 

Acclimation Sites .............. 32. 33. 35. 38. 

................... 46.48. 54. 58, 59. 63. 64. 

................... 66. 71. 72. 87. 91,.92, 96. 

............... 97. 106. 108, 109. 110. 113. 

............ 114. 115. 116. 145. 146. 147. 

............ 148. 150. 153. 164. 165. 172. 

............................................... 176. 179 

Adaptive Management ........ 4. 10. .15. 16. 

.............. 17. 19. 20. 23. 30. 31. 48. 50. 

............. 51. 57. 58. 99. 117. 125. 133. 

....... 135. 138. 139. 140.156.163. 168 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources ... 95; 96 

Agriculture ................ 70. 94. 95. 96. 158 

Air Quality (Description/Irnpacts) ...... 93. 

...................................... 149. 165. 181 

Upper Yakima Spring Chinook 

Supplementation .......................... 23 

Supplementation .......................... 47 

Alternative Sites ........................ : ........ 54 

Alternatives .............. 1. 9. 10. 13. 15. 20. 

... '. ................ 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 

................. 60. 63. 109. 112. 114; 115. 

............. 116. 117. 119. 124. 125. 128. 

..... I ...... 129. 136. 137. 138. 145. 146. 

............ 149. 150. 151. 1%. 156. 158. 

...................... 160. 161; 163,.164, 167 

Aquatic Biological Resources ....... 56. 58 

Aquifers ..................................... 1 14. 18 1 

Assumptions ............... 17. 19. 20. 23. 27. 

................... 29. 33. 51. 117. 122. 135. 

...................................... 150. 153. 1. 54 

. 

Alternatfve 1 

Alternative 2 c 

Upper Yakima Spring Chinook 

Alternatives Eliminated from Detailed 

Study ............................................... 53 

., 

B 

Background ........... 2. 5. 69. 93. 113. 133 

Background Sound Levels and Noise .. 93 

Biological Resources Wildlife and . 

C 

. Vegetation ...................................... 86 

Central Hatchery Facility .............. 33. 35 

Cle ElumHatchery ........... 35. 65. 71. 96. 

................................ 97. 112. 113. 150 

Clean Air Act ................................... 181 

Clean Water Act .. 99. 112.163.173. 174 

Clearing ....................... 89. 145. 149. 165 

Coastal Management Program .......... 174 

Coho Feasibility Study ............ 48. 51. 52. 

................................................. 54; 57 

. Coho Salmon ................ 8.48. 50. 73; 79. 

............... 81. 118. 119. 120. 122. 127. 

.............................. 133. 134. 136. 146 

Summary of Impacts .............. ........,. 55- 

.Act (CERCLA) ............................. 180 

. @escriptions/Impacts) ........ 54.60.97. 

.............. .......................... 98. 158. 177 

Cumulative Effects ..................... 10. 114 

D -- 

Decisions to be Made ......................... 11 

-Discovery Situatioris ......................... 177 

E . . 

Easton Dam siting option .................. 172 

Energy Conservation at Federal Facilities 

..................................................... 180 

Comparison of Alternatives and 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response. Compensation. and Liability 

Cultural Resources 

1 . F 

Facilities ..................... 1. 3. 4. 6. 7. 8. 10. 

................... 15. 16. 23. 25. 27. 31. 33. 

1 .................. 35. 38. 46. 48. 52. 54. 55. 

................... 57. 58. 59,60. 64. 65. 67. 

................... 71. 78. 82. 87. 88. 89. 91. 

............... 94. 100, 103. 106. 107. 109. 

.............. 110. 111. 112. 114. 115. 116. 

. . 

Index/l 

......... .- ..... ...... 
. 

..................... 136. 138. 140. 143. 144. 

- ..................... 145. '147. 148. 149. 150. 

...................... 153. 157. 158. 160. 161. 

..................... 162. 163. 164. 165 . 166. 

..................... 167. 168. 172. 173. 174. 

.; .................................... 175. 180. 181 

Fall Chinook Salmon ... 50.73.77.78. 79 . 

Federal Insecficide. Fungicide. and -- 

~ 

. 

, 

. 

. Farmlands'. ................ i ........ 106. 160. -179 

Rodenticide Act (FCFRA) .............. 179 

Fish andwildlife Conservation ..... 1 ... 178 

Fish Passage ...................... 103. 109. 139 

Fisheries Management ........ .-. ........... 100 

Fisheries Resources ... 5,21.98. 103. 116 

. 

Floodplains .............. 5 6. 58. 71. 114; 115. 

...................................... 116. 167. 179 

G %I 

Groundwater .............. 33. 35. . 46. 54. 58. 

................. 63. 65. 66. 69. 70. 7 1. 110, 

...................... 114. 116. 164. 168,.173 - . 

pi ' .. 

Habitat Improvement .... : ..... 7. 13. 53.74. 

........................ 99. 104. 105. 140. 143 

....................................... 102. 122. 143 

............................................... 161. 163 

Heritage Conservation ...................... 176 . 

Harvest Management ............ 7. 100. 101. .. 

Hazardous Materids ......... 107.l08. 160. .. 

,. - . I 1 

Increased Streamflows ....................... '105 

Introduction ....... ;; ................. 15. 63,.116 

Irrigation ............ 5. 7. 29. 63. 64. 67. 69; . 

.................... 76. 17. 78. 81. 82. 83. 89. 

.. 110. '143 

., 

............... 99. 100. 103. 104. 105. 109.. . 

.......... ................................... 

'K 

Kittitas County ................. 61. 93. 94. 99. 

..................... 107. 151. 166. 171. 172. 

...................................... 174. 175, 179 

Inded2 

I 

. L 

Land Use at Proposed Project Facility 

Sites ............................................... 106 

Local Plans ....................................... 171 

M 

Maintenance ...........!... 6, 60. 95. 96; 102. 

. ......-..................... 110, 124. 150. 151, 

...................................... 153. 155. 162 

.. Ecological Risk ............................. 163 . Mitigation Measures ......... 116. 159. 163. 

.............................................. 164, 177 

. Monitoring ............... 3. 4. 16. 17. 20, 23. 

................... 29.. 30, 31. 32. 33, 38. 50. 

................. 51, 60. 86, 90. 95, 99. 118. 

............. 119. 121. 122, 124. 125, 127. 

............. 130, 131, 133. 134, 135, 138, 

.............. 139, 140, 144. 150, 151. 153, 

....... 154, 155, 163, 164. 166,168, 175 

N- . 

National Historic Preservation Act ..... 97. 

.............................. 158. 159, 176, 177 

National Pollution Discharge Elimination 

System ........................... 112. 173. 174 

National Register of Historic Places . :176 

National Trails ........................... 157. 176 

National Wetland Inventory .......... 71 . 72 

Need arid Purposes ............................... 2 

No Action Alternative ............ 10. 11. 15, 

................. 52. 57, 58. 59. 60. 61. 109. 1 

............. 115, 116. 142, 143, 144, 145, 

...................... 146, 149. 158, 162. 163 

Noise ............ i.......... 56. 59,.93, 149, 181 

'Noise Control Act 1 ........................... 18.1 

Objectives ............... IS. 6, 16. 17, 20, 23. 

................. i. 24. 25, 26. 27, 29, 30, 33, 

............. 48. 50. 51. 53, 100. 102,.105, 

............. 117. 118. 119. 121, 122,.124, 

.............................. 130. 135. 156, 164 

Objectives and Strategies ........ 17,20,24. . 

............................ ; ....... 33. 48.50, 156 

Management of Biological and . 

.. 

.. 

. 

I 

.. 

0 

. 

. 
P 

Passage Improvements and Other 

Activities ......................................... 53 

Planning Status Rep0 rt ................ 17, 19. 

.......................... 20. 24, 29. 30. 50. 5’1 

Policy Definition and Expression ........ 20 

Policy Group. ... 2.21.22.23.47.51. 122 

Predator Control ....................... 102. 135 

Production .................... 1. 2. 3. 5, 67 7, 8. 

................... 10. 11. 13. 15. 24. 2‘5. 26. 

................... 27. 29. 30. 31. 33. 50. 55. 

................... 70. 71. 73. 74. 76,77.78. 

................. 79. 81. 82. 83. 95. 98. 102. 

............. 103. 104. 105. 109. 112. 113. 

............. 114. 117. 118. 120. 121. 123. 

............. 124. 125. 127. 128. 129. 135. 

............. 137. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 

...................... ; ....................... 144. -147 

Project Annual-Review ............. i ......... 20 

............................................ 21. 22. 48 

Project Management Plan ............. 17. 48 

Project Managers ................ 1.2. 4,9. 10. 

............. 15. 16. 20. 22. 24. 29. 30. 38. 

........... 46. 48. 50. 53. 54. 58. 98. 105. 

............. 109. 110. 114. 123. 134. 135. 

............. 136. 137. 138. 147. 156. 161. 

.............. 162. 163. 164. 166. 167. 168 

Project Operations ............ 21. 22. 30. 46. 

Proposed Action ............. 1. 8. 53. 55. 90; 

.............. 117. 137. 144. 146. 172; 179 

Protection Program .......................... 105 

Project Management ........... 8. 10. 16.17. 

. 

........................ 52. 139. 144. 145. 165 . 

Q 

Quackenbush Decision ...................... 103 

R 

Recreational Reso&es ........... 60. 95. 96. 

Relationship to Other Yakima River 

...................................... 157. 158. 166 

Basin Fisliery Enhancement Efforts .... 6 . 

Resident Salmonids ..... 83. 128.130.. 131 

Resident Trout Fishery .............. 156. 158 

Resource Management ........... 17. 60, 98. 

. 

: ....................................... 99. 1-00. 162 

Resources Conservation dnd Recovery‘ 

Act (RCRA) ........................... 1 ...... 180 

Riparian ................ 60. 72. 73. 76. 83. 86. 

................. 87. 99. ii6. 145. 148. 164. 

....................................... i65. 167. . 179 

RiskAnalysis .................... 17. 23. 29. 33. 

....................... 51. 117. 118. 119. 124. 

.............................. 125. 127. 135. 139 

Subordmaaon ................................ 104 . Roza and Chandler Power Plant Flow .. 

S 

Science/I’echnical Advisory Committee .. Safe Drinking Water Act .................. 181 

..................... :- ........................... 10. 23 

Scopihg ................................. 12. 53. 1.16 

Sockeye Salmon ......... ............ 73. 81. 82 

Sojid-Waste ..... -.... 61. 107. 160. 161. 167 

Special status Species ................. 59. 90. 

...................................... 146. 165. 178 

Spring Chinook Salmon .......... 25. 57. 66. 

............... 73. 74. 76. 82. 85. 100. 101. 

..... ... 102. 110. 129. 132.133.136. .168 

State and Areawide Clearinghouses.. . 171 

State Permits for Work in Stream Bas ... ..................................................... 174 

Program Consistency ..................... 171 

Strategies ...; ............. 3. 4,.17, 19. 20, 23. 

............. 105. 117. 118. 119; 122. 124. 

............................................... 126. 156 . 

Summer Chinook Salmon ............. 76. 7’7 

Summer Steelhead ..... ....... 15. 73. 82. 83. 

..................... 1 ........ 100. 101. 133. 146 

Supplementation ........... 1. 2. 3.4. 5. 6. 7. -‘ 

............... 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 15. 17. 23. 

.... z ....... 24.25.26.27.29.30.33.35. . 

............. 47. 48. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 58. 

............... 67~02. 117. ii8. ii9.-122. 

............. 125.126.127.137.138.139. 

..................... 140,.141, .- 142. 143. 144. 

.. 

Socioeconomic Resources .................. 93 

State. Areawide. and Local Plan and ’ 

................ 24, 25. 29. 30. 33.48. 50. 55. 

.. 

Index/3 

...... ... ~- ....... 
I 

........:..... 150. 156. 158. 163, 164. 168 

Supplemented Stocks ......................... 53 

Surface Water ............ 35. 46. 56. 57. 63. 

................... 65, 66. 67. 68. 70. 85. 103. 

...................... 109. 110. 111. 114. 163 

Threatened aqd Endangered. Species ....... ........................ 13. 146. 147. 149,.178 

- 

. . 

. T 

Timber. . Fish and Wildlife .................. 106 

Trapping Facilities ............: ....... 8. 38. 34 

v 

U.S. Army Corps'of Engineers Pe&$ 

for Structures or Work in Navigable . 

Waters ..... i .................................... 175 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permits 

for the Discharge of Dredged or Fill . 

, . Material ........................................ 174 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects ............ '167 

Uncertainties .......... 4. 10. 17. 19. 20. 23. 

.............. 26. 29. 30. 33. 117. 138.. 142 

Uncertainty Resolution Plan ..... 19.20. 30 

Upper Yakima Spring Chinook 

Supplementation ....... 23.47.48.- 5 1. 52 I 

w . 

Water Appropriation ........................ 173 

Water Management .......... 103. 109. 110. 

....................................... 140. 142. 159 

'Water Quality ................... 53. 57. 67. 77. 

................. 78. 98. 109;lll. 112. . 114. 

................ 116. 127. 167. 168. 173. 174 

Water Quantity ....... i .............. 57. 64. 109 

Water Resources ........ ; ......... 6. 7.56. 57. 

................................. . 63. 64. 100. 105. 

...................................... 109. 114. 162 

Wetlands ............... : .... 35. 54. 56. 58. 71. 

.............. 145. 164. 167. 168. 174. 179' 

Wild Trout Fishery ...................... 60. 95, 

...................................... 156. 167. 168 

Wddlife~ ...................... 1. ,5. 8. 11. 12. 21. 

................... 22. 23. 38. 53. 56. 57. 59, 

............... 86. 87. 88. 89. 99. 101. 103. 

............. 104. 106. 111.. 116. 137. 139. 

.............. 142. i45. 1'46. 150. 158. 163. 

...................... 165. 167. 168. 172. 178 

.. 

. 

............. 72. 87. si. 93. 114. 115. 116. 

. . 

Y 

Yakima County ....... 93.94.95.103. 151 ., 

v. .. Yakirna River Basin Water Adjudication . Vegetation ........................................................ 103 .: .......... 56, 59. 72. 86. 87. 88. . ........ :.89, 115. 145. 148.167.168. 178 - . 

Zoning ............................................... 172 

J 

Index/4 

. 

I 

. .- - .- ............. - ____.I .. ....... . -. _I_____c_ . .......... 

... ... 
. APPENDICES 

Appendix A: Comments on Revised Draft EIS and Responses 

Appendix B: 1995 Planning Status Report;. Volume 3- Yakima Spring 

Chinook Salmon; Volume 5 - Yakha Coho Smon 

Appendix C: Glossary of Species: Scientific Names 

Appendix D: Biological Assessments and Endangered Species 

Consultation - 

Appendix E: Harvest Management 

, 

, 
, '. 

.. 
. 

Appendix A: Comments on Revised Draft EIS and 

Responses 

c 

’. 

.. -. . 

.- . 
, 
To the Reader 

This appendix contains the comments made on the YFP Revised Draft EIS published in 

May 1995. All letters were read and comments identified within. them;'similarly, all 

comments made at are meetings were identified for response. The body of the appendix 

contains the individual comments (sometimes grouped where different commenters made 

the same or closely related point), followed by a response. Each commentlcomment 

group is identified by a letterhumber code for easy reference. Note that some comments 

have been moved out of numerical order in order to group them for most effective 

response (e.g., comment B01-09 has been moved together with B02-02). 

On the following pages, you will find (1) a table of contents listing groups of comments by 

subject matter; and then (2) an index to commenters, where they were identifiable (others 

are listed as Anonymous or identified by meeting and commenter number). This index will 

enable individual commenters- to find responses to specific points they raised. 

Where appropriate, changes have been made in the EIS to reflect the responses-to 

comment. As noted in the Reader's Guide to the EIS (inside Eront cover), all significant 

additions to the EIS are double-underscored and identified with a vertical line in the 

margin. - - 
. 

. 

, 
A 

B 

C 

'D 

E 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

EIS PROCESS/GENERAL COMMENTS 

PROPOSED ACTION (GENERAL) 

BO1 ~ Project Purpose and Need 

BO2 Management and Coordination 

BO3 Public Involvement 

BO4 Decisionmaking 

BO5 Schedule and Timing 

BO6 Costs and Funding . 

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES AND OPERATIONS (GENERAL) 

Page 

1 

2 

2 

7 

12 

15 

15 

17 

19 

CO1 

C02 Project Facilities 

C03 Monitoring and Evaluation 

C04 Project Operations/Broodstock Selection/Fish Rearing 

Proposed Fish Stocks, Numbers, and Areas 

- 

24 

36 

39 

41 

POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTSAND CONSTRAINTS (GENERAL) 59 

DO1 Genetic Resources 

D02- Species Interactions 

DO3 

DO4 Threatened and Endangered Species 

DO5 Disease 

DO6 Water Quality 

DO7 Fish Harvests 

DO8 

DO9 Socioeconomic Resources 

D10 

D11 Instream and Riparian Habitat 

OTHER ISSUES AND CONCERNS 

Water Flows, Rights, and Claims 

Wildlife and Other Ecological Resources 

Recreational Resources (Other than Fishing) 

60 

62 

67 

81 

83 

84 

88 

89 

91 

91 

93 

94 
, 

, 

.. 

I 

I I 
YA KIMA FISHERIES EIS 

CQMMENT AND RESPONSES 

COMMENTER INDEX 

To assist commenters in locating responses to their comments, we have prepared the index below. 

The number to the right of each name corresponds to-the commentlresponse location in the FEIS 

CommentResponse section. Where commenters did not identify themselves, comments are listed 

as Anonymous. Comments (all anonymous) made at meetings are listed at the end of this index, 

and are identified by the meeting at which they occurred ( Yakima (YPM) or Cle Elum (CPM). 

Ah& Vern &Kristin 

Anonymous, Department of Interior, F& W Service 

Anonymous 

Anonymous 

Anonymous 

Anonymous 

Anonymous 

Anonymous 

Anonymous 

Anonymous 

Anonymous 

Anonymous 

Anonymous 

Anonymous 

Anonymous 

Anonymous 

Anonymous 

Anonymous 

Anonymous 

Anonymous 

Anonymous 

Anonymous 

Anonymous 

Anonymous 

Anonymous 

Anonymous 

Anonymous 

Anonymous 

Anonymous .-. 

E-08 

D05-01 

A-01 

B01-06 

B01-10 

B01-12 

B06-01 

B06-05/07 

B06-09 

c-01 

C-03*' 

C-06 

C-07 

co1-01 

CO1-06 

CO1-09 

COl-09 

co1-10 

. CO1-17 

co2-01 

co2-02 

CO3-01 

. CO4-02 

CO4-13 

CO4-15 

D02-0 1/02/03 

D02-05 

D02-08 . 

D02-07 

' Comments asterisked are grouped with category E (Other) in $e CommentResponse section. 

.-. / 

1 

.. . 
Anonymous 

Anonymous 

Anonymous 

.Anonymous 

Anonymous 

.Anonymous 

Anonymoqs 

Anonymous 

Anonymous 

Anonymous 

Anonymous 

Anonymous 

Anonymous 

D02-09 

D02-10 

D02-13 

D03-14 

D05-02 

D06-02 

D06-03 

D07-03 

D07-03 

D07-03 

Dll-02 

E-02 

E-04 

, . I 

.. 

*, 

Ark, Ken A. 

Athertoq Jq / 

Ayes, Jeff&. Geoscientist,-CH2M Hill, Heford I. 

E01 

C-04 

DO5-02 

E-19 

B01-07 . 

.. ~- 

B ,Fred 

B01-08 

Briggs, Howard ._ 

D10-01 

D10-03 

D10-04 

c-12* 

D06-04/05 

E-13- . 

D10-01 

E-17 r' 

. Bunger, W.G. 

. BU~YOWS, RichardN. 

Cabreza, Joan B02-01 

B02-02B01-09 

C-09 

Dol-01 

B01-01 

B03-01 

B05-03 

B06-01 

I\ 

I. 

_. - .. 

Carkonen, Jim-' - . 

.. I 
Cole, James K, Area Manager, Bureau of Reclamation, 

US Department of the Interior - 

DeFaccio, Paul M. 

Downs, Geraldine &Milton 

Evy, J., Conservation Director, Oregon Trout 

Flower, Charles, C. , Attorney, Flower & Andreotti, 

rep. Yakima River Basin Defense Coalition 

Furukawa, Gary 

Gorrenson, Robert 

Hatcher, Lynn, Yakuma Indian Nation 

A-02 

B02-02lB01-09 

B02-03/04 

CO3-03 

E14 

CO2-04 

D02-11/12 ' 

D 03-23/29 

-c-os 

. CO1-15 

CO1-16 

CO4-08 

CO4-09 

CO4-10 

D02-04 

B01-14* 

. B06-01 

D02-01/02/03 

CO4-14 

D03-.15 

B01-03 

B01-02 

CO1-18 

co1-21 

D-01 

D-02 

D03-04 

D03-05 

D03-06 

D03-07 

D03-OS 

D03-11 

D03-12 

D04-06 

D06-01. 

DO6-OS ' 

DOS-03 

DOS-03 

D03-09 ' 

D03-10 

... 

Ill 
_- 

Hatcher (con 't) 

Hayes, William &M&jorie 

Hurlbut, Louis K. 

_.. 

Iten, Connie, State of Washington, Depariment of Fish and Wildlijk 

Jennings, Vmce 

,1 -. 

- Kinney, J. Daniel, Yakima Valley Audubon Society 

Lund, Gary- 

-McNei?, Elliam J., Ph. D; 

Myon, Jim, Oregon Trout 

0 'Neal, Sonny, Forest Supervisor 

Wenatchee National Forest, USDA 

E12 

B01-04 

B01-15* 

D02-01/02/03 

E19 

A-03 

B02-06 

CO1-14 

D01-03 

D02-04 

E15 

B01-04 

C-09 

CO3-05" 

D02-11/12 

A-04 

B03-04/05 . 

c-02 

CO1-13 

CO3-01 

CO4-11 

co1-09 

D06-02 

E13 

CO4-07 

c-os 

D04-02 , 

D04-03 a 

D04-04 

B02-07 

B02-08 

B02-09 

. B02-10 

. B02-11/12 

B03-04/05 

CO1-14 

co1-22 

CO3-04 

Dol-04 

Dll-03 

iv 
0 'Neal (con 1) 

Olsen, Larry 

1 -< 

Osborn, Michael T. . 

(I Polityh, Charles S., Regional Environmental Officer, 

US. DeparGent of the Interior 

Pratt, James 

Pyeatt, Ronald -- 

Rhodes, R., Aquafood Business Association . - 

SI 

Ritchie, Barbara J. , State of Washington, Deparfmenf of Ecology 

. Shepard, Steve 

Slothower, Jefi Lathrop, Winbauer, Harrel& Slothower, 

rep. Taneum Canal Company 

Slothower, Jefi Lathrop, Winbauer, Hawel& Slothower, 

rep. Manastush Water Ditch Association 

Smith, Todd B. 

E-10 

E-11 

C-04 

D07-07 

D03-19/20/21/22 

B01-04 

D02-01/02/03 

E16 

D06-02 . . 

DO8-01 

E-19 

B03-02 

B06-02 

B06-03 

co2-01 

C04-12 

D04-01 

D10-01 . 

D10-02 

B06-05/07 

D09-01 

B01-02 

D03-36 

C04-03 

C04-04/05 

DO3113 

D03-23/29 

D03-24 

D 03-25/26/27/28 

D03-30 - 

D03-31 

-D03-13 - . 

D 03-23129- 

r. 

D03-24'. 

D03-25/26!27/28 

D03-30 

D03-31 

B01-04 

v- . 
-. 

\. 

D07-01 

. DO7-02 

.. 

, .I Sorensen, HenryL.' 

- Sorenson, Ted BO6-OS 

c-11 - 

Stacostha, yic 

Thomson, Jim 

-. 

B01-04 

- co1-20 

CO3-06 

CO4-02 - 

CO4-06 

CO4-16 

D01-02 

D07-09* ' 

Dll-01 

D11-02 

CO3-02 

. . Upton, CharIene, Manager, Yakima District Office: 

Richard Hmtings, House of Representatives E18 

Meeting Comments , -. 

CPM-01-01 . B05-01 

. CPM-001-02 .. . E-03 

B04-01 ' 

E-13 ' 

~. , -. CPM-002-03 

J ' ~ E-13 

CPM-004-02 

,. ., CPM-005-02 ' 

. CPM-01-06 . B03-07/08 

D03-03 

E-05 

Dll-02 

B03-03 

D03-18 

D06-09 

CPM-01,03 

- CPM-01-04 

CPM- 01- 05 

CPM-01-0 7 

CPM-01-08 

.. CPM-02-01 .' . 

CPM-02-02 ' ' 

' CPM-038-OI 

CPMyO4-01 

CPM-05-01 

CPM-0 7-01 . 

,~ 

D03-33 I 

E-13 

D03-19/20/21/22 

D03-16 

D 02-0 1/02/03 

co1-19 

CO2-03 ' 

B03-04/05 ~ 

D02-07 

,. 

\ .. 

CPM-07-02 " c-10 

CPM-08-01 

CPM-08-02 

. CPM-11-01 

CPM-12-01 

_. 

CPM-13-0 DO6-07 

I, 

Vi 

*, . ,< 

I- 

,. ..,. . __ ~_.. - 
CPM-13-02 

CPM-19-01 

CPM- 19-02 

CPM-19-03 

CPM-20-01 

CPM-20-OI 

CPM-20-02 

CPM-2 0-03 

CPM-28-OI 

CPM-29-01 

CPM-34-02 

CPM-38-02 

PM-00 I-OI 

PM-003-02 

PA+003-04 

YPM-003-05 

PM-003-06 

YPM-003-0 7 

PM-003-08 

PM-003-09 

PM-005-0I, 006-02 

PM-006-OI 

PM-006-03 

PM-006-04 

PM-006-05 

PM-006-06 

YPM-006-07 

PM- 006-08 

PM-006-09 

PM-0064 0 

PM-0064 I 

YPM-006-12 . 

PM-006- I3 

YPM-006- I4 

YPM-009-0 I 

YPM-0 I I-0 I . 

YPM-0 I I-02 

PM-012-01 

YPM-0 I2-02 

YPM-0 12-03 

YPM-0 I2-04 

YPM- 01 2-05 

, 

B04-01 

B03-06 

D06-10- 

B03-07/08 

c-10 

D02-05 

d0206 

D06-03 

E-07 

B03-04/05 

D03-19/20/21/22 

CO1-23 

D03-19/20/21/22 

B02-13 

B06-06 

D03-34/35 

DO334135 

CO2-05 . 

D03-01 

D03-02 

B05-02 

B02-14 

- co1-12 

B02-14 

B05-01 

B05-01 

, co1-10 

. co1-11 

B06-04 

CO1-08 

D07-08 

' D07-02 

CO4-01 

D04-05 

D03-16 

CO1-24 

D03-01 

D03-32 

E-06 

DO8-02 

B01-13* 

B01-11" 

CO3-07 

r 

vii 
tr 

BO2105 . 

c-OS : 

B02-01 

aD03-17 

~D06-04/05 , 

, B01-04 

co1-12 

co1-11 

' B01-02 

~. 

-, ,. 

,' 

. D06-04/05 I, 

.I 

. . D06-06 

. CO1-04 

D01-05 , 

co1-02 

CO1-08 

t . CO1-07 

co1-02 

D07-06* 

D07-05* . 

co1-10 

D02-07 

t CO1-07 

CO1-08 ' 

B05-01 

,. 

> D07-06* ~ 

.< 

-I 

. ..CO1-14 ' 

' D07-04" 

- 

.. 

.. - 

,- 

D06-02 - 

CO1-14 

co1-10 ' 

D03-13 

.DOS-02 . 

a 

, 

CO3-06 -. . E-09 

C-05 

- CO1-07 . CO1-04 

.. co1-05 

' CO1-03 

,\ 

, -' 

PM-OI5-0I 

I?PM-OI9-02 

PM-024-01, 

PM-026-01 

PM-026-02 

PM-02 6-03 

PM-02 6-04 

PM-026-0.5 

PM-026-06 

PM-026-0 7 

PM-026-08 

PM- 028-05 

k9WO28-06 

PM-028-0 7 

PM-028-08 

PM-028-09 

PM-028- IO 

PM-0284 I 

PM-028-12 

WM-028-13 

PM-03-0 I 

PM-03-03 

PM-030-01 

YPM-030-02 

PM-032-OI 

-PM-032-02 

PM-035-OI 

PM-035-02 

PM-035-03 

PM-035-04 

PM&O3 770 I 

PM-037-02 

PM-037-03 

PM-041 -01 

PM-I 9-01 

PM-28-OI 

PM-28-02 

PM-28-03 

PM-28-04 . 
EIS PROCESS/GENERAL COMMENTS 

. 

-, YAKIMA FISHERIES EIS 

COMMENTS ON REVISED DRAFT EIS AND RESPONSES .. 

A - €IS Process/General Commenfs 

A-01 I 

Comment: I personally think an environmental assessment of this project unnecessary. 

[Anonymous 024-011 

Response: We acknowledge your comment. However, the National Environmental Policy Act 

and its regulations require Federal agencies to prepare a detailed statement on major Federal 

actions significantly affecting the environment. BPA determined in the 1990 Finding ofNo 

Significant Impact on the Yakima Fisheries Project that an Environmental Impact Statement 

would be necessary to consider issues relating to project management, genetic impacts, and 

species interactions. 

, 

A-02 

Comment: Reclamation’s Pacific Northwest Regional Office, Upper Columbia Area Office, and 

the Yakima Field OEce have reviewed the subject Revised DEB and the following comments are 

provided for your consideration and use in the development of the final document. Reclamation, 

through the Upper Columbia Area Office, has participated in Technical Work Groups involved in 

the development of the supplementation project and has regularly met with Bonneville Power 

Administration @PA), Yakima Indian Nation (YIN) and the Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (WDF&W) to discuss issues related to the Yakima Fisheries Project (YFP) and the 

operations of Reclamation’s Yakima Project. We are committed to the continuation of such 

participation throughout the preparation of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) and 

- fiture actions and operations to ensure successfil results in the Yakima River Basin. 

[Jmes I? Cole 

Area Manager, Bureau of Reclamation, US Department of the Interior. 048-011 

I 

Response: We acknowledge and appreciate the Bureau of Reclamation’s participation in and 

support of this project. 

Appendix A/ 1 
. PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED 

a 

A-03 

Comment: Although the DEIS mentions this issue [the likelihood of the project expanding to 

incorporate other fish species and/or stocks, and in what order], the FEIS should include a 

complete discussion of the commitment to additional planning and environmental review. 

[Connie Iten 

State of Washington, Department of Fish and Wildlye 040a-021 

Response: This discussion can be found in Section 1.5 (page 9 of the RDEIS, the second and 

third full paragraphs); and the discussion in Section 2.2 on the adaptive management process 

(especially the second paragraph of Section 2.2.1.1). 

A-04 , 

Comment: Since the BPA is mandated to enhance and support fish and wildlife resources 

adversely affected by Hydroelectric development and operation, the Yakima River system is an 

ideal watershed to test the Supplementation theory - to determine the effectiveness and develop 

the program and management procedures to ensure optimal results. If the Supplementation 

concept can be proven and management principles developed, Supplementation could be used as 

an effective recovery tool in many other areas within the region. 

[J Daniel Kinney 

Yakima Valley Audubon Society 054-021 

Response: We agree. This is stated in our objective for the project; see page 5 of the RDEIS. 

-.- 

B - Proposed Acfion (General) 

[No comments in this category] 

BO1 - Projecf Purpose and Need - 

B01-01 

Comment: Stop yourproject You should articulate a bonafide, justifiable reason why BPA 

would disrupt the status quo and put so much of the unknown at risk siinply to return salmon to 

the Yakima River.System. .This is a horrible reason to embark on this project; I 

: [Jim Carkonen 004-01 ] 

Comment: Some infomiation you still geed is: a true justification and ,explanation of why we 

Description.” 

* . need to do this, more than just thecweak two paragraphs under “The Need’; within the “”Project 

[Jim Carttonen I 004-031 I 

Appendix AI* 2 
PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED 

Response: The Purpose and Need section of the EIS succinctly expresses the need for the 

project as well as its goals and objectives. Decisions made by the project participants have taken 

into consideration known risks to the existing environment. These risks have been identified in . 

the EIS, and project management has modified the project to reduce its potential impact on the 

environment. Moreover, a recent scientific study issued by the National Research Council entitled 

“Upstream” (Nov. 1995) recommends that hatcheries be used to help rebuild natural populations 

of salmon and to learn about salmon and the effectiveness of methods for improving their survival. 

This is exactly the purpose of the YFP. , 

. 

B01-02 

Comment: Supplementation is good to a point but something has to be done--water and habitat 

first. 

[ypM-02 6-0 71 

Comment: Pg 6,4th paragraph, last sentence. The benefits of supplementation may never 

become self-sustaining. The need to supplement may go away if habitat is improved. .. 

[Lynn Hatcher - 

Yakama Indian Nation 049-011 

Comment: State, federal and tribal resources should be directed toward habitat improvements to 

prepare the Yakima River to support fish before hatcheries and other “supplementationy7 efforts 

are undertaken to reintroduce fish into the system. Even though water quality is being addressed. 

it is not yet on a scale to improve fish habitat on a large scale, so all efforts that are put into the 

system should be directed at habitat improvements. 

[Barbara J. Ritchie 

State of Washington, Department of Ecology 04O-OIJ 

Response: Habitat :mprovement projects have been ongoing in the Yakima River Basin. It is 

anticipated that these projects will continue in the future. While the YFP is designed to succeed 

under current habitat conditions, the managers recognize that supplementation efforts would be 

enhanced if efforts to improve habitat were also undertaken. The project managers will take 

habitat issues into consideration when making production decisions. Note also that habitat 

improvement alone would accomplish nothing toward reintroducing stocks that have been driven 

to extinction in the Yakima basin, such as summer chinook. 

B01-03 

Comment: Pg 10. -If the “No Action Alternative” is chosen, then BPA’s mitigation 

responsibilities will remain largely ufilfilled, This is a more important consequence than not 

realizing implementation of the Council’s Program. 

. 

. [LynnHatcher ‘ 

’ YakamaIndianNation . 049-031 

Appendix A/ 3 
\ PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED‘ - 

Response: Thank you for your comment. In the event that BPA decides not to find the project, 

we would seek othk means of fblfilling our mitigation responsibilities. This has been clarified in 

the Final EIS. ’ 

- 

B01-04 

Comment: It seems that our dams are the one thing that the main blame is being leveled at. The 

dams w&e built 30 years ago and the runs were high. Why now? Is it truly the high seas’fishery? 

. [TodB. Smith 001-I] 

Comment: What’s the point of spending this money? Unless the dams are removed, very 

fewhone of the coho will survive. Get rid of the dams, or build better fish ladders. Then 

introduce this program, not before. 

WichaeiT. Osborn 052-21 

Comment: How is down-stream dam management going to change to allow-greater smolt 

survival? \ 

~ pic Stacostha 015-111 

0 15- I3 ] 

Comment: When are we gobg to “bite the bullet” and mod* the dams to reduce fish mortality? I pic Stacostha 

Comment: We do not believe that hatcheries have proven reliability in restoring anadromous fish 

stocks -- It is time (way past time really) to fix the dams - giving equal consideration to the needs 

of the fish to have adequate flows for migration both to and from the ocean. In the years that fish 

hatcheries have been used to supplement the declining fish runs, no proven record has been 

established to show that they are a usefbl method - Stop fooling around and get as nearly back to 

’pre-dam conditions as is humanly possible. 

miilium & Marjorie Hqes 013-01] 

Response: We recognize that dams present and create environmental hazards to migrating 

anadromous fish. Improvements to the habitat within the migration corridor, including passage 

survival for adults and juveniles at dams, are expected to be made during the life of this project. 

The project managers agree that fish production, in and of be& will not resolve anadromous fish 

survival issues. Supplementation and improvements to the fish migration corridor must both be 

implemented in order to achieve the optimal results. 

B01-05 

Comment: How will supplementation address what’s happening on the Columbia? 

PPM-02 6-03 ] 
PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED 

- 

Comment: Some information you still need is: what long-term changes must be made on the 

mainstem Columbia to allow the fish to make it back to the Yakima in the first place. 

If my car leaks oil, the manner in which I put the oil in the engine does not matter. Likewise, the 

maker in which hatchery bred fish are introduced to the river system will not make those 

hatchery fish any more likely to survive the journey down too-warm rivers to the sea through 

poorly designed passage facilities. Use your money to address the main problems rather than 

spending it to produce doomed fish. Supplementation may be necessary to save the species, but 

without major changes elsewhere, their demise is nearly certain. 

. 

pance Jennings 01 7-04] 

. 

Response: As described within the RDEIS, one of the goals of the project is to evaluate 

supplementation as a production methodology that can be used in other river systems, including 

the Columbia mainstem. Project managers can expect increased numbers of returning adult fish to 

the Yakima River Basin as the physical challenges to migrating anadromous fish are diminished by 

the actions of dam operations. These increases would be$ addition to those resulting fiom a 

supplementation program that successfklly increases natural production. See also the Response to 

Comment B01-04. . 

, 

B01-06 

Comment: Why would it not be feasible to alter hydro generation during periods of migration? - 

[Anonymous 034-031 

Response: Alternatives to hydroelectric generation are possible and are being reviewed in other 

forums, such as the System Operations Review (SOR). Such alternatives are beyond the scope of 

this EIS. However, hydro generation is being altered during migration as a result of actions being 

taken by the dam operators in response to endangered species concerns. 

B01-07 

Comment: Let’s do what is reasonable. How about a special spawning bed along the Columbia 

Reach. Specifically, why can’t we take water from Priest Rapids and create a-canal of sorts which 

would really be a 30 mile long spawning bed that parallels the Columbia River, off limits to all 

fishing! ! 

Response: Thank you for your comment. This suggestion is outside the scope of this EIS. 

However, the entire range of approaches to increase natural production of anadromous fish in the 

Columbia River system will continue to be reviewed under- the auspices of the Northwest Power 

Planning Council for possible inclusion in their Fish and Wildlife Program. 

[FredB - ? 021 -02 J 

Appendix A/ 5 
I 

-PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED 

.- 

BO1-OS - / 

Comment: Your environmental study should have included: more concern for the farmer! 

[There should be ] a balance between fish and farming. 

[Fred B ? 02I-OIJ 

Response: We appreciate your view that fish and farming must be balanced. We believe that the 

project managers have taken agricultural issues into consideration when evaluating the impacts of 

this project upon the environment., As the project is designed so that it would not consume water 

resources, its impact upon the agricultural industry is expected to be neutral. 

B01-10 

Comment: Let Indians harvest sea lions and seals to reestablish some control over these 

predators. < 

[Anonymous 044-071 

Response: Tha& you for your comment. These activities are outside the scope of this EIS, but 

some Northwest tribes are actively considering such activities. . 

- - 

B01-12 - - 

Comment: My environmental concerns areflour environmental studj should have' included: 

Solutions to the causes of fish decline not just trying to treat the symptoms of the problem: 

1. Dams. 

.2.: Habitat (including physical habitat structure) , . 

3. Water Quality -, , 

[Anonymous 009-01] .. 

Response: Thank you for your comment. The Northwest Power Planning Council and the. 

decisionsxegardmg the development of the project. Please refer to Response to Comments B01- 

04, BOl-05 and DO6 for more information relating to your comment: 

.~ project managers have considered the habitat, issues you refer -to in- your comment when making 

\ 

i 

I. 
MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION 

BO2 - Management and Coordination 

B02-01 

Comment: Examine the example of the Yakima watershed council - consensus building, 

emphasizing water conservation. 

[ypM-O24-01 ] 

Comment: Our environmental concerns are primarily based on the need to ensure that the 

Bonneville Power Administration and other responsible parties are evaluating opportunities to 

complement their respective management actions/objectives within the Yakima River Basin. 

[Joan Cabreza 057-021 

Response: The management structure of the project is described in Section 2.2.3 of the FEIS. 

The Yakama Indian Nation and the State of Washington, working closely with the BPA, will 

work to achieve the project’s goals and objectives. The project managers will work in 

conjunction with other agencies (e.g. USBR, JWFS, and USFWS) and review all opportunities to . 

reach and build consensus on perthient project issues (e.g., water conservation). A paragraph has 

been added to the FEIS (new section 2.2.3.5) to address the relationship of the project with other 

agencies. ~ 

B02-02IB01-09 

Comment: The Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project (YRBWEP), which was 

authorized by Congress in 1994, will also be a tool to improve the long-term management and 

enhancement of the Basin’s water and fish resources. Reclamation, through the YRBWEP, will 

have opportunities to work with BPA to improve conditions in the Yakima River Basin for the 

anadromous fish resource. This cooperation, in turn, will influence the success of the YFP. We . anticipate that BPA through the Yakima Fisheries Project-will continue to commit resources and 

form partnerships to resolve potential conflicts over water issues that may arise fiom efforts to 

enhancement‘anadromous fish stocks in the Yakima River Basin. 

[James I? Cole 

” 

Area Manager, Bureau of Reclamation,- US Department of the Interior 048-041 - 

Comment: [we have] asked for clarification on the relationship of the YFP and the Bureau of 

Reclamation’s (BOR) water enhancement. The revised draft EIS briefly discusses the relationship 

of the YFP to other fishery enhancement efforts going on in the Yakima River Basin. The EIS 

states that, in October of 1994, Congress passed legislation to authorize water conservation 

activities, including improvements to irrigation water delivery systems and a basin-wide water 

conservation program. It is EPA’s understanding the BOR intends to prepare an environmental 

impact statement for implementing provisions of the legislation. This legislation appears to 

provide a great opportunity for improving habitat conditions @e., instream flows) in the Yakima 

River. 

AppendixN7 . 
MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION 

We believe the short and long term success of the YFP could be directly tied to the timing and 

implementation of the Water Enhancement Project. Therefore, it is imperative fiom a watershed 

planningkoordination perspective that the final YJ?P EIS explikitly discuss the relationship 

between the BOR’s project and the YFP. To ensure a coordinated approach, the final EIS should 

outline the anticipated timefiames and schedules for implementation of these two projects along 

with any other major projects. 

[Joan Cabreza 057-041 

Response: Thank you for your comments. All project participants are deeply committed to the 

success of this project, and intend to perform all work necessary to achieve its goals and 

objectives. It is anticipated that BPA, the Yakama Indian Nation, the State of Washington, and 

cooperating fish agencies will. form partnerships to secure habitat improvements which 

complement the project’s projection goals and objectives. Further clarification is provided in the 

FEIS, consistent with the following: 

As stated in the EIS, Congress passed P.L. 103-434 in October 1994. Title XII of this Act 

Basin Water Enhancement Project (YRBWEP)). The primary focus of Title XII is a conservation 

program that will conserve water by improving delivery systems and on-farm practices. Sixty-five 

percent of the water saved through these measures will be dedicated and used for instream flows. 

Other elements contained in Title XII include the 1-meter (3-foot) rise of Cle Elum Dam, which 

will provide approximately 18,5 10,000 m3 (15,000 acre/feet) of water for instream flows; 

electrification of the Chandler hydropumps, which will improve instream flows between Prosser 

Dam and Chandler Powerhouse; and efforts to improve instream flows on a number of tributary 

streams. 

Although not directly related to the YFP, implementation of Title XII will certainly complement 

and improve the success of efforts undertaken through the YFP. Preliminary planning for 

implementing Title XII is currently underway. As part of that effort, the BOR is preparing 

pertinent NEPA documents, including a programmatic EIS, to be completed in 1997. BPA will 

be a cooperating agency. Implementation of programs authorized by Title XII will occur over a 

number of years as funding is appropriated by Congress. 

- authorizes improvements to irrigation facilities in the Yakima Basin (through the Yakima River 

r 

__ 

B02-03/04 

Comment: We recognize the need. to develop strategies to restore and maintain the Basin’s 

anadromous fish resources and think the YFP is a positive approach. Because of Reclamation’s 

water management responsibilities in the Yakima River Basin, we believe there is a need for us to 

be more actively involved in the YFP in some advisory capacity. We would like to explore that 

- possibility with the cooperating entities of the YFP in the near future. 

[James l? Cole 

Area Manager, Bureau of Reclamation, US Department of the Interior 048-051 

.- - Appendix A/ 8 _- 
MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION 

Comment: We recognize the YFP has been scaled down in size and numbers of stocks of 

anadromous fish to eliminate some of the unknown effects of large scale supplementation, so a 

smaller research project can continue. Though the project has been reduced in size; there is still 

some potential for conflicts over water issues related to returning adult supplemented fish and the 

evaluation of supplementation. We believe that it is in the best interest of all parties to recognize 

and mutually address these few potential problems early in the process. Reclamation would lie 

to see BPA commit to forming partnerships and cooperative projects - in the find EIS to resolve 

these potential conflicts related to YFP project sites. 

[James I? Cole 

Area Manager, Bureau of Reclamation, US Department of the Interior 048-021 

Response: Thank you for your comment and interest. The BORs participation in project 

management decisions in an advisory capacity will be explored by project managers and BPA. 

See also comment responses B02-01 and B02-02. 

B02-05 

Comment: How do we integrate supplementation with water legislation to avoid conflict; one 

driving the other? 

[yPM-OI5-OI] 

Response: Thank you for your comment. Project managers have considered habitat and related 

issues when making project production decisions, Water legislation generally attempts to address 

a large spectrum of concerns--of which fish habitat is but a single component. As stated in the 

EIS, the YFP use of surface water would be non-consumptive, and use-of groundwater would not 

be substantial enough to adversely affect others’ water rights. In addition, YFP plans will be 

consistent with and responsive to current and &tine water legislation. 

B02-06 

Comment: Any activities or actions in the Yakima River basin related to the Columbia River 

Fish Management Plan under US v OR Agreement and not described in the Revised DEIS should 

be summarized in the Final. 

[Connie. Iten 

State of Washington, Dept. of Fish and Wildlve 040a-OS] 

Response: Specific actions under the Columbia River Fish Management Plan (CRFMP) are 

dynamic and vary from year to year. Since release of the RDEIS, actions under the CRFMP in 

the Yakima River watershed have included an initiative by the Yakama Indian Nation which 

resulted in the release of 270,000 pre-smolt coho salmon into the Naches River system (210,000) 

and Ahtanum Creek (60,000). In addition, approximately 330,000 coho are being reared for 

smolt release below Prosser in the spring of 1996. This release of smolts will be in addition to the 

700,000 mandated by the CRFMP, as mentioned in the RDEIS. The FEIS has been modified to 

reflect these changes. 

Appendix A/ 9 
MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION 

B02-07 

Comment: John Lowe in testimony to the Northwest Power Planning Council in March of 1994 

recognized that actions on USFS administered lands cannot, by themselves, bring recovery to 

anadromous fish stocks. It is important that the revised Yakima Fish Plan is brought forward as 

one item of many in the NPPC’s Fish and Wildlife Program that will help achieve the objectives of 

increasing salmon and steelhead runs in the Columbia River Basin. Such actions complement 

Forest Service activities. - 

[Sonny 0 ’Neal 

Forest Supervisor, -Wenatchee National Forest, USDA 04I-021 

Response: Thank you for your comment and insights. The Northwest Power Planning Council’s - 

Fish and Wildlife Program recognizes the YFP as one component of their multifaceted effort to 

maintain and rebuild populations of anadromous salmonids in the Columbia River Basin. We 

agree, and expect that YFP and USFS activities would be complementary. 

., 

B02-OS 

Comment: Although no acclimation ponds/facilities are planned for USFS lands in the RDEIS, 

our role as habitat managers will be integral to the success and adaptive management aspect of 

stock recoveries. If supplementation leads to increased natural production, as hoped, I would 

expect that more salmon will utilize natural habitat on USFS lands. 

[Sonny 0 ‘Neal 

Forest Supervisor, - Wenatchee National Forest, USDA 041-041 

Response: Thank you for your comment and interest. We agree, and will work together with the 

Forest Service to maximize the benefits to fish. 

B02-09 

Comment: Should the coho program continue to expand, activities on Forest System Lands 

must be scoped out well in advance. Many portions of the Yakima Basin are designated as Key 

Watersheds under the President’s Forest Plan, and any activities in riparian reserves must meet the 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives of the President’s Forest Plan. 

[Sonny 0 ’Neal 

Forest Supervisor, Wenatchee National Forest, USDA 041 -0 71 

Response: Any plans for potential fbture expansion of the YFP coho program will receive full 

environmental, technical and policy review and vvill b’e coordinated with the Forest Service. 

. .I . 

- .. 

AppendixN10 
MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION 

B02-10 

Comment: As part of the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of 

Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (“The 

President’s Forest Plan”), the Snoqualmie Pass Adaptive Management Area (AMA) was 

established. The emphasis within this AMA is to prov@de scientifically credible, comprehensive 

planning for providing late-successional forest on the “checkerboard” lands in parts of Kittitas and 

KingCounties. Further recovery of natural production of salmonids is one aspect oflatesuccessional forest management. There may be opportunities as part of the Snoqualmie Pass 

AMA plan process to develop innovative and experimental approaches to fish stock recovery in 

the upper Yakima Basin. These opportunities should be explored as both the AMA and YFP 

plans are implemented. .. 

[Sonny 0 ’Neal 

Forest Supervisor, Wenatchee National Forest, USDA 041-081 

Response: Thank you for your comment. The project managers appreciate your offer of 

assistance. The AMA and its processes will be tracked by the project managers, who will 

participateas appropriate to achieve the project’s goals and objectives. The FEIS has been 

modified to identifj the AMA in the context of ongoing habitat enhancement in the Yakima River 

Basin. 

B02-11/12 

Comment: It would be positive for continued cooperation between the YFP managers (YIN’ 

WDFW) and the Forest Service. Project managers may coordinate with my staff, specifically, 

Ken MacDonald, Forest Fish Program Manager, and should keep Ken informed on the project’s 

status. Ken may also be available to provide input and assistance to the program as 

implementation proceeds. 

[Sonny 0 ’Neal 

Forest Supervisor, Wenatchee National Forest, USDA 041-141 

Comment: The Forest Service is involved in several activities to help achieve recovery of 

anadromous stocks, including habitat protection and restoration, which is supported by watershed 

analyses and refinement of aquatic objectives. Watershed analysis is critical to implementing 

management decisions and indicating the most important factors for monitoring environmental 

change. Cle Elum Ranger District is beginning a watershed analysis for the upper Yakima River, 

and any opportunities for cooperative planning should be pursued by the YFP-managers. 

[Sonny 0 ’Neal . Forest Supervisor, Wenatchee National Forest, USDA , 04I-IJ 

Response: The project managers sincerely appreciate your offer of assistance. Like you, the. 

managers believe that open channels of communkation between cooperating agencies and 

governments will lead to complementary activities benefiting the Yakima River Basin fisheries and 

other natural resource objectives. 1 

Appendix A/ 11 - 
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT I 

.- 

The managers welcome the opportunity to participate in your agency’s efforts to improve 

anadromous fish habitat. Your success in evaluating the current condition ofthe existing habitat 

will be a useful tool to measure the success of future habitat improvement activities. Of course, 

the success of these activities will affect the project’s production goals and objectives. See also .- the response to B02-10. ‘ .. 

1 

B02-13 

Comment: Use AmeriCorps - give them job experience, summer employment (OJT), etc. . [YPM-001-011 

\ 

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The project managers will consher it as we 

implement the project. 

B02-14 

Comment: -No single entity in charge of fish on the river, as necessary according to Dr. Bevan. 

[YPM-005-0I, 006-021 

Comment: BPA, Corps, State, and Tribe all doing their own thing, going separate ways. 

[YPM-006- 03 J 

Response: The Yakama Indian Nation and the State of Washin&on, in cooperation with the 

BPA, will manage the project using the project management structure described in Section 2.2.3 

of the RDEIS. To the extent that your comments pertain to broader Columbia River issues, it is 

outside of the scope of this EIS. 

I 

- / 

BO3 - Public Involvement 

, 

B03-01 

Comment: pnvironmental concerns too numerous to mention here.] Please advise when you 

will have your next public meeting in the Seattle area. 

- [JirnCarkonen 004-OS] 

Response: Thank you for your comment. +There are no additional public meetings planned for 

this part of the NEPA process. If and when additional public meetings for the project are planned 

in the Seattle area, you will be notified by mail or by publication in- your local newspaper. 

- 

.. 

AppendixN12 ~ 

I - : 

! 
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

~ 

B03-02 I 

Comment: Why has this been on the boards for several years without much knowledge by the 

public until now? I have talked to numerous people living and/or recreating in the Teanaway, and 

Cle Elum residents who have absolutely no knowledge of this extensive project. 

[Ronald L. Pyeatt 056-021 

Response: The project has been discussed in open meetings of the Northwest Power Planning 

Council for over a decade. Over the past 5 years specifically, this project has been discussed in a 

wide variety of forums, including at least two public meetings which were held in the Cle 

Elum/Ellensburg area [area where the commenter lives], as well as others around the state. Prior 

to such meetings, notice was published in your locai newspapers. In addition, follow-up articles 

were published in local papers describing various aspects of the YFP. The project managers 

regret that you and your friends and neighbors missed the opportunity to comment upon this 

project in the past. Fortunately, you were able to participate in the public process at this critical 

opportunity, and submit your comments regarding the project's RDEIS. 

B03-03 ,- ! 

Comment: Education about fish issues in the schools. . 

[CPM-01-0 71 

Response: Project managers are committed to the policyof educating the public, including 

school, age children, with regard to fish resource and management issues and the importance of 

habitat. However, specific school programs are outside the scope of this EIS. BPA has, 

however, hnded some school programs addressing fish-issues in the Yakima basin. 

B03-04/05 

Comment: Would like to see the interpretive centers built - important to educate children. 

Comment: Need to provide opportunities for the public to become informed and educated 

regarding the way the river, the fish, the land are tied together and to provide-learning - 

opportunities through hands-on personal opportunities: Le. trails interconnecting throughout the 

area; interpretive kiosks, trails, center; inter-agency cooperation and communication. 

[CPM--II-OI] 

[CPM-29-01] 

Comment: The Forest Service initially played a major role in exploring the opportunities for 

interpretation as the YFP planning process proceeded. I would like to emphasize the importance 

of interpretation for public awareness, education, and ultimately support of increased natural 

production of fish stocks in the Yakima River Basin. Interpretive facilities should be an integral 

part of the Cle Elum hatchery site. They should promote public awareness and education 

opportunities on sustaining natural habitat, not just explain supplementation as a process separate 

fiom the role of publics who utilize the watershed. Interpretation as part.'of the YFP would .: 

Appendix AI 13 
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

expand current opportunities to focus on people who are key users of riparian and meadow areas 

-, which are so important to maintaining aquatic system health in the-upper Yakima River Basin. 

~ 9 [Sonny 0 'Neal 

' Forest Supervisor, Wenatchee National Forest, USDA 041-091 -- 

\ 

Comment: Because the salmon restoration process must be supported by the general populace, 

we would support early construction and operation of interpretive facilities. The visitor center 

should be an educational facility 0-ffering exhibits, audio/visual presentations, 'interpretive trails, as 

well as naturalist program to take fbll advantage of the educational opportunities. With the 

location just off of Interstate 90, sufficient visitors should be able to support a viable tourist 

facility in all but .possibly the winter months. 

~ I [J Daniel Kinney 

Yakima Valley Audubon Society 054-061 

Response: Thank you for your comments. As indicated in the RDEIS, the project managers are 

'considerhg the different options relating to the size, diversity and use of the proposed interpretive 

facilities. Budget constraints will 'dictate the viability .of the options under consideration. The 

project managers are~committed to the construction of such a facility so long as its demand for - 

construction fbnds does not interfere with the goals and objectives associated with the 

construction of the project's fish production facilities. ' f. 

_. . .. _I 

B03-06 

Comment: Mark-spawning beds with signs so people will protect them and for education. 

1, . [cPM-i9-0 I ] 

Response: Thank-you for your comment. I As co-managers ofthe resource, the Yakama Indian 

Nation and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife will be given notice of your 

suggestion. Please also see comhent E03. . ., ~. 

- -. 

.. 

B03-07/08 . Comment: Consider using volunteers - my son would like to be involved. 

[CPM-I9-03] 

[CPM-OI-O6] 

. . Comment: Get public more involved in fish projects.. , 

Response: Thank you for your interest in the success of the project. The project managers have 

and will continue to consider volunteers in support of project activities. 

__ 

Appendk A/ 14 ' 

. 
_I 

DEClSlONMAKlNG/SCHEDULE AND TIMING 

BO4 - Decisionmaking 

B04-01 

Comment: Fly fishermen fiom the west side should leave the determinations of east side streams 

such as the Yakima to the local people. 1 

[CPM-002-03] 

Comment: The west side flyfishers look forward to working with the local people of the Yakima 

Basin to preserve, protect, and enhance the Yakima River. . 

[CPM- 13-021 

Response: Cooperation by all concerned individuals will help advance the goals and objectives of 

this project. 

< 

BO5 - Schedule and Timing - 

B05-01 

Comment: BPA hasn’t been truthful - project was to be underway in 1993. 

I 

Comment: Been at it too long--letis get the. project started. 

Comment: We are. “planning’’ fish to death, runs falling rapidly. 

Comment: We’ve studied the Rivers enough--it’s time to get started 

[CPM-01-0 I] 

\ &?M-006-05] 

-. 

&?M-O35-OI] * 

Response: Thank you for your comments. Given the innovative and complex nature ofthe YFP, 

much planning has been required to address concerns raised by the public during deliberations 

about the YFP conducted by the Northwest Power Planning Council. Other planning and public 

review steps were needed to identifl risks to natural resources and to comply with environmental 

impact assessments under federal law. 

Appendix A/ 15 
SCHEDULE AND TIMING 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

\ 

B05-02 

Comment: Would like to see a schedule of fish returns and associated short-term and long-term 

project results, Le., 2001 first returns. , - -.. [ypM-003-09] 

Age3 Age2 Release Rearing 

adult adult 

returns returns 

Age4 Age3 Age2 Release Rearing 

adult adult adult 

returns returns returns 

Age5 Age4 Age3 Age2 Release Rearing 

adult adult adult adult 

return returns returns returns 

*- Age5 Age4 Age3 Age2 Release Rearing 

adult adult adult adult 

. return returns returns returns 

Age5 Age4 Age3 Age2 Release Rearing 

adult adult adult adult 

return returns returns returns 

Age5 Age4 Age3 Age2 Release Rearing 

adult adult adult adult 

return returns returns returns 

Age5 Age4 Age3 Age2 Release Rearing 

adult adult adult adult 

return returns returns returns 

B05-03 ,' 

Comment: The BP,A does a good job of raising the appropriate issues [in the RDEIS], but in no 

way provides satisfactory answers to many of them. You are in no way prepared to make a 

decision to move ahead with this project. The reasons not to build these hatcheries and proceed 

with this project far out weigh any possible justification to move ahead. Stop please. - [Jim Carkonen I 004-041 

.. Appendix A/ 16 -c 
- 

COSTS AND FUNDING 

Response: The Northwest Power Planning Council has approved the project as part of their Fish 

and Wildlife Program. It is the project managers’ intent that the preferred akemative be fair and 

justifiable. The project has been designed as an experiment in order to help answer many of the 

questions raised. 

BO6 - Costs and Funding 

B06-01 

Comment: This whole process A flawed ancl a waste of money. 

[Anonymous 024-021 

Comment: How can we stop this ridiculous boondoggle and waste of our taxmoney. 

[Gary Furukuwa 012-041 

Comment: Consider this alternative: Stop wasting time and money on an unnecessary project 

that will serve only the special interests of afew. 

[Am Carkonen 004-02]~ 

Response: We acknowledge your concern. However, there is a great amount of support for this 

project. It was initiated through the Northwest Power Planning Council’s Fish and Wildlife 

Program, which is a regional consensus on what must be done to mitigate for losses of fish and 

wildlife due to hydropower development in the Columbia River Basin. 

B06-02 

Comment: It is regrettable that so many millions of our tax dollars will be wasted due to 

uncertainties and experimental nature of project. With so many years of fisheries research why 

don’t “we” know exactly what to do most expediently and cost effectively? 

[Ronald L. Pyeatt 056-01] 

Response: Thank you for your comment. Unfortunately, scientific endeavors rarely are based on 

a foundation of absolute certainty. Thisis the case for fisheries projects such as the YFP, 

especially since similar statistically sound large scale experiments have not previously been 

conducted. The YFP is designed to improve understanding of strategies for rebuilding 

anadromous fish stocks that could also be applied elsewhere, 

B06-03 

Comment: Construction and Operation of Jack Creek Site: My education and over 25 years 

experience in construction have shown that a remote site such as this is fraught with problems, 

delays and cost overruns. No utilities and lack of winter access compound the potential problems ’ 

and cry of higher than usual and budgeted costs. _- 

AppendixN17 . 
~ 

COSTS AND FUNDING 

Question: What .d costs have you budgeted for this? Do you recognize that this could be an 

enormous problem over its entire life? 

[Ronald L. Pyeatt 056-07J 

Response: Project managers and engineers have considered the risks and benefits of all of the 

proposed acclimation sites, including the Jack Creek site as well as the new North Fork Teanaway 

site. We-believe that the risks you identified can be accommodated in the design of the YFP. \ 

B06-04 

Comment: Appears that costs may be too constraining if we want to get into other species later. 

flPM-006-08J 

Rqponse: The project managers agree that budgetary considerations will have-an influence as 

planning for possible inclusion of other species progresses. 

B06-05/07 

Comment: Some information you still need: costs vs. the benefits of the various alternatives. 

(If our good fiiends at OMB and/or GAO were to review this project, they might also mention the 

economic benefits vs. project costs.) 

[R Rhodes 

Aquafood Business Association 018-01 J 

Comment: Your environmental stu@ should have incIu&d: the total cost to the Electrical 

Utility rate-payer over the entire course of the enhancement program. This should be broken ' 

down to codaverage utility consumer and cost/fish returned. 

[Anonymous 035-01J 

Response: Thank you for your comment. A codbenefit analysis for project alternatives would 

be problematic given the uncertainties regarding adult returns and related issues. In addition, it 

would be difficult to quantifl the economic benefits from a major project goal--to learn about the 

strategy of supplementation, including the positive as well as negative aspects. 

We acknowledge that costs associated with fish protection and restoration efforts are'sometimes 

high. In most cases this is related to the severity of the damage already done to those resources. 

Total construction costs for the Cle Elum hatchery and the acclimation facilities is estimated to be 

$14 don. To date, the-total amount of ratepayer fhds spent on the YKFP is approximately 

$38 million. This figure includes costs since 1982 for a multitude of activities, including project 

planning, coordination, fisheries research, design of hatchery and sampling facilities, and 

environmental impact analysis. Many of the fisheries research and environmental analysis 

activities responded to public concerns over impacts of the proposed hatchery on resident and 

anadromous fish and .other environmental resources in the Yakima River Basin. 

Appendix AI 18 
COSTS AND FUNDING \ 

B06-06 

Comment: Would like to see a'schedule of priorities, technology, and budget. . . 

pM- 003-02 J 

Response: Priofities for supplementing additional stocks are discussed in' Section 2.6.2 of the 

EIS. At this time, project managers are emphasizing steelhead and lower Yakima River fall 

chinook as the most likely stocks to be added to the project. A-scheduleof fish returns for the 

project is given in the response to comment B05-02. Technological issues addressed by project 

management can be identified by examining Chapter 2 of the EIS. 

With regard to the .project budget, see the response to B06-05/07 above. 

B06-OS 

Comment: You state clearly all direct and indirect costs for this project and state the impact on 

the rate payers. It seems to me that BPA has become the fbll employment fbnding source for all 

fishery people in the Northwest. 

[Ted Sorenson ' OII-011 

Response: Thank you for your comment. The NorthwestPower Act of 1982 states that BPA is 

responsible for the protection, enhancement, and mitigation of impacts resulting fiom the 

construction and operation of the federal hydroelectric facilities in the Columbia basin. 

B06-09 

Comment: I hope the fbnds-are availablefor your work. 

-- [Anonymous 036-051 

Response: Thank you for your support. The fbnds are budgeted in BPA's Fish and Wildlife 

program. 

Appendix A/ 19 

, 
I 

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES AND OPERATIONS 

C - Project Alternatives and Operations (General) 

c-01 

Comment: My environmental-concerns about the Yakima Fisheries Project are: that you do it! 

Do Alterhative #2 or we are going to leave barren rivers to our kids to satis@ our own short term 

nonsense. 

- 

[Anonymous 003-01] 

Response: Thank you for your comment. Alternative 2 has been identified by the Policy Group as 

the preferred alternative of the YFP. 

c-02 

Commqnt: The WAS would support the proposed Alternative 2 which would fund a project 

' consisting of one hatchery with less than a million juveniles, and only Spring Chinook. In addition 

a feasibility study on the introduction of coho salmon should be conducted in conjunction with the 

current Columbia River Fish Management Plan (CRFMP). 

[J. Daniel Kinney 

Yakima Valley Audubon Socieq 054-041 

I .- 

Response: Thank you for your comment. Coho planting in the Yakima Basin is supported by the 

production plan of the Columbia River Fish Management Plan. 

~~ 

C-04 

Comment: Eliminate clear cutting in the upper basin and install fish- ladderson the three upper 

basin lakes--you won't have'a fish-problem! And the irrigation water would increase. 

[Jay Atherfon - . 00 7-0 I] 

Comment: [Concern expressed in other comments over water rights/release.] The answer, of 

course' is to build more reservoir storage to provide the water to enhance fisheries. Why aren't 

you pushing for this? 

[Lany Olsen 008-031 

~ Response: It is recognized that a number of habitat improvement and restoration activities could 

benefit salmon and steelhead production in the Yakima Basin, as well as other watersheds within the 

Columbia River system. It would not, however, meet a primary purpose of this proposed project: 'I. . . 

to conduct researkh activities designed to increase knowledge of supplementation techniques." 

Reservoir storage and fish ladders are being proposed as part of the Bureau of Reclimation's Yakima 

River Basin Water Enhancement Program 

Appendix A/ 20 
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES AND OPERATIONS 

C-05 

Comment: Smaller scale projects such as riparian repair, etc.'could restore runs on smalltributaries such as Satus, Logy, Toppenish, and Ahtanum creeks more easily than large scale 

projects. 

[ypM-I9-OI] 

Comment: Why don't we do low tech habitat improvement on lower streams--Toppenish, Satus, 

Logy, etc. Low capital expenditure, high volunteer participation - involve volunteer salmon 

enhancement groups. 

[yPM-O19-02] *- 

Response: It is recognized that a number of habitat improvement and restoration activities could 

benefit salmon 6qd steelhead production in the Yakima Basin, as well as other watersheds within the 

Columbia River system. Several low-tech projects have and will be installed in the Yakima Basin. 

These projects would not, however, meet a primary purpose of this proposed project: 'I. . . to conduct 

research activities designed to increase knowledge of aipplementation techniques." 

. 

C-06 

Comment: Your enviroomental study should have included: the nearly complete destruction-of 

natural fish population and habitat on the Tieton River. J 

[Anonymous 046-011 

Comment: My environmental concerns about the Yakma Fisheries Project are: the apparent 

sacrifice of the Tieton River fishery and the rivers ongoing transformation to an irrigation ditch in 

deference to the upper Yakima Valley. . 

[Anonymous 046-021 

Response: The present proposal spotlights the currently depressed upper Yakima spring chinook 

stock. The project may, however, expand to focus on other species and stocks in the basin. Decisions 

to move forward with other stocks will depend on successfbl completion of planning efforts for those 

stocks. Local stocks for supplementation include the Naches spring chinook and steelhead. This could 

include restoration effoas in the Tieton River. 

C-07 

Comment: The USFS agreed several years ago that artifkial.backwaters should be created along 

the river where fish can hold during peak irrigation flows. 

. [Anonymous 046-031 

Response: A number of habitat restoration efforts are underway in the Yakima system, hcludkg side 

channel construction. Your comment will be relayed to USFS as a reminder for their consideiation. 

Appendix A/ 21 
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES AND OPERATIONS 

c-os 

Comment: Since hatchery supplementation remains an experimental technology with unproven 

results, Oregon Trout urges caution in the implementation of the proposed Yakha Fisheries 

Project. Enclosed is a copy of Oregon Trout’s draft. policy on hatchery supplementation. Please . 

see that this document is included in the hearing record on$his issue and its recommendations 

considered. 

[Jim Myon 

Oregon Trout 031-01 J 

Comment: Please include the enclosed report (White; et al.) in the hearing record on thisksue. 

The report supplements Oregon Trout’s written comments dated 7/6/95. [Report entit7ed “Better 

RoIes for Fish Stocking Programs. ” 

[J Evy I 

Conservation Director, Oregon Trout 034-011 

Response: Per the commenters’ request, we have included the above-mentioned reports in the 

record. The project managers have reviewed the reports, as well as previous, similar comments 

fiom Oregon Trout, and agree that extensive planning and caution must be used in implementing 

any supplementation project. As you may be aware, the project has been reduced substantially 

fiom the range of alternatives proposed in the draft EIS. As described in the RDEIS and the 

current FEIS, the preferred alternative includes research on the supplementation of upper Yakima 

spring chinook and feasibility studies on the reintroduction of coho salmon in the Yakima Basin. 

The project managers believe that the report Better Roles for Fish Stocking Programs essentially 

supports both programs described in the preferred alternative. In section III.A.6.k (p.63), White 

et al. proposed a new term: “Breed-release Involving Less Domestication” (BRED), and define 

BRED as “the artificial breeding, rearing, and stocking of fish to reestablish or augment a wild 

stock, while minimizing the adverse genetic and learned influences that such artificial operations 

inevitably have.” BRED “should (1) use exclusively local, wild (hence adapted) parent stock; 

(2) never take so many adults fiom the parent (target) stock that the naturally spawning 

population is jeopardized; (3) stock progeny at the earliest possible stage; (4) stoqk in ecologically 

attuned ways, such as by matching body size, tiining, and numerical density of the stocked fish to 

the needs (capacities) of the recipient population and environment; (5) conduct any such program 

only on a temporary basis (whether it succeeds or fails);, (6) never pretend that BRED completely 

avoids domestication; and (7) never pretend that BRED is a substitute for proper control of 

harvest or for protecting and restoring habitat such that the wild population can maintain itself” 

We believe that the supplementation research proposed for the upper Yakima spring chinook 

addresses each of the above listed suggested guidelines in a scientific manner. This process has 

included an extensive review of the literature, including, but not limited to, literature suggested by 

Oregon Trout. The review had led to acceptance of some concepts as experimental constants, 

and the addressing of others as experimental variables, where more research is needed before 

accepting the concept. It is expected that the results of this research will help resolve some of 

these questions regarding the use of supplementation. 

. 

Appendix N,’22 
-- 

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES AND OPERATIONS 

The preferred alternative also includes a feasibility study of reintroduction of coho salmon into the 

Yakima system. The White report discusses such an activity in section III.D (“Situations in 

Which Stocking May be Justified”): “Stocking almost undoubtedly can be beneficial (if 

successful) where it is used to restore an indigenous species or genetic unit to a water body fiom 

which human activity has eliminated it.” We believe that this circumstances apply to coho salmon 

in the Yakima system. 

The White report frequently holds that managers have used hatcheries as a stopgap measure in 

lieu of adequate protection for the natural environment necessary for the production offish. 

Clearly, such protection is paramount in the natural production of fish. However, development 

(urbanization, agriculture, forestry, and so on) will continue to occur and to affect the 

environment. Those effects may be minimized but perhaps not eliiated. Until we can fblly 

correct habitat degradation, and/or achieve a society of reduced p,opulation and reduced demand 

on the natural systems, hatcheries have a very real role to play in maintaining some fish 

populations. 

2 

c-09 

Comment: Other alternatives to consider: go back to the list of eliminated alternatives 

(improvements of passage, habitat, instream flows, etc.) - without them, the whole idea of 

supplementation is flawed. 

‘ 

/Emce Jennings Ol7-03] 

Comment: We have requested additional information on fish habitat conditions in the Yakima 

River Basin. As we indicated in our December 30, 1992 comment letter, increased salmonid 

production (via supplementation) will not necessarily lead to increased adult returns if habitat 

degradation and reduced flow regimes are not addressed. Ultimately, fisheries production 

(especially for those species such as chinook, steelhead and coho that spend substantial periods of 

their pre-smolt life in fieshwater), is directly tied to water quality and instream flows. Presently 

the revised draR EIS provides little in sight on salmonid habitat needs or limitations in the Yakima 

Basin. Before a supplementation approach cyin be implemented there must be a clear - 

understanding of the limiting factors of those particular fish populations at all relevant life cycles. 

The final EIS should provide a detailed discussion of the scope of habitat problems/limitations in 

the basin and the likelihood that they can be resolved. 

[Joan Cabreza 057-031 

*. 

Response: It is recognized that a number of habitat improvement wd restoration activities could 

benefit salmon and steelhead production in the Yakima Basin, as well as other watersheds within the 

Columbia River system. Section 3.3.1 of the EIS does address salmonid production limitations and 

habitat needs. The project managers continue to support such restoration efforts. These would not, 

however, meet a primary purpose of this proposed project: ‘I. . . to conduct research activities 

designed to increase knowledge of supplementation techniques.” The managers hope eventually to 

return species and races to the basin which have been extirpated. Habitat restoration ckot achieve 

that goal; these fish must be reintroduced through supplementation or other stocking programs. 

, 

- Appendix A/ 23 
P~OPOSED FISH STOCKS, NUMBERS, AND AREAS . I ,I 

I 

(2-10 

Comment: Lots of other rivers for anadromous fish production and fishing--why focus on 

Yakima River? 

[CPM-07-02, CPM-20-01J 

Response: There are a number of_control (collection) sites already available in the Yakima basin 

where observations on adult returns can be made. There is also a large amount of pre-project baseline 

data available. Other basins do not provide the level of baseline information and collection points that 

are found in the Yakima basin. BPA and the project mapagers have explored supplementation 

programs at existing hatcheries in other Columbia River basins. None of these, however, meet the rigid 

statistical and biological needs ofthis proposed project (see Sections 2.6.4 and 2.6.5.) Additionally, 

one of the purposes of the proposed project is It . . . production and to improve harvest opportunities. . .It- The purposes ofthis project are explained in 

greater detail in Section 1.2 of the EIS. 

the Yakima River Basin to increase natural 

-C-ll 

Comment: Other alternatives to consider': No action. .. 

# 

[Ted Sorenson 01 1-02] 

Response: The "No Action" alternative is discussed in Section 2.5. While some critical Yakima 

Basin activities-such as passage improvements, water enhancements, and the coho plants--would 

continue, a primay purpose of the.W, "...to conduct research activities designed to increase 

knowledge of supplementation techniques," would not be met. Also, stock recovery rates would be 

slow, at best, and.harvest opportunities in the Yha would remain low or possibly be eliminated. 

C07 - Proposed Fish Stocks, Numbers and Areas 

co1-01 

Comment: My environmental concerns about the Yakima Fisheries Project are: that an attempt 

is being made to re-introduce a cold-water fish species into an environment that has been altered 

into a warm-water river. 

Comment: I believe you are fighting forces which are eventually going to win. Basically, the 

environment has been altered to a very-large e~ent. Yet, your efforts are to maintain a species 

which was adapted to the previous environment. At what cost? $lOO/fish? $500/fish? 

$lO,OOO/fish? Alter the philosophy that the Yakima River is a natural cold-water, anadromous 

fish-supporting stream, and realize that it has been altered to an irrigation waterway containing 

warm-water fish. 

Response: It is well recognized by BRA and. the project managers that the Yakima Sver is no 

[Anonymous 035-021 

' 

I 

[Anonymous 035-041 

Appendk A/-24 
PROPOSED FISH STOCKS, NUMBERS, AND AREAS 

longer the same, high quality salmonid production system that it was historically. Many of the 

current constraints are discussed in Chapter 3 ‘of the EIS. Despite these constraints, the system is 

still capable of supporting significant runs of salmon and steelhead. It is our view that 

implementation of this supplementation and reintroduction effort will hasten recovery of the 

currently depressed stocks. It is also recognized that improved habitat .conditions will also result 

in improvement of the fish runs. The project managers support activities in the Yakima Basin that 

would improve habitat for fish, * 

, co1-02 

Comment: Horseshoe Bend could be a good place for rearing fish. Water is always cold. 

[yPM-028-07] 

Comment: Recommends Horseshoe Bend to build a reaying area. 

[ypM-028-I.I] r 

Response: Thank you for your comment. A number of potential Gtes throughout the basin have 

been explored for the central hatchery site as well as the acclimation facilities. The selected sites 

meet both the biological and physical requirements for fish production. Other sites, such as 

Horseshoe Bend, may be of value ifthere is a &@re decision to expand production to include 

other stocks of salmon and steelhead. 

-.- 

CO1-03 

Comment: Between Rosa Dam and Ellensburg [have} a lot offloaters that can ruin spawning 

habitat and temperature can get pretty high. 

[yPM-28- 041 - 

Response: We do not anticipate that the floater tr&c between Roza Dam and Ellensburg will 

have any significant impact on habitat in this reach. The water temperatures in this area fall within 

a reasonable range for this project. This reach is not a significant spawning area but does provide 

valuable rearing habitat. - 

- 

CO1-04 

Comment: Naches has reliable source of cold water wGch is viable for anadromous fish, plenty . 

of food, pockets of water (deep holes), good current. Naches water is clean - controlled by 

Bumping Lake Reservoir, which is a lake high in the Cascades. 

/YPM-28-02] , . 

. 

Comment: Look at lower tributaries that pertain to Yakima:-creeks that flow into Naches are 

good rearing habitats. If look between here and Ellensburg, very few creeks cold enough to keep 

trout and salmon alive. 

[yPM-028-051 

. 
, 

PROPOSED FISH STOCKS, NUMBERS, AND AREAS 

Response: Thank you for your comment. A number of potential sites throughout the basin have 

been explored for the central hatchery site as well as the acclimation facilities. The initial Draft 

EIS included alternatives which encompassed the Naches stocks of fish. Alternatives in the 

Revised Draft EIS, partially in response to public comments, have been-reduced and the Naches 

stocks are not being considered at this time. It is the project's intent, however, to expand 

production to other stocks upon successful completion of planning efforts for those stocks. 

Naches stocks and rearing sites would likely be considered at that time. The selected sites meet 

both the biological and physical requirements for fish production. - 

CO1-05 

Comment: Look at temperature - important - for trout and salmon. - .. [YPM-28-03 J 

Response: Thank you for your comment. 

CO1-06 

Comment: What happened to the lower Yakima acclimation ponds projects? 

[Anonymous 003-021 

Response: Acclimation sites in the lower Yakima were originally proposed in the Draft EIS as 

acclimation sites for fall chinook and coho. The fall chinook alternative has been deferred in this 

Revised Draft EIS. Consequently, those sites are not currently under consideration. The coho 

feasibility study . will use three acclimation facilities already in operation under the US vs. OR coho 

program. 

I_ 

. CO1-07 . . : , 

. Comment: Why only the Yakima River watershed and not the Naches? 

' [YPM-28-0 I J 

*, 

Comment: Why isn't there more emphasis on the Naches River? 

- ,- [yPM-O32-01] 

Comment: I ,think the North and South Forks of the Naches which flow east out of the Cascades 

, and are joined by the Bumping River fkom the South would be one watershed we could restore 

- with little effort. 'The cost would be low. '. , , 

- Implant fiy to get scent- of the home water 

- Implant egg boxes 

- NO siltation/good current now 

-- Control the flow fiom Bumping better than.Rimrock - ' 

- Access road allows easy attendance/monitoring 

.. 

I [YPM-028-09] 

t 

Appendix AJ 25 

, 
PROPOSED FISH STOCKS, NUMBERS, AND AREAS 

Response: BPA and the project managers recognize the actual and potential value of the Naches 

River and its tributaries. Naches production was considered in the alternatives of the original 

DraR EIS. In response to public comment, the project has been scaled back to include only upper 

Yakima spring chinook and coho at this time. (See also response to CO1-04.) 

~~ 

.- COl-OS 

Comment: American River spring Chinook aren't being supplemented, these and other Naches 

runs are very important. Numbers of fish are now very low. 

Comment: The Bumping River could provide Steelhead and Coho fishing; maybe later bring in 

spring Chinook. 

p!-006j09] 

pM-028-08J - 

Cqmment: Spring Chinook, Coho, and Steelhead need to be addressed in the Naches in the 

future. 

- [yPM-O32-02] 

Response: The present proposal spotlights the currently depressed upper Yakima spring chinook 

stock. The Revised Draft EIS notes in Section 1.1 that the "...YET may eventually involve the 

supplementation of all stocks of anadromous fish known to have occurred in the Yakima Basin. . . . I' The previous EIS considered implementation of programs for stocks other than those 

currently being considered. The project, however, was scaled down to two stocks of fish in 

consideration of public comments and current status of our knowledge of other stocks. Our 

efforts have concentrated on detailed planning for upper Yakima spring chinook and coho only. 

As planning efforts for other stocks are successfblly completed, we may initiate programs for 

those stocks (see Section 2.6.2 of the EIS). A logical stock for supplementation is the Naches 

spring chinook. 

co1-09 

Comment: Your environmental study should have included: why introduction of sockeye into 

the upper river is not considered. .. 

Comment: 

Comment: 

[Anonymous 

Other alternatives to consider: a sockeye fishery at Lake Cle Elum. 

[Gary L. Lund 

27-02] 

019-021 

Other alternatives to consider: Sockeye and the use of the upper drainage lakes. . [Anonymous 027-051 

Response: See response, above, to comment CO1-08. The previous EIS considered 

implementation of programs for stocks othe; than those currently being considered (although ' 

sockeye were not considered at that time). The project, however; was scaled down to two stocks 

Appendix A/ 27 
. PROPOSED FISH STOCKS, NUMBERS, AND AREAS 

of fish in consideration of public comments and current status of our knowledge of other stocks. 

Our efforts have concentrated on detailed planning for upper Yakima spring chinook and coho 

only. As planning efforts for other stocks are successfidly completed, we may initiate programs 

for other stocks (see Section 2.6.2 of the EIS). 

Sockeye of the Yakima Basin are discussed on RDEIS pages 3/73 and 3/74. National Marine 

Fisheries Service has completed. a study on the feasibility of reintroducing sockeye in the Cle Elum 

system. The results of this study are expected later this year. . 

The Northwest Power Planning Council, in their letter of August 8, 1990, asking BPA to proceed 

with the final design phase of the YFP, stated that the managers should I' . . . review with the 

Council and public any proposed reintroduction of sockeye salmon into the Yakima Subbasin." 

The project managers will, before implementing programs for sockeye, or any other stocks not 

proposed in the current EIS, work closely with the Council and public and ensure all necessav 

NEPA compliance is complete. ~ 

- co1-10 

Comment: Why aren't steelhead'in this EIS? 

Comments: Other alternatives to consider: building a sports fishery for Steelhead. 

[Anonymous 

[YPM-03-0 I J \ 

030-02 J 

Comment: I think it's time we get some . steelhead in the upper Yakima. 

Comment: Why aren't we supplementing steelhead on Yakima that are close to extinction? 

[yPM-035-04] 

[yP.-006- 061 

Response: The critical status of thesteelhead resources in the Yakima system are certainly of 

concern to BPA and the project managers. The Draft EIS included alternatives which 

encompassed steelhead. The Revised Draf3 EIS, partially in response to public comments, has 

been reduced and steelhead are not being considered at this time. It is the intent, however, to 

expand production to other stocks (including summer steelhead) as planning efforts for those 

stocks are successfblly completed. We will be working diligently on developing a better 

understanding of the steelhead of the systein, their critical links to the environment, and the best 

opportunities to reverse their decline while maintaining the genetic integrity of the stocks. 

Appendix A/ 28 

.- 
PROPOSED FISH STOCKS, NUMBERS, AND AREAS 

co1-11 I 

Comment: And why do we have an alternative adding silvers that are extinct in the river? ~ pPM-006-0 7J 

Comment: Shouldn't more effort be put on Coho? Coho are the number one staple for tribal 

members. 

fYPM-026-05J 

Response: BPA and the managers are interested in species that currently and formerlv inhabited 

the Yakima Basin. The proposed action (Section 1.1 of the EIS) states that techniques 'developed 

in this effort "would be applied to rebuild naturally spawning anadromous fish stocks historicallv 

present in the Yakima River Basin. . . .'I The present and historic status of coho are discussed in 

Section 3.3.1.4. It is true that these natural stpcks have been extirpated in the system. We feel, 

however, that integrating the current coho stocking program called for in the CRFMP with the 

goals,,objectives, and monitoring activities of this project offers an excellent opportunity to 

investigate the feasibility of restoring natural production of this species. Whiie coho are not the 

number one staple for the Yakama tribal members, restoration of the resource would provide a 

valuable addition to their in7river fisheries, as well as to other fisheries in the Columbia River and 

Pacific Ocean. 

co1-12 

Comment: Why are we not doing a series of stocks? Why only one? 

pPM-tl26-04J 

Comment: Disappointed that we cut down on.number of stocks. By waiting to implement all 

stocks, we may lose the opportunity (Le. now down to only 87 steelhead). 

, 

pPM-OO6-OIJ 

Response: BPA and the project managers recognize concerns for all present and past stocks of 

salmon and steelhead in the Yakima system. As you are no doubt aware, the Draft EIS 

considered implementation of supplementation efforts for up to seven salmon and steelhead stocks 

in the basin. Subsequently, the project managers have reduced the scope of the project and 

elected to approach this supplementation program on a more conservative, yet still meaningfhl 

basis. The proposed action (Section 1.1) notes that "YFP may eventually involve the 

supplementation of all stocks of anadromous fish known to have occurred in the Yakima Basin. . . ,"[Chapter 1/11. Our efforts have concentrated on detailed planning for upper Yakima spring 

chinook and coho only. As planning efforts for other stocks are successhlly completed, we may 

initiate programs for other stocks. I 

, 

- 

.. 

Appendix A/ 29 
PROPOSED FISH STOCKS, NUMBERS, AND AREAS 

CO1-13 

. Comment: In October 1992 the Draft EIS was released calling for a very ambitious plan - 3 

hatcheries, up to seven fish stocks, and introduction of more than 8 million juveniles. Whether it 

was public, or scientific comment, or economic considerations, the Revised Draft EIS has scaled 

back the plan considerably. Since this project is considered a research project, the smaller scale 

project is a more realistic approach. Ifthe project is successfbl a more full scale project can be 

developed at a later date to take advantage of research. 

[J. Daniel Kinney 

Yakima Valley Audubm Society 054-031 

Response: Thank you for your comment. As you have noted, in the Revised Draft (and Final) 

EISs we have not given up on other stocks but have chosen this smaller scale approach to test the 

supplementation ahd reintroduction issue. \ 

~ 

.- 

C01-.14 : . 

Comment: Because theForest Service is active if; maintaining and restoring productive salmon 

and steelhead habitat in the Yakima Basin, the BPA should not preclude fbture supplementation 

or re-introduction of other stocks that are native to the basin. This should include proposals for 

re-introduction of sockeye in the upper Basin. , 

[Sonny O’Neal 

.- Forest Superdsor, Wenatchee National Forest, USDA 041-131 

Comment: The final document should clari@ the likelihood of the project expanding to 

incorporate other- fish species and/or stocks (e.g., steelhead, fall chinook) follokng completion of 

additional planning. The FEIS should indicate theorder or relative priority of these species. 

[Connie Iten 

State of Washington? Department of .. Fish and Wildlije 040a-011 * 

Comment: -The project sponsors need to indicate what the plans are for. other stocks. 

p7?M-03-03] 

-_ 

Comment: Ifthe supplementation process works on 1 to 2 species, then we should go ahead and 

apply it to all the rest of the species in the river system. . 

p7?M-035-03] 1 

Response: Thank you for your comments. While the Revised Draft EIS supports the immediate 

implementation of restoration efforts for only the upper Yakima spring chinook and coho, we are 

contbuing our planning efforts with other stocks. Lower Yakima fall chinook and Yakima 

steelhead are the focus ofthe next series of modeling efforts. Other stocks may follow. Until 

these planning activities are completed, we cannot state with,certainty the order or relative 

priority of these stocks. Note the change to the FEIS in Section 2.6.2. . 

\ 

Appendix-A/ 30 
PROPOSED FISH STOCKS, NUMBERS, AND AREAS 

CO1-15 

Comment: An annual release of 8 10,000 spring chinook smolts to the upper Yakima River is . 

proposed under Alternative 1 or 2 of the YFP. This proposed release is over 4 times the recorded 

average production of wild spring chinook smolts from the entire Subbasin. 

- [Charles C. Flower 

From a report prepared by D.B. Lister &Associates Ltd 

[Attorney, Flower & Andreotti, rep. Yakima River Basin Defense Coalition . 042-041 

, 

Response: The commenter points out that a release of 8 10,000 hatchery spring chinook smolts is 

more than four times the average wild outmigration counted at Chandler. We assume the 

commenter was implying that the carrying capacity of the systemfor outmigrating smolfi will be 

exceeded, impairing survival of all smolts, hatchery and wild alike. The commenter thus assumes 

that strong density-dependent modality affects outmigrating spolts in the Yakima Basin. aS we 

stated in our response to Comment 042-05, we see no evidence that this is the case. Our 

interpretation of the data is that smolt-to-smolt survival is density-independent, except in the 

context of a strong functional or numerical predatory response. While it is reasonable to believe 

significant functional response predation impacts exist iri the Yakima, it is impossible to predict 

now whether they will be exacerbated or attenuated by an 810,000-fish release. In this context, it 

is worth noting that a predator control program would probably be highly effective in an area as 

compact and accessible as the lower Yakima River. Although the YFP does not now plan to 

implement such a program, predator control has been discussed in the past and could be 

incorporated in the future through the adaptive management process, if necessary. 

If, on the other hand, the commenter was implying that an 810,000-smolt release is inconsistent 

with the smoltlrearing capacity of the Basin, he is simply mistaken. It is the project managers' 

goal to achieve a smolt-to-adult survival for YFP hatchery fish that will be roughly half the 

survival of wild fish (with conventional hatcheries it is usually much less). Thus, the projected 

releases, in terms of returning adults, are equivalent to no more than 405,000 wild smolts. Thus, 

given natural smolt production on the order of 200,000, our program entails the production of no 

more than 605,000 "wild smolt equivalents" in a Basin with a 900,000-smolt capacity. 

.. - 

CO1-16 

Comment: Computer model simulations indicate a smolt production potential of 900,000 fish for 

upper Yakima spring chinook (RDEIS, Chapter 2, page 26). Model estimates of spring chinook 

smolt capacity for the entire Yakima Subbasin range from 1.5-million (Instream flow model) to 

2.4 million (Northwest Power Planning Council model) (RDEIS, Chapter 3, page 67). It should 

be noted that the estimated outmigration of sprhg chinook smolts at Prosser has only once in 18 

years exceeded 300,000 and has averaged less than 200,000 (see Appendix A, Table 2 for data to 

Appendid 3 1 

.. . . .. 
PROPOSED FISH STOCKS, NUMBERS, AND AREAS -. 

1990). If observed-smolt outputs at Prosser reflect actual, capacity, as indicated by spawnerrecruit analysis (Appendix A), model projections developed for YFP planning would appear to be 

unrealistically high. 

[Charles C. Flower 

From a report prepared by DiB. Lister-& Associates Ltd 

[Attorney, Flower & Andreotti, rep. Yakima River Basin Defense- Coalition 042-02 J 

. Response: The corhmenter notes that the estimated numbers ofsmolts observed at Chandler are 

much less than the 900,000-smolt carrying capacity f0.r upper Yakima spring chinook found on 

page 26 of Chapter 2 of the RDEIS, and suggests that this figure is unrealistically high. The 

figure on page 26 of Chapter 2 is a typographical error and has been corrected in the FEIS. The 

esthated smolt capacity for the Upper Yakima stock is 543,000; the 900,000-smolt figure refers 

to the smolt capacity of the Basin as a whole. . .' 

However,'we believe 900,OOO.smolts to be-a reasonable, if perhaps rather conservative, figure for 

Basin-wide smolt capacity under existing conditions. Note that this figure refers to smolt , 

production prior to smolt-to-smolt mortality. If one accepts, as data from releases of marked 

smolts indicates, that as much as 50% of the Basin's smolt production is lost before fish are 

counted at Chandler, a 900,000-smolt capacity does not seem unreasonably high. A 50% 

pre-counting mortality applied to the 1957, Chandler estimate of 485,300 would, for instance, 

. 

- 

&ply that total smolt production was'970,600. . . . ~. 

\ 

C01-17 

Comment: Is there a plan to .allow sport fishing .for spring chinook should they return in 

sufficient numbers? DA sockeye salmon used to run in the Yakima and is there any plan to 

reintroduce them? What salmon used to run in the Yakima when you mention historic runs were 

Response:. Harvest..management issues are outside. the scope of this project. We have, however, 

included a discussion of harvest management as Appendix E. It is expected that sport fisheries 

will be allowed if the spring chinook run rebounds to an acceptable level.. One of the purposes of 

this activity is to 'I. . . improve harvest opportunity- (in the Yakima River Basin)." That harirest 

opportun$ycould include sport as well as tAbal fisheries. 

, Sockeye salmon, as well ,as discussion of other species and their historic abundance, are discussed 

in Section 3.3.1 of the Revised DraR EIS. Before implementing programs for sockeye, or any 

' other stocks not proposed in the current EIS, the project managers would work closely with the 

- Council and public. A supplemental EIS may be -required. I- 

[Anonymous 030-031 

600,000-900,000? - 

-. 

, 

' 

'* 

Historic runs in the Yakima River included spring, summer, and fall chinook, coho, sockeye, and 

steelhead. Table 1.2 of the EIS presents these species and the estimated numbers of each group. 
._ PROPOSED FISH STOCKS,-NUMBERS, AND AREAS 

CO1-18 

Comment: Pg 66, section 3.3.1. It is unclear how 0.6 million to 0.96 million anadromous fish 

could have been present near the turn of the century when "about.90 percent of the Yakima spring 

chinook fishery was lost between 1850 and 1900" (at page 69). Most ofthe listed causes for 

decline would have affected, to some extent, all anadromous stocks present. Should the 

statements be read to mean that historically 6 million to 9.6 anadromous fish existed in the basin, 

that the above figures applied to the turn of the eighteenth century7 or that only spring chinook 

were significantly affected by anthropogenic disturbances between 1850 and 1900? Does the 

5,500 mean annual return figures include fall chinook? 

\ 

[Lynn Hatcher 

Yaha Indian Nation 049-151 

Response: The commenter requests clarification of some confusing entries in the RDEIS relating 

to historical and current runs of anadromous salmonids to the Yakima Basin. We have become 

aware that the RDEIS includes some typographical errors and errors of chronology in this area, 

that have been corrected in the FEIS. These corrections include the following: 

Page 66. Section 3.3.1. The first sentence should read, "Around the middle of the 19th century, 

600,000 to 900,000 salmon returned to the Yakima River annually...", not "Around the turn of 

the century.. . It. 

Page 69. Section 3.3.1.1. "Causes for Decline". The first sentence should read, 'IAbout 90% of 

the fisheries for all anadromous salmonids was lost between 1850 and 1900". 

Page 66. Section 3.3.1. first paragraph. second to last sentence. The figure of "5,500 adults" for 

the mean annual return of all anadromous salmonids at first looked too small to us, too. 

However, it is not, at least not by much. - The returns of steelhead, spring chinook and fall 

chinook ("above-Prosser" counts for fall chinook) for-the last 5 years of record are summarized in 

Table 1. The figure in the sentence should be 5,100 adults, not 5,500; and it does include fall 

. 

chinook. 

, 

-. 

' -I \- 

Appendix A/ 33 
t 

PROPOSED FISH STOCKS, NUMBERS, AND AREAS 

1995 

1994 . 

1993 

- 1992 

1991 

-. 

Table 1. Returns of anadromous salmonids to the Yakima Basin over the last 5 years of 

record. I I 

919 663 (IN PROGRESS) 

554 1,280 1,421 

1,184 3,873 1,065 

2,263 - 4,415 1,612 

834 2,879 971 

-.YEAR 

1990 

5-YEARMEAN 

. SPRING 

CHINOOK 

1,505 

1,150 2,622 1,314 

1 I - FALLCFTINooK 

. 

~~ 

-* 

COl-19 

Comment: Seen about 20 fish spawning just below the Cle Elum Dam. ’ Will there.be a’ site 

there? .. . 

, [CPM-08-01] 

Response: .Thank you for your.comment. We are aware that spring chinook are spawning in the 

‘ Cle’Elum River. There is, however; currently no acclimation site proposed for this river: 

r, > 

co1-20 

Comment: Since coho spend about two years rearing in fresh water, what is the habitat capable 

of supporting in terrhs ofjuvenile coho? Habitat conpition? 

pic Stacostha 015-02] 

Response: The 1993 Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Proiect Planning Status Report. Volume 5: 

Yakima Coho Salmon has been updated and included as an appendix to the FEIS. Habitat 

conditions - are sufficient in many tributaries in the Basin to support summer-rearing populations of 

juvenile coho. 

Appendix A/ 34 
PROPOSED FISH STOCKS; NUMBERS, AND AREAS 

/ co1-21 

Comment: Pg 26. The process by which the production estimates were developed should be 

better explained, particularly how assumption (3) yields-the resultant productivity increases 

forecast for the Naches and American stocks. 

[Lynn Hatcher 

Yakama Indian Nation 049-041 

, 

Response: Production estimates assume that virtually all mortality among outmigrant smolts is 

due to predation by resident predators in the lower Yakima (a migration corridor common to all 

stocks). "Predator - swamping" and "predator diversion" also play a role. 

Predator swamping presumes a ceiling on smolt mortality, that is, smolt survival will increase in 

direct proportion to the number of smolts in excess of the predators' maximum consumption 

capacity. This concept is generally clearly valid, but difficult to assess in terms of actual, prey 

densities and predation rates, A related effect concerns the relative vulnerability of hatchery and 

wild fish to predators. If hatchery fish are relatively more vulnerable than wild, then a release of 

hatchgry fish might improve the survival of wild fish by diverting predation pressure away from 

wild smolts ("predator diversion"). Thus, supplementation may increase the survival of preexisting wild smolts by both swamping and redirecting predation. We assume that there would 

be relatively mild predation pressure (B = 240,000) and that relative hatcheryhild smolt-to-adult 

survival would be 50% or less (ie., that hatchery smolts are twice as vulnerable). Therefore, the 

release of close to a million hatchery smolts was assumed both to swamp the predators and to 

divert predatory pressure away from wild fish. - 

co1-22 

Comment: Continued natural escapement of upper Yakima River spring chinook should also be 

emphasized . [Sonny 0 'Neal 

Forest Supervisor, Wenatchee National Forest? USDA 041-05] 

Response: Continued natural escapement of all stocks is a critical element in measuring the 

success of this project. Several steps will be taken to protect natural production while 

implementing the project. Genetic risks to natural production are reduced by broodstock 

collection criteria which require that less than 50% of the na&ral-origin returning adults be used 

for artificial production. Steps will be taken to assure that fish used for hatchery production are 

not first-generation hatchery returns. Juveniles will be released only in the ancestral drainage. 

The project will also manage the proportion of natural- to hatchery-origin adults allowed to . 

spawn naturally. -. 

! 

-. 

Appendix A/ 35 -- 
PROJECT FACILITIES’ , 

. 

CO1-23 

Comment: What are the smolt to adult returns for existing supplementation projects? 

[CPM-38-02] 

1 

Response: One major need described for this project is to test the effectiveness of 

supplementation as a tool to restore and enhance depressed salmon and steelhead stocks. The 

project is designed as an experiment becauselittle empirical data exists on smolt-to-smolt survival 

rates for projects of this type. The project has assumed that survival rates Will approximate 0.2%; 

modeled experimental responses ranging-fi-am 0.1 to 0.3% were modeled. 

CO1-24 

Comment: Not enough fish in river to support program. 

pTM-O09-01] 

Response: The project managers acknowledge the precarious status of the returns to the Yakima 

Basin. That status underscores the need to carry out this supplementation program. In 1ight.of 

this, it is unlikely that &ll production of-spring chinook will be realized at the onset of the project. 

Broodstock collection will follow genetic guidelines to assure continued natural spawning while 

initiating a balanced hatchery production component. 

C02 - Project Facilifies 

’, co2-01 - 

Comment: Electric Service None to [Jack Creek] site: closest service is 4.1 miles down 

Teanaway Road: service in North Fork is notorious for frequent interruption, particularly in 

winter; single phase power; Connor sawmill must generate portion of their power due to 

inadequate supply on line. I -- 

Question:- Why do you need this remote location when you’ll needlo replace line 12.8 miles to 

-supply on Hiway 970? Is this included in.your estimate of construction costs? ., 

’ . [Ronald L. Pyeatt 056-061 

Comment: If you must have a site on the Teanaway why-not consider the vicinity where the 

. Teanaway Road crosses the river, downstream from the,West Fork road intersection? 

Most ‘of your problems are solvable and much less expensive. In addition Kittitas County keeps 

the snow plowed in this vicinity, relieving yo,u of that ,expense. You will not catch the wrath of 

.- 

the winter recreationists also. 

[Ronald L. Pyeatt 056-091 

Append.ixN36 . 
PROJECT FACILJTIES 

Comment: The Jack Creek acclimation site will be fiozen solid until March or even April in 

some years (it was fiozen in late March in 1995). How will you “heat” the site so you can put 

smolts in it in Jan/Feb? If you temper the acclimation water source (Teanaway R.) with ground 

water how will the fish acclimate? 

[Anonymous 055-021 

Response: The Tekaway acclimation.pond location was selected to optimize distribution of 

returning adults throughout suitable spawning habitat in that stream. The cost of bringing 

electrical service on site is part of the estimated construction cost and has been factored into 

design considerations for the Teanaway site. An engine generator is planned as an alternative 

source of electrical power for the Teanaway site. 

Winterizing the Teanaway site for deep snow and sub-freezing temperatures will be included in 

the design of the acclimation facility. Special considemtion will be ‘given to maintaining the 

water supply to the raceways during adverse weather conditions, Use of an alternative ground 

water source to temper the river water is being considered for the Teanaway site. 

Although asite on the Teanaway River near the vicinity of the West Fork road intersection 

would be more desirable from a standpoint of access and availability of utilities, such a - 

location does not Rrovide for the necessary distribution of returning adults to historic spring 

chinook spawning grounds. Project biologists evaluated numerous sites in the Teanaway 

system and determined that the North Fork site met the biological criteria for acclimation sites. 

- 

. 

co2-02 

you plan on carrying out experiments, but you are constrained tb use these types of raceways, 

initially, why don’t you include smaller-scale experimental raceways to test experiments that are 

more complex but smaller in size? 

Comment: On the map this looks just like another hatchery Le. concrete rectangular raceway. If r 

. [Anonymous 055-OIJ 

Comment: I saw no experimental “stations” associated with the site descriptiodmaps. I redie 

the experiment is a test of “new” rearing techniques using thousands of fish per site/experiment. 

Why don’t you have the equipment (small experimental facilities) in your,plan to test the 

mechanisms (or other reasons) that lead to the results you may find after the adults return? 

Response: The experimental design for the project requires a minimum number of fish to be 

used in the test in order to have a statistically valid sample. Also, as part of the pre-facility 

research for this project, the National Marine Fisheries Service has been conducting smallscale experiments to determine the various “more natural” components that could be included 

in the roster of changes that would differentiate the New Innovative Treatment from the 

Optimum Conventional Treatment. 

[Anonymous 055-051 , 

- 

Appendix A/ 37 
PROJKT FACILITIES 

C02-03 ~ 

Comment: Bureau of Reclamation should study petting a fish ladder at the dam. . 

[CPM-08-02] , 

Response: The BOR has'recently built or improved the adult fish passage facilities at all of 

the major dams on the Yakima river. There were no ladders constructed on the five irrigation 

storage reservoirs in the basin, however, and this is the reason that sockeye salmon are 

extirpated in the Yaidma. We are waiting for the final report of a multi-year NMFS study on 

the feasibility of passage of sockeye smolts out of Lake Cle Elum as a preliminary study in the 

' 

. restorationpf sockeye to the Yakima basin. 

C02-04 \ 

Comment: We own the property at Clark Flats where one of the acclimation ponds will be 

constructed, as now proposed. On April -17,- we had a conversation with Mr. Don Gecg. 

,He told us at that time that the pond would require appro&ately 1 acre of .land. Your RDEIS 

states that the ponds would require 2 acres. of land. I also asked Mi. Gerig at the time to send the 

engineering drawings for the pond. We have not heard fi-om him since that date. We would like a 

clarification on land requirements and the engineering- drawings for the proposed pond. 'We did 

tell Mr. Gerig at that time, we had no objectionsto >. the proposed pond, however we would 

appreciate some commuriications. , I 

~ 

[PaulM DeFaccio OI6-OIJ . 

Response: The exact size of the acclimation pond site has not been det&nined because the 

acclimation design has not been completed. The estimated size for acclimation sites is about 

0.4 ha (1 acre), thought they could be as large as 0.8 ha (2 acres). The RDEIS stated that the 

acclimation ponds would require 0.8 ha (2 acres) in an effort to present the largest project size 

for environmental analysis. : 

In response to this comment letter, the project engineer contacted Mr. DeFaccio in regard to 

restoring communication and providing bin; with design drawings when they become 

available. 

C02-05 

Comment: Show location of Coho release facilities. 

WM- 003- 061 -. 

Response: The sites were described in the text of the RDEIS, in section 2.4.1.2. A new 

figure (2.1.5) showing this information has been added to the F?EIS. 

Appendix A/ 3 8 
MONITORING AND EVALUATION . 

C03 - Monitoring and Evaluation 

C03-01 

Comment: Monitoring is critical. Knowledge of pre-facility fish density, growth, smolt numbers, 

timing, and size, interaction type and rate, predation, spawner number, timing, and distribution. 

This data must be continued after hatchery construction to answer the research question. - [Anonymous 055-031 

4 

Comment: We believe the adaptive management process and proper monitoring and evaluation 

are critical in developing a successful program and insuring minimal adverse impacts. The project 

should be based on science and provide for an action based decision making process. .- 

- 

.d [Y. Daniel Kinney 

Yakima Valley Audubon Society 054-051 

Response: The Northwest Power Planning Council, the Bonneville Power Administration, 

- and the proj,ect managers all agree the monitoring of this project is critical. Pre-facility 

baseline studies have been ongoing for many years and will continue through the 

implementation of‘this project. The project is designed as a group of scientific experiments 

that will be monitored throughout the Mespan of the fish and the duration of the project. The 

evaluation of the results of these experiments will determine the course of action for the future 

of the project. 

CO3-02 

Comment: The literature and an emergency “conventional wisdom” supports a view that 

traditional hatcheries produce fish comparatively unfit for full life span survival and fitness. 

Looking for hatchery regimdns that close this gap between wild and hatchery rearing is a 

reasonable task. It cannot be assumed however, that “naturalistic like” alterations to the hatchery 

environment will necessarily have any behavioral consequencesfor the fish or, ifthere are 

consequences, that they will be in the right direction! There must be rigorous, systematic, and 

ongoing research monitoring of rearing practices and outcomes at as many life span stages as 

possible. 

~ 

- [Jim Thomson 022-011 

Response: Again, we agree with the comment. The project is designed to compare the 

behavior and survival of the Optimum Conventional Treatment (00 as produced in 

traditional hatcheries with the New Innovative Treatment 

naturalistic conditions. These treatments will be monitored throughout their rearing in the 

hatchery, and as outmigrating smolts and returning adults. These treatment fish will also be 

compared to the naturally reared fish that are produced from natural spawning in the river. 

fish reared under mom 

8 

, 

Appendix A/ 39 
MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

I 

CO3-03 

Comment: Reclamation believes in the need to study supplementation.and supports that research 

in the Yakima River Basin. However, there needs fo be a strong commitment in the FEIS to 

monitoring and evaluation. The YFP must have the monitoring and evaluation component 

inseparable fiom the supplementation portion of the project. Reclamation owns and maintains 

several of the evaluation facilities in the Yakima River Basin and is committed to working with 

BPA, YIN and WDFW to ensure the facilities are capable of addressing the research needs to the 

YFP. 

[James l? Cole 

Area Mmger, Bureau of Reclamation, US Department of the Interior 048-031 

Response: The comment is well taken. Much of the expense of the design, construction, and 

operation of the proposed project is due to the experimental nature of the supplementation 

research. This money would be wasted if the monitoring and evaluation component of the 

project were not completed. Valuable information of the effects and impacts of 

supplementation would also be lost. The project managers welcome BOR's commitment, and 

look forward to working with the BOR in ensuring that Reclamation's evaluation facilities are 

capable of addressing the research needs of the YFP. 

C03-04 

Comment: The RDEIS seems to clearly explain how the process for adaptive management will 

be applied as part of the YFP. This will be critical for the success of the project, and especially 

for continued growth of the plan for natural production of coho (and other stocks). It is not 

desirable, given already low natural production of spring chinook and summer steelhead, to 

firther depress those runs. Although coho existed in the Yakima Basin, historical habitat 

conditions were different fiom the current conditions. We support the objective to increase and 

improve natural production of coho runs, but would like to emphasize the importance that 

adaptive management will .have in obtaining knowledge useful to coho management. 

[Sonny O'Neal 

Forest Supervisor, Wenatchee National Forest, USDA 

- 

041-031 

Response: The purpose of the proposed coho alternative is to evaluate the potential impacts 

and benefits of reintroduction of coho into the Yakima basin. The project will monitor and 

evaluate the ongoing coho .program under the CRFMP. This information will be used in the 

adaptive management process, to make decisions on whether and how to implement 

management practices that will optimize the benefits and minimize tlie impacts of 

reintroduction of coho. -. 

, 

I. 

. ' Appendix,A/ 40 
PROJECT OPERATIONS/BROODSTOCK SELECTION/ FISH REARING 

* C03-06 

Comment: Use coded wire tags to determine survival of smolt and source of returning adults. , 

pic Stacostha OI5-07J * 

Comment: Experimental design should note that all smolts 

bemarked. 

be marked or explain what will 

[YpM-03 7-03] 

Response: All of the fish produced for this project will be marked to allow monitoring and 

evaluation of each of the 18 research groups (9 OCT groupsand 9 NIT groups). The method 

of marking these fish has not yet been finalized, but research is beingconducted to determine 

the best marks for separately identifying each of the research groups. /. 

C03-07 

Comment: Why aren’t feds monitoring Indian catches rather than using the Indians’ catch 

numbers? - 

p!-0 12-051 

Response: Federal Court orders have authorized the. Treaty Indian Tribes to manage their 

fisheries and also authorizes the Tribes to monitor and report on their ceremonial and 

subsistence (C and S) fisheries. The commercial catches are recorded on fish tickets issued 

when fish are sold to commercial buyers. This fish ticket information is entered into a catch 

database that is co-managed by the state and Tribes. 

‘C04 ‘- Project Opera tions/Bro o dsto ck Selection/Fish Rearing 

C04-01 

Comment: Supplementation in Yakima with Coho and spring Chinook which are the stocks that . 

will primarily benefit the Indians. ,‘ 

ryPM-006-12] 

Response: Thank you for your comment. The coho and spring chinook supplementation 

programs will benefit all users of the resource--Indian and non-Indian alike. Harvest is to be 

shared equitably between both parties. 

I. I 

Appendix A/ 41 
PROJECT OPEW TIONS/BROODSTOCK SELECTION/FlSH REA RING 

r 

., 

CD4-02 

Comment: My environmental concerns about the Yakima Fisheries Project are: hatchery fish 

survival has a poor record in the Columbia. Have you considered stocking coho fly into sy,stems 

pic Stacostha 015-031 

. with adequate rearing habitat? . 

~ 

-. ,. 

. Comment: Your mvironmental study should have included: egg or fry plantings to nursery 

streams. The idea of acclimating salmon-parr to predators is almost finny. Go for alternative 2. 

[Anonymous 036-011 .I , I. 

Comment: -Other altematives to consider: -stock fry in conjunction with creation of complex 

rearing habitat in suitable streams. 

z. pic Stacostha 015-06 ‘, 

-Comment: Use coho fry or parr, smolts would be too old to acclimate to the basin for return. 

,- [Anonymous 036-041 

Response: The initial thrust of this program, for both*spring chinook and coho, is to release fish 

as smolts. With the relatively small potehtial number of spring chinook eggs available, we must 

maximize the potential for return while still protecting the genetic integrity of the stock and 

minimiziig impact of releases on naturally produced juveniles in the system. We must also have 

enough returning fish to detect differences between treatments of groups of fish. Using eggs or 

fky would not reliably produce sufficient returns to meet the experimental needs of the effort. 

Coho smolts, if acclimated within the basin, will return to the basin. Those that escape the 

fisheries are expected to seek out tributaries for spawning and natural production. The ecological 

impact of the fky produced in this way will be much less than the impact of large numbers of 

fingerlings or smolts planted directly into the tributaries, and our experience shows that survival 

will be higher. 

C04-03 

Comment: The goal of the YJ?P is “...to rebuild and support naturally spawning anadromous 

fish stocks ...” (emphasis added). In order to achieve this goal, large numbers of hatchery fish 

dl be released. The RDEIS acknowledges that the expected outcome of spring chinook 

supplementation is that “Substantial numbers of acclimated smolts are expected to return as adult 

spawners to the general vicinity of the acclimation sites.” The expectation that these returning 

hatchery fish will produce viable naturaVwild stock$ is a leap of faith. Although the fish culture 

practices appear to be designed to maximize genetic fitness (selecting local stocks for culture) and 

encourage adaptation to natural conditions (the NIT treatment), decades of experience with mixed 

wildhatchery stocks in the region demonstrate that this proposal may at best produce large 

numbers of hatchery strays that do not significantly contribute to natural reproduction. 

. 

[Steve Shepard 0 14-0 I] 

Response: This proposed effort differs markedly from the “decades of experience’’ that may have 

produced “large numbers of hatchery strays that do not significantly contribute to natural 

Appendix A/ 42 ~. 
I 

PROJECT OPERATIONS/BROODSTOCK SELECTION/ FISH REARING 

production." There is very liited past experience with programs such as that proposed for the 

Yakima River. There has been no concerted effort to use the local, indigenous stock of naturallyproduced fish, incubate and rear them in a more natural environment, and release them back near 

the area in which they are expected to spawn; assuring that each year the broodstock collected is 

of natural, not hatchery origin. The experienced referenced is based primarily on releasing 

hatchery fish under less rigorous criteria. While our expectations may to some extent be a "leap 

of faith", we are confident that, through this carellly monitored effort, we can be successll in 

maintaining production in the Yakima Basin. 

Table 1.1 of the Revised Draft EIS shows how this supplementation effort differs from 

conventional hatchery programs. 

- 

CO4-04/05 

Comment: This has been the experjence with more than 25 years of Atlantic salmon restoration , 

efforts. Even when hatchery smolts were released in viable habitats and returned to theseareas as 

adults, they did not apparently spawn and produce viable progeny (as evidenced by the lack of 

juveniles the following year). Only when very young juvenile fish (non-feeding and feeding fiy) 

were distributed painstakingly throughout the drainage did viable adults return and begin to 

rebuild a truly wild stock. 

[Steve Shepard 014-021 

Comment: Another alternative to consider in the YFP is to let the habitat produce wild fish by 

returning them to the river as soon as possible, i.e., as feeding fiy. Although this is logistically 

difficult (we distribute Atlantic salmon fiy by canoe in oxygenated coolers), and initial mortalities 

may be up to 90%, the resulting juveniles will be adapted to local conditions and returning adults 

will hame to appropriate spawning grounds. 

Response: Thank you for your comment. We are aware of instances where releases of salmon 

smolts into suitable habitat have produced juveniles when they return to spawn naturally. With 

the constraints placed on broodstock collection, rearing environment, and release strategies, we 

anticipate that this proposed project will significantly improve on that success. (See also 

Response C04-02.) 

[Steve Shepard 014-031 

.- 

., 

C04-06 ~I 

Comment: What is the source of "out of basin" coho? Is the "out of basin" source similar to 

Yakima streams? 

[yic.Stacostha 015-041 ,~ 

Response: The "out of basin"-source of coho has in the past come from lower Columbia River 

hatcheries. There are no sources avadable that would be similar to the Yakima River streams. It 

is unfortunate that the only such source--native fish returning to the Yakima--have long been 

extinct. As the coho program continues, we may be able to collect broodstock from the Yakima . 

River. I. 

- 

., 

Appendix A/ 43 
- 

PROJECT OPERATIONS/BROODSTOCK SELECTION/FISH REARING 

~ 

. 

CO4-07 

Comment: Th/e DEIS conveys an impression that production and productivity of Yakima River 

spring chinook under the YFP can be characterized as lying between two scenarios [“optimistic” 

and-“pessimisticy7]. [The commenter] assumes that both scenarios are based on 3,700 adult 

spawners for maximum production of filial adults. This number - . is the approximate median 

value of three estimates [described in cornenter’s report of July 20, 19951. 

ODtimistic Scenario. The optimistic scenario implies that survival of hatchery juveniles is halfthat 

of natural juveniles and that the capacity of the Yakima River to assimilate hatchery juveniles is 

largely unaffected by presence of natural juveniles. It is assumed that-500 spawners are taken into 

the hatchery to produce 810,000 hatchery-juveniles to be released into the upper Yakima River. 

The remaining 3,200 adults are counted into the upper Yakima River to spawn naturally. The 

3,200 natural spawners &e assumed to produce 200,000 filial smolts and 8,000 filial adults 

(smolt-to-adult survival of 0.04). The 810,000 hatchery juveniles. are assumed to produce 16,000 

filial adults (smolt-to-adult survival of 0-02). Combined production of natural and hatchery fish is 

about 24,000 filial adults. The “productivity ratio” of filial adults to parent spawners is calculated 

to be 6.5 (24,000 + 3,700). This productiviiy ratio for m&um production of filial adults if 

about 2.5 times higher than that of current Yakima River spring chinook in the absence of 

supplementation. [See commenter’s report attached to his letter.] 

- 

., 

Pessimistic Scenario. The pessimistic scenario assumes limited capacity of the Yakima River to 

‘”assimilate natural and hatchery juveniles. ,If+ maximum production of filial adults is in the range of 

9,000 to 10,000 from 3,700 spawners, partitioning spawners between hatchery (500 adults) and 

natural spawning (3,200 adults) is assumed to have little, if any, positive impact on maximum 

production of filial adults. The productivity ratio of filial adults to parent spawners would either 

remain in the range of 2.4 to 2.7 or would possibly decline due td overstocking of the ecosystem. 

The YFP supplementation program describedin the DEIS appears to provide an opportunity to 

address two important,questions related to the potential capacity of the Yakima River to produce 

spring chinook. 

1. Will escapements ofthree to four thousand spawners produce the maximum number of . 

2. -Will supplementation provide for significant increased production of filial adults per 

filial adults with or without supplementation? 

.- 

- parent spawner? .\ 

Answers-to these questions should help resolve an ongoing debate about the role‘of artificial 

propagation in the management and restoration of Columbia Basin salmon. [See also 

commenter ’s attached report. J 

. . -william J: McNeil, Ph.D. 

Remar@ prepared for the Yakima River B&in Defense Coalition 043-0 I J 

Response:.We are not able to understand the point of the comments. If the question was whether 

the m’ determine whether supplementation will increase production of filial adults per spawner, 

the answer is yes. Post-release survival (filial adults per spawner in the hatchery) and 

reproductive success (adult progeny per parent) for the supplemented population as a whole will 

~. 

.\ *- - 

,. 

Appendix A/ 44 
.- 

PROJECT OPERATIONS/BROODSTOCK SELECTION/ FISH REARING 

be closely monitored, and will be one of the major drivers in adaptively changing the project over 

time. .I 

It is not easy to determine the point of the "Optimistic" and "Pessimistic" scenarios. Clearly, 'the 

ratio of returning adult progeny per parental spawner (both inside and outside of the hatchery) 

must increase under supplementation for the project to be successful. Although our assumptions 

and calculations differ considerably, we agree that a YFF supplementation program that meets the 

Qbjectives set forth in RDEIS requires that the current recruitment rate (adult progeny/parent) be 

more than doubled -- by our calculations, raised by a factor of 2.1; by the'commenter's,'a factor of 

2.5. 

I 

CO4-08 

Comment: The existence of a special case of density dependent limitation, known as 

"depensatory mortality", is not borne out by the spawner-recruit analysis in Appendix A. Yakima 

spring chinook exhibit their highest productivity, up to 1 1.3 adult returns per spawner, at low 

escapement levels (Table 1; Appendix A). In response to relaxed harvestpressures in the late 

1970~~ estimated spawning escapements rebounded fkom a low of 3 14 fish in 1977 to 8072 in 

1986. There is a strong and statistically significant (-0.82; p< 0.001) negative relationship 

between parent escapement and adult returns/spawner, with returndspawner approaching 1 .O at 

3,500-4,000 spawners (Figure 3; Appendix A). Declines in stock productivity since the mid1980s reflect the recovery-of spawning escapements to levels at or near the Yakima Subbasin's 

carrying capacity. Rather than the depensatory mortality processes espoused in the RDEIS, the 

dynamics of Yakima spring chinook exempw population regulation by compensatory processes 

which feature high survival rates at low population levels and declining survival rates as the 

population approaches carrying capacity. Spawner-recruit analysis of Yakima summer steelhead 

indicates relationships between escapement and stock productivity that are similar to those found 

in Yakima spring chinook (Appendix B). 

' As noted above, the RDEIS hypothesizes that Yakima spring chinook productivity is predation 

limited. Though it suggests that the northern squawfish is likely the most significant predator, the 

RDEIS notes that "--no work has been done in the Yakima River Basin to ascertain the 

abundance and distribution of the squawfish population,," and "--no research as been conducted in 

the Yakima River to assess predator consumption rates and the actual relationship of predators to 

prey (e.g. spring chinook) density-" (Chapter 4, page 127). The RDEIS states that research on 

these subjects would be highly valuable, but that no research is currently planned to address the 

issues. 

. 

, 

Appendix A/ 45 
PROJECT OPERATIONS/BROODSTOCK SELECTION/FISH REARING . 

It has been suggested that animal populations subject to predation pressures may have multiple 

equilibria, wherein a breakthrough to a high abundance level is dependent on exceptional juvenile 

recruitment which saturates the predator population, i.e. the scenario described h the RDEIS. 

Researchers who have examined this problem, however, have concluded that evidence for this 

phenomenon has been dficult to document (Hilborn and Walters, 1992) and, in the case of the 

Pacific <ahon, is weak and circumstantial peterman, 1987). 

[Charles C. FlowerFrom a report prepared by D.B. Lister &Associates Ltd 

[Attorney, Flower & Andreotti, rep. Yakima River Basin Defense Coalition . 

042-0 I J 

Response: This comment suggests tha: the commenter's stock-recruitment analysis demonstrates 

that current low returns of Yakima spring chinook reflect primarily a low carrying capacity in the 

Basin (3,500-4,OOO spawners), and does not support a hypothesis of predation-mediated 

depensatory mortality. These analyses contain some serious flaws, and may be dangerously 

misleading. Our reservations are listed in the response to Comment C04-10.2 

It also appears reasonable to assume that a relatively fixed population of resident predators, 

through a Type III functional response, significantly depresses spring chinook Rroductivity, 

tending to constrain smolt production and subsequent adult recruitment to levels well below 

environmentalcapacity in the absence of predation. At the present time, we have assumed a 

population of predatory fish capable of consuming smolts as depicted in Figure 1 below. 

It should be noted that predation consistent with a Type III' functional response for squawfish 

feeding on chinook smolts has been demonstrated in the Columbia River below McNary Dam 

(Petersen and DeAngelis, 1992). Moreover, the impact ofpredation (as we modeled it) is, if 

anytwng, conservative in light of observed smolt losses. In 1988, an outr&gration of 283,000 

wild smolts was estimated at Chandlgr. Also in 1988, it was estimated that the mean survival of 

wild, branded spring chinook smolts fiom four mid-river release points to Chandler was 52.5%. 

Ifthis rate applied to the outmigration as a whole, then 283,0(10/0.525 or 539,000 smolts began 

the outmigration, and 256,000 died before reaching Chandler. For reasons cited in response to 

Comment C04-10, we believe the bulk of this loss was attributable to predation. The number of 

smolts in a 539,000-fish outmigration lost to predators as modeled in the EDT is only 155,000. 

Finally, it is not unreasonable to propose that enough predatory fish exist in the lower 100 miles 

of the Yakima River to consume several hundred thousand smolts. 

outmigration (April though the first week of June), each predator consumed only one smolt per 

day, it would take only 3,765 predators to consume 256,000 smolts. 

over the course of a 68-day 

Append& A/ 46 
PROJECT OPERATlONS/BROODSTOCK SELECTION/ FISH REARING 

. 1- 

.. 

v) 

I240.0 1 B = 240,OOa 

A 

rn 

71 

S 

U 

VI 

3 

0 

I 

c 

W 

60.0 

2 40.0 

20.0 

0 .o 

d 

-09 

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 

SMOLTS BEFORE PREDATION 

(Millions) 

1.4 1.6 

. 

Appendix A/ 47 
PROJECT OPERATlONS/BROODSTOCK SELECTION/F/SF/ REARING \ 

\ 

co409 

Comment: Spawner-recruit analysis indicates that smolt-to-adult survival of spring chinook has 

been negatively correlated (6-0.79; p < 0.01) with the number of outmigrating smolts (Figure 5; 

Appendix A). At existing levels of abundance the spring chinook smolt population is apparently 

experiencing density-related mortality. Under these circumstances, a dramatic increase in smolt 

migrants, as proposed under the YFP, would not appear to be prudent. 

[Charles-C. Flower 

From a report prepared by D.B. Lister &Associates Ltd 

' [Attorney, Flower & Andreotti, rep. Yakima River Basin Defense Coalition - 042-0.51 

Response: Our analysis differs. First, it is generally believed that actively outmigrating smolts 

are not subject to density'-dependent mortality, except for density-dependent predatov losses. 

Yakima spring chinook smolts observed in upriver locations are significantly smaller than smolts 

. observed downriver (Fast et al., 1991). This suggests substantial growth during outmigration 

(and not feeding-related competition and subsequent mortality). Hi&er smolt density might 

increase mortality rates by inciting higher consumption rates among resident predators (the 

"fknctional response"), or by attracting more predators into the Yakima (the "numerical / 

response"). However, even under this scenario, the number and behavior of local predators must 

be known in order to determine whether a given number of smolts will incur higher losses through 

fknctional and numerical predatory responses, or will instead simply overwhelm the predators' 

ability to find, capture and digest prey. This is one of the questions the project must examine. 

Second, the commenter has made use of an inappropriate and incomplete data set from smolt 

years 1959-1963, and 1983-1990. Many features of the Yakima and (especially) the mainstem 

Columbia were quite different in 1959-1963: no mainstem irrigation dams were renovated on the 

Yakima, John Day Dam had not yet been built on the Columbia, and eight additional mainstem 

Snake and Columbia dams above the Yakima did not exist. The commenter should have examined 

the data collected aper 1990. We have recently looked at the relationship between smolt-to-adult 

survival and a number of independent variables for smolt years 1983-1993. These.variables 

included the following: 

estimated total number of outmigrants (the same data used by the commenter for the 

years 1983-1990 plus data for the years 1991-1993); 

lower Columbia run size 2 years after smolt outmigration (assumed to reflect oceanic 

and Columbia-wide impacts for 4-year-old adults); and 

weighted mean flows below Sunnyside and Prosser Dams. 2 

Daily mean flows below these dams were weighted by the fraction of the total outmigration that 

experienced by the entire outmigration. We found no relationship between smolt-to-adult survival 

and the estimated number of outmigrants (~0.275, p=0.413; see Figure 2). We did, however, 

find sigmficant relationships between smolt-to-adult survival and mean flows below Prosser Dam 

(Figure 3), mean flows below Sunnyside Dam (Figure 4) and Columbia returns 2 years after 

outmigration (Figure 5). The correlation coefficients and significance .levels of the, relationships 

' passed Prosser that day; thus, these passage-weighted flows approximate the average flows 

Appendix A/ 48 -. 
6.0% 

< 5.5% 

2’ 

$ 5.0% 

3 

a 

4.0% e 

4 3.5% 

‘0 

I2 

a. 

-I 

3.0% 

n 2.5% 

Lu 

2 z 2.0% 

i= 

, 

a Lu 1.5% 

1 .O%, 

5( 

PROJECT OPERATIONS/BROODSTOCK SELECTION/ FISH REARING 

I 

I r = 0.275, p=0.413 

Coefficient of determination = 0.0753 

I 

I 

I 

.I 

I 

I 

1 

I 

1 1 I 

100000 150000 -200000 . ‘250000 ~ 30( 

TOTAL ESTIMATED SMOLT OUTMIGRATION 

Fig. 2 Relationship between smolt number and subsequent smolt-to-adult 

survival, Yakima spring chinBok, ‘smolt years 1983 - 1993. ~ . <- 

Appendix A/ 49 

IO 
PROJECT OPERATIONS/BROODSTOCK SELECTION/FISH REARING 

4 4 5.5%- 

> 

3- 

a 

+ 4.5%- 

-I 

'3 

5 

5.0%- 

4.0%- $- 

I? 

0' 

3.5%- 

0 . 3.0%- 

z 

a 

6.0% I I 

2.5%- 

W 

I- 

.z 

F 

W 

a 

a 1.5% 

1 .O% I= 1 I 1 1 I I 1 

2*o%/ = 

C 

I 

.- 

I 

Ss/a = 0.000959(Qpross) + 0.376 

Coefficient of determination = 0.41 76 

/ 

Ss/a = 0.000959(Qpross) + 0.376 

Coefficient of determination = 0.41 76 

I 

, 

Appendix. A/ 50 
PROJECT OPERA TIONS/BROODSTOCK SELECTION/ FISH REARING 

6.0%. 

-I 

Q 5.5% 2 > 

3 

a 

5.0% 

5 4.5% 

0 

ly 3.5% 

!I 

z 

a 

3 2 4.0% 

0 3.0% 

0 2.5% 

W 

I2 

W 

a 2.0% 

- 

$ 1.5% 

1 .O% 

1 

/- 

I 

I 

I 

1. 

Ss/a = O.OQ0862(Qsunny) + 0.459707 

I 

'. 

. .~ 

_. 

I 

. I I 

I I 1 I 1 I .. D 1500 2000 . 2500 3bbo 3500 4000 , ' 4500 -- 5' 

I 

WEIGHTED MEAN'FLOW BELOW SUNNYSIDE DAM 

Fig. 4 

and subsequent smolt-to-adult survival, Yakima spring chinook, smolt years 

Relationship between weighted mean flow below Sunnyside Dam 1 

1983 - 1993. 

0 

.* 

Appendix -A/ 5 1 
PROJECT OPERATIONS/BROODSTOCK.SELECTlON/FISH REA RING 

6% 

4 

> a '%- 

5 

rc 5%- 

a* -3 

- I 

Ss/a = 0.0281 1-7 (COLRUN) + 0.76905 - 

Coefficient of determination = 0.3435 

5%- 

4%- 

4%- 

3%- 

3%- 

2%- 

2%- 

1% 

I 

I 

- 

. 

I 

I 1 1 1 I I 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 

i 

I 

Fig. 5 

two years after outmigration and smolt-to-adult survival, Yakima spring chinook, 

smolt years 1983 - 1993, 

Relationship between upriver spring chinook adult returns to the Columbia 

- 

Appendix A/ 52 
PROJECT OPERATlONS/BROODSTOCK SELECTION/ FISH REARING 

.. 

between smolt-to-adult survival and mean flow below 

total Columbia retum are, respectively, (~0.647, p=O 

p=O. 05 9). * 

.. 

between smolt-to-adult survival and mean flow below Prosser, mean flow below Sunnyside and 

total Columbia retum are, respectively, (~0.647, p=0.032), (~0.605, p=0.048) and (~0.585, 

p=O. 05 9). * 

- 

Prosser, mean flow below Sunnyside and 

.032), (~0.605, p=0.048) and (~0.585, 

CO4-10 

Comment: The YFF? proposal relating to spring chinook is based on two principal assumptions: 

(1) there is significant under-utilization of habitat by juveniles during the rearing and 

overwintering phases; and (2) predation pressures have created a bottleneck which limits the 

population’s ability to filly utilize the Yakima Subbasin’s production potential. The mEIS has 

failed to support either assumption. Stock-recruit analysis, which would normally be used to 

support assumption (l), is absent fkom the document. The hypothesis of predation-limited smolt 

production has not been supported by any field investigation in the Subbasin. 

Computer modeling is indicated as the basis for predictions of spring chinook production potential 

and. smolt losses to predation. The RDEIS does not attempt to briefly describe the models, their 

assumptions, and applicability to the Yakima Subbasin, nor does it indicate whether the models 

have been validated. 

In summary, the main assumptions underlying the proposed YET have not, as yet, been supported 

by adequate scientific documentation. 

[Charles C. Flower 

From a report prepared by D.B. Lister & Associates Ltd 

[Attorney, Flower & Andreotti, rep. Yakima River Basin Defense Coalition 042-061 

Response: We agree with the commenter that the YET is an experimental project hedged with a 

multitude of uncertainties. It is, howeverj our judgment that the value of the potential benefits 

and knowledge to be gained fiom the experiment justifies the risks incurred by proceeding, 

cautiously, in the face of these uncertainties. 

We also agree that density-dependent mortality now occurs within current production areas. 

Some portion of this mortality is attributable to density-dependent predation on outmigrating 

smolts, however, degraded habitat quality also plays a considerable role. The project’s . - 

preliminary objectives reflect an awareness that supplementation alone is unlikely to result in more 

than a relatively modest increase in abundance and fishing opportunity. A combination of shortterm supplementation and long-term habitat restoration is clearly necessary. We are currently 

engaged in a detailed analysis of habitat quality and the nature of local impacts on habitat quality. 

When complete, these analyses will guide strategic habitat enhancement projects similar to those 

described on RDEIS pages 3/91-3/93. 

Issues related to carrying capacity. The project managers differ with the commenter on three 

major points. First, the commenter appears not to believe that the productivity of the existing 

population is precariously low, and therefore does not include the assumption that. 

supplementation will increase productivity (the number of smolts produced per returning adult or, 

Appendix A/ 53 
PROJECT OPERATIONS/BROODSTOCK SELECTION/FlSH REARING 

ultimately, the number of adult progeny that return to the Yakima per parental'spawner--the 

"recruitment rate"). If the project's planned naturalistic rearing practices and genetic hatchery 

guidelines are successfhl, a supplemented population of Yakima spring chinook will produce 

significantly more smolts per returning spawner, and its recruitment rate will increase. 

Second, the commenter's stock-recruitment curves for Yakima spring &nook do not provide the 

basis for a meaningfir1 analysis of the carrying capacity of the basin or of the appropriateness of 

supplementation. Dr. William McNeil of the Yakima River Basin Defense Coalition, for instance, 

has estimated that-historical runs of salmon and steelhead to the Yakima Basin numbered about 

300,000 (McNeil, 1993). (This figure is less than half of project estimates of 790,000.) Using 

McNeil's historical runs of all anadromous species on the order of 300,000 fish, the historic spring 

chinook run would have been on the order of 75,000. It seems unreasonable to propose, as the 

commenter does in his stock-recruit analysis (Lister, 1994), that the equilibrium population for the 

Basin is now only-5,000, 1/15th of the run based on McNeil's conservative estimate of historical 

runsize or 1/40th of our own estimate (200,000). 

The .conkenter's stock-recruitment analysis is also technically deficient. Along with Ray Hilborn 

and Carl Walters, we believe that a simplistic application of stock-recruitment analysis can give 

"terribly misleading answers," and that "bad stock recruitment analyses have been a significant 

factor leading to. overexploitation and collapse for some major fisheries." (€jilborn and Walters, 

Hilborn and-Walters list five serious sources of bias in stock recruitment analysis. These biases are 

'0 use ofpre-1982 escapement figures (which, except for brood years 1957-1961, are rough 

expansions based on single-pass spawner surveys at a handfbl of index sites), 

failure to assess the implkations of differing Stock-recruitment relationships for the three 

-- failure to recognize bias inherent in the relatively narrow range of spawner 'levels observed 

-since 1982 (when thorough, multiple-pass spawner surveys were begun). 

Hilborn and Walters (ibid, p. 290) fairly'describe the impact of all five bias types: 

.. 

.. 1992, p. 287). I 

-. 

I. not accounted for by the commenter. Particularly serious are the following: 

, stocks comprising spring chinook inthe Yakima, and 'I 

,. ~, 

The biases themselves are almost always the same: they make recruitment appear to be 

less affected by spawning stock size than it really is. This means that optimum harvest rate 

will beaverestimated and optimum stock size underestimated. The biases will be most 

severe with severely overexploited stocks where large variation in stock size is not 

possible. If the'stock was already overexploited when reliable data collection began, 

there is a very high chance that stock-recruitment analysis will tell you that the stock is 

near optimum stock size or harvest rate when, in fact, it is severely overexploited 

[emphasis added]. 

Third, stock-recruitment analysis does not have to be used to demonstrate the existence of a 

substantial amount of underutilized rearing habitat within the Yakima Basin. Biologists familiar 

,* Appendix A/ 54 
PROJECT OPERATIONS/BROODSTOCK SELECTION/ FISH REARING 

with the Basin are aware that substantial amounts of good to excellent rearing habitat is currently 

lightly used because of recently corrected or existing (but remediablejadult passage problems. 

+ 

Lack of support for "predation bottleneck." The assumption of a predator-mediated brake 

(finctional response) on smolt survival and subsequent adult recruitment is indeed controversial. 

Currently, we can only demonstrate that such a phenomenon is plausible; we cannot prove it 

exists. 

For decades, it has been widely assumed that predators in the lower Yakima River sigdicantly 

reduce productivity of local stocks of salmon and steelhead. Anecdotal and indirect evidence of a 

heavy impact of smolt predators, primarily by small-mouth bass, seagulls, and (especially) 

squawfish, is abundant. More or less quantitative observations of large numbers of squawfish 

and/or bass and gulls have been made repeatedly (Washington Department ofFisheries, 1941; 

Patten and Thompson, 1970; Seiler, 1993); there are many unpublished accounts of feeding 

aggregations of these fish-eating species. The survival of many releases of marked hatchery 

smolts from upriver release points to the Chandler smolt trap on the lower river (RM 47) also 

suggests heavy predatory losses. Mean survival to Chandler of four releases of branded wild 

spring chinook in 1988 was estimated at 50% (Fast et al., 1991). These figures were observed in 

the absence ofany factor other than predation that might account for such large losses. 

,- 

EGstence of "predator traps." The commenter-states that researchers who have examined the 

problem of predator traps have concluded that evidence for this phenomenon has been diflticult to 

document (Hilborn and Walters, 1992) and, in the case of the Pacific salmon, is weak and 

circumstantial (Peterman, - 1987)." -. 

The references cited by the commenter are problematic. We can find nothing in Hilborn and 

Walter's text to the effect that such phenomena "have been dicult to document", though there 

are several straightforward descriptions of the phenomenon and its underlying theory. Virtually 

the entire Peterman paper is devoted to demonstrating the mechanisms capable of creating 

populations with "multiple stability zones"--populations that, after suffering a severe drop in 

abundance, tend to remain at a low abundance level unless fieakishly favorable survival conditions 

or supplementation "push" them to a higher, stable, level of abundance. The Peterman quote, 

when placed in context, conveys a somewhat different impression than that put forth by the 

commenter. The entire quote is as follows (ibid, p. 426): 

While evidence for multiple equilibria for Pacific salmon is w&k and circumstantial, the 

empirical evidence is strong for insects, mammals, and other fishes (reviewed by May, 

1977: Peterman et. al, 1979). There is no reason expect that Pacific salmon will be any 

different, because their populations are subject to the same processes that give rise to 

multiple equilibria in other systems .... 

The commenter does not mention Peterman's 1987 example of pink salmon in Zone 8 ofBritish 

Columbia. The odd-year stock in this area was severely overharvested in the 1960s, and stayed at 

about 1 1 % of its mean historical abundance aftekards, despite drastic rediictions in exploitation. 

Peterman showed that the abundance of the odd-year stock moved into the zone of higher - 

Appendix A/ 55 

- ... I .. . ... ._ 
PROJECT OPERATIONS/BROODSTOCK SELECTION/FlSH REA RING 

\ 

abundance following two years of supplementation,. and has since remained there despite harvest 

rates as high as 71% and elimination of the supplementation program. 

This type of circumstantial evidence for the existen& of "predator traps" is actually rather 

common (e.g., sockeye salmon in Karluk Lake Alaska subject to coho and Arctic char predation, 

McIntire et al., 1988). Peterman, for one, would suggest that many additional examples would be 

found if biologists no longer applied simplistic stock recruitment procedures. , 

Inadequate model description. The model employed in setting provisional objectives for upper 

Yakima spring chinook was the "Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment Planning Model" 

GDTPM). (See Lestelle et al., 1994.) A complete description of the assumptions and scenarios 

examined for upper Yakima spring cpook may be found in Watson (1993), available fkom the 

YFP Project Office in Yakima. While a complete description of the EDTMP and its use on upper 

Yakima spring chinook is beyond the scope of this exercise, a brief description is possible: 

- 

0 Yakima spring chinook were modeled as three separate stocks with a three-lifestage 

productivity was assumed to be constrained by a lack of winter habitat and predation 

on outmigrating smolts; 

fish of all stocks were assumed to interact as smolts yia interspecific predation 

(functional response); and 

smolt canying capacities for the AmeAcan, Naches and Upper Yakima stocks were 

estimated at 137,000, 206,000 and 543,000, respectively. 

Beverton-Holt production fbnction; J 

0 

0 

0 

Note that the EDTPM is not intended to be predictive model, but rather a "simulation", 

incorporating numerous biotic and abiotic relationships. Models typically have a narrow focus and 

use "explanatory parameters'' sparingly in order to increase estimate precision. Simulations are 

used to examine a wide range of scenarios with many parameters, typically to highlight relatGe 

differences between scenarios. 

Thus, the EDTPM was used to examine two distinct lteGological scenarios" (quantified 

mechanisms of production limitation), three different levels of relative (hatcheryhdd) 

performance for hatchery fish, and three distinct production levels (release numbers of hatchery 

fish) and harvest management schemes. 

. 

- 

CO4-ll ~ 

Comment: For the past decades Biologists have relied on Hatcheries as a means to increase the 

. dwindling numbers of salmon being caught by Commercial and Sports fishermen. Unfortunately 

this method has not been successfbl and there is growing concern for wild populations which 

continue to go extinct. It is clear from the continuing decline of fish stocks that the present 

, 

 appendix AI 56 
PROJECT OPERATIONS/BROODSTOCK SELECTION/ FISH REARING 

operation is not working. As an alternative to the present operation, the Yakima Valley Audubon 

. Society would support an experimental Supplementation Project as a means to restore 

populations of naturally spawning anadromous fish stocks. We support attempts to preserve thewild genetic stocks and produce fish that more closely resemble wild fish in their behaviors. 

[J Daniel Kinney 

Yakirna Valley Audubon Society 054-011 . 

Response: Hatcheries have been very successfbl in increasing the numbers of fish available for 

harvest. It is, in some part, success that has driven some of the wildstocks to their present 

depressed status. The harvest rate for the hatchery fish in mixed stock areas exceeded the rate 

that many of the natural stocks (particularly those fkom areas such as the upper Columbia where 

other events were already “harvesting” large numbers through passage loss) could sustain. 

Unfortunately, hatcheries have not had sipdar success in maintaining wild (natural) stocks. We 

appreciate your support of Alternative 2. 

, 

CO4-12 

Comment: Your representatives could not provide assurance the fish “imprinted” at the site 

would return to, downstream or pass the site. Question: Why is this not known and why does so 

much money have to be spent on an admitted experiment? 

[Ronald L. Pyeatt 056-041 

\. 

Response: We regret that you were unable to get your question answered at the public meeting. 

A number of past observations have shown that fish adequately imprinted to a site will return to 

the vicinity of that site to spawn so long as adequate adult passage conditions exist downstream 

fiom that site. 

CO4-13 

Comment: I understand that Roza Dam either has poor capture efficiency of smolts or is not 

operated correctly by the Tribe. This is imperative for the experiment. How will you rectifl? 

[Anonymous - 055-041 

. Response: Roza Dam is operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, not the Yakama IndianNation, 

for the purpose of diverting water for irrigation. A smolt trap has been operated by the Tribe in 

the fish bypass system of the diversion canal. All of the fish diverted by the screens have been 

collected through an inched plane trap. The problem is not in the capture efficiency, but in the 

length of time for passage of the smolts through the bypass system. Some smolts remain in the 

bypass system for extended periods of time, confounding the estimation of daily captures and 

passage. Smolt trapping at Roza is not essential for the success ofthe project, as all smolts will 

be marked and can be evaluated at Chandler smolt trap in the lower river. ‘Smolt trapping at Roza 

would, however, provide another tool for evaluating the success of the project. The project is 

operating screw traps below the dam at Roza to evaluate the effectiveness of this technique for 

monitoring smolts at that location. 

Appendix A/ 57 
PROJECT OPEk TlONS/BRO ODSTOCK SEL ECTION/FlSH REA RING 

_- 

I CO4-14 

Comment: There has been considerable discussion in the fisheries community about the survival 

rates of wild fish being higher than for hatchery reared fish.' If this is in fact the case and the 

survival rates for the fish produced in the supplementation project are lower than for the wild fish, 

the removal of wild adults as brood stock for the'supplementation project may [accelerate] the 

decline of the wild adult fish population. This may be the exact opposite of the desired result 

anticipated. 

. [Robert Gowenson - 002-021 

Response: BPA and the project managers are concerned about the possibility of "broodstock 

mining"--removal of natural fish for broodstock purposes at a rate exceeding the return of the 

smolt produced by the program. This will be carefully mo6itored at all stages in program 

implementation to assure that does not occur. The smolt-to-smolt survival rate is often higher for 

wild fish thin for hatchery fish: However, hatcheries provide a much higher survival rate for the 

period fkom egg deposit to smolt--about 80% survival compared to 10% for wild-fish. For this 

reason, we believe that the hatchery approach has significant potential to increase the status of 

fish runs in the Yakima River. 

C04-15 

Comment: When you say "selective broodstock collection would occur," you might want to 

define what you mean by "selective" - geneticists might have a field day with that. \ [Anonymous 025-021 

Response: Thank you for your comment. Broodstock will be "selected" fi-om the proper stock, 

will not conte first-generation hatchery fish, and segregated from time of spawning to time of 

release. "Selection," of course, may have other connotations contrary to our intent. The EIS will 

be modified to reflect this concern. 

. 

C04-16 

Comment: Is there a program in place that will ever allow this system to be self-sustaining? 

What is the lkely and realistic return (smolt to adult) back to the Yakima? Are we just treating 

the symptom? 

pic Stacostha OI5-IOJ 

Response: One purpose of this effort is to determine ''a viable means to rebuild and support 

naturally spa&g anadromous fish stocks." The ultimate goal is Itto produce enough naturally 

spawnhg fish with a high enoughsurvival rate to be able to phase out artificial propagation" 

(Section 1.2 of the EIS). This project is a test to see whether supplementation can accomplish 

these needs. Ewe were absolutely certain of the results, we would not hesitate to implement this 

sort of effort immediately for all stocks in the Yakima Basin. It is just this uncertainty that causes 

us to move cautiously, forward. 

Appendix A/ 58 
PROJECT OPERATIONS/BROODSTOCK SELECTION/ FISH REARING 

.. 

D - Potential Project Impacts and Constraints (General) 

D-01 

Comment: Pg 7. Much discussion about enhancement efforts underway, but no- mention of ongoing habitat impacts. The RDEIS should at least acknowledge’that project benefits will be 

undermined or nullified-if additional habitat impacts occur. 

[Lynn Hatcher 

Yakama Indian Nation 049-021 

Response: Thank you for your comment. Clearly, the long-term benefits of the project would be 

compromised if additional habitat degradation were to occur. On the other hand, the.benefits of 

the project would be enhanced if habitat improvements did occur. Recent activities to improve 

the habitat and passage have been undertaken in the basin, and we expect that the implementation 

of the Growth Management Act, the Washington Forest Practices Act, and the improvement in. 

fish passage facilities in the basin will improve, or at least maintain, the overall habitat condition of 

the Yakima River. 

D-02 

Comment: It seems that either the potential for extinction or the continued lack of Tribal harvest 

resulting fi-om no action would qualifi as a “high impact.” [Reference to Table page 51.1 

[Lynn Hatcher 

Yakama Indian Nation ~ 049-06 

Response; Thank you for your comment. Due to the other habitat improvement actions that 

would continue to be implemented under the no action alternative in both the Yakima River Basin 

and Columbia Basin, we do not believe it a “high impact,, rating is warranted. 

Appendix At59 
/ 

GENETIC RESOURCES 

> 

I Dql- Genefic Resources 

-~ 

- D01-01 . 

Comment: On the whole, the draft EIS is Ginformative, well prepared document. Based on 

our review we [USEPA] have rated the draft EIS EC-2 (Environmental Concerns - Insufficient * 

Information). -Our environmental concerns are primarily based on the potential impacts to - 

' . fisheries,resources.. We continue to have concerns Gth the impact of hatchery fish on naturally 

.spawning Yakima-River'spring chinook salmon. As mentioned in:our previous camment letter, 

hatchery fish may negatively affect the genetic intesty of wild fish when hatchery and wild fish ' 

compete on the same spawningkound. Even though the brood stock for spring chinook 

supplementation is from. the remaining tvild stock, there remain uncertainties and dangers to the 

. - wild stock it is intended to supplement. If survival of hatchery fish (fiy to returning adult) is 

consistently too low, the hatchery operations' need for- brood stock may continue to: be a drain on 

those remaining in the wild escapement population: Northwest Power Sl&g Council scientists 

noted in the paper entitled Genetics, and Salmon Production, that supplementation posed 

. unacceptably high risks to gene pools, and that subsequent harvest rates on the resulting "mixed 

stocks" may be exceeding those that the wild stock can sustairi. The draft EIS, to its credit, 

attempts to deal with these risks and-other uncertainties in the discussion. EPA recognizes that 

development of supplementation is likely a necessary component of &I overall integrated strategy 

to restore be league red^ salmon stocks in the Columbia River, and in turn, of restoring the integrity 

of treaty tribal fishing rights. Without substantial gains in habitat protection and restoration, gains 

. made through supplementation may ultimately be ineffectual. - 

. . 

' 

[Joh Cabreza 057-0Il 

, Response: The WDFW geneticist working on This project participated extensively in the Council 

supplementation operations pose genetic risks to the target population. Even when spawning 

protocols are followed that keep effective size high, and only native fish are used as broodstock, 

some genetic change wiJ result as a consequence of hatchery rearing. Thh effect is commonly 

referred to as domestication selection (see Busack and Cui-rens.1995; Genetic Risks and Hazards 

in Hatchery Operations: Fundamental Concepts and'Issues. AFS Symposium 1531-90). At 

present, because of lack of research; two major uncertainties surround this effect: (1) the 

magnitude'of effect to be expected, and (2) its permanence. The YFP staff have developed 

specific planning measures designed to miGe the &pact of this effect, such as limiting the .. 

proportion of wild broodstock that can be taken, limiting the proportion of hatchery returnees on 

the spawning grounds, and regulating the wi1d:hatchery mix in the broodstock. A substantial 

modeling effort is now underway to -assess the likely effectiveness of these measures. In addition 

we are'developing monitoring strategies to measure the selective change that does occur. 

Habitat improvement projects have been ongoing in the Yakima'Riiver Basin. It is anticipated that 

these projects will continue in the future. The managers recogqize that supplementation efforts 

must go hand-in-hand with efforts to improvehabitat. -The supplementation efforts of the project 

will take habitat issues into considerationwhen making production decisions. 

. processes resulting in several documents, among them the one you refer to. It is true that 

. 

. 

. 

.. ,. 

AppendixN60' ' ' ~ - 
~ GENETIC RESOURCES *. 

__ I 

Dol-02 

Comment: The source of the few returning adults. They may not be fiom previous stocking. 

Check them out! 

pic Stacostha 015-091 

Response: At present, the returning spring clinook adults-are all of natural origiq and they are 

essentially wild fish. Although some stocking of hatchery fish has occurred in the past, the impact 

of previous stocking on the fish populations is assumed to be nil. All the fish released from the 

proposed hatchery facilities will be marked, so we can readily assess the relative productivity of 

the hatchery and wild components of the run. . 

Dol-03 

Comment: On page 3/76: reference is made to three genetically distinct steelhead populations 

but their description is incomplete and should be updated. 

., [Connie Iten 

State of Washington; Department of Fish and Wildlife 040a-O4] 

Response: This omission resulted from a word processing error in the RDEIS and has been 

revised in the final EIS. Several years of stock identification research by WDFW geneticists has 

'lead us to conclude that there are three genetically distinct steelhead populations in the Yakima 

basin; Satus Creek, Toppenish Creek, and Nacheshpper Yakima. The first two appear not to 

have been affected genetically by plants of hatchery iainbow trout and steelhead, and thus contain 

native gene pools. The genetic composition of the Nacheshpper Yakima population has been 

heavily influenced by introductions of hatchery fish. 

Dol-04 - 

Comment: Your goal of 1,l 10 adults for broodstock take, of which 50% are to be of natural ' 

origin, may be difficult to meet in some years. We would not support excessive take of spawners 

destined for natud habitat on National Forest System Lands. 

[Sonny 0 'Neal 

Forest Supervisor, Wenatchee Na?ionaI Forest, USDA 041-061 

Response: Our goal for broodstock take is 11 10 adults. Two rules regulate the take of fish as 

broodstock. First, only natural-origin fish will be used; second, these fish can comprise no more 

than 50% of the natural returns. It may be that the 11 10 fish goal cannot be reached until after a 

few years of operation, but if we achieve the survival rates we expect, taking this many fish for 

broodstock should not be difficult. In any case, our rules regarding broodstock collection will 

preclude an excessive take of spawners. 

Appendix A/ 61 
SPECIES INTERA CTIONS 

., 

%. 

I, . .: - Dol-05 

. Comment: Found in studies with Naches River, fish are firm and genetics seem to be good, no 

trouble catching them. - \. 

ryPM-028- 061 

- 

Response: Thank you for sharing your observation. I^ 

,. 

002 - species interactions 

D 02-0 1/02/03 1 

Comment: Other alternatibes to consider: Pick another river without the resident rainbow trout 

fishery. Try your progkm there first. 

[Louis K. Hurlbut 051-02J 

Comment: Other alternatives to consider: any other river in the state that doesn’t have a decent 

wild trout population to ruin. There are probably 100 candidates. 

[Gary Furukawa 012-031 -. 

Comment: [The project] will ruin the only quality wild trout stream in the state of Washington 

for no good reason. We don’t need another river with dark spawning salmon and jet boats 

roaring up and down. 

[Gary Furuhmva 012-021 r 

Comment: My environmental concerns about the Yakima Fisheries Project &e: maintenance 

of resident trout fishery due to the lack of other alternatives in Washington State. 

[Anonymous 02 7-04] 

Comment: Concern with impact on wild trout, no-other options in the state for good wild trout 

fishing. 

[CPM-O7-01] 

Comment: Your environmental studj should have included: impact on resident wild trout 

population in the Yakima River. 

[Gary Furukawa 012-01] 

- Comment: I’m still concerned about the impact on the resident rainbow fishery. 

[Louis K. Hurlbut 051-01] 

Comment: I don’t like the idea of introducing a competitor fish into the Yakima canyon rainbow 

trout fishery. 

Michael T. Osbom 052-011 

Appendix A/ 62 
.- 

SPECIES INTERACTIONS 

Response: The project managers share your concern for the resident trout population. We are 

committed to monitor and evaluate this program's impacts on resident trout populations carefully, 

and to mitigate the risks to the resource. As noted in Section 4.1.2.1 of the EIS, "estimation of 

the actual effects of proposed supp'lementation activities on Yakima River fish populations (both 

resident and anadromous species) must be largely speculative . . . . However, it is likely that the * released supplementation fish themselves, coupled with a possible increase in natural production . 

. . would affect pre-existing fish populations to some extent" (Section 4.1.2.1). Potential species 

interactions have been identified in the EIS (Table 4.2). Concerns of the nature expressed above 

would be present in any river system selected for a study of this sort in the Columbia Basin. 

We are equally concerned with the depressed status of the anadromous fish resources of the 

Yakima Basin. A purpose and need for this program, as expressed in Section 1.2, states "The 

project responds directly to a need for kriowledge of viable means to rebuild and support 

naturally spawning anadromous fish stocks" while "keeping adverse genetic and ecological 

interactions with non-target species or stocks at within acceptable limits." This project is 

proposed for the Yakima Basin in order to implement and be consistent with the Northwest 

Power Planning Council's Fish and Wildlife Program and to increase natural production and 

improve harvest opportunities within the Yakima Basin. 

- D02-04 

Comment: The Revised DEIS indicates the impacts to pre-existing wild, native, and non-target 

fish populations would be mitigated through careful adherence to the adaptive management 

process. Further, the document states that adverse genetic and ecological impacts will be kept 

within acceptable limits. Clarification in the FEIS would be appropriate on the levels of impacts, 

standards for their detection, and possible mitigation options. 

[Connie hen 

State of Wmhington, Department of Fish and Wildlve 04Oa-031 

Comment: The RDEIS concludes that spring chinook juveniles fkom the YFP would compete , 

with wild stocks of spring chinook and perhaps rainbow and steelhead trout (Chapter 4, page 

125). It suggests that growth, abundance and/or distribution of the affected stocks would be 

. altered to a small extent. While monitoring and adaptive management are proposed to contain 

such interactions, no specific impact mitigation measures are described. The feasibility of 

influencing competitive interactions between hatchery and wild salmonids is not assessed in the 

RDEIS. . 

. 

[Charles C. Flower 

[Attorney, Flower & Andreotti, rep. Yakima River Basin Defense Coalition 042-031 

From a report prepared by D.B. Lister &Associates Ltd . 

Response: Thank you for your comments. Objectives for "non-target" species such as resident 

trout are being developed fkom information in-hand and are under continued investigation. This is 

a mitigation measure for the project listed in Section 4.2.2 of the EIS. It is our intent to contain 

the risks of this supplementation effort through our monitoring and evaluation plan, minimizing I 

Appendix A/ 63 
SPECIES INTERACTIONS 

. -. 

undesirable impacts so that'mkgative actions are not needed. Sho~,d i,,e impacts be excessive, 

the project managers can modify the supplementation program to reduce those impacts through 

adaptive management. - 

* 

D02-05 

Comment: Your environmental stua should have included specific objectives for maintenance 

of the resident trout above Roza Dam (i.e., number or KG of fish),. 

[Anonymous 027-011 

- Comment: Insi'st on objectives for trout - maintain current population levels and size. 

[CPM-20-01 j' ~ 

Response: Thank you for your coniiment. The specific objectives for-non-target species such as 

the resident trout population are being developed. See the response above. 

D02-06 

' Comment: What is the bottom line for acceptable impact of the anadromous fish program on 

resident trout? 

[CPM-20-02] 

Response: A "bottom line for acceptable impact'' in terms of hard and fast numbers on resident 

trout has not and will not be determined. However, objectives for "non-target" species such as 

resident trout are being developed from available infomation, including that generated from-past 

and ongoing project activities in the upper Yakima River. These objectives will continue to be 

reviewed as part of the project's adaptive management process. This is a mitigation measure for 

the project listed in Section 4.2.2 of the EIS. The project managers share your concern for the 

resident trout population. We are committed to monitoring risks associated with the project, 

including impacts on resident trout, and will ensure that information from monitoring of resident 

trout is available to interested parties. We are, however, equally concerned with the depressed 

status of the anadromous fish resources of the Yakima Basin. 

D02-07 

. Comment: Are you going to study squawfish predation - on the salmon smolts on the Yakima? 

Believes it is as big or bigger problem than predation by Coho. 

PM-030-01 ] 

Comment: There should be beefed up predator control programs - not just squawfish. 

[CPM- 12-01! 

Comment: I would also like to .see reliable estimates oithe mortality due to predation of the 

migrating fiy by the warm-water fish species. 

[Anonymous - 035-031 ., 

., 

a. 

AppendixAf64 . - 

> -. 

~ 

l___ll___l_. ---~ I__ __ . -. - 
SPECIES INTERACTIONS 

Response: Predator control is not included as part of this study. Such control has, however, 

been proposed under the Yakima Subbasin Plan as part of the Council’s planning effort. It is not 

included as an alternative in this project since it does not meet the supplementation research 

objectives or the need to reintroduce stocks now extirpated (see RDEIS Section 2.6.1). The 

effects of predators, however, are recognized as an important factor in present and fbture 

production of salmon and steelhead (see Section 3.9.1.2). - . 

D02-08 . Comment: Some information you still need is a survey of the quantity and species distribution of 

the warm-water fish along the entire migratory stretch of the lower Yakima River. 

- [Anonymous 035-041 

Response: Thank you for your comment. Surveys of this *e have been completed (e.g. Patten, . 

B.G., R.B. Thompson, and W.D. Grondlund, 1970. Distribution and.Abundance of Fish in the 

Yakima River, Wash., April 1957 to May 1958. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Special Scientific Report -- Fisheries No. 603. Washington, DC. 3 lpp.). 

Project staff have used information from these reports in developing the objectives and strategies 

for the project. 

/ 

D02-09 

Comment: Your environmental sludy should have included: effects or benefits to Steelhead’runs 

in the Yakima. 

. [Anonymous 030-01 ] 

Response: Effects of the project on steelhead were addressed in Chapter 4 of the RDEIS, pages 

122-125. In the original EIS, steelhead were included among the stocks considered for 

supplementation. The scope of the study, however, has been reduced and steelhead are not 

currently included. They are, however, a priority concern and may be included in the fbture. See 

Section 2.6.2 in the FEIS. 

D02-10 

Comment: Concern of deteriorating quality of fishing due to the introduction of 810,000 sprikg 

chinook salmon (the smolt will take anything, and the fishermen will spend all day releasing smolt 

rather than catching the resident trout).’ ’ 

[Anonymous 027-061 

Response: Spring chinook smoltfrom.this project will be present in the river for a relatively 

short period of time. They will voluntarily leave the acclimation facilities when they are ready to 

migrate seaward in late March through early June. It is reasonable to assume that some of these 

fish will be caught in the recreational fisheries in the river. 

I 

<- 

Appendix N 65 
SPECIES INTERACTIONS 

D02-11/12 

Comment: [We protest the release of spring Chinook smolk into Jack Creek because] We 

believe that the local trout will have even less food available for them to suhve. 

[Geraldine & Milton Downs 032-021 

Comment: My environmental concerns about the Yakima Fisheries Project are: the potential . 

negative impact on wild fish populations that are currently healthy. It, would seem ridiculous to 

. endanger another stock to soothe our conscience over others we’ve already decimated. , 

.- wmce Jennings 017-02] 

Response: Fish released from the acclimation sites are expected to spend little time in that area. 

Releases will occur only when the fish have smolted and are ready to misate downstream. Some 

impact on the resident fish populations is expected. These impacts will be monitored and release 

strategies may be modified if they are found tohe excessive. BPA and the project managers share 

a priority for rebuilding anadromous fisheries resources to productive levels where risks can be 

contained. 

D02-13 

Comment: My environmental concern about the Yakima Fisheries Project is: if the project 

helps rebuild the spring chinook population quicker than projects in other basins (e.g. Snake 

River), what is the potential for negative impacts to the populations in these other basins (e.g. 

competition for food or space, on outmigratiok or mixed stock harvest on returning adults)? 

[Anonymous 023-0’11 1 

Response: Obviously, the best solution to this problem is to restore 4 depleted anadromous fish 

stocks at the same time and rate. This, of course, is not going to happen. We are aware of the 

potential interaction problems that you point out. Most of these issues are outside the scope of 

this project, but are nonetheless of concern to BPA and the project managers. The mixed stock 

harvest issue is addressed in the RDEIS in Appendix E. Some of the other issues are being faced 

in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s programmatic EIS approach to the cumulative impacts of 

artScial prodoction in the mainstem Columbia River. This EIS is being drafted and is entitled 

“Hatchery and Naturally Spawning SalmodSteelhead Interactions in the Columbia River Basin.” 

~ 

Appendix A/ 66 
WATER RIGHTS, FLOWS, AND CLAIMS 

DO3 - Wafer Flows, Rights, and Claims , 

D03-01 ’ 

Comment: More water flow monitoring stations required on all Yakima tributaries. ,. -. 

[YPM-OI I-011 

Comment: Water users must increase efficiency; monitoring required. 

[ypM-003-07] 

Response: More monitoring stations may be constructed on selected tributaries as the need 

arises, either pursuant to the YFP as identified-by project technical st@ or under the auspices of 

the Yakima River Basin Water andconservation Act, Title XII of P. E. 103-434. . 

D03-02 

Comment: ’Very detailed water budget needed for Yakima River Basin. 

[ypM-003-08] 

Response: This issue is beyond the scope of this EIS. However, a water conservation program 

is the central focus of the Yakima River Basin Water and Conservation Act, Title XII of P. L. 

103-434; it will include increased monitoring of water usage. .- 

D03-03 

Comment: Surplus water fi-om Rosyln return to Crystal Creek. I 

[CPM-OI -03 ] 

Response: BPA is not involved in this situation, and it is outside the scope of this EIS. This 

suggestion has been passed on to the relevant agencies. 

D03-04 

Comment: It isalso unclear how the project will “moderate(1y) impact” surface and ground 

water. [Table page 51.j The table should be changed to more accurately reflect project impacts. 

/Lynn Hatcher 

Yaha Indian Nation - 049-071 . .. 

Response The reasons for the moderate impact rating on surface and groundwater are given in 

section 2.7.1.1 and 2.7.1.2 of the RDEIS. For surface water, the main concern was for impacts 

on water quality as a result of erosion and sedimentation during construction. For ground water, 

the concern was the pumping of groundwater and inability to return the water directly to the 

aquifer. 

Appendix A/ 67 
WATER RIGHTS, FLOWS, AND CLAIMS 

‘, 

D03-05 . 

Comment: Pg 52, 1st paragraph, last sentence. It is not clear what the “indirect effects” will be. 

Unless the statement is explained it should be removed from the document. 

[Lynn Hatcher 

Yakurna Indian Nation 049-081 

Response: BPA and the project managers have reviewed the RDEIS and believe th,at the original 

language referred to in your comment does not accurately express the project’s impact upon the 

existing water rights held by others. As the project’s water use would be nonconsumptive, we do 

not believe that there would be an impact upon the water rights held by others. The text of the 

EIS has been modified accordingly. See also the reply to comment D03-25/26/27/28. 

D03-06 

Comment: Pg 58, Section 3.2.1.1. The document should explain where the 2.9 MAF figure 

came fiom and how the amount of return flow was calculated. USGS data for Union Gap for the 

time period 1896 through 1912 show‘an annual average nearer 3.5 MAF and did not consider the 

contribution of Satus, Toppenish, Sulphur or any other lower tributaries, nor did they consider 

ground water contribution below that point. The notion that only 0.9 MAF are consumed 

(through evaporation and evapotranspiration) is difficult to accept. Such figures should be 

substantiated and appropriately referenced. 

[Lynn Hatcher 

Yaha Indian Nation 049-101 

- 

Response: The reference is: U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, 1978. Yakima Valley Regional Water 

Management Study. Volumes I-N. U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, Seattle, Washington. The 

reference has been added to the FEIS. ’We do not have the information or expertise to refute their 

data. 

. DO3-07 . 

Comment: The statement ’that highest ~~QWS occur during spring runoff is true or false depending 

. on where in the watershed such flows are measured. 

[Lynn Hatcher \ - Yaha Indian Nation 049-1 I] 

Response: Highest flows occur during periods of runoff in the late winter and spring throughout the 

Yakima Basin, with the possible exception of stream reaches directly below reservoirs. Currently, in 

years when the reservoirs do not fiil and spill, the highest flows occur later in the summer during 

releases for irrigation. This has been clar%ed in the FEIS. 

-Appendix A/ 68 
I 

WATER RIGHTS, FLOWS, AND CLAIMS 

D03-08 

Comment: Pg 60, second full sentence. BOR does not “provide” minimum flows at Easton, 

they “allow at least that much water to pa’ss, although it is generally less than that which would be 

naturally available.” 

- [Lynn Hatcher 

Yakama Indian Nation 049-121 , 

Response: This issue is largely a matter of semantics. The Yakima River downstream of Easton 

Dam is largely controlled by the operation of Keechelus and Kachess Reservoirs and diversions 

into the Kittitas Main Canal. BOR operates the three reservoirs in the upper Yakima Basin 

(Keechelus, Kachess, Cle Elum) to protect spring chinook spawning and incubation pursuant to 

the November, 1980 decision of Judge Quackenbush in Civil No. 21, E.D. I 

Washington. Typically, this results in spawning flows of 5.7 m3/s (200 cfs) and incubation flows 

of 4.2 m3/s (150 cfs) below Easton Dam. 

D03-09 

Comment: Pg 63, section 3.2.2. Ground water sources also include stream flow and infiltration 

from the floodplain. The statement that deeper groundwater is “not hydraulically connected to 

surface sources” is not true in all cases. Some aquifers may be confined and accordingly are not 

recharged, Withdrawals from such aquifers amount to water mining and should be discouraged. 

/Lynn Hatcher 

Ya.kima Indian Nation 049431 

Response: Streams can either be recharged by groundwater or can be a source of recharge to 

groundwater. Streams that act as sources of recharge for groundwater are referred to as “losing 

streams”. Streams that are recharged by groundwater are referred to as “gaining streams”. It is 

common for a stream to contain both losing and gaining reaches. The locations and lengths of 

these reaches may change depending on factors such as river stage, seasonal water level 

fluctuations in the aquifer, precipitation and snowmelt events, and other factors including 

groundwater pumping. 

Data that would indicate whether the Yakima River in the vicinity of the Cle Elum site is a gaining 

or losing stream were not obtained as part of this study. 

Long-term groundwater pumping from a confined aquifer near a stream could potentially lower 

the potentiometric head of the groundwater such that surface streamflow would recharge ~ 

groundwater by vertical leakage through the confining layer. .This leakage can be evaluated using 

aquifer test solutions by Hantush or Cooper (Lohman, 1979). However, evidence of leakage was 

not noted in the aquifer test drawdown data from the Cle Elum site, therefore the Theis (1935) 

solution for nodeaky confined (artesian) aquifers was used. 

A confined’aquifer is an aquifer that contains groundwater that is confined under pressure 

between relatively impermeable or significantly less permeable material and that will rise above the 

~ 

Appendix A/ 69 
.-. WATER RIGHTS, FLOWS, AND CLAIMS 

top of the aquifer. Ifthe water rises above land surface it will flow naturally (flowing artesian 

aquifer). 

- 

Generally confined aquifers are not recharged fiom direct surface water infiltration in the areas in 

which they are confined. The hydrostatic head produces an upward veitical gradient which stops 

downward infiltration of recharge water although the recharge water can be stored in the 

confining layer. Contaminants at the surface above such an aquifer have little chance of reaching 

the confined aquifer due to the low permeability confining layer and the upward vertical gradient 

through the conf'ining layer. Groundwater pumpage fiom the confined aquifer could potentially 

reverse the gradient through the confining layer allowing surficial contaminants to reach the 

confined aquifer by downward movement of water stored in the confining layer and by leakage 

through the co&g layer. ' 

Pumping groundwater fiom the confined aquifer beneath the Cle Elum site would affect certain 

components of the water budget. These components must remain in equilibrium to avoid water 

mining. Groundwater pumpage at the Cle Elum site would potentially cause one or more of the 

following responses to occur; increase recharge rates to the pumped aquifer, decrease discharge 

rates fkom the pumped aquifer, or if equilibrium is not reached, mining of groundwater. Aquifer 

test data indicate that equilibrium was reached quickly in the pumping well, likely through 

increased recharge fiom water in storage in the confining layer and decreased natural discharge. 

Eventually, the downward vertical gradient induced on the confining layer would increase the rate 

' of leakage fkom the Yakima River. Decreases in natural discharge and loss of surface water by 

leakage through the confining layer would be balanced by an equivalent increase in surface water 

discharge fiom the hatchery, therefdre; the net water balance in the area would be unchanged. 

. 

D03-10 

Comment:' Pg 64,3rd paragraph. The referenced CH2M Hill study lacked sufficient vigor to 

demonstrate much of anything about communication between local aquifers and the River. In 

fact, the study could be used to argue that the River is not hydraulically connected to itself Pump 

tests must be of sufficient duration, intensity, and magnitude to reveal surface/ground water 

interactions. The quantities pumped in the subject would not have been detectable in the River if 

they had been pumping'directly fiom it. 

. 

[Lynn Hatcher 

Yakima Indian Nation 049-141 / 

Response: Geologic logs and geophysical data indicate that the clay layer confining the aquifer 

beneath the proposed hatchery site extends beneath the Yakima River. The clay layer has also 

been noted in well logs fiom wells drilled in South Cle Elum on the south side of the Yakima 

River. 

Geologic evidence indicates that this clay -layer is continuous in the vicinity of the site and has 

sufficient thickness and low permeability to, .in effect, isolate the river fiom the confined aquifer. ' 

In addition, aquifer testing data indicated that the confined aquifer and the Yakima River are not 

Append8 A/ 70 

, 
_. 

WATER RIGHTS, FLOWS, AND CLAIMS 

in direct hydraulic connection. Because the tested aquifer is confined, drawdown of the 

potentiometric surface is a hydraulic response, not a dewatering of aquifer material. The 

hydraulic response is almost instantaneous, even at relatively great distances, such as the 

observation well 1,000 feet away or the Yakima River. The hydraulic response caused by 

intercepting a positive boundary that is in direct hydraulic connection with the confined aquifer 

would be apparent in drawdown curves associated with even a short-term aquifer test. This 

hydraulic response was not noted in aquifer test data and therefore, based on geologic and 

hydraulic evidence, it was concluded that the Yakima River is not in diiect hydraulic connection 

with the confined aquifer. 

Even though the river and aquifer are not directly connected, pumping groundwater from the 

confined aquifer would increase leakage to the aquifer from the river by inducing a downward 

hydraulic gradient through the confining layer. The cantribution of leakage of river water through 

the confining layer would be negligible compared to other sources of water such as storage in the 

confining layer, reduced discharge, and increased recharge. Cooper (1963) gives the folloHng 

statement regarding the contribution of leakage through the confining layer to the yieldof a well: 

Because the adjustment of the hydraulic gradient through a confining bed generally lags 

considerably behind the deche’in head, the water yielded by an artesian aquifer is derived 

largely, if not entirely, from storage in the confining bed. For this reason, most timedrawdown plots deviate from the Theis curve to a greater degree than ifleakage alone 

were involved. 

The yield of water to the well from aquitard storage would tend to damp and delay the response 

caused by leakage of river water through the confining layer to the point that the response from 

the river would be negligible if it could be detected at all. 

The loss of water from the Yakima Ever to the groundwater system would be matched by an 

equivalent increase in surface discharge from the hatchery. The overall effect would be that the 

water balance in the area would likely be unchanged. 

D03-11 

Comment: Pg 106;3rd paragraph. The aquifer has not been demonstrated to be confined nor 

has it been proved to be hydraulically isolated from Yakima River Basin water resources. 

[Lynn Hatcher 

Yakama Indian Nation 049- I 71 

Response: The aquifer in question at the Cle Elum site is a flowing artesian aquifer and is by 

definition, a confined aquifer. According to Freeze and Cherry (1979), a flowing artesian aquifer 

is a specific type of confined aquifer in which the water level in a well completed in the aquifer 

rises above the ground surface. Topography is the reason that wells completed in a flowing 

artesian aquifer flow, but geology (an overlying low permeability layer such as the clay layer 

overlying the aquifer at the Cle Elum site) is the reason that the aquifer is confined (artesian). 

Appendix A/ 71 
WATER RIGHTS,- FLOWS, AND CLAIMS 

,- 

, . There are circumstances in'whicli a flowing well can be completed in an unconfined aquifer, 

however, this type of aquifer would not be called a flowing artesian aquifer because it is not 

confined. . 

D03-12 

Comment: Pg-155, 1st bullet. Will flows be reduced or suspended at <350 cfs? 

[Lynn Hatcker 

Yakama Indian Nation 049-211 

.. 

Response: Water withdrawals for the Cle Elum hatchery will be reduced during periods when 

river flows drop below 350 cfs. , 

I. 

.. I D03-13 

Comment: Need more water (including added storage), better quality, ,to support fish runs 

(particularly from Mabton downstream). 

, [ypM-037-OI] . 

Comment: TCC also would suggest that one of the areas that shpuld be explored in conjunction 

with a project such as the YFP is the. creation of additional storage to be dedicated solely to 

1 maintaining-in stream flows for-existing fish populations in the watershed and to be used to 

provide the additional water that will certainly be needed if the fish population in the river system 

increases. Ifthe YFP .project or projects of a similar nature were undertaken in conjunction with 

the construction of additional storage, then the -environmental impact to surface water resources 

under either alternative would be moderate or low. ~- 

[Jef Slothower 

~ - I Lathrop, Winbauer, Hmel& Slothower, rep. Taneum Canal Company 038-081 

[Jefs Slothower 

Lathrop, Winbauer, Hawel& Slothower, rep. The Manastash Ditch I 039-081 

[Comments submitted for the two associations were identical and therefore haite been combined 

. - hereandbelow.] 

.. 

.! Response: Thank you for the comments. The concept of additional storage is beyond the scope 

of this EIS.. The potential for additional storage has been studied for several decades, but efforts 

to obtain Congressional authorization have been unsuccessfid: .The primary goal of Title XU of P. 

L. 103-434 is to increaseinstream flows in the lower Yakima River through a basin-wide , 

conservation progr~. Weunderstand that additional storage 'is currently under review by the 

- Yakima River Watershed Council. We do not anticipate any adverse impacts on surface wafer 

supplies-from the YFP. See also the response to coniment D03-19. 

, 
- 

WATER RIGHTS. FLOWS, AND CLAIMS 

D03-14 

Comment: The only way to ease the “Flip Flop” pressure on the Tieton River is to increase 

storage on the upper Naches River. The irrigation burden must be shared by both rivers. 

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. Please see comment response D03-13, above, 

regarding storage. BOR conducts the ‘Iflip-flop” in order to protect spawning spring chinook in 

the upper Yakima, pursuant to the November 1980 decision of Judge Quackenbush. This 

operation results in higher flows in the Tieton River in September and October, fiom increased 

releases fiom Tieton Reservoir. Although additional storage sites have been identified in the 

upper Naches River system, we do not anticipate constructionat any of these sites in the near 

fiture. 

[Anonymous 046-041 

D03-15 

Comment: The proposed use of two cfs ground water pumped fkom wells to supply the hatchery 

raceways and returned to the stream may have a beneficial effect on raising the stream flow but . 

may accelerate the decline of the water table. Two cfs is a lot of water to be removed fi-om a 

water table in an area with low rainfall for groundwater recharge. 

[Robert Gorrenson 002-01] 

Response: Based on preliminary studies, including pump tests, it appears that the ground water 

supply is adequate to support pumping of 2 cfs without lowering the groundwater table. 

D03-16 

Comment: Concerned whether there will be enough water in the lower Teanaway for the fish to 

return. e 

[CPM-05-OI J 

I 

Comment: Concerned about riverflow in Yakima River between Prosser and Sunnyside Dam - if 

not increased, supplementation won’t work because fish can’t survive. 

[ypM-006- 14J 

Response: The YFP is designed to operate under existing conditions in the basin, kcluding 

low flows in the lower Teanaway and Yakima River. Of course, improved basin conditions 

would increase the benefits of the project. Independent of the YET, Title XII of P. L. 103-434 

authorizes programs in tributary streams to improve instream flows. Preliminary planning is ~ 

underway to address the instream flows needs in the lower Teanaway River. We anticipate that a 

program will be implemented by the time that adult salmon return from. YFP releases in*the 

Teanaway Basin. One of the primary goals of Title XII is the improvement of instream flows in 

the lower Yakima River. As implementation moves forward, flows in the lower Yakima River 

will increase. 

Appendix A/-73 
/ 

WATER RIGHTS, FLOWS, AND CLAIMS ’ 

-. ‘\ 

D03-17 - 

Comment: Due to the water shortage, h0.w will‘this issue be, addressed? 

[ypM-O26-OI] .. 

Response: Conservation measures authorized by Title XII of P. L. 1031434 will provide 

additional. water for instream flows. ., 

DO348 

Comment: Fish rescue efforts when streams dry up. 

. [CPM-O1-08] . 

Response: We appreciate your concern about this issue, but it pertains to matters outside the 

scope of this EIS. Given the tendency for fish to disperse within a stream, difticulties regarding 

human access to streams, the exceptionally high labor demand for such efforts, and other Teasons, 

it is not practical to undertake fish rescues when a stream dries up. A more practical and efficient 

approach would be to provide additional water for instream flows through implementation of Title 

XII of P. L. 103-434. 

.. 

D 03-19/20/21/22 

Comment: I have major concerns with the proposed Yakima Fisheries, primarily increased water 

use that will eventually require farmeis with junior water rights to sacrifice for the tribe. There 

are many reasons for the decline of fish runs, primarily dams on the Columbia, so requiring 

Yakima Valley farmers to sacrifice is not fair. I know the Northwest Power Act of 1980 and the 

Council’s 1994 Fish and Wildlife Program say existing water rights will not be directly affected. 

However, the acclimation sites will require additional release of water. When the political climate 

shifts again, this can only come from junior water right holders. I am adamantly opposed to this. 

[Lany OIsen 008-OI] 

Comment: Concerned that it not affect water rights. - - 

[CPM-04-01] 

Comment: A water right is a property right, is not under project purview. 

[CPM-34-01 J 

, Comment:- This project EIS needs a.proper water- rights-disclaimer. , [CPM-34-02] 

Response: In order to accommodate the needs of this project, BPA is seeking groundwater 

rights and non-consumptive surface water rights. As explained in Section 4.1.1 of the EIS, we do 

not believe that the provision of water to operate the YET would affect the water rights of any 

individual or entity in the Yakima River basin. Water use by the projectwould be considered 

non-consumptive because water diverted from the source would be returned to that source. In 

’ 

, 
WATER RIGHTS, FLOWS, AND CLAIMS .~ 

.. 

fact, the quantity of returned water may be greater than that originally diverted; since it would be 

augmented with groundwater. . 

BPA recognizes that fbture conflicts regarding water availability for fish and irrigation diversions 

may arise when adults return to the basin. It is not possible to estimate the nature or extent of any 

potential conflicts at this time. Conflicts, if they occur, would be dealt with under the State of 

Washington’s water adjudication process. 

The water supply is dependent upon .uncontrollable forces such as weather patterns, problems 

with water delivery systems, and effects of water conservation innova&ons. Water availability 

would also be affected by the actions of other diverters in the vicinity. Also, an -increase in the 

numbers of fish returning to the Yakima basin-may not be attributable solely to the Yakinia 

I. 

’ 

Fisheries Project. Other activities such as: I. 

0 fbture habitat maintenance and improvement efforts in the Yakima, 

- . water flow conditions in the mainstem Columbia River, . 

bypass and screen projects to protect outmigrating smolts at mainstem dams, 

juvenile screening improvements with the Yakima basin, - 

ESA-related protection measures, 

Columbia River Fish Management Plan reprogramming efforts, and 

other related habitat or fish production activities 

all share the potential and, in most cases, the intent to return more adult salmon to the Yakima 

basin. 

The YFP fish production activities would be conducted within’the complex network of these 

existing and planned fish productions and habitat improvement efforts. Any mix of these activities 

in concert with fbture weather and environmental conditions could combine to influence the 

number of fish in the basin. 

Lastly, BPA is aware that a stream adjudication is presently underway in the Yakima basin that 

would establish rights to all the surface water in the basin. BPA is not a party to the water 

adjudication and has no claims for surface water involved in these proceedings. 

I 

D03-23/29 

Comment: Jack Creek is a tributary of the Teanaway River. The Teanaway’s-lowest point is 

duringthe months of August and September. It is even low in July. Farmers have a right to 

construct dams on the Teanaway River for irrigation and stock water purposes. 

We do not agree with BPA’s plan to release spring chinook smolts into Jack Creek. There would 

probably be a high incidence of survival on the way downstream, however a return in late summer 

and early fall to Jack Creek would be disastrous. We believe that introducing more chinook into 

Jack Creek and the Teanaway will interfere yith our irrigation rights. 

. 

I. 

Appendix A/ 75 
WATER RIGHTS, FLOWS, AND CLAIMS 

We protest the release of spring Chinook smolts into Jack Creek because: 

1. We believe there is not enough water for theirreturn 

2. The BPA will try to appropriate our water which was adjudicated to us and has been in 

continuous use since 1885. 

3. the water rights holders will be having to pay additional money for the water they already have 

the rights to. Some enhancement system will be put into the Teanaway whereby landowners will 

be charged for the water they have,been adjudicated by the State of Washington to receive for 

flee since 1885. Perhaps the enhancement system will be paid for by the government, but the 

costs of pumping the water will be an additional expens:. [commenters note that they are 

landowners in the valley, with historic water rights; are involved 'in Acquavella Water Rights 

Case.] 

, 

.. 

[Geraldine &Milton Downs 032-011 

Comment: This version of the project and prior versions of the project called for acclimation 

sites on tributaries to the Yaws River. Many of the tributaries to the river, including creeks 

such as Jack Creek and Taneum Creek experience very low flows at various points during certain 

times of the year. These low flows could adversely affect upstream salmon migration and 

spawning. The draft EIS mentions this potential adverse effect but does not klly explore the 

ramifications of the low flows on salmon migration and spawning. The need to maintain sufficient 

flow in the tributaries to prevent harm to salmon migration and spawning will impact existing 

rights and the impact is one that will be direct. 

[Jeff Slothower 

[Jeff Slothower 

Lathrop, Winbauer, Hawel& Slothower, rep. Taneum Canal Company 038-061 

Lathrop, Winbauer, Hmei & Slothower, yep. The Mmstash Ditch . 039-061 

#I 

Response: The Y%'P would not affect the water rights of any individual or entity in the Teanaway 

. River or Yakima River basins. ,The YFP is design& to operate under-existing conditions in the 

basin, including low flows in the lower Teanaway, so no additional instre& flows would be 

required. There are fish presently returning to the Teanaway system, even with the reduced 

late summer and fall flows currently experienced there. Of course, improved basin conditions 

would likely increase the numbers of adults returning. Title XII of P. L. 103-434 authorizes 

conservation and other measures in tributary streams in order to improve instream flows. . 

Preliminary planning is underway to address the need for instream flows in tributary streams. 

Participation in such programs by landowners is entirely voluntary, and those landowners that do 

not desire to participate in such a program may choose not to. Please see also the response to 

. 

DO3 - 1 912012 1/22. 

AppendixN76 . 

.- 
, 

WATER RIGHTS, FLOWS: AND CLAIMS 

/ 

DQ3-24 x. 

Comment: Taneum Canal Company (TCC) [The Manastash Ditch] recognizes the need to 

maintain in stream flows in the Yakima River watershed; however, it is concerned that 

Alternatives 1 or 2 cannot be accomplished without having an adverse effect on existing surface 

and ground water rights in the Yakima River watershed and cannot be accomplished without a 

negative impact on the economy of Kittitas County. TCC believes any &&re fisheries projects 

should be water neutral and not impair existing rights. [Commenter notes that TCC is a mutual 

water company with rights in Taneum Creek currently being aGucated under Acquavella. ] 

[Jeff Slothower 

- [Jeff Slothower 

Lathrop, Winbauer, Harrel & Slothower, rep. Taneum Canal Company 038-011 

Lathrop, Winbauer, Harrel & Slothower, rep. Mimastash Water Ditch Association 039-011 

Response: The operation of the hatchery and acclimation sites will not require the release of 

additional water. All water routed through an acclimation site from a stream will be returned to 

the stream. The YFP will not affect the water rights of ‘any individual or entity in the Yakima 

Basin. See the response to D03-19/20/21/22. 

DQ3-25l26l2ll28 

Comment: Section 2.7.1.1 indicates the surface water quantity impacts for Alternatives 1 and 2 

would be low. This section states, “indirect effects on water rights are possible, but would most 

likely occur with or without the YFP”. Section 4.1.1 provides that YFP facilities are designed to ’ 

be “water neutral”, meaning that operation of the project facilities would not affect the existing in 

stream flow levels in adjacent streams or the delivery of water to irrigation districts, canal 

companies, and individual farms. Section 4.1.1.1 then states “it is possible that water rights might 

be indirectly affected by the project”. The EIS goes on to quote from the Northwest Electric 

Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 which says that nothing in the p?ogram will alter 

or establish the respective rights of the United States, States, Indian tribes, or any other person 

with respect to any water or water right. The EIS then concludes “therefore, the YFP would not 

cause inoreased demand for in stream flows in addition to those currently being sought, nor would 

the project cause water rights to be taken from irrigators”. The EIS is deficient in this regard. 

What the EIS is saying is the project, by law, cannot impact existing rights; therefore, the project 

will not affect existing rights. The practical application of this project is that there are identifiable 

effects on existing water rights. To call these adverse effects “possible indirect effects” is to 

ignore the issue completely. 

[Jeff Slothower 

[Jeff Slothower 

Lathrop, Winbauer, Harrel& Slothower, rep. Timeum Canal Company 038-021 

Lathrop, Winbauer, Harrel& Slothower, rep. The Mimastash Ditch 039-021 

Appendix AI 77 
WATER RIGHTS, FLOWS, AND CLAIMS. , 

I 

Comment: The EIS does not explore what those indirect effects might be nor does it offer- ’ 

solutions, alternatives, or ways to mike these “indirect” effects on existing water rights. The 

EIS should specifically identifl those indirect effects and-discuss alternatives for eliminating those 

‘indirect effects or mhhkimg those indirect effects. 

[Jeff Slothower 

-, [JeffSlothower 

Lathrop, Winbauer,.Haeei & Slothower, rep. The Mtmastash Ditch 

. I. 1 Lathrop, Winbauei Hmrel & Slothower, rep. TAeum Canal Company 038-031 

- 039-031 ,- 

- 

Comment: When at Section 2.7 the EIS-identifies the environmental consequences of the project 

existing water rights. 

I on surface- water as a low impact, the EIS does so without fblly exploring the “indirect” effects on 

[Jeff Slothow& 

] [Jeff Slothower 

<~ ,\ 

- 

Lathropj minbauer, Hmel & Slothower, rep: Taneum. Canal Company 038-041 

Lathrop, Winbauer, Harrel & Slothower, rep. The Manastash Ditch 039-041 

.I Comment: TCC would suggest the environmental consequences under Alternatives 1 and 2 on 

surface water resources would be high, particularly if the “indirect” consequences of the plan 

were filly presented. For the EIS to say that the YFP will not cause increased demand for in 

stream flows and at the same time acknowledging indirect effects, the EIS ignores an area of 

significant impact on existing rights. of this proposed ,project. 

’ [Jeff Slothower 

[Jeff Slothower 

Lathrop, Winbauer, Harrel& Slothower, rep. Taneum Canal Company ,038-05J 

Lathrop, Winbauer, Hmel & Slothower, rep. The Mhastash Dit& 039-051 

Response:. -We believe that the YFP will not afYect’the water righvs of any individual or entity in 

the Yakima River Basin. However, as discussed & ‘Section 4.1.1.1 of the FEIS, availability of 

water may be affected. ’BPA is not seeking any surface water rights,” other than non-consumptive, 

in conjunction with this project. BPA realizes that- a stream adjudication is presently underway in 

the Yakima Basin that will establish rights to all the surface water in the basin. BPA is not a party - 

to the water adjudication’ahd has no. claims for surface water involved in these proceedings. The 

wording regardmg‘indirect effects has been revised in Section 4.1.1.1 ofthe FEIS. See also the 

response to cominent D03-19/20/21/22. ’ 

-_ 

D03-30 - .~ 1 

Comment: Paragraph 3.9.2 refers to water management. Several court decisions, current 

adjudications, and other activities designed to manage the water available in the basin are 

identified. Section 3 -9.2 fails to identiQdecisions made by Judge Stauffacher in Acquavella, 

supra, which altered his November 1990 Amended Summary Judgment decision. Judge - 

Stauffacher also is in the process of considering a motion to. declare the Yakama Indian Nation’s 

treaty fish right a natural flow right which can be satisfied only fiom the ,natural flow of the’basin 

. 

.. 
WATER RIGHTS, FLOWS, AND CLAIMS 

and not from stored project water. Judge Stauffacher's decision on this motion will have a 

tremendous impact on the system management, particularly if he grants the motion. The impact 

on existing rights if Judge Stauffacher grants the motion are uncertain but could be devastating to 

natural flow diverters who divert from the main stream of the river and from tributaries. The EIS 

at a minimum should explore the potential impacts of this motion and the entire adjudication 

process. The uncertainty created by this motion underscores the fact that, until the adjudication is 

completed and existing rights aresettled, the true impacts of the YFP on existing rights cannot be 

ascertained. 

[Jeff Slothower 

[Jeff Slothower 

Lathrop, Winbauer, Harrel& Slothower, rep. Taneum Canal Company 038-091 

* Lathrop, Winbauer, Hmel & Slothower, - rep. The Manasash Ditch 039-091 

I 

Response: The adjudication process will proceed with or without the YFP. Implementation of 

the YFP will not affect any particular decision rendered by the Acauavell'a Court. BPA is not a 

party in Acquavella and has no claims in the adjudication process. The yL;p will operate within 

the water rights established by the Court:Section 3.9.2-of theFEIS has been modfied to reflect 

these circumstances. 

D03-31 

Comment: Any acclimation pond plan that.is adopted must be water neutral. To be water 

neutral, acclimation ponds should be placed on the main stream Yakima River in areas where 

sufficient in stream flows can be guaranteed to meet the needs of migrating and spawning salmon 

without an impact on existing rights. 

[Jeff Slothower 

[Jeff Slothower 

Lathrop, Winbauer, Harrel& Slothower, rep. Taneum canal Company ~ 038-071 

Lathrop, Winbauer, Harrel& Slothower, rep. ne Manastash Ditch 039-071 

Response: Water supplies for each proposed acclimation site have been examined to ensure that 

adequate supplies are available. 

D03-32 

Comment: Public concern of water conservation needs emphasis. 

[yPM-OII-O2] 

Response: In general, water conservation is outside the scope of this EIS. However; water 

conservation is the major focus of Title XII of P. L. 103-434, which is currently in the preliminary 

implementation stage. See section 3.9.2 of the FEIS and the responses to B02-02 and B01-09 for 

a discussion of this key element of water management and conservation in the Yakima River 

Basin. 

Appendix AI 79 
. WATER RIGHTS, FLOWS, AND CLAIMS 

-. 

D03-33 

\, Comment: Concern about flood impacts. . 

[CPM-O2-02] - ,. 

- Response: .BPA will comply with all applicable state and Federal rules and regulations 

concerning the placement and design of faciGties, including those associated with construction of 

facilities in floodway/floodplain. 

D03-34/35 

Comment: Need for aggressive water legislation to deal with over allocation. 

[yPM-003-04] - 

Comment: Need Water CzadComrnission, i.e. Dan Evans URGENTLY. 

Response: Water allocation issues fall outside the scope of this EIS. The State of Washington 

has established laws and administrative'processes that govern the auocation of water supplies 

among competing users. Currently, the water rights within the Yakima River basin are being 

adjudicated in Yakima County Superi_or Court. See Section 3.9.2.2 of the FEIS for a discussion 

of this process. The on-going adjudication will establish rights to all surface water in the Yakima 

River Basin. BPA is not involved in the allocation of water in the Yakima River Basin, and is not 

. a party to the water adjudication. The ongoing adjudication process will establish rights to all 

surface water in the Yakima River Basin. 

L\ [ypM-003-05] 

- D03-36 I. 

' Comment:. Any ground water withdrawals in excess.of 5,000 gallons-per day or for the irrigation 

of more than one-half .acre-of la& or noncommercial garden, or any surface water diversions will 

requie a water right permit from Ecology. 

~ . 

-~ [BarbqraJ. Ritchie , I 

State -of Washington, Department of Ecolo& 040-021 

Response: BPA will apply for the appropriate water permits for non-consumptive use of water 

for YFP facilities. 

_- .- . .. 

- ,- 

Appendix A/ 80 

I 
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

DO4 - Threatened and Endangered Species 

D04-01 

Comment: Bald eagles: I have observed bald eagles at this [Jack Creek] site including young 

birds, and as recent as July 1994. 

[Ronald L. Pyeatt 0.56-OS] 

Response: We have consulted with the US Fish and Wildlife Service concerning project 

effects on @.l threatened and endangered species, including bald eagles. The project is 

designed-to have minimal negative impact on the bald eagles. If successful, the project will 

increase the food base for the eagles by increasing the number of salmon carcasses that the 

birds can feed on. 

D04-02 

Comment: Oregon Trout’s primary concerns with the proposal are for.those stocks of native 

wild fish that may be adversely affected by this project, including the listed Snake River salmon. 

Although the draft EIS claims that “It is unlikely the listed Snake River salmon would be 

significantly &ected by the proposed project”, we find no data to support that conclusion. 

Current straying problems from Umatilla River chinook are already creating numerous problems 

for the listed Snake River stocks, how can you be so sure that straying of Yakima stocks won’t 

add significantly to that problem? . [Am Myron 

Oregon Trout 03 1-02] 

Response: Straying is addressed in Chapter 4 of the RDEIS, pages 118-119, and 131. The 

stocks of chinook that strayed in the Umatilla basin were fall chinook, whereas the project 

proposed for the Yakima will be supplementing spring chinook salmon. The proposed p‘koject 

will also use extensive acclimation procedures for the smolts in the upper portions of the 

Yakima basin, whereas the fall chinook in the Umatilla were released directly into the lower 

reaches of that river at a time of extremely low flow in the Umatilla River. Consequently 

these fish had very little time to become acclimated to that river. Furthermore, when fall 

chinook adults returned to the Umatilla River in the fall, the flow is too low to allow easy 

passage. Project scientists expect that the use of spring chinook rather than fall chinook, and 

the extensive acclimation of those fish, will result in the adult fish retyming to the areas of 

their acclimation and release. 

r . . ’. I 

Append& A/ 81 ,- 
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

- 

D04-03 

Comment: Will the fish that this project will propagate be taken in a terminal fishery in the 

Yakima River, or will these fish be caught in a mixed stock fishery in the ocean and mainstem 

Columbia River? Ifthis project will lead to an increased mixed stock fishery, Oregon Trout 

believes that-this will hasten the extinction of the listed Snake River stocks by subjecting those 

fish to yet another consumptive fishery. We fail to see how the draft EIS adequately addresses 

these issues. 

. 

\ [Jim Myron 

Oregon Trout 31-03]. 

Response: The number of adult sphg chinook salmon that are expected to return as a result 

of this project will not significantly change the harvestable number of salmon in the ocean and 

mainstem Columbia River. The ocean and mainstem Columbia fisheries are managed to strict 

standards for-the protection of Snake River stocks, and the adults returning as a result of this 

project would not change those standards; nor create a new consumptive fishery in the 

mainstem or ocean. We have included a discussion of the harvest management activities in 

- AppendixE. 

D04-04 

Comment: Oregon Trout asks that the BPA complete a formal consultation with the National 

Marine Fisheries Service on the potential effects of this project on the listed Snake Riyer salmon 

before proceeding any further. 

[Jim Myron 

,Oregon Trout 031-041 

Response: As required by the Endangered Species Act, BPA is consulting with the National 

Marine Fisheries Service regarding the potential impacts of hatchery operation on listed Snake 

River salmon. NMFS has reviewed the proposed project, and an assigned NMFS 

representative is participating in ongoing project review with the project managers. - 

D04-05 

Comment: Yakima Tribes are interested in project so they can get more fish for their fishery. 

My interest is to see that the runs don't become extinct. 

[ypM-OO6-13] 

Response: The Yakama Tribe is interested in avoiding extinction of currently existing salmon 

stocb, and also ih reintroducing species of salmon that have been driven to extinction in the 

. Yakha Bas& The Yakama Tribe is also $erested in increasing the population status of the 

existing and reintroduced fish species to levels that will allow harvest by both tribal and nontribal fishers. 

Append= A/ 82 
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES 

D04-06 

Comment: Pg 140, 1st paragraph. Staging operations to avoid unlikely marbled murrelet 

conflicts will increase logistical problems (snow and ice) and will increase likelihood of impacts to 

incubating salmo$d eggs. 

[Lynn Hatcher 

Yakama Indian Nation 049-191 1 

Response: There have been no reported sightings of marbled murrelets at any of the proposed 

preferred site, marbled murrelet surveys would be conducted, and project operations would be 

planned to minimize impact if any birds were found. 

See also 002: Species Interactions 

project sites. The Keechelus site mentioned is an alternative site. If it is identified as a .4 

fl 

. - 

DO5 - Disease ’ .. 

D05-01 

Comment: Have the water sources for the hatchery been tested for-water quality or disease 

pathogens? This type of data might be invaluable to have pre-construction. 

[Anonymous 

Department of Interior, F&WService 025-011 

Response: Candidate water sources have been tested for water quality and temperature. Facility 

designs include wells to manage water temperature during critical periods and a gas stabilization 

tower to assure a water supply -with normal revels of dissolved oxygen and nitrogen. 

Candidate water sources have also been assayed biologically to determine the presence of 

critically important (“reportable”) pathogens as identified in the “Salmonid Disease Control Policy 

of the Fisheries Co-Managers of Washington State.” None were found. 

D05-02 . Comment: I would like to see addressed more completely are the areas of infectious disease 

control. You adequately discuss control of Bacterial Kidney Disease’@KD), Ceratomyna, and 

others but do not address the threat of newer “potential” diseases to the river systems connected 

in the area. Specifically, the SalmoGd “Whirling Disease.” As you are well aware, this disease is 

devastating some of the Pacific Northwest streams (Madison Rivers, etc.), perhaps this should be 

addressed. , [JeflAyres, Sr. Geoscientist I CH2MHilI, Hanford 010-011 

\ 

Appendix A/ 83 
WATER QUALlN 

Comment: What is being done to protect Washington fisheries fi-om whirline; disease? 

[Anonymous 02 7-08 

Response: "Whirling disease" has not devastated or otherwise affected any Pacific Northwest 

streams. Project managers are aware of the Madison River situation as it relates to fish health 

issues; however, any fish health problems there present no immediate &eat since the Madison 

River drains eastward into the Missouri River system and is thereby geographically isolated fi-om 

the Columbia River system. 

However, the occurrence of "whirbg disease'' or other diseases in fish cultured or held as 

broodstock in the Yakima system would be managed in a manner consistent with the "Salmonid 

Disease Control Policy of the Fisheries Co-Managers of Washington State." Strict Federal and 

state regulations govern the im~ort of "whirling disease" and other fish pathogens.' Beyond this, 

the management agencies presently rearing fish in the Columbia River basin are staffed with fish 

health specialists trained to identifl pathogenic agents and treat fish diseases. They routinely 

observe tissues taken fiom adult fish for several diseases (including whirling disease) that have 

significant fish culture and fishery management importance. They also examine reared and 

released fish for a broader spectrum of fish pathogens. 

The result of this effort is intended to minimize the potential for importing"whir1ing disease" and 

other fish threatening pathogens. It also provides information used to manage transfer of 

eggdfish between facsties (all agencies) and release of fish within the basin in a manner 

niinimizing potential for the spread of presently existing fish pathogens. 

- 

DO6 - Wafer Qudity 

D06-01 . Comment: Pg 112,4th full paragraph. Releasing more smolts would not reduce the risk of their 

dying in the lower river fi-om poor water quality and inadequate quantity. 

[Lynn katcher 

Yaha Indian Nation 049-I 81 

. Response: Your comment is well taken If water quality andlor quantity is responsible for 

low smolt survivalin the lower river, the release of more smolts will not increase the survival 

rate. The problems of water quality and quantity are well documented, and efforts are 

ongoing to improve both. 

I 

Appendix A/ 84 
- WATER QUAUTY 

D06-02 

Comment: My environmental concerns about the Yakima Fisheries Project are: excessive use 

of chemicals, herbicides, pesticides, and the lie, along the Yakima. 

[Jmes Pratt 006-011 

Comment: River needs to be cleaned up; i.e. inefficiency of irrigation system (run-off fiom ditch 

irrigation); more efficient use of water (drip systems, metering, etc.). Upgrade system that was 

designed in the '20s and '30s. Where does the money go that's paid for irrigation water? 

PM-O35-02] 

Comment: My environmental concerns about the Yakima Fisheries Project are:. Irrigators 

should be heid to a no run off goal violated only during natural weather related incidents. 

[Anonymous 044-051 

Comment: My environmental concerns about the Yakima Fisheries are: increased surface and 

underground runoff fiom dairies. 

[Gary L. Lund OI9-01] 

Response: Thank you for the comments. Solutions to water quality issues in the Yakima 

basin are outside the scope of this EIS. However, the main focus of recent legislation, Title 

XII of P.L. 103-434, is a basin-wide water conservation program intended to address 

inefficient and out-dated irrigation systems. This includes implementing more efficient 

delivery and application methods to decrease the amount of run-off and the input of sediments 

and agricultural chemicals to streams. Implementation of the conservation program is 

expected to improve instream flows and improve water quality. 

Fees paid by water users to the various irrigation aistricts are dedicated almost entirely to 

operation and maintenance of the respective irrigation delivery systems, and, in some cases, 

repayment for reservoir construction. 

A no-run-off goal is desirable, but probably unlikely. Implementation of the National 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is expected to help regulate the discharge of 

sediments and pollutants into the Yakima system. Also, as noted above, implementation of the 

basin-wide water conservation program pursuant to Title XI of P.L. 103-434 is expected to 

reduce run-off and improve water quality. 

~ 

- 

D06-03 

Comment: Some infomation you still need is: effects of siltation fiom Wilson Creek and its 

impact on the canyon section. 

[Anonymous 02 7-03] 

' Appendix A/ 85 
WATER QUAL/TY r 

Comment: Will sedimentation from Wilson Creek impact mainstem production? Is there a plan 

to clean it up? Ifno plan at present, how could such effort be initiated? 

[CPM-20-03] 

Response: In addition to the implementation of the acts and actions mentioned in the previous 

several responses, the Washington Department of Ecology is implementing Best Management 

Practices (BMP) to meet the predetermined “beneficial usesf7 of the river. Fish have been 

determined to be one of those beneficial uses. The DOE is also monitoring the Total 

Maximum Discharge levels (TMDL) at various points in the system. Thus, various activities 

are currently underway to improve the conditions in the Yakima basin, including the Wilson 

Creek siltation problem. The YFP is designed to operate under existing conditions in the 

basin, with expectations that improved basin conditions will increase the benefits of the 

project. Also, little spring chinook spawning occurs in the canyon section of the basin, so the 

heavy siltation occurring here would not impact many redds. Spring chinook do rear in the 

canyon section, and improvement of water quality conditions would benefit these juveniles. 

,. 

,. D06-04/05 

Comment: My environmental concerns about the Yakima Fisheries Project are: septage from 

more development along%ibutaries to the Yakima River. 

.- ,e FG. Bunger 050-011 

Comment: Clean-up the Yakima tributaries and sewage from the surrounding towns. ._ 

Comment: What is being done to improve the water situation (pollutionhewageflogging) on the 

mainstem? 

[ypM-02 6-02 J ., 

I 

.- 

.. . -, [ypM-026-06J .. -~ . 

Response: The Growth Management Act (GMA) is designed to address.most of the nonagricultural pollution and sewage treatment issues in the Yakima Basin. See also ‘the other 

responses in this section. 

D06-06 

Comment: How are you going to address the buffer zones along the tributaries, private citizen 

landowners and industrial. I understand buffer zones are being shortened for development. 

(Shade may be removed which would raise the temperature of water). 

. flPM-026-08J 

Response: The Growth Management Act is designed to address the issues of buffer zones and 

other issues related to development along the maiktem ’and tributaries of the Ywa. 

.- 

Appendkk; 86 

\ 
WATER QUAUTY 

D06-07 

Comment: Should the Clean Water Act be enforced in the Yakima Basin? 

[CPM-I3-0 I 

Response: Yes, the managers of the project believe that the Clean Water Act should be 

enforced in the Yakima Basin. The Clean Water Act is administered by the Environmental 

Protection Agency; with the implementing agency in the State of Washington is the 

Department of Ecology. One problem with the Act is that it does not address non-point 

sources of pollution very effectively manner, and much of thepollution in the basin is from 

non-point sources. . 

D06-08 

. Comment: Pg 163, section 5.3.2. Washington Department of Ecology wouldbe the entity 

issuing an NPDES permit, not EPA. 

[Lynn Hatcher 

Yakama Indian Nation 049-231 

Response: Thank you for your comment. This has been corrected in the FEIS. , 

D06-09 

Comment: Concern about large woody debris in the river. 

[CPM-02-bI] 

Response: Your comment is well taken. Large woody debris is a natural part of a healthy 

watershed that provides cover and rearing habitat for juvenile fish and holding cover for adult 

fish. Many areas of the Yakima have lower than normal amounts of large woody debris. 

Recent improvements in logging practices will improve this condition to some degree. 

D06-10 

Comment: Appears there is more algae growing in the river - will this affect the fish - has it been 

studied? 

[CPM-19-02 J 

Response: Algae is a natural part of a healthy watershed ecosystem; however, an increase in 

algae could indicate a problem with increased sediment or nutrient levels in the river. The 

Department of Ecology has been collecting data for a Total Maximum Daily Load for 

Sediment (TMDLS) study in the basin. Recent other studies-by the U.S. Geological Survey 

National Water Quality Assessment Program in the Yakima River Basin have indicated that the 

water quality in the basin appears to be remaining stable. Again, numerous water qualib -, 

- 
FISH HARVESTS / WILDLIFE AND OTHER ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

~ 

problems have been documented, but recent ongoing efforts have targeted improvement of 

these problems. < 

1 

DO7 - Fish Harvests \ 

D07-01 

Comment: I think they should stay with Option no. 3 until fishing off our coast and up the 

Columbia has a shut off period to try letting fish get back to spawn- You can't grow a crop 

without seed. 

, 

[Henry L. Sorensen 020-021 

Response: Option 3 (No Action Alternative) does nothing to assist in the restoration of the 

anadromous fish runs in the Yakima Basin. Harvest management activities are beyond the scope 

of this EIS. We have, however, included a discussion of the harvest management activities in 

Appendix E. Note also that there has not been a commercial harvest of spi-ing chinook in the 

Columbia Basin for nearly 20 years. Ocean fisheries have been severely restricted, and in 1994 

virtually eliminated, to avoid increased harvest on the' depressed Columbia River, as well as other 

stocks of salmon and steelhead; nevertheless, spring chinook in the Yakima have not rebounded. 

. 

D07-02 ~ 

Comment: When 1 see all the nets along the Columbia and sport fishermen in the mouth of the 

river during spawning and the commercial-fishing off our coast, I wonder how any fish could get 

back up the river. Also, TV sports news shows fish caught below Wanapum Dam bright red 

ready to spawn. Shourd this kind oifish be in someone's fish basket? I think we should take a 

hard look at what cost we are going- to pay-for .salmon. While we are not letting the fish get back 

to sp,awn. Let's cut back on fishing for 2 to 5 years and see if the salmon numbers won't increase. 

We still want fish, but at what cost? 

'[Henry L. dorensen 020-031 .. 

I_ 

Comment: Overharvest appears to !ea problem since many coastal runs; where there are no 

dams, are depressed. - [ypM-006-11] 

'. Response: Harvest management activities are beyond the scope of this EIS. We have, however, 

included a discussion of the harvest management activities in Appendix E. In response to the 

suggestion that fishing be "cut back'l'for "2 to 5 years," we would note that no. recreational or 

commercial fishing has been permitted in the Columbia Basin on upriver stocks of spring chinook 

for-far longer than that. Ocean fisheries have been severely restricted, and in 1994 virtually 

eliminated, to avoid increased1harvest on the depressed Columbia River, as well as other coastal, 

sto-cks of salmon and steelhead. Even so, salmon returns to-the Yakima River have continued to 

- 

.. 

. decline; ' 

Appendix A/ 88 - . . 

'. 
FISH HARVESTS 

D07-03 

Comment: [Should look at:] Total ocean catch within 200 mile limit by foreign fisheries. 

Comment: Total ocean domestic catch with gill nets and with lines. 

Comment: Total non Indian Columbia catch. Total Indian lie or dip net. Total Indian gill net. 

[Anonymous 044-011 

I. 

[Anonymous 044-021 

[Anonymous * 044-031 

Response: Thank you for your comment. See response to comments D07-01 and 02, above. 

I 

. 

DO7-07 

Comment: In addition to being a farmer, I am also an environmentalist and want to see a healthy 

Yakima River. I would be delighted to see Coho Salmon return. Will only the Yakima Indians be 

allowed to catch them despite what the treaty says? 

. 

[Larry Olsen 008-021 

.I 

Response: Thank you for your comment. The coho and spring chinook supplementation 

programs will benefit all users of the resource--Indian and non-Indian alike. Harvest is to be 

shared equitably between both parties. 

- 

D07-08 

Comment: How will Canadian interceptions impact success of the project? 

Response: A ceiling has been established on the Canadian ocean fishery. Only small numbers of 

Yakima spring chinook are harvested in that fishery, so the impact would be negligible. - 

[YPM-006-I 01 

DO8 - Wildlife and Other Ecological ResourcesDO8-01 , 

Comment: [Other environmental concerns include] the loss of companion waterlie, trout, frogs, 

water plants. “Walleye” are not .mentioned. 

[Jmes Pratt 006-021 

Response: Thank you for the comment. An ongoing part of the YFP is the species 

interaction study that has been monitoring the trout populations in the upper Yakima. These 

populations will be monitored through the implementation of the project to evaluate the effects 

of the project on other species. The frogs would be associated with wetlands, and the project 

is being designed for no net loss of wetland habitat. Walleye are not common in the Yakima 

. 

Appendix A/ 89 
FISH HARVESTS / WILDLIFE AND OTHER'ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES, 

I River, especially in the upper Yakima where the project will occur, so it is expected that there 

. will be no @pact on that species. 

DOS-02 

Comment: Seals and sea lion populatibns continue to increase; why aren't we doing something 

about it? 

pM- 012-02] 

Comment: Seals and sea lions are a big problem below Bonneville Dam. - 

\ 

Response: Seals and sea lions have become a species of concern for their impacts on salmon 

and steelhead in the lower Columbia River. The NMFS Snake River Recovery Plan 

acknowledges this concern and rkommends research to determine the level of predation by 

these species and to evaluate non-lethal methods of.reducing predationby seals ahd sea lions 

on salmonids. 

: DOS-03 

Comment: Pg. 52. The table makes a poor 6ase for the project. Itlooks as if the impact'to the 

- environment is,-in all cases, lower without the project. The DEIS should take credit for the fact 

that floodplains and wetlands, for example, by virtue of being under public ownership, will remain 

in-better condition over the long term than if left in private ownership. . 

[Lynn Hatcher - , 

Yakuma Indian Nation * 049-051 

Pg 53,2nd full sentence. The No Action Alternative may affect floodplains and wetlands if these 

sites are developed by other parties in a more environmentally destructive manner than they would 

ifthe project is implemented. 

[LynnHatcher ~ , 

Yakuma Indian Nation 049-091 

Response: Thank you for the comments. We have added your observation that the 

floodplains and wedands would potentially remain in better condition under the proposed 

project to the discussion in the FEIS, but do not believe-that the impact rating should be 

changed. 

Appendix A/, 90 
WILDLIFE AND OTHER ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

DO9 - Socioeconomic Resources 

D09-01 

Comment: Altho,ugh the economic impacts of the project are important, it does not address the 

socioeconomic’benefits. For example, what is the general public willing to pay for preservation of 

wild genetic stocks? (By the way, it has been my experience that they are ~lling to.pay & 

compared to a given project’s cost.) 

[R. Rhodes 

Aquafood Business Association 018-021 

Response: Thank you for your comment. The socioeconomic impacts of the project are 

addressed in Section 4.1.8 of the EIS. The project has not conducted any surveys of public 

willingness to pay for the preservation of wild genetic stocks. 

DIO - Recreafional Resources (Ofher fhan Fishing) , 

- D10-01 / 

Comment: My main comment interest is your apparent lack of knowledge and recognition that 

winter recreation in the Teanaway is extensive. Your operation in the Jack Creek area is winter 

oriented, and at the prime season of snowmobiling and cross-country skiing. Your 

representatives at the meeting did not know of these actiyities. Whter Recreation: Washington 

State Parks and Recreation Groomed Snowmobile Trails map, area 5, Swauk Pass, shows that the 

North Fork Teanaway road is a designated groomed snoivmobile trail north from Lick Creek 

which is south of your proposed site; Greentrails map - 209 “Mt. Stuart” clearly shows the North 

Fork Teanaway as winter recreation. 

-, Question: Aie you aware of this and choose to ignore it or have not done your research? Your 

use of this road with trucks hauling smolt will destroy its winter recreation capabilities. Your 

RDEIS paragraph 4.1.9.1 “Other Recreation Resources” in incorrect and incomplete. Apparently 

you have not recognized that winter recreation exists. 

’ [Ronald L. Pyeatt 056-031 - 

. 

Comment: Main concern is that whiter recreation uses along USFS roads 970 and 9738 adjacent 

to site are not impacted. Roads are not being plowed to this area and should not be because of 

proposed action. Winter recreations parking area and turnaround are back at Lick Creek. 

Existing groomed snowmobile trail must not be impacted. Recreation is an important part of the 

upper Kittitas County economy year round and must not be negatively impacted. 

[Howard Briggs 03 7-03] 

Appendix A/ 91 
SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES / RECREATIONAL RESOURCES (NON-FISHING) 

Comment: I ask that you please use care during the winter to preserve the snow surface on the 

road from Lick Creek to above the 29 Pines campground so that the historic snowmobile routes 

are preserved. - 

[Richard N. Burrows 045-011 

Response: Project managers and BPA are aware of the recreatiod use of the Teanaway basin 

above Lick Creek. We are working with the U.S. Forest Service, Cle Elm Ranger District to 

develop an access plin for this site tha; is compatible with winter recreation use. The District 

Recreational Director has consulted with local snowmobile organizations for their comments 

and ideas. We do recognize the need for, and the importance of, winter recreation use in the 

upper Kittitas Valley. We are seeking a solution through the Forest Seivice that is workable 

for both the project and winter recreational interests in the area. - This has been addressed in 

the FEIS in section 4.1.9.1. 

D10-02 

Comment: The RDEIS paragraph 3.9.4, “Jack Creek Site” Boise Cascade is said to allow 

camping, etc. Boise Cascade has NOT allowed camping on any site other than a designated, 

improved campground, which would include the 29 Pines Campground adjacent to the Jack Creek 

Site. \ 

[Ronald L. Pyeatt .‘ 056-05] 

Response: The referenced statement should have read: Boise Cascade permits camping in a 

designated campground next to the site. The statement has been corrected in the F’EIS. 

,. 

D10-03 

Comment:_ My environmental concerns abut the Yakima Fisheries Project are: tha! river rafting 

on Yakima River could be affected by’the Cle Elum site. 

{Howard Briggs 037-011 -, 

a 

Response: The Cle Hum site‘w.ill have a pump station on the bank of the Yakima River near 

the site, but the river channel will not be changed, nor will any obstructions be built into the 

river. The projeci would have no effect on river rafting in the Yakima. .. 

.. 

~. D10-04 

Comment: Who is the prope~ owner of the Jack Creek site? Jack Creek- is a.recreation area 

with USFS’ involvement. 

, [Howard Briggs 037-021 ~. 

Response: The Jack Creek site is owned by Boise Cascade Corporation and is located just 

outside the Wenatchee Nationd Borest boundary. The recreational influence of the USFS can 

.. 

- 

Appendixk92 . 
INSTREAM AND RIPARIAN HABITAT/ OTHER ISSUES AND CONCERNS 

extend outside Forest boundaries. Such is the case for the area near the mouth of-Jack Creek. . ' 

The 29 Pines campground is located on Boise Cascade land, also just outside the Forest 

boundary. It is operated and maintained by Boise Cascade in conjunction with their timbered 

land holdings the area. 

DYl - Instream and Riparian Habitat 

Dll-01 

Comment: Some information you still need is: capability based on habitat parameters of the 

Yakima system to support stocked fish. 

~ pic Stacostha- - 015-081 - 

Response: The Project as proposed will release smolts from acclimation ponds in the upper 

Yakima and Teanaway Rivers. These smolts will use the river m&y as a migration corridor 

as they migrate out to the ocean. Models have been developed to determine the capability of 

the system to support juvenile fish rearing in the system as the result of natural production that 

would occur as these fish return and spawn'as adults. 

Dll-02 3 

Comment: My environmental concerns about the Yakima Fisheries Project are: is there 

sufficient fish passage at the developed sites along the river? 

[Anonymous 036-021 

Comment: Your environmental study should have included: current practices to protect 

naturally recruited smolts. Are &l irrigation diversions screened? To what extent are returning 

spawners protected? 

Comment: Fish screens for all diversions. 

pic Stacostha 015-01] 

[CPM-O1-05] 

Response: Since 1982,'BPA, BOR, various s&te and Federal agencies, the Yakama Indian 

Nation, and other entities have been involved in an extensive program to &prove adult and 

juvenile fish passage in the Yakima River Basin. As of 1995, new fish ladders and fish 

screens have been installed at all major irrigation diversions Sthe basin, and at many of the 

smaller diversions. Installation of fish passage facilities at smaller diversions will continue 

over the next several years. 1 

Appendix A/ 93 
.I 

’.. INSTREAM AND RIPARIAN HABITAT 

Dll-03 

Comment: In addition, the WNF Land and Resource Management Plan (LIME’) has been 

amended by the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (1994). This is ’ 

also referred to as the “President’s Forest Plan.” It is important to note that there are four . 

specific components of the President’s Forest Plan which effect land and aquatic resource 

management: 1) Riparian Reserve designation; 2) Key Watersheds, which are a system of refbgia 

for at-risk fish species and stocks; 3) Watershed Analysis; and 4) Watershed Restoration. These 

components are designed to operate together to maintain and restore the productivity and 

resiliency of riparian and aquatic ecosystems (USDA/USDI 1994). 

[Sonny 0 ,Neal 

Forest Supervisor, Wenatchee National Forest, USDA 041-1 11 

Response: Thank you for your comment. Your global perspective on the watershed is 

appreciated by the project personnel. We agree that these four specific components of the 

President’s Forest Plan will be important in maintaining and restoring the productivity and 

resiliency of riparian and aquatic ecosystems-and should therefore act synergistically with the 

proposed project to improve the health of the existing salmon populations in the Yakima River 

basin, and improve conditions for the reintroduction of currently extirpated species. 

E - Other Issues and Concerns 

E-01 . 

Comment: Will there be some study on the‘Yakima River Delta Blockage? One of the major 

arteries in the Delta System is blocked by manmade roadway to Bateman‘Island! The last 30 

years have, [because] of Yakima River Delta Blockage, made some considerable changes in and 

around many islands and major arteries which feed into the Columbia River. Bateman Island 

roadway on Columbia-River side will have dead salmonin spring on shore. This is a major artery ‘ 

blockage. -- 

[Ken A. Artz 005-011 

Response: Thank you for the information, While the blockage of the delta is outside of the 

scope of this project, we have discussed it with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

It appears that it may partially block access into the Yakima for anadromous fish. We will refer 

this to the Yakima River Basin Fish Passage technical work group for their consideration. 

. 

.- . .. , 

\ 

.. 

Appendk.A/ 94 . \ 
. OTHER ISSUES AND CONCERNS 

B01-11 

Comment: Why arewe spending $60M for.Triba1 fishing site when there is a shortage of fish 

and’ plenty of fishing sites? \ [YPM-0 12-04] 

Response: Thank you for your comment. The question you have raised is beyond the scope of 

this project. The project managers suggest that you address your inquiry to the U.S. Corps of 

-Engineers, P.O. Box ’ , Portland, OR. This agency is responsible for the in-lieu fishing site 

program. 

- 

B01-13 

Comment: Shad are increasing in spite of all the dams, why aren’t salmon and steelhead? 

[YpM-OI2-03] 

Response: Your comment raises valid questions which are beyond the scope of this EIS. We 

encourage you to contact the National Marine Fisheries Service and Oregon and Washington state 

fishery management agencies for more information. .- 

B01-14 

Comment: Focus instead on getting the government out of the-fish and hatchery business. As in 

many endeavors, there has to be a more effective way to manage this valuable resource. 

[Gary Furukmva 012-0.51 

1 Response: Thank you for your comment. Government and tribal fishery agencies share 

responsibility for fishery and hatchery management programs. Changes in these relationships and 

responsibilities are outside the scope of this EIS. 

B01-15 

Comment: You could provide a useful service by funding model projects of renewable energy 

sources-to replace the energy lost by meeting the water needs of the anadromous fish--i.e., biogas, 

gasohol, wind mills, rape seed oil production and building insulation. 

mi&m &Marjorie Hayes 013-021 

Response: Renewable energy projects are of interest to theNorthwest Power Planning Coundl 

and BPA but are outside the Fish and Wildlife Program and thus are beyond the scope of this EIS. 

BPA does, however, fund many types of renewable resources, including wind generation and 

building insulation. 

Appendix A/ 95 
OTHER ISSUES AND CONCERNS 

~. 

.- 

C-03 

Comment: Other alternatives to consider: Barging adults to points above hydro dams before 

I release--necessitates Ggging smolts and segregating adults like-tagged. 

. [Anonymous 044- 0 61 

Response: , This issue is outside the scope of the EIS. 

' 

c-12 

Comment: Other alternatives to consider: Net fishing in the Columbia River by commercial 

Indian fishing boats. / 

W.G. Bunger 050-021 

c 

Response: Thank you for your comment. This issue is outside the scope of the EIS. Commercial 

and treaty Indian fisheries are managed by the treaty Tribes and the Columbia River compact within the 

guidelines of the Columbia River Fish Management Plan under direction of the federal court. 1- 

C03-05 

Comment: Your environmental stu4 should have included: more focus on what happens to all 

anadromous fish once they enter the Columbia on their way tohack fiom the Pacific. An 

appropriate plan mu~t be developed for any supplementation plan to be successhl. 

pice Jennings . 01 7-01] 

R&ponse: The US. Fish id Wildlife Service (USFWS), in coordigation with other fish 

management agencies, is develop& a-Programmatic nS that tries to address part of this 

concern. ' It is entitled "Hatchery and Naturally SpawningXlmon/Steelhead Interactions in the 

Columbia River Basin" that attempts to address part. of this concern-. Other proposed and 

ongoing research is addressing the impacts of operation of the dams, predation, &sportation, 

and other'mainstem. issues. These issues, 'while very important, are outside the scope of the 

project being proposed for the Yakima.. I-, 

-_ 

-, 

D07-04 -. i 

Comment: There. should be regulated fishing-t&es dufing the smolt hns.on the small streams. 

' ' /PM-030-02] 

Respons,e: This is outside the'scope of the EIS. Wenote, however, that the small streams with 

anadromous fish populations are generally kept closed to recreational fishing until the smoIts have 

moved downstream. 

Appendix A/ 96 
 

OTHER ISSUES AND CONCERNS 

D07-05 

Comment: Harvest, consider releasing females (salmodSteelhead) and only keep males. , 

~ . PM-028-13J 

.I 

Response: Thank you for your comment. This issue is outside the scope of the EIS. 

DO7-06 

Comment: If there is a salmon fishery in the Yakima River Basin, they ought to think about 

-catch and release for wild fish. I have seen the steelhead fishery very productive in this manner. 

Cut the adipose fins on hatchery salmon and steelhead and keep the wild ones wild. Only 

hatchery fish should be allowed to be caught. 

m!-028-12] 

Comment: Recommends no fisheries between Rosa and Ellensburg (currently a catch and release 

only - barbless hooks only). 

[YpM-028-10] - 

Response: Thank you for your comment. This issue is outside the scope of the EIS. 

D07-09 

Comment: How are we going to protect returning adults from illegal harvest'? 

pic Stacostha - 015-I2] 

Response: This is the responsibility of the fishery managers, and outside the scope of this EIS. 

E-02 

Comment: The cost of the fish ladders and outmigration of sockeye salmon should be passed on 

i to the irrigators who are getting the benefit of increased water. True, these costs increase and 

they should pass them on to the consumer. The true cost of the benefits of irrigation would be 

borne by product costs rather than via taxes. 

[Anonymous 02 7-0 7J t 

Response: The Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (Act), passed by 

Congress in 1980, requires BPA to use its revenues from the sale of power from Federal hydro 

dams in the Columbia Basin to mitigate for the impactsbf those dams on salmon and steelhead. 

Thus, the cost of the Yakima Fisheries Project is being borne by Northwest electric ratepayers, 

who benefit from the abundant, low-cost power from the Federal hydrosystem. The cost of the 

YFP is not fbnded through taxes. We assume that irrigators were not included in the Act as a 

source of finding because the Act is related to hydro power impacts and mitigation. If you 

believe that irrigators should pay for sockeye enhancement in the Yakima Basin, you may want to 

pursue your ideas with your Congressional representatives. 

Appendix A/ 97 , 
OTHER ISSUES AND CONCERNS , - %. 

_- 

E-03 I 

Comment: Restrict sports anglers from- walking on salmon redds. 

I [CPM-00 I-021 .- 

Response: We agree that disturbance to salmon redds can cause damage to eggs and fry. 

* Activities such as streambed disturbance and driving vehicles into streams are regulated, but 

walking is not at this time. Probably the best deterrent available at present is public ‘education; the 

proposed .interpretive center at the Cle Elum hatchery site could be used-to help educate people I’ 

about this problem. ,I 

,- 

E-04 c 

Comm-ent: My environmental concerns about the Yakima Fisheries Project are: Timber 

companies which do not manage for long term and with watershed maintenance as a prime 

concern-: Plumb Creek. . 

[Anonymous I 044-041 

.- 

Response: Section 3.9.3 of the RDEIS-discusses land management activities that can affect 

fisheries habitat, ‘including timber management practices. These practices are addressed under the 

Timber, Fish, and Wildlife agreement between the Washington state agencies, Tribes, citizen 

groups, and the -~ timber-industry. The YFP does not address timber management issues. 

.- 

E-05 

- [CPM-0 1-04] 

Commerik Appoint qualified people to the NPPC. 

Response: BPA does not appoint people to the Council; appointments are the responsibility of 

the governors of each of the northwestern states. 

E-06 

 comment: Why don’t Native Americans have to adhere.to the same criteria as the Caucasians? 

Response: Thank you for your comment. &though the issue you have raised in your comment is 

beyond the scope of this project, we will do our best to address what we take to’be your concern. 

Native Americans have been considered citizens of the Udted States since 1924, and, therefore, 

enjoy the same, rights and-privileges .given all U.S. citizens, including the right to vote. In the 

western states, many specific rights enjoyed by Native Americans arise from the various treaties 

(contracts) between the Federal and Tribal governments. On a national basis, these particular 

rights may have become law by way. of treaties, Executive Orders, or,oiher Federal laws: 

GeneraUy, such rigits were reserved to the Tribal governments and their people, and are 

[YPM-0 I2-0 I] 

- ’./ - .. 

Appendix A/ 98 

c 
OTHER ISSUES AND CONCERNS‘ 

considered to be a fblfillment of the obligations owed Native Americans by the Federal 

government. ~ 

E-07 - 

Comment: Concerned about possible vandalism at acclimation sites - consider having volunteer 

 watchp person^^^. 

[CPM-28-01 J 

Response:- Thank you for your suggestion. We will consider this ifvandaiism becomes a 

problem. 

.. -. 

E08 

Comment: In regard to making corrhents on the DEIS document, we have a concern that may 

also be of concern to you. About 200 yards east of the site of the hatchery just west of Cle Elum, 

there are several abandoned vehicles that have been sitting close to the south side of the Yakima 

River bank on a large piece of undeveloped property. They could be leaking contaminants into 

the water table and feeding into the river. This could perhaps put the health of the salmon at risk. 

. /Kern & Kristin Ahlf 033-011 

Response: Thank you for letting us know. We have passed this information on to the 

Washington Department of Ecology, Central Regional Office, 15 W. Yakima Ave., Suite 200, 

Yakima, Washington 98902-3401 for followup. 

. 

E-09 

Comment: Would like the results of archaeological surveys on Teanaway River acclimation 

sites. 

[ypM-04I-O1] 

Response: These are included in the FEIS, Sections 3.8 and 4.1.10: 

J 

E-10 \ 

Comment: Under Section 3.9.3 Land Manahement the correct title for the Wenatchee National 

Forest should read “Wenatchee National Forest Land and Resource MANAGEMENT PLAN”., 

The same term needs to be corrected in the second sentence of the 1st paragraph. 

[Sonny 0 ‘Neal 

Forest Supervisor, Wenatchee National Forest, USDA ’ 041 -I OJ r 

-. 

Response: Thank you. These corrections have been listed hi the FEIS. 

Appendix A/ 99 
- 

OTHER ISSUES AND CONCERNS 

E-11 

Comment: The 3rd paragraph under this same section (3.9.3.1) shouldbe replaced by the 

information regarding the President’s Forest Plan. This is because PACFISH does not apply to 

. lands covered by the President’s Forest Plan. 

[Sonny 0 Weal 

- Forest Supervisor, Wenatchee National Forest, USDA 041- 121 

Response: The second paragraph ’In section- 3,.9.3.1 (there is no third paragraph) has been revised 

in the &IS as suggested. 

-. E-12 

Comment: Pg 67,4th paragraph, “Wapatus” is correctly spelled W-A-P-T-U-S. Add Naneum 

and Wilson Creeks to the list. 

Pg 72,3rd paragraph. The sentence is redundant; sedimentation, (poor) water quality, and high 

temperatures are sources of presmolt mortality. 

5th paragraph, 2nd sentence. Replace “production” with “spawning” \ 

Pg 73, last paragraph, 3rd sentence. “Eggs incubate until . . . they hatch” is redundant. 

Pg 79,‘3rd paragraph, 3rd sentence; Delete.“Aquatic”. .- <.- , 

Pg SO, 6th full paragraph, last sentence. Rep1ace“wander” with wandered,- or delete “have”. 

Pg 81, last sentence. Rep1ac.e ‘(Hunting uriit” with “hunting area”. 

Pg 82, last paragraph, 2nd sentence. Delete the “s” fi-bm “stands”. or ‘‘contains”, 

... 

,. 

Pg S3,3Td paragraph, 3rd sentence. Add North Fork Abtanum.. 

4th sentence., Delete “s” in ccoccurs’~. I 

7th sentence. Replace ‘(another” ‘with “a single individual”. 

Pg 92,2nd bullet, 4th sentence. Replace ‘:lead” with “led!. 

Pg 102,3rd full paragraph, 2nd sentence. Adjudication is a means, it is not the means by which 

any instream flow rights would be established. 

Pg 1 19, 1 st full paragraph, 2nd sentence. Replace “stray” with “straying”. 

* 

Appendix Ai’ iG0 
OTHER ISSUES AND CONCERNS 

Pg 148, Recreation Resources. Execute a block-replace command on the work.“wild” through 

the entire document. Replace with “resident”. 

Pg. 155. 5th bullet, 1st sentence. Add “floodway”. .. 

[Lynn Hatcher .- 

-- Yakama Indian Nation 049-I 6- .. 

‘Response: These corrections have been made in the Final EIS. 

~~~ ~ ~ ~~ 

\ 

E-13 - 

Comment: Would like to see fish back. 

[CPk-004-02, CPM-OO5-02] 

Comment: It would-be great to see fish returning to the Teanaway, 

. [CPM-O38-OI] 

Comment: Other comments: try to bring backthe fish. 

[Gary Lund 019-031 

Comment: I support this effort - I can remember salmon - sockeye and chinook - as-well as 

steelhead in the Yakima as late as the early 1950s. 

fl. G. Bunger 050-031 L 

Response: Thank you for your support. This is one of the objectives of the Yakima Fisheries 

Project. 

E-14 

Comment: Reclamation has strongly supported and cooperated with BPA, YIN, State of 

Washington, Northwest Power Planning Council (NPPC), irrigation entities, and others in the 

rehabilitation and enhancement of the anadromous fish resources of the Yakima River Basin. It is 

our intent to continue to pursue cooperative efforts to assure that programs such as the YFP are 

structured and implemented in a manner so that they will be a successfbl tool in the long-term 

management and enhancement of the fish resources, while maintaining compatibility with 

Reclamation’s responsibilities for the regulation of the Basin’s water resources. The YFP, as 

portrayed in the Revised DEIS, has tremendous possibilities in studying supplementation as a tool 

for rebuilding natural stocks of anadromous fish through the Columbia River Basin and enhancing 

the Yakima River spring chinook. 

[James K Cole 

Area Manager, Bureau of Reclamation, US Department of the Interior 048-021 

Response: Thank you for your support. We look forward to continuing our cooperative efforts 

with the Bureau of Reclamation. t 

Appendix A/ 101 
- 

- OTHER ISSUES AND CONCERNS 

.. - \, ~. . E-15 ' .. 

Comment: As cooperators in project planning, WDFW has long supported the broad intent of 

the Yakima Fisheries Project to investigate the strategy of supplementation-in an attempt to 

increase the natural production of anadromous salmonids, while acknowledging and addressing 

various potential risks. We look forward to assisting the BPA in developing an accurate and 

complete Final Environmental Impact Statement, 

[Connie Iten ., 

., 

SEPARVEPA Coordinator, Washinson Department of Fish and Wildlije 040a-O6]] ,I 

Response: Thank you for your support and your assistance with the Final EIS., - 

E-16 * 

Comment: The W.S.] Department of the Interior . . . does not have any comments to offer. 

[Charles S. Polityku 

Regional Environmental Officer, US. Department of the Interior 047,1] 

Response: Thank you. 

E-17 , 

Comment: I thin& the Jack Creek project is a good one and I hope you pfoceed. 

[Richard N. -Burrows ' 045-021 

-. 

Response: Thank you for your support. 

. E-18 - 

' Comment: In response to my inquiry on your behalf, I have been advised that your project has 

been foharded to the Water Appropriations Committee, with the Congressman's support. 

[Charlene Upton, Manager 

Yakima District Office: Richard Hastings, House of Representatives 026-011 

Response: Thank you. 

E-19 . 

Comment: You are doing a great job. 

[James Pratt 006-031 ., A 

Comment: I liked your study. Somewhat refreshing from other EISs I have seen. 

' [Louis K. Hurlbut 051-031 

/ --. . ~, 

Appendix AI 102. . 
OTHER ISSUES AND CONCERNS 

Comment: The RDEIS is well written and I feel that the previous comments are adequately 

addressed. - 

[JeflAyres, Sr. Geosciehtist 

CH2MHill Hmford OI0-02J 

Response: Thank you. 

i 

Appendix All03 
, 

c 
, 

Appendix B: 1995 Planning Status Report; Volume 3 . 

Yakima Spring Chinook - Salmon: Volume 5 I Yakima 

, 

. 

. 
c 

... . 
Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project 

Planning Status Report 1995 

Volume' 3: Yakima 'Spring Chinook Salmon 

May 1995 

.- r 

Prepared for 

Bonneville Power Administration 

Portland, Oregon 

- 
. 

Preface 

Preface 

This is Volume 3 of the eight-volume 1995 Planning Status Report.for the YakimaMickitat Fisheries 

Project. It contains an introduction detailing background information, project philosophy, and 

document organization, followed by specific information on Yakima spring chinook salmon. A 

general summary of project planning for all target species may be found in Volume 1. Detailed 

information for species other than Yakima spring chinook salmon may be found in he accompanying 

volumes: 

Volume 2: Yakima Fall Chinook Salmon 

Volume 4 Yakima Summer Chinook Salmon 

. Volume 5: Yakima Coho Salmon 

Volume 6: Yakima Summer Steelhead 

Volume 7: Klickitat Spring Chinook Salmon 

Volume 8: Klickitat Summer Steelhead 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 .. 

11 

t 

' Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
Summary 

summary 

The long-term YKFP goal for Yakima spring chinook salmon is to supplement and enhance 

the three identified stocks and associated habitat within the Yakima River Basin, while preservingstock characteristics, adaptability, and fitness. Yakima spring chinook salmon stocks include the 

Naches stock, upper Yakima stock, and the American River stock. The Upper Yakima stock will be 

the first to be supplemented. If supplementation is successful, the Naches stock will be included, 

followed by the American River stock. 

Essential elements of the Yakima spring chinook salmon program are captured in the 

objectives and strategies (Table S.1). More detailed statements are expected for the.next iteration of 

the Planning Status Report. 

These strategies are based on assumptions of varying degrees of uncertainty: accepted: 

resolvable, and unresolvable. Risks associated with accepted and unresolvable uncertainties are 

managed through risk-containment monitoring. Resolvable uncertainties are slated for resolution 

through uncertainty-resolution taskwork scheduled in the URP. Uncertainty resolution is an iterative 

process that is managed through the application of adaptive management. , 

Experimentation with spring chinook salmon in- the YKFP supplementation facilities will 

initially compare two experimental treatments (detailed discussion of treatments is found in Chap. 8): 

a 

a 

/ 

Treatment A is an Optimal Conventional Treatment (OCT) that incubates, rears, and 

acclimates spring chinook salmon using optimal conventional fish-culture methods derived 

from artificial propagation experiences within the Columbia River Basin. 

Treatment B is a New Innovative Treatment (NIT) that incubates, rears, and acclimates spring ~ 

chinook salmon using natural-like environments (e.g. , natural cover, substrate, in-water 

structures) to produce fish that mimic attributes of naturally produced spring chinook salmon. 

A third treatment, the Limited New Innovative Treatment (LNIT), that uses'the OCT during 

the incubation to rearing phase and uses the NIT during other portions of the acc1imatio.n to.release 

phase has been described for later implementation. -. 

-. 

Supplementation and investigation of Yakima spring chinook salmon will require permanent 

and temporary facilities/structures to implement the program that is currently considered. Facilities 

are currently being planned and include those for supplementation, broodstock collection, and 

monitoring. 

. 

Monitoring for the project will'encompass five levels: quality control,. product specification, 

research (treatment effectiveness testing, comparison of hatchery vs. natural fish, patient-template 

analysis), risk containment, and monitoring of stock status^. A detailed Monitoring Plaq for Yakima 

spring chinook is found in Chapter 9. _. 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 ... ' 111 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
., 

>,, ' 

Summary .. .. 

Objectives . 

. .. 

., 

.. 

.. 

Strateiies . 

Genetic 

Manage genetic- risks (extinction, 

loss of within- and betweenpopulation variability, and 

domestication selection) to all stocks' 

from management of the fishery. \ 

Conserve upper Yakima and Naches 

stocks of spring chinook salmon. 

_. 

Conserve the Americk'River stock 

of spring chinook salmon. 

Segregate identified stocks by selecting broodstock whose 

origin can be reasonably well determined and release 

hatchery-reared progeny only in ancestral drainages. 

Use for broodstock only fish that are not first-generation 

hatchery fish. i 

Operate the supplementation facilities using appropriate 

mating procedures, naturalized environments, and experimental numbers to reduce the possibility of extinction, loss 

of within- and between-population variability, and 

domestication selection. 

Use less than 50% of the natural-origin re@ming adult 

escapem'ent horn each stock for broodstock purposes. 

' Manage the proportionlof natural- and hatchery-origin 

adults allowed- to spawn naturally. 

Segregate identified stocks by selecting broodstock whose 

origin -can, be reasonably well determined and release 

hatchery-reared progeny only in hcestral drainages. 

Collect, identify, and segregate spring chinook salmon by 

stock through spawning, rearing, and release. 

Collect, identify, and segregate spring chinook salmon by 

stock through spawning, rearing, and release. 

Develop and apply methods to maximize the likelihood that 

only American River-origin fish enter and spawn in the 

American River. . 

.. r 

1- ,, 

.~ 

I. 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 iv -' Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
Summary 

- . Objectives Strategies 

Natural Production 

Optimize natural production of 

spring chinook salmon with respect 

to abundance and distribution. 

-- 

Optimize natural production of 

spring chinook salmon wide 

managing adverse impacts from 

interactions between and within 

species and stocks. 

Maintain the upper Yakima 

chinook natural production at a 

level that would contribute an 

annual average of 3,000 fish to the 

Yakima Basin adult returns. 

Natural escapement of Upper 

Yakima spring chinook (hatchery 

and wild) averages 2000 adult 

returns and is consistently greater 

than 1700 spawners per year. 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 

Improve the physical, biological,.and chemical environment 

on a priority basis. \ 

Use harvest controls and supplementation to optimize 

natural spawning distribution (temporal and spatial). 

Release 810 thousand acclimated smolts into the Upper 

Yakima Basin. 

Improve the physical,' biological, and chemical environment 

on a priority basis. 

Use harvest controls-and supplementation to optimize - - 

natural spawning distribution (temporal and spatial). 

Release 810 thousand acclimated smolts into the 

UpperYakima Basin. 

Improve the physical, biological, &d chemical environment 

on a priority basis. * . 

Use harvest controls and supplementation to optimize ~ 

natural spawning distribution (temporal and spatial). 

Release 810 thousand acclimated smolts into the Upper 

Yakima Basin. 

Improve the physical, biological, and chemical environment 

on a priority basis. 

Use harvest controls and supplementation to optimize 

natural spawning distribution (temporal and spatial). 

Release 810 thousand acclimated smolts into the Upper 

Yakima Basin. 

V Yakima Spring .Chinook Salmon . 
'Objectives 

Experimentation 

Learn to use supplementation as 

defined by the Regional Assessment 

of Supplementation Project (RASP , 

1991) to increase natural production 

of upper Yakima and .Naches spring 

chinook salmon and increase 

harvest opportunities. 

I 

Strategies 

.. 

. 

Conduct experiments using upper Yakima and Naches 

stocks to evaluate the risks and benefits of supplementation 

as defined by the Regiona Assessment of Supplementation 

Project (RASP 1991). 

Design and conduct experiments using upper Yakima and 

Naches stocks to compare risks and benefits of a New 

Innovative Treatment against an Optimal Conventional 

Treatment for supplementation. The New Innovative 

Treatment will use methods that result in fish which mimic 

natural fish. The Optimal Conventional Treatment will use 

methods that result in fish raised according to the state-ofthe-art hatchery definition of quality. 

- 

. Conducf an experiment using the upper Yakima stock to 

test whether it is sufficient to apply the New Innovative 

Treatment during a limited portion of the final rearing 

phase (acclimation). 

Collect Naches broodstock near or downstream from the 

spawning grounds. 

Collect upper Yakima broodstock at Roza Dam. 

Release six groups of 75,000 fish per group of the Naches 

stock into the Naches River. 

Release 18 groups of 45,000 fish per group of the upper 

Yakima stock into the upper Yakima River. 

1 Release experimental groups of fish from separate 

~ acclimation ponds connected to target streams. 

Design experiments to detect a 50% or greater difference 

(with 90% certainty) between test treatments for all 

response variables. I 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 vi Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
4 Summary 

Table S.l. Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon CIbjectives and Associated Strategies (continued) __ 

I 

- Objectives. Strategies 

- Harvest 

Increase harvest opportunities for 

all fishers to 5,400 upper Yakima 

spring chinook (hatchery and wild) 

consistent with the requirements of 

genetic, natural production, and 

I experimentation objectives. ~ 

Use selective and/or "status-index hchest" policies to 

increase harvest opportunities .for all fishers. 

I 

I 

,. 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 vii -- -Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
Glossary 

Glossary 

, This glossary contains a list of abbreviations and acronyms, technical terms, and species' 

common and scientific names used in Volume 3 of the YKFP Planning Status Report. Words that 

would be defined in a desk-size dictionary (for example, the'ColIege Edition of the American 

Heritage Dictionary) are not included. Technical terms are defined as they are used in this report and 

may differ from uses in other fields. 

Abbreviations and Acronyms. . 

BKD - 

BPA 

C o u n c i 1 

DOE 

EIS 

GHGs 

IHN 

NEPA 

* PAG 

PAR 

PSR 

RASP 

RM 

URP 

USBR 

WDFW 

YINYKFP 

bacterial kidney ,disease 

-I 

Bonneville Power Ahministration 

Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Co~nservation Planning Council 

U.S. Department of.Energy 

environmental impact statement 

Genetic-Hatchery Guidelines ' 

infectious hematopoietic necrosis 

National Environmental Policy Act 

/ 

Policy 'Advisory Group 

Project Annual Review 

Plaiming Status Report 

Regional Assessment of Supplementation Project 

river mile -..- 

Uncertainty Resolution Plan 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation e 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. -. . 

Confaerated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation 

YakimdKlickitat Fisheries Project 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 ... 

Vlll Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
Glossary 

TechnicalTerms - 

<- 

Admation stage in rearing, preceeding release, intended to condition fish to the ambient 

environment 

Ancestral drainages subbasin where parents spawned 

Electrophoretic data genetic data derived through the process of electrophoresis . 

Fry early juvenile stage in salmonids 

- 

Genetic risk risk of affecting genetic characteristics in such a. way as to decrease the long-term 

productivity of a population. It encompasses four types: 

Extinction risk of losing a population altogether. Once a population is extinct, all its genetic 

material is irretrievably lost. 

Loss OF within-population variability reduction in genetic variability @thin a population as a 

result of low, effective population size, which can lead to inbreeding depression and 

genetic drift. c 

Loss OF betweekpopulation variability reduction in gene differences between populations as a 

result of excessive - gene flow, which can lead to outbreeding depression. 

Domestication selection nonrandom change in genetic composition of a population as a result 

of anthropogenic selective forces, intended or not. The two main sources of 

domestication selection imposed by hatcheries are nonrandom selection of broodstock and 

the selective force of the hatchery. , 

Jacks male fish that are sexually mature at an early age, 1 year earlier than the earliest 

maturing females 

Juvenile sexually immature fsh -~ 

Iimited New Innovative 'hatmerit 0 a treatment applied to spring chinook salmon that 

uses the OCT during the-incubation to rearing phase and uses the NIT during other 

portions of the acclimation to rel&e phase. $ 

Lacally adapted stock a stock or population of fish that, although perhaps not native to the 

stream, is capable of sustaining some level of natural or artificial production , 

Natural production spawning and rearing of wild or non-first-generation hatchery -fish in the 

environment outside the hatchery. 

New Innovative Trea@nent 0 a treatment that incubates, rears, and acclimates spring I 

chinook 

water structure) to produce fish that mimic attributes of naturally produced spring 

chinook salmon. 

salmon using natural-like environments (e.g., natural cover, substrate, in- 

- 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 ix Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
.. - Glossary 

Nontarget species species not intended for supplementation . .. 

Optimal Conventional Treatment (oer) A treatment that incubates, rears, and acclimates 

salmonids using optimal conventional fish-culture methods derived from artificial 

propagation experiences within the Columbia River Basin. 

Presrnolt fish that have not begun the physiological process of readying themselves for saltwater 

&&erminal harvest fish caught along their migration route before reaching their subbasin of 

. entry 

origin, compared with terminal harvest which occurs in that subbasin 

Race a subspecific designation indicating the season during which adult salmonids return to the . 

subbasin (e.g., spring, summer, fall chinook salmon) 

Raceways vessels designed to rear fish , 

.. 

Redd a number of adjacent nests (streambed depressions) into which salmon eggs are deposited 

by one female 

Run(s) used interchangeably with "race" in this report 

Salmonids trout, salmon, and other fish of the family Salmonidae 

Smolt anadromous salmonid thaf is physiologically fit for saltwater entry and is migrating 

seaward - 

Srnolkadult survival ability of a fish to survive from the time it leaves the subbasin as a smolt 

until the time-it returns to the subbasin as an adult 

Smoltamolt survival ability of a fish to survive from the time it becomes a smolt until the time 

it leaves the subbasin 

Srnoltification process by which an anadromous fish becomes physiologically fit for saltwater 

entry < 

"Status-indw harvest" harvest policy that determines the rate of harvest on the basis of the 

. 

- 

strength of all run components c 

- Steelhead sea-run rainbow trout 

Stock a population of salmonids managed as a unit for supplementation purposes 

Supplementation artificial propagation in an attempt to maintain or increase natural production 

while maintaining long-term fitness of the target population and while keeping ecological 

and genetic impacts on nontarget species within specified limits / i 

Target species a species intended for supplementation or production 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 - x- Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
Glossary - 

Wild fsh indigenous fish that have never been in a hatchery system 

Common and Scientific Names 

Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch 

Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 

Rainbow trout/Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss 

.. 

\- 

.I 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 xi Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
,. 

Glossary , ' 

.- 

'. 

, 

. I 

I 

, 

.. .. .' 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 , ' xii Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
Glossary . 

. 

Contents 

Preface .................... I ....................................... ii 

Summary ............. : ............................................. iii 

Glossary .................... i ...................................... viii 

Abbreviations and Acronyms ........................... : ............. viii 

Technical Terms ........... ....... .- .................................. ix 

Common and Scientific Names .......................................... xi 

1 . 0 

2.0 

3.0 

4.0 

5.0 

Introduction. ............................. .................. Adaptive Management Process ......................................... Document Overview ....... .. ..................................... 

Background .. 1 ......................................... : 

Causes for Decline .................................. : ............. Present Stock Status : ..... Constraints to Action .............................. : .............. 

...... 

...................................... 

Project Objectives .................................................. Genetic Objectives ..... : ........................................ Natural Production Objectives ................. ...................... Experimentation Objectives ............................................ Harvest Objectives ........................................ : ...... 

StrategieS ........ -; ...... : .... :I ................................. Strategies to Meet Genetic @bjectives .................................. Strategies to Meet Naturd Production Objectives 

Strategies to Meet Experimentation Objectives ............................ Strategies to Meet H&est Objectives ........................ ...... ; .. 

........................... 

Management of Assumptions and Uncertainties ........................... Management of Accepted Assumptions .... 1 ........................... Management of Critically Uncertain Assumptions .................... : ..... Unresolvable Uncertainties ....................................... Resolvable Uncertainties ..................................... 

6.0 . Experimental Design ........................................... Replicates. Treatments. and Fish Per Pond ...................... ........ Treatment Composition ...................................... : ..... Experimental Design ......................... : ... .' .............. Guidelines for Adapting the Designs ............. . : ...................... Comparison of Candidate Experimental Designs 

Experimental Layout of Raceways and Incubation Facilities .................... ........................... 

Planning Status Report. May 1995 ... XI11 

1.1 

1.1 

1.3 

2.1 

2.1 

2.1 

2.3 

3.1 . 

3.1 

3.1 

3.1 

3.2 

4.1 

4.1 

4.1 

4.2 

4.2 

5.1 

-5.2 

5.2 

5.2 

5.2 

6.1 

6.1 

6.2. 

6.3 

6.6 

6.7 

6.9 

Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 

......... ~ ....... -. . -.. ... _ ..... 
Contents x. 

.f 

7.0 . .RiskAnalysis ............. ; ......... .-.-. .-. . ;. .............. i' ~ 7.1 

.. 

Introduction ... : .. : ............................... : ............ 7.1 .. 

Objectives, Strategies, and Assumptions .................. ; ............... 7.1 

Risk Analysis' ............................ ....................... 7.5 

Monitoring Plan Input ...... : ... .' ................................. .; 7.8 

suvary .. .-................................................... 7.10 

8.0 Facilities and Operations ........................................... 8.1 

Production,Objectives .............................................. 1- 8.6, 

Standard Treatment Methods ........................... :........ , ...... Experimental Treatments for Fish-Rearing .............................. 

9.0 Monitoring.. ......... '. ...... ;.. ................... : ............ 9.1 . 

Quality, Control .................................................. 9.1 

Product Specification ................................................ 9:2 

Research .................. ...,. ................... :. ...... :. ..... ,9.3 

Stock,Status Monitoring. : .......... ............................ t ... 9.7 

..... ............................................. .. Uncertainty : 7.3 __ ,- 

c 

Treatment Definitions and Descriptions i. ................................ 8.2 . .................................................... 8.2 Introduction 

8.6 

8.15 

Standard Release Treatments ...... : ............ : .................... 8.28 -. 

Risk Containment ............................... ; ................. 9.5 

10.0 References .................................................... 10.1 

11.0. Amendments ......................... : ....................... 11.1' 

\. 

- 

-~ 

I. 

I- * 

Planning Status Report, -May 1995 - xiv , Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 

1. 

.i 

.- 

I-___- - -- 
Figures and Tables 

1.1 

2.1 

5.1 ' 

7.1 

7.2 

7.3 

s.l 

5.1 

5.2 

5.3 

5.4 

-6.1 

6.2 

6.3 

6.4 

6.5 

6.6 

6.7 

6.8 

6.9 

Planning Cycle for the YakimdKlickitat Fisheries Project ..................... 1.2 

Historical Distrihution of Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon . '. .................. 2.2 

Resolution of Uncertainties Within the Y*ima/Klickitat Fisheries Project ..... : .. I .. 5.1 

Structure of uncertainty and risk identification within the project management framework 7.2 

- 

Structure of uncertainty resolution within the project management framework ......... 7.4 

Structure of risk analysis within the project management framework ............... 7.6 

Objectives and Associated Strategies for Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon ........... iv 

Accepted Assumptions Related to Management of Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon .... 5.3 

Unresolvable Uncertainties Related to Management of Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon . . 5.4 

Resolvable Uncertainties Related to Management of Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon . 

that Can be Studied in the Near Term ................................ 5.5 

Resolvable Uncertainties Related to Management of Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 

that Can be addressed in Long-term YKFP Studies ........................ 5.8 

Treatments Composition for Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon .................. 6.2 

Expected Age Composition of Adult Returns ............................ 6.3 

Common Treatments Linking Experimental Sets ........................... 6.4 

Replicates and Treatments of Design 1 for Yakima Spring Chinook .............. 6.5 

Replicates and Treatments of Design 2 for Yakima Spring Chinook .............. 6.5 

Guidelines for Adapting Design 1 to Varying Broodstock Numbers .............. 6.6 

Guidelines for Adapting Design 2 to Varying Broodstock Numbers .............. 6.6 

Sampling Rates Require4 to Achieve Experimental Objectives Using Design 1 ........ 6.7 

Sampling Rates Required to Achieve Experimental Objectives Using Design 2 ....... 6.8 

< 

Planning Status Report. .. May 1995 . . xv 

....... .- . ........... ._ ..... 

Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 

..... ... -~ . 
Figures and Tables , I’ 

6.10 Comparison of the Candidate Experimental Designs ........................ 6.8 

Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon ; .............. 7.12 

7.1 ~ Complete List-of Measures to Manage Risk Associated with Supplementation of .Upper ...................... *- 

8: 1- Target Biological Attributes for Upper Yakima Spring Chinook I . :. ... : ........... 8.3 

. 8.2 . Production Requirements for Upper Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon, Research- ....... 8.6 ., 

8.3 . 

8.4 

8.5 

Egg and Broodstock Requirements for Upper Yakima- Spring Chinook ............ 8.9 

Effluent Limitations - Draft NPDES permit ........ : ....... :: ............ : ... 8.19 

. Treatment System Operational Criteria - Draft NPDES permit .............. : ..... 8.19 

* - 

9.1 

9.2 

9.3 

Categories of Observations Needed to ‘Monitor Product Compliance .............. 

Response Variables to-Test Hypotheses ................................. 9.5 

9.2 

Summary of Observations Needed to Compute Response Variables ... ’;-. ......... : 9.7 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 xvi Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 

. -. .... -~ ........ 
. Introduction 

1.0 Introduction c 

The YakimdKlickitat Fisheries Projeit (YKFP) is a supplementation project designed to use 

artificial propagation in an attempt to maintain or increase natural production while maintaining longterm fitness of the target population and keeping ecological and genetic impacts to nontarget species 

within specified limits. The project is also designed to provide harvest opportunities. The planning, 

implementation, and evaluation of this project are guided by the framework developed by the 

Regional Assessment of Supplementation Project (RASP 1991). The purposes of the YKFP are to: 

enhance-existing stocks of anadromous fish in the Yakima and Klickitat river basins while 

maintaining genetic resources, 

' reintroduce stocks formerly present in the basins, and 

apply ,knowledge.gained through supplementation throughout ,the Columbia Riv.er Basin, ~ 

all consistent with the fish and wildlife program of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power and 

Conservation Planning Council (BPA 1992). 

Essentially, the YKFP is an experiment designed to resolve uncertainties (through uncertaintyresolution taskwork) associated with supplementation at the same time that it accomplishes 

construction and implementation milestones. As a "laboratory," the YKFP would help determine the 

role of supplementation in increasing natural production of anadromous salmonids. 

Adaptive Management Process . 

The YKFP endorses an adaptive management policy, which expetts objectives and strategies 

to change as new information becomes available (explained by Walters 1986). The PSR is .an integral 

part of the YKFP adaptive management process, which revolves around three annual milestones: 

completion of an updated long-range plan, the Planning Status Report (PSR), I 

by February of each year 

completion of an updated long-range plan to resolve uncertainties, the Uncertainty 

Resolution Plan (URP), by April of each year 

peer review of work completed and in progress, the Project Annual Review (PAR), 

The PSR is intended to contain a complete and precise description of the YKFP long-range 

during November of each year. 

plan. It identifies objectives, strategies, and assumptions with justifications documented and changes 

and modifications recorded. Objectives and strategies are changed through an amendment process, 

typically in response to. new information about the validity of assumptions. 0 

Underlying assumptions form the rationale for the choice of strategies. The PSR identifies j. 

those assumptions that are accepted on the basis of their validity and applicability as established in the 

scientific literature or through peer-reviewed studies within the YKFP or elsewhere. Assumptions 

that are uncertain (those that lack documented justification) are classified as either resolvable or 

3 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 1.1 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
-. 

.. 

.- Introduction 

- 

.' unresolvab1e.- Those that are resolvable are schehed for r&olution through-the URP. 

The description of objectives and strategies is iterative in the sense that, as the project moves 

forwalrd and as different phases of the-project approach implementation, more detail is added. 

Strategies intended for implementation during the coming year are described in more detail than those 

planned for later implementation. Future strategies, however, are of detail sufficient to provide clear 

and focused direction for project planning and uncertainty resolution. Consequently, the level of 

detail varies throughout the PSR. 

Results of uncertainty-resolutionwork are reported in memoranda and annual project, completion and progress reports, all of which are summarized in the PAR. All underlying assumptions in 

the PSR are then reviewed and reclassified, and new assumptions added. Implications of these 

revisions on the strategies and objectives are assessed, along with risks and benefits, and amendment 

proposals submitted for policy review. . 

While justification for objective and strategy modifications may include technical judgment 

and policy preference, all changes in uncertainty levels of assumptions must be based on scientific 

evidence, hence the importance of peer review. Conclusions from the PAR about the progress of 

ongoing work and the revised uncertainties from the PSR are then used to amend the URP, and thus 

the adaptive management cycle continues (Figure 1.1). 

In planning for the following year, strategies (implementation or experimental) are considered 

on the basis of the validity of their underlying assumptions (Le., likelihood of meeting the stated 

objectives). Strategies are implemented only when the risk of failure is within acceptable limits. This 

risk is managed and reduced over time through implementation of the URP (i.e., the prior removal of 

uncertainties) and the Monitoring Plan (Chapter 9). In other words, risk of strategy failure (Le., 

where objectives cannot be met and/or strategik cannot be implemented correctly) can be reduced 

through (1) pre-implementation research or (2) risk-containment monitoring during implementation. 

The "Risk Analysis" (Chapter 7) is intended to aid in the selection of strategies for implementation. 

I 

6. Figure l..l. Planning Cycle for the Y&a/Kliclcitat Fisheries Project 

(k ' 

Planning 'Status Report, May ,1995 

-_ 

1.2- - . -Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 

,- 

I. 
Introduction 

Document Overview 

In this volume, the PSR discusses the status of project planning for Yakima spring chinook 

salmon. The specific plans: 

1 

2 

3 

present background information, 

describe objectives, Le., statements of what is to be accomplished in the genetics, natural . 

production, experimentation, and harvest components, 

delineate strategies that should accomplish these objectives &d the assumptions on which 

these strategies are based, 

outline how uncertainties inherent in each assumption will be managed, 

explain experiments designed to test supplementation for a specific stock, 

present the risk analysis conducted to define management implications, 

describe facilities for broodstock collection, hatcheries, rearing, and acclimation, 

v 

8 

9 

, discuss monitoring needs, and 

cite supporting statements and documents. 

P 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 

- I' 

1.3 

- 

Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
Introduction 

. 

. 

-. 

c 

n 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
Background 

2.0 Background . . 

The historical spawning areas for Yakima spring chinook salmon include the Yakima River 

upstream of the city of Ellensburg, the Naches River, the Cle Elum River (upstream and downstream 

of Lake Cle Elum), the Tieton River (north and south forks), Rattlesnake 'Creek, and the Bumping,' 

Little Naches, and American rivers (Figure 2.1). Other areas that may have been important are the 

Cooper, Wapatus, and Teanaway rivers and Taneum, Swauk, Manastash, Wenas, Cowiche, Ahtanum 

(plus tributaries), and Logy creeks. 

Run sizes for spring chinook salmon were 12,000 to 15,000 fish before 1960 but less than 

3500 in 1984. * The biological characteristics of native spring chinook salmon populations in the 

Yakima River Basin are thought to have changed during the past few decades. 

'Causes for Decline 

About 90% of the Yakima spring chinook salmon fishery was-lost between 1850 and 1900. 

The in-basin causes of this decline include (Davidson 1953): 

1 

2 

3 

4' 

5 

6 

construction of unladdered dams (especially Pomona Dam around 1880 and Sunnyside Dam in 

1893) that completely blocked adult migration during part of their-run 

entrainment of fry and smolts in unscreened diversion canals (few of which were screened 

before 1934) - 

periodic destruction of spawning beds by driving logs downriver odarge volumes of water' 

suddenly released from dams, as evidenced at Pomona 

indiscriminate and' intensive local fishing 

elimination of braids and natural floodways by diking and channelization projects 

drastic reduction in the number of beavers and beaver ponds, and the resultant loss of natural 

water storage and rearing habitat. 

Yakima River Basin escapements were reduced to perilously low levels; e.g., the estimated 

. 

- 

mean escapement in the decade of the 1970s was 384 fish.- 

, 

Present Stock Status 

.Spring chinook salmon currently spawn in the Yakima River upstream of the city of 

Ellensburg and downstream of Roza Dam; in the Cle Elum River downstream of Lake Cle Elum; and 

in the mainstem Naches, Bumping, Little Naches, and American rivers and Rattlesnake Creek. 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 2.1 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
Background 

Figure 2.1. Historical Distribution of Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 

Plhing Status Report, May 1995 

/ 

Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
- 

Backgrohd 

Adult spring chinook salmon begin migrating upstream past Prosser Dam in late April and 

have completed passage by late July. American River populations of Spring chinook salmon begin 

spawning in the American River in late July and the other Naches populations about 4 weeks later. 

Upper Yakima River populations spawn in early- to midSeptember and usually peak by lateSeptember. American River and Naches populations reach peak spawning by mid-August and midSeptember, respectively. All spring chinook salmon populations have completed spawning by midOctober. c 

Yakima River spring chinook salmon have the most thoroughly examined stock structure of 

the YKFP target species. Major spawning aggregations have been genetically sampled. To a'great 

extent the current stock structure agrees with that summarized in Howell et al. (1985). Based on 

differences in electrophoretic data, age composition, &d observations of spawning timing between 

1989 and 1990, the Naches system and upper Yakima River support clearly separate stocks (Busack 

et al. 1991; Fast 1990). The most significant differences between recent findings and previous 

descriptions is that American River stock is apparently not as distinct as once thought and the lower 

Naches stock is not genetically intermediate between the American River and upper Yakima stocks. 

In fact, electrophoretic data show the 1989 and 1990 American River samples differ significantly, and 

the 1990 American River samples are more similar to the Bumping River samples than 1989 

American River samples, indicating the& may be gene flow between the Bumping and American river 

populations in some years. 

Constraints to Action -, 

Spring chinook salmon production-in the Yakima River Basin is limited by suboptimal 

instream flows, passage around irrigation diversions, degraded riparian and instream habitat, and 

excessive temperatures. Low instream flows while reservoirs are refilled (approximately mid-October 

through early July) may be the single greatest constraint to natural production of spring chinook 

salmon in the YakimaRiver. 

.. 

.. 

/ 

Planning Status Report, May '1995 2.3 

. 

Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
. Background . .- 

t 

c 

<- 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 - - I. 

2.4 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
Project Objectives 

a 

3.0 Project Objectives 

' The YKFP objectives for Yakima-spring chinook salmon are statements-of planned 

accomplishments relative to genetics, natural production, experimentation, and harvest. 

Genetic Objectives 

1 Manage genetic risks (extinction, loss of within- and'between-population variability, and 

domestication selection) to all stocks'from management of the fishery. 

2 Conserve upper Yakima and.Naches stocks of spring chinook salmon. 

3 Conserve American River stock of spring chinook.salmon. ' - 

Natural Production Objectives, 

The Preliminary Design Report @PA 1990) states a quantified natural production objective is 

to "increase the adult production potential by about 65% to 70% above the current level." The 

current natural production objectives for Yakima spring chinook salmon are to: 

1 Optimize natural production of .spring chinook salmon with respect to abundance and 

distribution. 

2 Optimize natural production of spring chinook salmon while managing adverse impacts from 

interactions between and within species and stocks. 

3 Maintain upper Yakima spring chinook natural production at a level that would contribute an 

annaul average of 3,000 fish to the Yakima Basin adult return. - 

4 Maintain natural escapement of upper Yakima spring chinook (hatchery and wild) at an 

average of 2000 adult returns and consistently greater than 1700 spawners per year. 

Experimentation Objectives 

1 Learn to use supplementation as defined by the Regional Assessment of Supplementation 

Project (RASP 1991) to increase natural production of upper Yakima and Naches spring 

chinook salmon and increase harvest opportunities. 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 3.1 Yakima Spring Chinook'Salmon 
Project Objectives 

Harvest Objedives 

1 

.. 

.. I 

Increase harvest opportunities for all fishers to 5400 upper Yakima spring chinook (hatchery 

and wild) consistent with the requirements of genetic, natural production, and experimentation 

objectives. 

I' 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 , ,. 3.2 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon , 
Strategies 

4.0 Strategies 

ne YKFP strategies are statements of action$) intended to achievespecific objectives. These 

strategies have been developed on the basis of current knowledge; they are provided in detail 

sufficient to allow the planning of facilities, operations, and experimentation to proceed in a focused 

manner. Planned actions relate to genetics, natural production, experimentation, and harvest 

components. Each strategy relates to at least one project objective. 

Strategies to Meet- Genetic Objectives 

The genetic strategies listed below will be further. detailed as the Genetic Hatchery Guidelines 

(GHGs) are prepared (the first draft was scheduled for completion by spring 1993). 

2 

1 Collect, identify, and segregate spring chinook salmon by stock through spawning, rearing, 

and release. This strategy relates to Genetic Objectives 2 and 3. 

Segregate identified stocks by selecting broodstock whose origin can be reasonably well 

determined and release hatchery-reared progeny only in ancestral drainages. This strategy 

relates to Genetic Objectives 1 and 2. 

Use for broodstock only fish that are not first-generation hatchery fish. This strategy relates 

to Genetic Objective 1. 

3 

4 

6 

' 7. 

Operate the supplementation facilities using appropriate mating procedures, naturalized 

environments, and experimental numbers to reduce the possibility of extinction, loss of 

within-population variability, loss of between-population variability, and domestication 

selection. This strategy relates to Genetic Objective 1. 

Develop and apply methods to maximize the likelihood that only American River-origin fish 

enter and spawn in the American River. This strategy relates to Genetic Objective 3. 

Use less than 50% of the natural-origin returning adult escapement from each stock for 

broodstock purposes. This strategy relates to Genetic Objective 1. 

Manage the proportionof natural- and hatchery- origin adults allowed to spawn naturally. 

This strategy relates to genetic objective 1. 

Strategies to Meet Natural Production Objectives 

1 Improve the physical, biological, and chemical environment on a priority basis. This strategy 

relates to Natural Production Objectives 1 through 4. 

Use harvest controls and supplementation to optimize natural spawning distribution (temporal 

and spatial). This strategy relates to Natural Production Objectives 1 through 4. 

'. 

2 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 4.1 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 

. 
Strategies 

3 Release 810 thousand acclimated smolts into the Upper Yakima Basin. This strategy relates 

to Natural Production Objectives 1 through 4. 

- 

Strategies to Meet Experimentation Objectives 

1 

2 

.3 

These experimentation strategies all relate to Experimentation Objective 1: 

Conduct experiments using upper Yakima and Naches stocks to evaluate the risks and benefits 

of supplementation as defined by the Regional Assessment of Supplementation'Project (RASP 

1991). 

Design and conduct experiments using upper Yakima and Naches stocks to compare risks and 

benefits of. a New Innovative Treatment (NIT) against an Optimal Conventional Treatment 

(OCT) for supplementation. The New 1-nnovative Treatment will use methods that result in 

fish which mimic natural fish. The Optimal Conventional Treatment will use methods that 

result in fish raisd according to the state-of-the-art hatchery definition of quality. 

Conduct an experiment using the upper Yakima stock to test whether it is sufficient to apply 

the Limited New Innovative Treatment &NIT) during a portionof the final rearing phase 

(acclimation). 

Collect Naches broodstock near or downstream from the spawning grounds. 

Collect upper Yakima broodstock at Roza Dam. 

Release six groups of 75,000 fish per group of the Naches stock into the Naches River. 

Release 18 groups of 45,000 fish per group of.the upper Yakima stock into the upper Yakima 

River. - 

Release experimental groups of fish from separate acclimation ponds connected to target 

streams. 

Design experiments to detect a 50% or greater difference (with 90% certainty) between test 

treatments for all response variables. I 

Strategies to Meet Harvest Objectives 

1 Use selective and/or "status-index harvest" policies to increase harvest opportunities for all 

fishers. This strategy relates to Harvest Objective 1. 

Planning Status Report, .May 1995 

, 

4.2 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
Management of Assumptions and Uncertainties 

5.0 Management of Assumptions and Uncertainties 

The project assumptions are intended to be complete sets of significant suppositions or 

statements of conditions or perceptions that affect the choice of strategies and how these strategies are 

to achieve specified objectives. Assumptions relate to the genetics, natural production, 

experimentation, and harvest components. Each assumption relates to at least one strategy.. 

A 

Any statement of an assumption includes some degree of uncertainty; e.g., a strategy may not 

be definitely achievable within a planned time-frame, or for a given quantity or frequency of . 

occurrence. The implication of errors in these assumptions is important. The wrong strategy could 

result in serious damage to a species/stock in the Basin or the fruitless expenditure of monies. To ' 

successfully implement the sbjective-related strategies stated in the previous section, the uncertainties 

must be resolved and all associated risk.must be monitored. Within the context of the YKFP, 

uncertainty resolution is achieved through the application of adaptive management (Walters 1986) 

wherein planning,.implementation, and evaluation are steps in an iterative process that, over time, 

reduces uncertainties and risk. The manner in which an uncertainty is r&lved depends on its 

particular place in the uncertainty-resolution structure (Figure 5.1). 

- 

Rgure 5.1. Resolution of Uncertainties Within the Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project 

- 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 5.1 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
/ Management of Assumptions ,and Uncertainties 

Management of Accepted Assumptitiom 

Some assumptions related to the'management of Yakima spring chinook salmon are accepted 

on the basis of existing knowledge Ad information, pending documentation (Table 5.1). Each of 

these is deemed unlikely to be wrong and/or to have more than a minor impact on the success of 

strategies selected to meet stated objectives. The accumulated risk associated with potential errors in 

, these assumptions is managed through monitoring. New information gradually allows resolvable 

uncertainties to be moved into this accepted category. 'he assumptions in- Table 5,l are currently 

lacking complete documentation. 

* 

,I 

I 

Management of critidy unce& ~ssumptiom 

Unresolvable Unce&ties 

Some critical uncertainties are not expected to be resolved as part of the YKFP supplementation experiment or-other research ,efforts (Table 5.2). For most of them, res91ution is not feasible, 

and 21 extend beyond the scope of the YKFP. The risks that any of these assumptions is wrong are 

managed through monitoring (Figure 5.1). While these uncertainties cannot be resolved, the health 

and. condition of the fish population can be monitored, eig., for signs of unexpected change. On the 

b&is of new information and other evidence, strategiek can.be reevaluated. , - ,I 

Resolvable Uncertainties 

Four methods can be used to manage those criticd uncertainties that can be resolved: by 

(1) reviewing the scientific literature to determine how others have resolved or managed them; . 

(2) conducting small-scale studies (Le., short-term laboratory or field experiments), feasibility studies, 

and baseline studies; (3) learning from studies or experiments conducted outside of the YKFP; and (4) 

using large-scale multitreatment studies for which th~ YKFP is designed. 

Uncertainties that may be resolved (Table 5.3) are a high priority in the near term, because 

they affect the ability to implement the YKFP. Thus, careful assignment of priority and execution of 

work are critical to resolving the short-term questions. Plans for literature searches, small-scale 

studies, and review of studies done outside the Yakima River Basin are the thrust of the Uncertainty 

Resolution Plan. Table 5.4 lists the assumptions that will be resolved by specific experiments and 

hypotheses to be tested once the YKFP is operational. 

It is important to note that large-scale studies constitute the main experimental purpose of the 

YKkP, which offers a unique opportunity to test hypotheses intractable to small-scale studies. In the 

long-term, the program and its facilitiG Ge designed to meet these needs. While the outcomes of 

small-scale studies can modify details of the large-scale experiments (e.g., incubation facilities design, 

rearing container design, acclimation pond design, feeding methods, and fish marking methods), these 

short-term results are not expected to fundamentally "change the experiment, but-rather help ensure its 

success. The purpose of small-scale studies and facility planning is to "set up" the large-scale 

experiments. Consequently, it is important to define the experimental design for spring chinook 

salmon in detail sufficient to make the planning fclclised and efficient. 

' 

- 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 5.2 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
Management of Assumptions and Uncertainties 

Table 5.1. 

Accepted Assumptions Related to Management of Yakima Spring Chinook 

Assumption 

180 Only releases prescribed by the YKF'P will occur. 

339 Up to 50% of the adults returning to the upper Yakima 

and Naches can be taken initially for brookstock without 

significantly impacting the effective size of the population. 

I81 Habitat either is available or can be made available in 

the Yakima River Basin that can be effectively utilized by 

exDanded populations of spring chinook salmon. 

182 Smo1t:adult mortality related to mainstem passage, preterminal harvest, and ocean conditions willbe less than or 

equal to those at present, and are understood well enough to 

refine strategies. 

183 The natural production potential in the Yakima River 

Basin is knoHin for spring chinook salmon. 

184 Supplementation can be managed to avoid unintended 

ecological effects. \ 

326 Baseline spawning escapements, representing current 

conditions, for the Upper Yakima, Naches, and American 

spring chinook stocks are 2260,830, and.470 Gacks not 

included). 

329 Yakima spring chinook will be mamq$xl to achieve the 

following on a priority basis: (1) minimum natural spawning 

escapements, (2) supplementation broodstock, and (3) harvest 

and spawning escapements above the minimum. 

331 Fisheries can and will be managed to achieve stock: 

specific spawning escapement, broodstock, and harvest 

objectives in accordance with assumed priorities. 

332 Selective harvest of hatchery ffih can and will occur to 

achieve natural spawning and harvest objectives. 

338 Prespawning and egg-to-smolt survival in the artificial 

environment will exceed 80% and 75%, respectively. 

- 

StlategyReIationship 

Genetic Strategies 1 & 2 

Genetic Strategies 1 & 2 

Natural Production Strategy 1 

Natural Production Strategies 1 & 2 

Natural Production Strategies 1 & 2 

Natural Production Strategies 1 & 2 

Natural Production Shtegies 2 & 3 

Natural Production Strategies 2 & 3 

Experimental Strategy'7 

Natural Production Strategies 2 & 3 

Harvest strategy 1 

Natural Production Strategies 2 & 3 

GeneticStrategy2 . 

Natural Production Strategy 3 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 5.3 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 

4 
Management of Assumptions and Uncertainties 

~ 

AssunptiOn 

I85 Supplementation is an appropriate strategy because . 

natural production is limited by smo1t:smolt and smolkadult 

survival. 

. SfrategyRelafionship 

186 Release numbers and locations in Experimentation 

Strategies 6 and 7 are consistent with natural production 

objectives. 

187 Experimentation fish can be released in a manner that 

does not confound the results of the experiment comparing 

hatchery and rearing methods. 

188 All harvesting of Yakima spring chinook salmon can be 

monitored through catch sampling and reporting. 

189 "Status-ind& harvest" policy is described in sufficient 

detail to allow effective implementation. 

- 

194 The-impact of sports fshery on spring chinook salmon 

smolts can be evaluated by stock and/or release group. 

~ 

190 Fisheries in the basin can be managed and regulated, 

and laws enforced to ensure implementation of the harvest 

strategy. 

191 Spawner recruit or stock productivity relationships can 

be developed to establish appropriate harvest rates' for each 

stock component. 

1 

Experimentation Strategies 1,2, & 8 

Natural Production Strategy 1 

Experimentation Strategies 1 & 2 

Experimental Strategies 2 & 3 ' 

Harvest Strategy 1 

Harvest Strate 1 

,. 

Harvest Strategy -1 

Table 5.2. 

Uklvable Uncertahties Related to Management of Yakima Spring Chinook 

-, 

192 Upper Yakiina, Naches, and American River stocks are 

the only remaining historical populations; they are all of 

locally adapted origin and/or locally adapted. 

193 Selecting broodstock from naturdly produced returns 

will reduce the possibility of extinction, loss of withinpopulation variability, loss of behveen-population variability, 

and domestication selection. 

Genetic Strategies 2 & 3 

I 

Genetic Str$tegies 1 & 2 

- _- 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 5.4 Yawma Spring Chinook Salmon 
Management of Assumptions and Uncertainties 

Assumption 

3 Facilities and operations afford the ability' to segregate by 

stock from collection through release. 

4 First-geneiation and other-generation fish can be identified-by 

stock. 

Table 5.3. 

That Can Be Studied in the Near Tenn 

hlvable U ' "es Related to Management of Yakima Spring Chinook 

StratPgyRelationShip 

Genetic Strategies 1& 2 

\ 

Genetic Strategies 1 & 2 

I Naches stock (including Bumping River) can be identified, 

described, and collected. ' 

2 Upper Yakima stock can be identified, desciibed, and 

collected. 

' Genetic Strategies 1 & 2 

GineticStrategies 1 & 2 

5 The American River,stock can be effectively identifiedl 

described. 

6 American River stock can be identified and selected for 

natural spawning in the American River without handling stocks. 

7 A broodstock collection protocol can be developed to accomplish collection consistent with minimum genetic risks. 

Genetic Strategy 5. 

'Genetic Strategy 5 

Genetic strategy 4 a 

- 

I 

8 GHGs can be developed that meet Genetic Objective 4. Genetic Strategy 4 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 ' 5.5 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 

\ 

9 Supplementation facilities can be designed and operated to 

reduce the possibility of extinction, loss of within-population 

variability, loss of between-population variability, and 

domestication selection. 

- 

-10 Effective population size can be managed to achieve optimal 

natural and supplemented populations. ' 

I2 A genetic monitoring program can be designed and implemented that will have sufficient power to detect specified levels of 

impact. 

12 Nontarget species and their ecological relationship to spring 

chinook salmon can be effectively identified and described. 

13 Physical, biological, and chemikl limiting factors are well 

improved effectively (in terms of consequences and costs). 

, 

defined for all life stages so that the environment can be 

Genetic Strategy 4 

Genetic Strategy 4 

All Genetic Strategies 

Natural Production Strategy 1 

Natural Production Strategies 

1&2 
Management of Assumptions and Uncertainties - 

Table 5.3. Resolvable UnCertanities Related to Managemenl of Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon That 

Can Be Studied in the Near Term (continued) 

,I Asslnnption 

14 Upstream and downstream passee problems in the Yakima 

River Basin can be identified, and natural production can be 

oDtimized accordinglv. 

15 There are three distinct stocks of spring chinook salmon in 

the basin; each may have distinct life history characteristics and 

habitat requirements. 

16 A natural production monitoring prograni can be designed 

and implemented that will have sufficient power to detect 

sDecified levels of imnact. 

17 Methods for evaluating risks and.benefits are available. I 

18 Experimental designs &e available for evaluating risks - and 

benefits. . 

19 Genetic guideline for raising fish under both the New 

Innovative Treatment and Optimal Conventional Treatment are 

the same. 

20 Hatchery methods to raise natural fish from fertilization to 

release are known for the New Innovative Treatment. 

325 A New Innovative Treatment can be defined. 

21 An Optimal Conventional Treatment can be defined. 

22 The appropriate response variables for long-term fitnesi are 

known. 

23 The appropriate response variable for post-release survival is 

survival over all return ages to Presser Dam. 

24 The appropriate response variables for reproductive success 

are known, and methods for comparing reproductive success 

among treatments are known. 

25 The appropriate response variables for ecological interaction 

are knowh. 

. 

26 Benign marks can be applied to hatchery-reared juveniles 

and accuratelv read on returniw adults. 

~ 

27 Key attributes that characterize natural fish are known, 

including some that can be observed in smolts at the time of 

release. - 

L 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 5.6 

Sfrategy Relationship 

Natural Production Strategies 

1&2 

Natural Production Strategies 

1 & 2; Genetic Strategy 6 

All Natural Production Strategies 

Experimentation Strategies 1 & 2 

Experimentation Strategies 1 & 2 

ExpeAentation Strategies 2 & 3 I_ 

Experimentation Strategies 1,2, 

and3 , 

Experimentation Strategies 2 & 3 

Experimentation Strategies 2 & 3 

Experimentation Strategies 1,2, 

&3 

Experimentation Strategies 1,2, 

&3 

Experimentation Strategies 1,2, 

&3 

- 

Experimentation Strategies 1,2, 

&3 

Experimentation Strategies 1,2, 

& 3; all Genetic Strategies 

Experimentation Stiategy 2 

Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon I 

I 
, 

Management of Assumptions and Uncertainties 

Tab& 5.3. Resolvat.2 Un-uzs Related to Management of Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon That 

Can Be Studied in the Near Term (continued) 

Assumption .. 

28 Hypotheses in terms of measurable response variables that 

reflect risks’ and benefits have been stated. 

29 Key attributes that describe returning adults are-bown and 

measurable. 

I% Experimentation fish can be released in a manner that does 

not confound the results of the experiment comparing treatment 

methods. 

30 Facilities and operational procedures for experimentation 

protocols can be accommodated. 

31 Naches broodstock can be most effectively collected from 

spawning grounds. 

~~~ ~ 

32 Naches broodstock can be collectgd without adversely 

impacting the American River stock. 

33 Upper Yakima bro6dstock can be most effectively collected at 

Roza Dam. 

34 An experimentation monitoring program can be designed and 

implemented that will have sufficient power to detect specified 

levels of impact. 

35 Adult fish can be r&dily identified by origin for selective . 

harvest purposes. 

36 Preseason forecast and inseason update of runsize and 

composition can be determined. 

I97 Spawner recruit or stock pro-ductivity relationships can be 

developed to establish appropriate harvest rates for each discrete 

stock component. 

37 A harvest monitoring program can be designed and implemented that will have sufficient power to detect specified levels of 

impact. * 

StrategyRelatidp 

Experimentation Strategy 2 

Experimentation Strategy 2 

Experimentation Strategies 1 & 2 

Experimentation Strategies 2,6, 

7, & 8 

Experimentation Strategy 4 

Experimentation Strategy 4 

Experimentation Stratqgy 5 

All Experimentation Strategies 

Harvest Strategy .1 

HarvestS@tegyl ’ 

Harvest Strategy 1 

Harvest Strategy 1 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 ’ 5.7 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
Management of Assumptions and Uncertainties' 

Table 5.4. 

RgOlvaMeU~ related tb management of Yakima Spring Chinook that can be addressed in .. 

199 The survival of fsh reared in the 'artificial environment 

(from spawner to smolt) WilLbe at least five times higher than 

average surviv'al'in the natural environment. 

200 Releas: of-smolts that mhic natural fish ensures that . 

post-release survival is greater than half the surpival of wild ' 

smolts. 

201 The Optimal Conventional Treahent will not produce. 

the sanfe kind of fsh as the New Innovative Treatment. 

202 New Innovative Treatment fish have a post-release 

survival 50% better than Optimal Conventional Treatment 

fsh. 

203 Experiments can be-designed that are statistically . 

powerful enough to detect a 50% difference between treatments with a 90% certainty. 

327 Average straying rates will not exceed 5%; and straying 

in excess of 10% willnot occur. Straying rate is the annual 

percent of non-local spawners in the spawning escapement of 

the recipient stock. 

328 Smolt-to-smolt survival for all natural stocks (and for 

hatchery fsh) decreases as smolt abundance increases, over 

the range of abundances expected under the YFP. 

333 Quantity and quality of spawning and rearing habitats 

available in the Upper Yakima, Naches, and American rivers 

are equivalent to smolt capacities of about 540,000, 200,000, 

and 140,000 outmigrants. 

334 Natival spawning escapements in excess of 200 will 

ensure that effective population sizes are consistent with 

genetic objectives. 

335 The proportion of hatchery- and wild-originadults 

allowed to suawn naturally can be effectively managed. 

336 Smolt production for all stocks is controlled by spawning 

escapement and the availability of habitat needed by 

presnolts in the winter (winter capacity is about 20% of 

summercapacity). 1 

strategy Relationship 

Experimentation Stqtegy 1 

Experimentation Strategy 1 

Experimentation Strategies 2 & 3 

~ ~~~ 

Experimentation-Strategies 2 & 3 

Experimentation Strategy 9 

Genetic Strategy 5 

Natural Production Strategies 2 & 3 - 

Natural Production Strategies 2 & 3 

Natural Production Strategies 2 & 3 

Genetic Strategy 4 and 7 

Natud Production Stmtqg 3 

, 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 ,, ' 5.8 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 

c 
Management of Assumptions and Uncertainties 

\ 

Table 5.4. 

ResolvabIe Uxmdaidies related to management of Yakima Spring Chinook that can be addressed in longterm YKFP studies r - 

&sumption 

337 Habitat degradation and associated loss of lifehiistory 

diversity are primary local causes of reduced productivity in 

the Yakima Basin. 

NEW # Baseline spawning escapements, representing current 

equilibrium conditions for the Upper Yakima, Naches, and 

American spring chinook stocks are; 2,260,830, and 470, 

jacks not included. 

. 

StrateggRelationShip 

Natural Production Strategies 1,2,-& 

3 

Natural prod. Strategies 2 and 3 

.- 

-I 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 . 5.9 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 

.. - . , . __- - - .-.. . ~ ~ -.__-_-_ __ ~ ...- . ~ . -~ ...- 
,- 

Management of Assumptions and Uncertain ties 

L 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 5.10 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon . 
Experimental Design 

6.0 Experim,nttal 'DaignThe YKFP is designed to conduct experiments to test alternative sugplementation treaments. 

These experiments were chosen to maximize the likelihood of detecting a significant difference 

between treatments. Three candidate treatments were identified. These treatments were chosen on 

the basis of the hypotheses that: 

' 

a treatment can be designed that results in'fish with characteristics approximating those of 

their natural counterparts, 

conventional hatchery treatments will not produce such fish, and 

by producing such fish, the likelihood of supplementation success is increased. 

Treatment A is an Optimal Conventional Treatment, (OCT) thathcubates, rears, and 

, acclimates spring chinook salmon using optimal conventional fish-culture methods derived 

from artificial propagation experiences within the Columbia River Basin. 

Treatment B is a New Innovative Treatment 

spring chinook salmon using natural-like environments (e.g. , natural cover, substrate, in-water 

structure) to produce fish with attributes approximating those of naturally produced spring ' 

chinook salmon. 

Treatment C is a Limited New Innovative Treatment &NIT) applied to spring chinook 

salmon that uses the OCT during the incubation to rearing phase and uses the NIT during 

other portions of the acclimation to release phise. 

that incubates, rears, and acclimates 

As proposed, the initial phase of implementation will be limited to upper Yakima spring 

chinook. Ihe experimental design selected will test two treatments: A (OCT); and B (NIT). 

As the experiment progresses through years and cycles Treatment C @NIT) or other reJned 

treatments may be incorporated (Table 6.2). 

7be experimental design for upper Yakima spring chinook will be based on Design I as 

described under the "qerimental Design ,, discussion @. 6.2). Ihe design was selected 

based upon utility to meet experimental resolution andfIexibility for application at a number 

of production and replication levels. ne specijk experimental combination is that shown by 

the fourth entry in Table 6.6. Ihe number OfJshperpond was increased slightly to takejidl 

advantage of pond capacity. A total of 810,ooO smolts will be released with each replicate 

pond containing 45,oOOjTsh. l3e experimental facilities and their operation are described 

jXly in chapter 8. 

Replicates, Treatments, and F'ish Per Pond I 

Individual treatments will be assigned to more than one rearing raceway, and fish from each 

raceway will be transferred to an acclimation pond, one pond per raceway. The number of raceways 

and associated ponds equals the number of replicates. 

Numbers of replicates and treatments may differ between the Naches and upper Yakima 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 6.1 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
e 

Experimental Design 

stocks of spring chinook salmon depending upon refined experimental needs, stock status, an4 relative 

potential carrying capacity of the two systems. 

Treatment Composition 

Treatments A and B are common for both stocks. Treatment C may be evaluated for either 

stock during subsequent year(s) of experimentation gable 6.1). 

Unless there is a strong indication of failure in the first year’s experimental releases, a 

preferred treatment would not be selected on returns from just one year’s release. The treatment 

effect on adult survival from one year’s release cannot be fully assessed until the age distribution of 

the returning adults is reasonably well represented. Therefore, a given set of treatments may be 

repeated over a 5-year or longer period before a new set of treatments is implemented (Table 6.2), 

the 5-year period being the number of years encompassed by two sets of releases through adult 

returns. 

It is not possible to make comparisons between sets of years unless the sets are linked through 

common treatments. Normally, the best treatment from Set 1 would be extended into Set 2 as a 

common treatment for those sets. The same logic holds in extending a treatment from any set into 

the n’ext set. For example, the treatment composition during a 20-year period of supplementation may 

look something like the information in Table 6.3. 

f 

The common treatment may differ from one stock to another. For example, a given treatment 

might initially to be tested only for the upper Yakima stock. If that treatment is the more successful 

treatment, it may be continued into Set 2 as a common treatment for the upper Yakima stock and may 

also be included as a new treatment in Set 2 for the Naches stock. Other treatments would then be 

used.as the common treatment for the Naches stock. . 

More than one common treatment can be used to link sets‘for the upper Y&ma stock. For 

example, Treatments B and C can be held as common - treatments between sets, and a new treatment 

can be substitutd for Treatment A. 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 

,. .. . 

6.2 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
Experimental Design 

Experimental Design 

For an experimental design to be effective over many years of use, it must be adaptable to 

changing conditions. Two alternative experimental designs &e compared according to their 

flexibility. Thejlexibilify of each design is measured by the minimum requirements in number of 

smolts, in baseline survival of OCT fish, &d in required sampling rate. A design that requires fewer 

smolt, lower survival, and lower sampling rates is applicable to more conditions and is, thus, more 

flexible. 

The two designs different in absolute number of acclimation ponds and number of smolt per 

pond. The recommended design is the most flexible one and has more acclimation ponds and fewer 

fish per pond. However, both designs are described for the case that cost considerations should 

preclude the adoption of the recommended design. For each design, a set of guidelines is given that 

directs how the design should be adapted for various levels of broodstock and baseline survival rates. 

The set of guidelines illustrates the flexibility of each design. Simulation studies used to evaluate 

prospective designs and develop the guidelines are detailed in Hoffmann, Busack, and Knudsen (in 

prep.). The results of the simulation studies are based on a single release year and multiple return 

years. - 

For both designs, ponds will be constructed in clusters, three or five, depending on stock 

status, site criteria, and production levels necessary to meet underlying assumptions for survival and 

sampling rates. Within each cluster, there will be either one or three replicates where a replicate 

consists of a full complement of treatments. A replicate will consist of two ponds each containing 

one of two treatments (OCT, NIT), or three ponds each containing one of three treatments (OCT, 

NIT, LNIT). The acclimation ponds for a treatment complement are located in the same vicinity to 

reduce the pond-to-pond variation. The clusters will be distributed spatially over the stock‘s rearing 

area. This distribution is designed to return adults from each treatment over the natural spawning 

area. 

Table 6.2. Expectec 

’ Reh 

-7 - I 

*I 

91 

lo I 

Age Composition of Adult Returns of Yakima Spring Chinook 

T- Yenr 

MWdTrrannt. I SecadSetdTI. I&4l@3 

7 

Relore Reuing 

, 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 6.3 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
Experimental Design 

'I 

(a) Conimon treatment linking Sets 1 and 2. 

(b) Common treatment linking Sets 2,3, and 4. 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 , 6.4 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
- &perimental Design 

-. 

Design 1 - 

For design 1 there are three replicates per cluster and either two or three treatments per 

replicate (Table 6.4.). For three clusters, three replicates per cluster and two treatments per replicate, 

d 

Clusters Replicates (r) : 

3. 9 

5 15 

there will be 3X3X2 = 18 acclimation ponds (units). For five clusters, three replicates per cluster 

and three treatments per replicate, there will be 5X3X3 = 45 acclimation ponds (units). 

Treatments (t) Units" (r9) Fish/Unit@) 

2 18 25,000 

3 45 25,000 

Clusters , 

3 

5 

, -- 

. Design2 

Replicates (r) Treatments (t) - Units(') (r*t) Fish/Unit@) 

3 2 6 75,000 

5 3 15 75,000 

For*design 2 there is one replicate per cluster (Table 6.5) and either two or three treatments 

per replicate. For three clusters, one replicate per cluster and two treatments per replicate, there will 

be 3XlX2 = 6 acclimation ponds' (units). For five clusters, one replicate per cluster and three 

treatments per replicate, there will be 5XlX3 = 15 acclimation ponds (units). 

, 

Table 6.5. Replicates and Treatments of Design 2 for Yakima Spring Chinook. 

(a) 

@) 

The unit is the rearing raceway or the p6nd. 

Major criterion for determining no. fish per unit and the minimum number of replicates 

is the ability to detect a relative between-treatment-effect difference of 50 percent in adult 

survival (with a significance level of 0.1 and a 90 percent certainty or power). 

_/ 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 . 6.5 - Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 

- 
Experimental Design 

- Guidelines for Adapting the Designs / 

Each of the two designs can be adapted to various number of smolt available and to various 

anticipated survival rates for OCT fish. The survival rates are gauged in terms of OCT survival since 

NIT survival is assumed to be 50 percent greater. The number of broodstock available will not affect 

the layout of the ponds, but will affect the number of fish per pond and the number of treatments 

compared. If the number of’fish per pond is too low for the power specifications, then the number of 

treatments compared can be reduced from three to two to compensate. Although both designs were 

described with five clusters, the number of clusters using Design 1 can be reduced to three under the 

appropriate conditions. The adaptations -are described in Table 6.6 and Table 6.7. 

Table 6.6. Guidelines for Adapting Design 1 to Varying Broodstock Numbers. 

1,125K 

750K 

750K 

500K ’ 

I 500K 

Optime 

Compared. 

#Sites . 

Number of 

Smolts 

Available 

NIT, OCT 3 

NIT, OCT 5 

NIT, OCT 3 

NIT,OCT . 5 

NIT, OCT 3 

-_ 

5 

6 

-6 

. .6 

6 

62,500 

25,000 

42,500 

17,000 

Experimental Use of Ponds 

Number of 

Smolts 

Available 

1,125K 

750K 

500K 

I # Pondskite I # Fish/Pond 

Treatments 

Compared 

Optimal Experimental Use of Ponds 

# Sites # Ponds/Site # Fish/Pond 

m, Lm, 5 3 75,000 

NIT, OCT -5 2 75,000 , 

OCT 

No Experiment - - 

6 ’ 28,000 1 - 

Table 6.7. Guidelines for Adapting Design 2 to Varying Broodstock Numbers. 

- For the design layout in each of the row of Tables 6.6 and 6.7, there are survival and 

sampling rate requirements to guarantee detecting a 50 percent difference in survival with 90 percent 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 6.6 Yakima Spdng Chinook Salmon. 
Experimental Design 

- 

power. These requirements are specified in'Tables 6.8 and 6.9 and relate to OCT survival rates and 

the minimum required sampling effort. The survival requirements pertain to survival of OCT fish. 

Because the NIT survival was assumed to be 50 percent greater than the OCT survival, the absolute 

difference in survival probabilities between NIT and OCT increases.as OCT survival increases. 

Therefore, with higher OCT survival, the power increases and the required sampling effort decreases 

(compare the sampling efforts in each row). ( 

The sampling effort pertains to the set of "successfuI" fish. A successful fish is one that 

either is recruited into a fishery or returns to a specified location such as Roza D-am or the spawning 

grounds. Therefore, a 100 percent sampling rate at Roza Dam is not a 100 percent sampling rate , , 

unless all fisheries occur above the dam. Three levels of sampling rates on the set of successful fish 

were considered: 33, 67, and 100 percent. 

Number of 

Females' at 

Collection Site@) 

632 

632 

42 1 

42 1 

28 1 

28 1 

Number of .OCT Survival Rates 

Smolts Available 

o.Ooo1. 0.0002 0.0003 

1,125K -6) 67 % 33 % 

1,125K 33 % 33 % 

33 % 33 % 

* 750K 67 % 33 % 

500K 33 % 

500K 67% ' 

750K -. 

- 

- - 

- - 

< 

Comparison of Candidate Experimental Designs 

clusters are required (Table 6.7). However, in order to reduce the number of clusters from five to 

three with Design 1, the number of treatments compared must also be given the appropriate 

conditions, this attribute of Design 1 can be used to phase in the project during the first few years. 

With Design 1, as few as three clusters (Table 6.6) can be used whereas with Design 2, five 

Table 6.8 and 6.9 show how the sampling effort can be increased to compensate for lower 

OCT survival rates. From Table 6.8, it appears that at an OCT survival of 0.002, the sampling effort . 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 . .6.7 Yakima Spring-Chiriaok Salmon 
Experimental Design 

.. 

I. 

decreases as the number of smolts decrease (compare rows 1 and 3). However, the number of 

treatments compared in row 1 is three vs. two treatments in row 3 Fable 6.6). The increase in 

power due to reducing the number of treatments from three to two is enough to compensate for the 

reduced number of fish to the extent that even a decreased sampling effort is required. 

Designs 1 and 2 are compared based on minimum requirements Fable 6.10). Design 1 is the 

most adaptable to varying conditions becauseit has lower minimum requirements than Design 2 and 

is, therefore, the recommended design. 

Table 6.9. Sampling Rates Required to Achieve Experimental Objectives Using Design 2. 

Number of I Number of OCT Survival Rates 

' Females at Smolts Available 

0.0001~ ' 0.0002 0.0003 Collection Site@ 

632 1,125K - - 33 % 

42 1 - 750K - - 33 % 

28 1 500K - - - 

(a The number of females required at the broodstock collection site to produce the specified 

number of smolts was calculated according to the Biological Specifications Work Group 

recommendations (BSWG, October 1993). 

@) "-" indicates that at no sampling rate us@ were the power specifications met. 

I' 

Table 6.10. Comparison of the Candidate Experimental Designs. 

,. 

.Minimum Requirements Design 1 Design 2 

Number of Clusters 3 5 

~ Number of Acclimation 18 10 

Ponds 

Total Number of Smolt 500K 750K 

Survival Rate of OCT 0.0002 0.0003 ~ 

Sampling Effort 33 % 33 % 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 6.8 - Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
\ 

. I. Experimental Design 

Experimental Layout of Raceways and Incubation Facilities 

It may be necessary to "block" the rearing raceways according to potential differences in 

operations or management. If so, the number of.raceways per group would equal the number of 

treatments, and treatments would be randomly assigned to the raceways within groups. Groups of 

raceways will be randomly assigned to pond replicates. 

For the incubation treatments to be includ@ in the replication process, it will be necessary to 

have a unique set of incubation trays associated with each raceway. 

1 

. .. 

.- 

.. ,. 

.. 

.- 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 6.9 Yakima Spring Cunook Salmon 
Experimental Design 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 6.10 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
, Risk Analysis 

The 1993 Risk Analysis for Yakima spring chinook salmon follows. 

Uncertainty and Risk Analysis Applied to Supplementation 

of Upper Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 

. 

/ 

Introduction 

This report presents an assessment of the uncertainties and risks of supplementing spring 

chinook salmon in the upper Yakima River Basin. The purpose of supplementation is to. test the 

assumption that new artificial production can be used to increase harvest and enhance natural 

production while maintaining genetic resources. This assessment is based on a systematic method for 

considering (1) the objectives, (2) the strategies to achieve the objectives, (3) the operating 

assumptions needed to accept the strategies, (4) the uncertainties associated with these assumptions, 

(5) the risk of meeting stated objectives if the assumptions are false or the strategy is not feasible, 

and (6) the need to manage the uncertainty and risk associated with supplementation. 

The Bonneville Power Administration, the State of Washington, and the Yakama Indian 

Nation must weigh these perceived risks and benefits through a variety of complex processes, which 

typically include intuitive and valuesdriven considerations. The process we used to identify the 

uncertainties and risks is illustrated in figure 7.1. 

Objectives 

The objectives for supplementing upper Yakima spring chinook salmon are listed in the May, 

1995 Planning Status report for the YakimdKlickitat Fisheries Project. They are listed according to 

four general components: genetics, natural productiodecological interactions, experimentation, and 

harvest. These objectives will be accomplished while minimizing adverse genetic and ecological 

impacts to non-target species of interest. The objectives should be accomplished before existing 

' threatened stocks reach extinction. 

strategies 

The strategies under. consideration are listed in the May, 1995 Planning Status Report for the 

YakimdKlickitat Fisheries Project. 

' Assumptions 

Certain assumptions must be "accepted" or resolved before adopting a suite of 

supplementation strategies to test whether new artificial production can be used to increase harvest 

and enhance natural production while maintaining genetic resources. Acceptance implies a range of 

actions. Here, we mean that an individual or agency (1) agrees or consents, (2) accommodates or 

reconciles, and, most importantly, (3) regards the assumption as true, valid, normal, or usual. If one 

does not accept the following statements as true, then one may need to find other strategies or, at ~ 

least, monitor the results of implementing the strategies. 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 7.1 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
.. 

Risk Analysis 

I 

'I 1 

fe 

T- a 

ii 

Figure 7.1 Structure of uncertainty and risk identification within the project management 

framework. . 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 ' 

I 

.7.2 

- 

Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
Risk Analysis 

6 

Uncertainty / 

Any statement of an assumption implies some degree of uncertainty; e.g., supplementation 

may not be definitely achievable within a planned time-frame, or for a given quantity or frequency of 

occurrence. The implication of errors in these assumptions is important. If supplementation is the 

wrong strategy, it could result in serious damage to all fish and other aquatic resources in the 

Yakima River or in the fruitless expenditure of monies. Before implementing supplementation as the 

strategy to test the assumption that new artificial production can be used to increase harvest and 

enhance natural production while maintaining genetic resources, either the uncertainties must be 

resolved.or the associated riskk) identified and a monitoring Dlan to contain or manage 

the risk must be in Dlace, 

Uncertainty Resolution The manner in which uncertainty is resolved depends on ipi 

particular place in the uncertainty management structure (Figure 7.2). Some assumptions related to 

supplementation are "accepted" on the basis of existing knowledge and information, pending 

documentation. "Acceptance," is a statement that: 

0 the uncertainty related to a given assumption has so little chhce of adversely affecting the 

realization of meeting the objective (to test the assumption that new artificial production can be 

used to increase harvest and enhance natural production while maintaining genetic resources) or 

we know so much about this particular biological/ecolog"lcal/engineering relationship that it is not 

worth studying any further in the context of supplementing spring chinook salmon in the Yakima 

River Basin. ~ 

Accepted assumptions. Even if one of these assumptions is false, we will still be able to test 

the assumption that new artificial production-can be used to increase harvest and enhance natural 

production I while maintaining genetic resources of the Yakima River Basin. --. 

Unresolvable uncertainties. Some critical uncertainties are not expected to be resolved 

before a decision to supplement the Yakima River spring chinook salmon is made or even if the 

uncertainty is studied during supplementation. For most of these, resolution is not feasible, and all 

extend beyond the scope of the Yakima Fisheries Project. * The risk that any of these assumptions are 

false must be assessed and managed through monitoring. While these uncertainties cannot be 

resolved, the health and condition of theYakima River fisheries can be monitored for signs of 

unexpected change. On the basis of new information and other evidence, supplementation (any other 

strategy) to test the assumption that new artificial production can be used to increase harvest and 

enhance natural production while maintaining genetic resources will have to be continually 

reevaluated. If there are other factors that limit the production of Yakima River spring chinook 

salmon, these factors could not be defined or quantified before a decision to use supplementation is 

implemented. Additionally, the cost required to quantify every causal relationship to supplementation 

is prohibitive. 

- 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 

/ 

7.3 Yakima 'Spring 'Chinook Salmon 
Risk Analysis .- 

'- 

I_ 

ri 

a 

a 

v). 

i 

. 

-. . 

. 

. 

. . 

c 

. 

.- 

a 

. . 

a 

. 

. am- 

:a 

,: .*z E 

:r 

:a 

am .- 

;E 

I3 

:8 

is ;$ 

~ .s 

: ig .: 8 

;if 

:$ : I3 

.: 6 

:o .- 

a 

. =. . . I. 

a 

. 

:' 

I I ,if. . +- .. 

. 

a 

:. 

a. 

. 

a 

a 

. . 

. . 

. . . 

.. 

I 

a. 

I 

4 

I- -I 

Rgure 7%. Structure of unkntx resolutionwithin @e project mahagement framework. .- 

Planning Statu Report, May 1995 

. 

7.4 . ' Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
Risk Analysis 

Resolvable uncertaintid. Some uncertainties are critical and should be resolved before a 

decision to implement is made. (The ultimate decision related to resolution may require that an 

assumption be accepted). This will happen if new information is identified, if fiscal or temporal 

restraints preclude timely resolution, or if risk management is feasible.) Three methods can be used 

to manage those critical uncertainties that can be resolved: . (1) review the scientific literature to 

determine how others have resolved or managed them; (2) conduct small-scale studies (i.e., shortterm experiments in the field and laboratory, with models, engineering analyses); and (3) learn from 

supplementation projects from outside the Yakima River Basin. 

If a critical assumption is false, then supplementation will not provide the information needed 

to test the assumption that new artificial production can be used to increase harvest and enhance . 

natural production while maintaining genetic resources. The cost and time required to (1) conduct 4 

literature review, (2) iy, or (3) g& 

Sumlementation in another basin should provide enough information to resolve the uncertainty 

associated with these assumptions. This information is necessary to make a decision about 

supplementing chinook salmon in the upper Yakima River Basin. ' 

Near-term Uncertainty - Resolution.. Uncertainties that may be resolved are a high priority in 

the near term, because they affect the ability to select supplementation as a viable strategy to increase 

harvest and enhance natural production while maintaining genetic resources. While the outcomes of 

literahre reviews, small-scale tests, or studies in other basins can modify details of the selected 

strategy to increase harvest and enhance natural production while maintaining genetic resources, these 

short-term results are not expected to fundamentally change the objective-but rather help ensure its 

success. The purpose of the small-scale studies and planning is to "set up" the selected strategy. 

Consequently it will be important to define a selected strategy in sufficient detail to make the planning - 

focus on the objective. 

Long-term Uncertainty Rfkolution; If the assumption is false, then supplementation will 

not provide the information needed to test the assumption that new artificial production can be used to. 

increase harvest and enhance natural production while maintaining genetic resources. These 

assumptions, however, cannot be resolved in the near term. Their onlv amarent means of resolution 

is to imDlement sumlementation in the Yakima Basin. Resolution of these uncertainties is the basis 

for the experimental aspects of the project. The resolution of these uncertainties will result from 

hypothesis testing during the implementation phase of the Yakima Fisheries Project. * 

To summarize the uncertainty management procks:. The objective is known (to increase 

harvest and enhance natural production while maintaining genetic resources). The strategy 

(supplementation) and the assumptions have been stated. The uncertainties have been examined and 

those uncertainties that must be resolved have been identified. Now, we must identify the risk of 

having selected the wrong strategy or accepting false assumptions. 

Risk Analysis 

methods can be used to increase harvest and enhance natural production while maintaining genetic 

resources lies in the strategies and their associated assumptions Figure 7.3). . If a strategy does not 

work or is not feasible, harvest and natural production will not increase. (At least, production will 

not increase because of supplementation.) Additionally, if the assumptions are false, then production 

- 

L 

The risk of using supplementation to test the assumption that new artificial production 

- 

/ 

Planning Status Report, May- 1995 7.5 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
.. I 

I 

I 

I 

i 

./ . v) 

E 'I E 

A Strategy ' Cwer4, PSR , 

k 

c I' 3. 

1 

I 
. 

may not increase and, ‘.I fact, production may Gccrease or some 01 

Risk Analysis *- . - 

ier unwanted result may occur. 

Each decision maker will determine which,risks apply to the possibility of supplementation not 

working or the probability that one or all of the assumptions are wrong. The decision maker must 

weigh the risks and decide how to proceed in the face of uncertainty. Implementation of 

supplementation must be preceded by a systematic evaluation to detect and permit correction of 

unforeseen errors. The following sets of questions related to feasibility, uncertainty, alternatives, and 

monitoring define a process for evaluating the strategies for supplementation. 

.Feasibility Are the strategies suflciently well defined and are they feasible? Ifnot, why not? 

What is missing? Are assumptions related to feasibility of facilities and operations (including 

monitoring) accepted? (If they are accepted; reports, documents, or study results that address 

the specifics are available.) 

Uncertainty what are the risks associated with uncertainties? (Risk refers to the likelihood 

of failing to meet the objectives stated for using supplementation to test the assumption that’ 

new artificial production can be used to increase harvest and enhance natural production 

while maintaining genetic resources.) What are the implications to using supplementation to 

test the assumption that new art@cial production can be used to increase harvest and enhancenatural production while maintaining genetic resources, if these assumptions are wrong? 

What is the,likelihood that some of the accepted assumptions are wrong? 

Alternatives what alternatives to supplementation are feasible (including taking no action) 

. and what are their implications? (Implications refer to the risks, costs, and other impacts of 

the alternatives.) Are there alternatives to supplementation to test the qssumption that%ew 

artijicial production can be used to increase harvest and enhance natural production while 

maintaining genetic resources for which the risks and implications are less severe? What are 

the implications of delaying supplementation? Can some of the critically uncertain 

assumptions be eflectively resolved through literature review or near-tern studies? If so, 

should they be resolved by experiments, studies, modeling before implementation of 

supplementation? 

Monitoring Supplementation may be implemented using an adaptive management process, 

even though it poses risk of uncertain outcomes, providing this risk is contained through 

monitoring. Iherefore, we mustjinaIly ask, are the provisions in place for monitoring the 

outcome(s) of using supplementation for upper Yakima spring chinook salmon in the Yakima 

River Basin? 

~ 

These questions were addressed by four individuals, and the their individual studies were 

discussed at a meeting in Seattle, Washington on October 7-8, 1993. The results of their individual 

studies are recorded as appendices to the Risk Analysis reported to BPA and the YKFP policy group. 

Appendix A (“Experimentation Risk Assessment of YKFP Spring Chinook Salmon”) is authored by 

Dr. Annette Hoffhann from the Associated Western Universities, Richland, Vashington. Appendix 

B (“Genetic Analysis of PSR Strategies, Assumptions, and Uncertainties”) is authored by Dr. Craig 

Busack from the Washington State Department of Fisheries, Olympia, Washington. 

(“Risk Analysis Harvest”) is authored by Dr. Lars Mobrand from Mobrand Biometrics, Inc., Vashon, 

Washington. Appendix D (Evaluation of Strategies and Assumptions to Meet Natural Production 

Objectives for Upper Yakima Spring Chinook Program”) is authored by Mr. Davia Geist from the 

Pacific Northwest Laboratoj, Richland, Washington. 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 7.7 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 

Appendix C 

, 

-L I 
Risk Analysis 

. Two types of experimentation risk were identified: (1) ability to test productionlevels I 

relative to supplementation, and (2) ability to learn about the quality of supplemented fish and their 

impacts to the ecosystem. Four types of genetic risk were identified: (1) extinction, (2) loss of 

interpopulation variabilityJ3) loss of intrapopulation variability, and (4) domestication. Two types of 

harvest risk were identified: (1) harvest access, and (2) harvest numbers. Three types of natural 

productionlecological interaction risk were identified: (1) limitations of abiotic components of the 

environment, (2) limitations of biotic components of the environment, and (3) adverse ecological 

interactions. 

.Monitoring ]'plan Input- 

,. For each risk identified in the risk analyses, we identified measures that can be monitored. 

These. measures provide possible input to develop a monitoring plan. All the measures that were 

identified during the risk analysis are listed in Table 7.1. The source ofthe risk.associated with each 

measure is given in the table by the objectives. 

. I Additionally, for each list of measures (Le., experimentation, genetic, harvest, and natural 

productioxdecological interactions), the mostximpprtant measures were identified by the individuals 

who did the assessments. 

For experimentation risks, this list included: 

' - 

- 

. .- 

' 

,^ 

/ 

.I 

., 

0 -Reading the marks on returning adults at Roza, Prosser, and, ,the spawning grounds to 

, ,- , .- estimate *e number of spawners ; 4. 

0 Estimating the harvest rates by stock and -,, gear type . 

0 

0 

An electrophoretic analysis by stock of the returning adults 

Estimating the density and distribution relative to specific habitats for both target and r 

non-target species 

Estimating smolt-to-adult survival for wild and hatchery fish 

1 

- 

0 

0 Estimating the number of emergent fry/redd by stock and spawning area. 

For genetic risk, the list of most important measures included: 

I 0 Data that could be collected'fiom adults on the spawning grounds ( Le., 

electrophoretic analysis, age, sex, length, timing, numbers, reading marks) 

Data related to spawner performance (Le., number of fry/redd, fecundity, egg size, 

egg weight, length, weight) 

0 Data related to harvest (Le., electrophoretic analysis of adults, age, read marks, 

. length, sex, time of catch, placeof catch, gear Ge) 

-Planning Status Report, May 1995 - 7.8 I 

.. 

.- 

, 

Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
For harvest risk, the list of most important measures included: 

Risk Analysis 

I 

0 

0 

Timing and identification of marks on fish in a test fishery -- 

Timing and identification of adults at Prosser 

0 

0 

Timing and identification of fish in the harvest 

Timing and identification of adults at Roza 

For natural production/ecologicaI interactions, the list of most importkt measures included: 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Density and distribution of upper Yakima spring chinook salmon relative to specific 

habitat types over time and spaceDensity and distribution of non-target species relative to specific habitat types over 

time and space 

Number of upper Yakima spring chinook adults returning tosthe basin 

Number of upper Yakima spring chinook smolts migrating out of the basin 

Occurrence of prey iten& in target and non-target predators 

Harvest estimates 

Based on the list of priority measures, four sets of data or information are identified: (1) 

estimates of the number of adults returning to the basin, (2) early-life-history survival, (3) spawning 

performance, and (4) ecological interactions among spring chinook salmon and other fish species in 

the basin. These datdinformation sets can and should be used to develop a monitoring plan to 

manage or contain the risk of supplementing upper Yakima spring chinook salmon. However, as 

indicated in the figure illustrating the process used to define risks, not all the measures are feasible 

nor are they focused on specific objectives. Measures that are not feasible must be considered for 

future research and development. Measures that are not focused because of a lack of defined 

objectives must be reconsidered in light of more specific objectives. d 

Estimatin? the number of adults that return to the basin can be accomplished by a number of 

measures (e.g., electrophoretic analysis, reading marks, age analysis, enumeration at specific facilities 

or areas within the basin). Earlv-life-history survival can be accomplished for hatchery fish and for 

those life-history types that migrate out of the upper basin as age 1 + fish. Early-life-history survival 

for life-history,types that migrate out of the upper basin as 0-age fish is not possible. They are too 

small to be marked with individual tags before they pass Roza Dam.‘ After passing Roza Dam, 

outmigrating upper Yakima spring chinook salmon cannot be distinguished from spring chinook 

salmon from the Naches or American rivers. , 

SDawning Derformance can be monitored in part. Meristic and morphometric measures can 

be collected from spawning adults, eggs, and emerging fry. Straying rates can be.estimated from 

reading marks on first-generation hatchery fish. (Straying rates from second-generation or unmarked 

hatchery fish can ot be estimated. ) 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 

-. 7.9 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
-- 

- 

-~ 

Risk Analysis 

EcoloPical-interahions are difficult to define at this time. The Yakima Fisheries Project has 

not defined objectives for the non-target species. Estimating the density and distribution of key nontarget species relative to specific habitat,types over time and space can only be used to contain or . mange risk when the project defines or identifies the objectives for these, key species. 

. 

Therefore, the measures that define the priority input to the preliminary monitoring- plan for 

Estimate adult returns at strategic locations within the basin. The locations suggested by the ' 

risk assessment include'a test fishery in the lower -basin, Prosser Dam, Roza Dam, at the 

hatchery, .. and on the spawning 'areas. 

Estimate early-life-history survival for hatchery fish in the basin. 

the upper Yakima spring chinook salmon supplementation program are: 

0 

-. 

I. 

0 c 

0 Describe some measures of spawning performance on the spawning grounds throughout'the 

basin. 

Five levels of monitoring are defined for the Yakima Fisheries Project. They are (1) quality 

control, (2) performance; (3) hypothesis testing, (4) comprehensive monitoring, and (5) stock status monitoring. 

- Duality control ensures that supplementation is conducted as intended and record keeping is 

accurate kd complete. Performance monitoring is the measurement of stnolt attributes, especially as 

it relates to smolt survival.- Hwothes is testing is the monitoring of "statement of the objective" for 

supplementation. By stating the hypothesis for supplementation, we will be able to statistically design 

the collection of monitoring data to examine likenesses and difference between survival related to 

different risks that were identified in the risk analysis. Comprehensive monitoring relates to the 

determination of whether supplementation is progressing toward the objective of increasing harvest 

and enhancing natural production'while maintaining genetic resources. This also contributes to a 

sensitivity analysis, which helps determine how critical an assumption is to the success of a particular 

strategy. MonitorinP of stock status provides information to track long-term performance and 

fitness. This is defined as the estimated annud spawning escapement and attributes that profile 

changes in the populations over time. 

The input from the risk assessment will be provided to project individuals who are developing 

the monitoring plan. They will consider the measuremenfs and incorporate them gong with input 

from other project planning activities (e.g. , the biospecifications, treatment definitions, and hypothesis 

analysis). Measures to contain and manage risk comprise only a part of the monitoring plans. 

- 

SummarY 

The risk assessment for supplementing upper Yakima spring chinook salmon to test the , 

assumption that new artificial production will increase harvest and enhance natural production whde 

maintaining genetic resources has been completed. The assessment indicates that all the risks can be 

identified and that supplementation of upper Yakhna spring chinook salmon can proceed and 

accomplish the testing of new artificial production methods. 

. 

/ 

The risks to upper Yakima spring chinook salmon have been identified relative to the 

experimentation, genetic, harvest, and natural productiodecologicd interaction objectives. They are: 

inability to test production levels relative to supplementation, inability to learn about the quality of 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 7.10 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
- 

Risk Analysis 

supplemented fish and their impacts to the ecosystem, extinction of the stock, loss of inter- and 

intrapopulation variability, domestication, inability to control harvest access, inadequate harvest 

numbers, limitations by abiotic components of the environment, limitations by biotic components of 

the environment, and adverse ecological interactions. 

Between 75 and 100 measures were identified-to manage or contain these risks. The priority 

measures that are being developed in the preliminary monitoring plan are to: estimate adult returns at 

strategic locations within the basin, estimate early-life-history survival for hatchery fish in the basin, 

and describe some measures of spawning performance on the spawning grounds throughout the basin. 

Four new or redefined strategies were identified for meeting the genetic objectives. They are: . 

(1) acclimate and release fish from sites dispersed throughout the natural spawning range of the.upper . Yakima stock, (2) keep American and Naches River escapements at a minimum harmonic mean of 

250 fish per year, (3) keep straying of upper Yakima chinook salmon into the American and Naches 

rivers at less than 5% of the recipient population, and (4) limit proportion of first-generation hatchery 

fish on spawning grounds to 50%. The managers of the Yakima Fisheries Project should consider 

amending the Project Status Report to include these strategies. 

Measures to estimate early-life-history survival of wild or naturally-spawning fish are not - feasible at this time. The potential risks to the Yakima.Fisheries Project can be managed without this 

technology; however, the managers of the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program should consider 

directing the research and development needed to estimate early-life-history survival of all life-history 

types of wild and naturally spawning fish. . 

A monitoring plan to contain or manage the risks of adverse ecological interactions can only 

be developed after specific objectives for key non-target species have been defined or identified. The 

key non-target species that were identified during the risk assessment are: coho salmon, fall chinook 

salmon, rainbow trout and steelhead, cutthroat trout, bull trout, redside shiner, sculpins, northern 

squawfish, and smallmouth bass, The managers of the Yakima-Fisheries Project should define or 

identify objectives for these species. 

The risks have been identified relative to the objectives, strategies, and assumptions stated in 

the long-range plan' for the Yakima Fisheries Project (Project Status Report, February 1, 1993). 

Measures to contain or manage the risks have been input to a monitoring plan for supplementation of 

upper Yakima spring chinook salmon. 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 - 7.11 ' Yakima Spring, Chinook Salmon - 
Risk Analysis - 

Table 7.1 - -. Complete List of Measures Identified ta Manage Risk Ausociated with Supplementation 

of Upper Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon -,. 

- What I - Where - When Obiective"' ' 

E,G,N 

Measure 

AdultlUpper Yakima, spawning 

Naches, American grounds ' 

. during 

spawning 

during 

spawning 

Electrophoretic . ~ 

analysis by stock ' -. 

hatchery v. wild UpperYakima , spawning 

grounds . 

~ JuvenilelUpper Yakima, --spawning 

._ Naches, American - grounds 

G 

during G 

' spawning Electrophoretic 

analysis by stock 

wild at Roza presmolt 

& smolts 

smolt 

G 

G 

hatchery v. wild Upper Yakima 

Upper Yakima hatchery at 

hatchery 

spawning 

grounds 

Scale analysis (age) 

analysis by stock 

Size (L) 

I 

Age structures * 

during . spawning 

AdultlUpper Yakima, 

Naches, 'American . 

AdultlUpper Yakima 

AdultRIpper Y.akima . 

spawning 

grounds 

spawning 

grounds ' 

' during 

spawning 

during 

spawning 

.F 

E.G 

Spawn timing (date) AdultlUpper Yakima spawning 

grounds 

during 

spawning 

-_ 

hatchery .during '' 

spawning 

No. of Spawners 

- AdultlUpper Yakima 

Naches, American - 

AdultslUpper Yakima, 

Naches, American ,. 

spawning 

grounds, 

. Prosser, 

Roza ' 

during 

spawning 

Read Marks 

Upper Yakma ' 

Naches, American 

Electrop horatic during harvest E.G,H,N 

analysis- ., 

usuall 

customary 

sites 81 test 

site 

' Upper Yakima 

. Naches, American 

usuall 

customary 

-sites & test 

site 

during harvest E,G,H,N 

. \. 

Read scales . 

analysis 

. UpperYakima , usuall 

customa-ry 

sites & test 

site 

Read marks during harvest E,G,H,N 

analysis 

.. 

(1) E=Experimental -- 

G =genetics 

H = harvest 

N =natural productionlecological interactions 

- . Planning Status Report, May 1995 7.12 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
Risk Analysis 

, Table 7.1 Icont.) 

- What : When Obiective - -. -. Where 

- usuall . during harvest G,H,N 

customary 

sites & test 

site 

Measure 

Size (L) 

analysis 

Upper Yakima 

-Sex Upper Yakima 

Naches, American 

usual1 

customary 

sites 

during harvest E,G,H,N 

Time of Catch Upper Yakima 

Naches, American 

usuall > 

customary, ’ 

sites &test 

site . 

during harvest E,G,H,N 

Upper Yakima 

Naches, American 

Place of Catch usual/. 

customary 

sites & test 

site 

during harvest E,G,H,N 

Gear Used Upper Yakima 

Naches, AmerTcan 

usuall 

Customary 

sites 

during harvest E,G,H,N 

\_ 

No. Emergent FryIRedd Upper Yakima emergence 

Naches, American 

spawning at 

grounds . 

spawning 

grounds 

E.G,N 

Origin of spawners on. -G 

selected redds 

(hatchery v. natural) 

Upper Yakima during 

. spawning 

, egg #/female Uppe; Yakima 

egg size 

Roza - during 

spawning 

Upper Yakima Roza 

- 

during 

spawning 

egg volume Upper Yakima Roza during .- G 

spawning 

Size (L) Upper Yakima Roza during - G 

spawning 

Size (W) Upper Yakima Roza during 

spawning 

smolt-smolt survival. 

(hatchery fish) 

, Horn Rapids 

McNary 

Upper Yakima 

smolt-smolt survival 

(Wild) 

Upper Y?kimS, 

Naches 

., 

Horn Rapids 

McNary 

spring 

smolt-adult(hatchery) ’ Upper Yakima Prosser ’ fall 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 7.13 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
\ li- ~ 

Risk Analysis 

Table.7.1 Icont.1 

Me as u r e Where ,I 

\ What / 

Upper Yakirna,Naches 

Upper Yakirna 

When ~ Obiective . 

smolt-adult (hd) Prosser 

hatchery/ 

spawn 

spawning I G' 

(every 3 yrs) 

collect gametes 

collect liver, samples 

for DNA analysis 

Upper Yakirna,Naches hatchery/ 

spawn 

spawning - G 

(every 3 yrs) 

eveh 5 years ' ,N 

Itotal area land use basin 

type (e.g,ag,tirnber, 

urban) 

basin every 5 years N 

basin 4 tirneslyr ~ N 

basin 4 tirneslyr N 

every 3 yrs. 

every 3 yrs. - 

miles stream access 

during upstnn passage 

channel depth 

(rnin. rnax:av.) 

width channel 

(rnin. rnax,av.) 

voturne (ma of pools . 

(rnin. rnax,av.) 

volume (ma of riffles 

1. 

~ (rnin. rnax,av.) 

volume (ma of runs . 

(min. max,avd / 

Upper Yakirna, 

Naches 

Upper Yakirna, 

Naches.. 

Upper .Yakirna, 

Naches 

Upper Yakirna, 

Naches 

basin 4 tirnes/yr N 

every 3 yrs. . 

4 tirnes/yr N 

every 3 yrs. 

.4 tirnes/yr N 

every:3 yrs. 

Upper Yakima,. 

Naches 

* . basin 

Upper Yakirna, basin 

Naches 

volurne'(ma off-channel, 

wetlands (rnin. rnax,av.) 

Upper Yakirna, 

Naches ' 

Upper Yakirna, 

Naches 

basin 4 timeslyr N 

-every 3 yrs. . 

gradient 

(depth,elevation) 

basin 4 tirnes/yr N 

4 tirnes/yr N 

every 3 yrs. 

4 tirnes/yr .N 

every 3 yrs. , 

every 3 yrs. 

basin ,' flow. hn3/s) 

(min. rnax,av.) .. 

velocity (sirface) 

(rnin. rnax,av.) 

- velocity (subsurface) 

(rnin. rnax,av.) . 

Upper Yakirna, 

Naches 

Upper Yakirna, 

Naches 

basin 

Upper Yakirna, 

Naches 

basin ~ 4 tirnes/yr N 

basin \ 4 times/yr N 

every 3 yrs. 

/ 

every 3 yrs. 

area of boulders 

. (rnin. rnax,av.) 

Upper Yakirna, 

Naches 

basin . . 4 tirnedyr -Nevery 3 yrs. 

Upper Yakirna, 

Naches 

Uppei Yakirna, 

Naches 

Upper-Yakirna, 

Naches c' 

.. 

area of cobble 

(rnin. rnax,av.) 

.- 

basin 4 times/yr N 

' basin '4 tirneslyr N 

every 3 yrs. 

, every 3 yrs. 

7.14 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 

area of overhanging bank 

(rnin. max,av.) 

area of canopy cover - 

(rnin. rnax,av.) . - 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 
Risk Analysis 

. 

fable 7.'1 (cont.1 

Me as u r e 

area of near shore 

vegetation- 

- What' - Where - When 

Upper Yakima, basin 

Nachos 

Upper Yakima, basin - Naches 

Upper Yakima, basin 

Nachos 

Obiective 

4 times/yr N 

every 3 yrs. 

N 

N 

area of large organic 

debris 

4 times/yr 

every 3 yrs. 

4 timaslyr 

eve@ 3 yrs. 

4 timeslyr 

every 3 yrs. 

continuous 

_- area of small organic 

debris 

area of fine material 

' in substrate 

Upper Yakima, basin 

Naches 

N ~ 

water temperature Upper Yakima, basin . 

Naches , . 

Upper Yakima and basin ' 

Naches spring chinook 

density & distribution 

relative to specific 

habitat 

all life 

stages annually 

density & distribution 

relative to specific 

habitat 

coho salmon basin all life 

stages annually 

dansity & distribution 

relative to specific 

habitat 

fall chinook salmon basin 

basin 

all life' 

stages annually 

density & distribution 

relative to specific 

habitat 

rainbow trout 81 

steelhead 

all life 

stages .annually 

density & distribution E.N 

relative to specific 

habitat 

density 81 distribution 

relative to specific 

habitat 

cutthroat trout basin 

basin 

all lifa 

stages annually 

bull tiout all lifa . E. N 

stages annually 

density & distribution. basin 

relative to specific 

habitat 

density & distribution 

relative to-specific 

habitat 

redside bhiner ell life 

stages annually 

EN 

sculpins basin 

basin 

all life 

stages annually 

dansity & distribution E.N 

ralative to specific 

'habitat 

density & distribution 

relative to specific 

hebitat 

northern 

squawfish 

all life 

stages ennually 

smellmouth basin ' 

bass 

all life 

stages annually 

E,N 

Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 

-. 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 7.15 

.- 
Risk Analysis 

.. 

. Table 7.1 (cont.) . 

- What - Where 

.basin 

basin 

basin 

Measure - When Obiective 

weight/volume. terrestria1,benthic 

& near benthic organisms 

4 tirneslyr 

every 3 yrs. 

4 times/yr 

every 3 yrs. 

#/volume 

Length 

terrestria1,benthic 

& near benthic organisms 

Upper Yakima spring , 

chinook 

(emergent through swlt) 

Upper Yakima spring 

chinook 

(emergent thro-ugh smolt) 

c. 

annually at all 

life stages 

Weight , 

._ 

basin annual ly at all 

life stages 

. N 

upper Yakima spring . basin 

chinook 

(emergent through smolt) 

annual ly at all N 

life stages 

basin 

-, 

- annual ly at all 

life stages 

mcurrence of fin nips Upper Yakima spring : N 

chinook 

(emergent thrpugh smolt) 

Upper Yakima spring 

chinook - . 

(emergentthrough smolt) 

Upper Yakima spring 

chinook 

(emergent through smolt) 

key non-target species 

(coho,fall chinook, - 

rainbow trout/steelhead, 

cutthroat t[out,bull trout, 

redside shiner,sculpins, 

northern squawfish,. 

smallmouth bass) - .- 

annual ly at all 

life stages 

N incidence of BKD 

black spots,parasites 

occurrence of prey items 

(stomach contents) 

basin 

-\ 

annual at all ~ E,N 

life stages 

basin 

occurrence of prey items basin annual ly 

’ (stqmach contents with 

special note of hatchery 

v. wild upper Yakima 

spring chinook) 

occurrence of behavioral 

displays (nips,crowds, 

charges) 

UppeiYakima spring 

chinook 

(emergent through. smolt) 

Upper Yakima 

’Naches, American , 

basin annual ly at all 

life stages 

N 

Roza ~ upon return , E,H,N 

Prosser 

Horn Rapids (7) , 

spawning grounds , 

Horn Rapids outmigration E,N 

basin outmigration ’ . E,N 

number of_ adults 

, .. 

number of pre-smolts Upper Yakima 

Upper Yakima 

Upper Yakima 

Weight of pre-smolts 

number of smolts basin outmigration 

Planning Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon - Status Report, May 1995 7.16 
Risk Analysis 

Table 7.1 (cont.) 

Measure - What 

number of non-target (coho,fall chinook, 

species rainbow trout/steelhead, 

cutthroet trout,bull trout, 

redside shiner,sculpins, 

northern squawfish, 

smallmouth bass) 

weight of non-target 

species 

I 

(coho,fall chinook, . rainbow troutlsteelhead, 

cutthroat trout,bull trout, 

redside shiner,sculpins, 

northern squawfish, 

smallmouth bass) 

number of fish antreined Upper Yakime 

’ in diversion canels spring chinook 

number of fish entrained 

in diversion canels 

number of 

spring chinook 

hervested 

number of Upper 

Yekime spring chinook 

hervested 

by gear type 

c 

- Where - When Obiective 

1 -- , 

basin every 5 yrs; E, N 

basin every 5 yrs. E. N 

basin annual. E.N 

koho,fall chinook, basin 

rainbow trout/steelhead, 

cutthroat trout,bull trout, 

redside shiner,sculpins, 

northern squawfish, 

smallmouth bass) 

Upper Yakima,Naches~ Horn Rapids 

American to Roze, ell 

.~ harvest sites 

Upper Yakima,Neches Horn Rap-bs 

American to Roze,all 

.harvest sites 

\ 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 7.17 

annual 

,~ 

N 

season, E,G,H,N 

season H 

.- - 

Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
Risk Analysis 

I- 

-. 

'. 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 7.18 2 Yadma Spring Chinos-- Salmon 
- Facilities and Operations 1 

8.0 - Facilities and Operations 

Facilities and operations are planned to accommodate the supplementation of two Spring chinook 

salmon stocks: the Naches and upper Yakima stocks.- Facilities are to be designed, constructed, and 

operated for broodstock collection, adult holding, spawning, incubation, rearing, acclimation and 

release, and monitoring activities of the spring chinook salmon project. These facilities will be 

designed to accommodate and conduct supplementation experiments. The facility currently being 

designed will test supplementation of upper Yakima spring chinook and will accomodate two 

* experimental treatments: the Optimal Conventional Treatment (OCT), and the New Innovative 

Treatment (NIT). The Limited New Innovative Treatment (&NIT) may be tested in later years for 

either upper Yakima or Naches spring chinook. Monitoring facilities are to be designed and operated 

to meet the requirements for five levels of experimental monitoring. 

Broodstock of upper Yakima spring chinook salmon will be trapped at Roza Dam from late May 

through September. Adults will be transported to the Cle Elum Facility for spawning, where egg 

incubation and fry and juvenile rearing will occur. Fry will be ponded and reared in raceways. 

Satellite acclimation ponds will be used for smolt acclimation and release. Each acclimation satellite 

will release OCT, and NIT, treatments. Five candidate satellites have been identified and surveyed 

(Keechelus Dam, the town of Easton, Cle Elum River, Teanaway River, and Clark Flat). The 

program calls for the release of 810 thousand upper Yakima spring chinook salmon smolts. 

Naches Spring chinook salmon broodstock will be collected from July through September, either on 

the spawning grounds or at a collection facility (if Naches stock can be effectively discrimated from 

American stock), and transported to the Oak Flats Facility and held for spawning. Adult spawning, 

egg incubation, and fry and juvenile rearing will also be conducted at Oak Flats continuing into 

October. Three acclimation satellites are planned: the Little Naches River, Naches River, and 

Rattlesnake Creek locations. The program calls for the release of 450,000 Naches spring chinook 

salmon smolts. 

- 

I 

Prior to initiating final design of facilities, treatment definition and biological specifications documents 

will be provided to the project managers and designers as guidelines for determining scientific and 

biological requirements for implementing and conducting the experimental treatments. Prior to 

facilities operations, scientific and biological operations manuals that set forth protocols, methods, and 

procedures for conducting experimental treatment activities (broodstock collection, adult holding, 

spawning, incubation, rearing, acclimation and release, and monitoring), will be institutionalized 

within the project. 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 8.1 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
Facilities and Operations - .. 

. 1. Treatment Definitions And Descriptions 

Introdudion ' 

The Yakima Fisheries Project (YFP) is designed to test the assumption that supplementation can be 

used to increase natural anadromous fish production and improve harvest opportunities while 

maintaining genetic resources. This document will focus on upper Yakima spring chinook salmon, 

one of three genetically distinct chinook salmon stocks in the Yakima basin (Busack 1993, Appendix 

A). , 

Facilities will be constructed in the Upper Yakima River Basin to serve as a production scale 

laboratory to resolve critical uncertainties related to supplementation. Scientists will use this 

laboratory to evaluate the alternative fish culture techniques that can be used in supplementation 

programs. These evaluations will generate improved fish culture and release techniques that yield . high survival of wild-like fish that is assumed to be needed for supplementation to contribute to 

rebuilding depleted wild salmon and steelhead stocks throughout the Columbia River Basin. 

Naturally-produced fish have or disp1ay.a broad array of characteristics believed to be important. 

indicators of pre-smolt and smolt status. These attributes.(fish health, morphology, behavior, and 

survival) will serve as target specifications for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of artificial 

culture methods in producing fish with the appropriate wild-like characteristics (Table 1). 

It is crucial that the facility be designed to scientifically resolve current and future critical 

uncertainties regarding the culture and release of fish for use in supplementation programs.. 

Therefore, to ,provide the maximum statistical power in the most cost effective manner, the biological 

' specifications require that the facility be planned so that treatments can be statistically blocked 

throughout broodstock holding, incubation, rearing, and acclimation phases. This will enable 

researchers to apply experimental treatments at any level of fish culture from broodstock management 

through release, as new critical uncertainties emerge. 

The main value of the scientific information obtained from this facility over the next several decades 

is its adaptive management application to other programs within the Columbia River Basin. 

Therefore, the biological specifications require that certain aspects of the facilities (e.g., raceways) be 

designed as models of most of the-other hatcheries. This will allow those concepts that are 

demonstrated scientifically to be valuable to be readily retrofitted to existing facilities. 

The biological specifications define facilities in which two (2) experimental treatments can occur. At 

acclimation there are nine (9) replicate vessels/treatment. For this level of replication to be 

maintained in any given experiment, there must be nine (9) or more vessels/treatment available from 

the time the treatment is applied. Therefore to maximize experimental flexibility, statistical power, 

and facilitate fish handling the biological specifications must provide at least nine (9) incubation., 

rearing, and acclimation vessels/treatment. The design must also provide some capability to 

accommodate pther research needs. 

The project experimental design requires that each experiment be conducted over one life cycle. Thus 

with spring chinook salmon, the facility will be dedicated to comparing treatment effects over five 

year blocks. The first five-year block will compare the effectiveness of conventional rearing methods 

and semi-natural rearing methods for producing spring chinook salmon suitable for supplementation 

Planning Status Report, May IW5 ~ 8.2 . Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
Facilities and Operations 

I 

programs. The two treatments to be applied are Optimal Conventional Treatment (OCT) and New 

Innovative Treatment (NIT), (Fast 1992, Appendix A; BPA 1992). Experimental treatments will be 

applied to the particular study groups at the start of feeding and continued until the smolts'leave 

acclimation ponds. 

Table 

'ATTRIBUTE 

FISH HEALTH 

8.1. Target biological attributes for upper Yakima spring chinook. 

. PARAMETER MEASURES SAMPLING 

INTERVAL 

(VARIES PER 

NEED) 

GILL Na+/KS ATPase MEAN < = XI... 

SD = Yl .... 0 

PHYSIOLOGY 

THYROXINE 

CORTISOL 

LMR GLYCOGEN. n 

t IMMUNO COMPETENCE " 

HEMATOCRIT 

WHlTE CELL COUNT 

I 

, 

n 

\ 

PATHOGEN IHN VIRUS 

PREVALENCE 

ERYTHROCYTIC INCLUSION 

BODIES 

Renibacterium sahninarum 

Ceratomyxa shasta 

Chondrococcus columnaris 

Aeromom salmonicida 

Yersinia ruckeri 

n 

" 

I 

CLrophOga SPP- " 

ENDOPARASITES 

.I Ceratomyxa shasta 

ECTOPARASITES I 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 .8.3 . . Yakima Spring Chinbk Salmon 
Facilities &d Operations . 

MORPHOLOG 

Y 

BEHAVIOR 

CONDITION . % FAT n- 

% PROTEIN It 

PROTE1N:FAT RATIO " 

. - CONDITIONFACTOR(K) n 

EYE COND,ITION 

GILL CONDITION n 

FIN CONDITION 

PARASITIC SCARRING 

-11 

t 

CRYPSIS DORSAL COLORATION INDEX 

.. . 

, PARR MARWTOTAL BODY INDEX 

PARR MARK DARKNESS INDEX 11 

NO. DORSAL SPOTS n 

1 ~ LATERAL IRIDESCENCE INDEX I " 

MORPHOMETRICS FORK LENGTH 

STANDARD LENGTH I, 

WEIGHT 

TRUSS MEASUREMENTS (INDEX) I 

MIGRATION FROM ACCLIMATION PONDS . 

~~ 

SUSTAINED SWIMMING SPEED 

uPsTREAM/DowNsTREAM " 

MOVEMENT- 

~ 

HABITAT PREFERENCE % TIME SPENT IN COVER n 

DISTANCE FROM BO'ITOM 

- DISTANCE FROM STRUCTURE " 

DISTANCE FROM SIDE n 

DEPTH PREFERENCE It 

. Planning Status Report, May 1995 8.4 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 

.I 
-. -Facilities and Operations 

BEHAVIOR 

SURVIVAL 

VELOCITY PREFERENCE n 

FORAGING #TEST PREYRAXON CONSUMED 

PREFERENCE 

FORAGING EFFICIENCY PREY A'ITACKSTALK RATIO I 

PREY CAFTURE:A?TACK RATIO I 

PREY INGESTI0N:CAFTURE RATIO 

PREY ACQUISITIONKINIT TIME n 

PREY HANDLING TIME .I 

FORAGING ABILITY TOTAL I 

CONTENTSIWEIGHTISTOMACH 

% FOOD ITEMS (BY n 

WGT)/STOMACH 

A NON-FOOD ITEMS " " 

PREDATOR AVOIDANCE PREDATOR RECOGNITION INDEX " .- 

PREDATOR EVASION INDEX 

RESPONSE TIME:COVER.RATIO 

GENBRAL SOCIAL NIPS/UNIT TIME n 

DISPLAYSKINIT TIME n 

- INTER-FISH DISTANCE 

POLARIZATION INDEX I 

SUPPLEMENTATION EMERGENT FRYSMOLT SURV I. 

FISH RATE 

I I SM0LT:SMOLTSURVRATETO I ' 

ROZA 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 8.5 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
Facilities and Operations 

1 - 

No. of release groups 18 

No. of smolts/group (approx.) __ 45,000 

Total programmed for release ' 810,000 

Release size (fish per pound) 

- 

15 

Total ppunds to be released . 54,000 

- Production Objective 

, 

The experimental design requires the production of 18 separate lots of 45,000 smolts for release as 

experimental groups into the watershed above Roza Dam (Table 8. 2). These fish will be 15 per 

pound at release and, in total, weigh 54,000 pounds. 

. 

Table 8.2, Production requirements for Upper Yakima spring chinook salmon research @PA 1990). 

\ 

,, Standard Treatment Methods . ' . 

This section presents anticipated culture methods that will be applied to all experimental treatment 

groups from broodstock collection to the start of fry feeding; b it also provides biologicd~ and 

operational criteria for associated .fish culture and monitoring facilities. 

A. Adult Collection and Monitoring 

Adult spring chinook salmon will be trapped at Roza Dam and transported to Cle Elum Hatchery 

(ibid.). 

The U. .S. Bureau of Reclamation designed the-Roza. Dam adult collection facilities, and began 

const&tion during 1992 with a scheduled completion in 1993 (USBR 1992). The scientific basis for 

facility design wai provided in a memorandum (Easterbrooks 1991, Appendix B). Scientific 

&&.4 . 

requirements and specifications were:, . .~ 

0 

8 

0 

6 holding compartments for- fish segregation: (a)\4 for holding 25 urkampled fish each, (b) 2 

for holding 50 sampled fish each 

-Holding volume - 10 cubic feet per fish 

Minimum po,ol depth - 5 feet 

Sorting flume with mounted coded wire tag (CWT) (Jeffim-et al. 1963) detector equipped with 

auto-sorting instrum6ntation (operating procedures-gd protocols -, included) 

Crowding capability and "iinmobilization" brail- to facilitate fish handling by use of plastic @vc) 

iubes. 

. 

1 - 

.. 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 8.6 . Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
Facilities and Operations 

0 Bio-sampling work area including anesthetic tank, prockssing table, recovery tanks, and chutes 

for sorting fish that are either held or returned to the Roza pool 

Off-ladder holding pool and features, assuming a Denil fishway design 

c 

0 

The minimum flow per adult requirement is 1 gallon per minute at 50°F (assuming a 15 pound/fish 

average weight) with the inflow adjusted at 5% per degree of average water temperature departure 

from the standard(Senn, et al. 1984). Flow must be provided so that the holding vessel outflow 

dissolved oxygen level is 7 mg/L or greater (ibid.). 

* The new adult trapping facility incorporates proven design features and is located on the left bank of 

the Yakima River (Roza pool) approximately 300 feet upstream of Roza Dam (General Plan, 

Appendix B). It is hydraulically connected to the existing fishway by a flow control structure and a 

light-ported spiral-ribbed aluminum pipe which semes as a lake level fish transport channel (following 

Cowlitz Hatchery design). An intake provides a gravity source for the transport channel and a river 

water source, via pumps, for the trapping facilities. The head end of the transport channel is a 

collection area consisting of a "V" trap entrance, crowder, and a Bonneville-Hatchery style fish lock 

and lift. From the top of the fish lock, a fish sorting flume (Prosser Dam design) descends past four 

holding tanks and exits 'as a river return line. Access to each holding tank is provided by remotely or ' 

automatically controlled quick'acting power gates. Holding tanks are provided with a crowder 

channel access port and individual crowders. The common crowder channel is provided with a 

crowder that is used to separatekrowd fish retained for hatchery transfer or for crowding to a fishhandling "scalloped" braif. A water-to-water fish transfer brail is used<for lifting fish from the 

crowder channel and for fish transport truck loading. 

Fish will ascend the Roza fishway and enter the trap via the transportation pipe. Trapped fish will be 

crowded into the fish lock that will subsequently be closed and flooded to the elevation of the fish 

sorting structure. A false floor (lift) will be raised to crowd the fish upward within the lock. Fish 

sorting will be managed by an operator controlling the lock and lift operation. Fish will have the 

opportunity to exit the lock volitionally over the false weir as flow is increased or will be otherwise 

encouraged to exit by the raising of the false floor which servt5-s as a brail. The individual controlling 

the fish lock will also be responsible for either sorting fish (by species) into holding tanks, or 

directing fish to pass through and exit into the Roza pool. 

Processing of collected adults will entail: (1) crowding from @e holding tanks, (2) crowding to the 

head of the crowding channel, and (3) crowding via brail for handling adults. Handling will involve: 

(1) placing captive fish into plastic tubes (while on the brail) for control during anesthetizing, (2) 

exdnation 90s specific identifiers (tags, fin-marks, brands, etc.), and (3) other project-related 

sampling. ' Fish selected for hatchery use will, while anesthetized, be injected with an antibiotic 

before transfer to adult holding ponds at Cle Elum Hatchery. * 

Following Genetic Hatchery Guidelines (GHG), only naturally produced (non-marked) fish will be 

selected for hatchery use and no more than 50% of the available non-hatchery fish can be used for. 

broodstock (Kapuscinski and Miller 1993). The adult population will be sampled such that the 

collected adults represent population parameters including arrival time, age, size, etc. (ibid.; Busack 

1993a, Appendix A). 

The project report "Optimal Conventional and New Innovative Treatments for Upper Yakima Spring 

Chinook Salmon Supplementation Project" (BSWG, 1994) and Planning Status Report (1995) provide 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 8.7 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
Facilities and Operations 

the experimental basis for the number of adult spring chinook salmon broodstock required to support 

the supplementation program. It will be necessary to collect and transport 1,108 adult fish (Table 

8.3). 

. . Fishway, trap, and transport pipe will be in continuous operation under gravity water flow, except per 

a BPANSBR agreement related to winter operations (Appendix B). Adult collection and monitoring 

. facilities requiring pumped water will be operated on a daily'basis with no fish being held overnight. 

1. Sorting & Enumeration The facility operator will have the responsibility for operating the fish 

1ocWlift and sorting flume gates. This person will discriminate the fish by species entering and 

passing down &e sorting flume either to holding tanks or to the Roza pool. It is expected that 

electronic tag detection and automatic sorting devices will eventually be incorporated into the sorting 

process. An assistant may .be required to operate the trap crowder to haze fish into the lock chamber 

for holding until the access port is closed. 

. 

2. Biological Processing 

Collinsworth and Moberly 1983), handling the fish as necessary to verify and record species, fish 

origin (experimental of "wild") by the presence of fish identifiers, and to further observe fish to 

assure appropriate broodstock collection. 

Adults selected for hatchery use will be injected with an antibiotic during bio-processing. Adult 

mortality and juvenile disease related to bacterial kidney disease (BKD) is reduced by injection of an 

antibiotic, erythromycin. Treatment methodology presently involves injecting 20-30 mg/kg fish 

weight of "Erythromycin-200" into the dorsal musculature (Harrell 1993; Moffitt, et al. 1993). - 

3. Broodstock Acquisition Returning adults will be sampled to assure that fish selected for 

broodstock are representative with respect to time of arrival, age, size, sex-ratio, etc. (Busack 1993a; 

Kapuscinski and Miller 1993). Fish taken far hatchery broodstock will be transferred to adult holding 

facilities the day of collection. 

Biological processing will involve anesthetizing (MS-222, 130-260 mg/L - 

Fish TransDortation - Adults Fish transport support will be accomplished by a combination 

of large and small equipment for an estimated 150 96-mile round-trips. Tank trucks, tank bearing 

utility trucks, and truckhailer combinations are routinely used to transport salmon and steelhead 

adults at public fish production facilities. ~ 

The adult transport tank loading rate is 1.0 pounds of fish per gallon at 50°F. Generally, loading I 

should be decreased as temperature increases above 50°F and should be reduced by 10% for each 

degree of increased temperature above 60°F (Bell 1990). The loading rate can be increased by up to 

< 30% for short hauls. Tempering is required where temperature differences between tank and 

receiving water exceed 10°F (note: the change upward has the greatest potential for reducing survival 

of transported fish). Ice used for tempering must be free of residual chlorine (Bell 1986). 

I 

Oxygen will be provided using liquid or gaseous oxygen and ceramic or carbon rod diffusers. The 

rate of oxygen delivery at 10°C of 3 Lpm (@ 80 psi) per lm carbon rod normally supports up to 550 

pounds of fish (Weydemeyer 1992). Other transport tank features will include electrical agitators for 

recirculation, insulation for temperature control, water level sight gauge for volumetric measurement 

of loaded fish, and oxygen delivery controls and monitoring system to assure - proper tank conditions 

(OPTT 1992). 

Adult fish will be transported by tank truck to Cle Elum adult holding ponds. The transport tank will 

- < 

,Planning Status ,Report, May 1995 8.8 ' Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
' Facilities and Operations 

Eggs required . 1,242,ooO 

(assumed 65% survival) . 

Eggs per female 3,500 

Females required -444 

(assumed 20% mortality) 

Sex ratio (male:female) 1.5:l 

Adults required 1,110 I 

be discharged via a rear-located spring loaded gate. Considering.the characteristics of the adult 

holding vessels, the tank contents (adult fish) will be released via a flume to direct fish away from 

pond walls and bottom. Flumes are commonly used for this purpose. 

. 

B. Broodstock 

1. Adult Holding/Handling 

required to be collected at Roza Dam and transported to Cle Elum Hatchery for spawning retention 

Fable 8.3). The assumptions used to derive the preliminary estimate of the numbers of broodstock 

are: egg to smolt survival - 65%, adult mortality - 2096, and eggs per female -4,300 @PA 1990). 

The mean fecundity estimate has subsequently been revised downward to 3,500 eggs per female 

(Knudsen and Busack 1993, Appendix A). 

A maximum of 1,110 Upper Yakima spring chinook salmon adults is 

/ 

Table 8.3. Egg-and broodstock requirements 

Holding Volume The adult spring chinook salmon holding volume is 10 ft3- per adult following the 

design standard recently implemented at upper Columbia bas,in projects, such as Eastbank and 

Methow hatcheries (Scribner 1993). A minimum volume of 11,100 ft? of adult holding space will be 

required to retain adult fish from collection to spawning. 

Two adult holding vessels are required to provide operational flexibility and the opportunity for 

retention of broodstock separately by experimental treatment (e.g., OCT, NIT). 

Inflow The minimum inflow requirement (1,110 -gallons per minute) for adult spring chinook 

salmon holding is derived from the criteria of 1 gallon per minute, at 5O"F, per fish (Senn, et al. 

1984). The inflow is adjusted at a 5% rate- per degree of average water temperature increase from 

the 50°F standard (ibid.). 

Water Ouality 

sufficient for adult holding in terms of both water chemistry, pathogens, and temperature. The 

availability of pathogen-free water, typically from groundwater, can enhance adult holding by, 

reducing mortality and, correspondingly, the number of broodstock required to support the 

supplementation program. - 

Adult holding success is dependent upon water quality. Water quality must be 

Project water quality standards determine the fish culture utility of potentialhndidate Cle Elum 

Hatchery water sources. Results of biological studies and water quality analyses indicate that 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 8.9 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
Facilities and Operations 

characteristics "appear quite suitable for. fish production" (Dauble and Mueller 1993, Appendix C). 

In addition, water quality information summarized by Dauble (1993, Appendix C) indicates fish 

culture suitability of water-sources where upper Yakima River acclimation sites- may become 

established. ., 

With respect to dissolved gases in groundwater, it is recommended "that waters be stabilized before 

use in a fish hatchery if the dissolved oxygen is less, than 90% saturation, or if the dissolved nitrogen 

is greater than 102%- saturation" (Senn, et al. 1984). Ideally, the total g& saturation should not 

exceed 100%. 

Concern exists as well 'for the presence of supersaturated gas in surface water. This is of particular 

importance in the case of upper Yakima River facility planning since nitrogen supersaturation was 

measured in the Cle Elum River 1993 'and was known to cause losses of captive fish below Cle Elum 

Dam (Harrell 1993a, Appendix C). Colt, et al. (1991) reported reduction of the impact of surface 

water gas supersaturation in hatchery water supplies through the use of degassing spctures: I 

\ 

In anadromous fish culture, process water that has been used for rearing a single group of juvenilefish (first-pass) is generally accepted as an alternate adult holding water source if pathogen, chemical, 

and temperature requirements are met. Such water may require aeration in order to re-establish 

dissolved oxygen levels sufficient to allow maximum inflow loading (1 adult per gallon per minute at ' 

50°F.). Alternatively, flow must be increased to maintain dissolved oxygen levels if aeration is not 

provided. 

The YFP has accepted the use of 2nd or 3rd-pass water for adult holding for facility design purposes 

when constrained by water availability @PA 1990). However, water re-use will only be considered 

as a contingency action. 

Water TemDerature 

and Lewis 1980) to 55°F (Piper et.al 1982; OPTIT 1992a). In nature, adult spring chinook salmon 

ascend rivers, select and hold in environments of their'preference and generally spawn in water 

temperatures ranging from 42°F to 51°F (Bell 1990). Stuehrenberg (NMFS, personal communication) 

indicated that radio-tagged spring chinook salmon holding in the upper Yakima drainage is commonly 

associated with dense cover (woody debris, primarily) but that associated temperature data on adult 

holding areas have not been gathered. In another Yakima River study, Berman and Quinn (1991) 

observed behavioral thermoregulation in which spring chinook salmon adults maintained an average 

internal temperature of 2.5& below ambient river temperahre. 

Fish Health 

broodstock. The most prevalent external and internd diseases are discussed below. 

, ._ 

The recommended adult salmon holding temperature range is 43°F (Leitritz 

\ 

Several diseases occur in aduit salmon and will probably occur in fish held for 

Fungus: Fungus (Saprolegnia sp.) is expected to be the most prevalent external disease of 

adults at Cle Elum Hatchery. This disease is a secondary invader of external lesions, abrasions, and 

external bacterial infections and is a common factor in mortality of salmonid broodstock. 

The contemporary treatment practice involves the use of a formalin (37% formaldehyde) "bath" in 

which fish are regularly exposed to the chemotherapeutant for a prescribed period. Harrell (1993) 

indicated that fungus control in spring chinook salmon held at the Washington Department of 

Fisheries (WDF) Hupp Springs Rearing FasGity was realized with a 1:6OOO treatment applkd every 

other day from ponding until the adult fish showed obvious signs of sexual dimorphism. Safe 

application of formalin will require the use or construction of a distribution system which meets 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 8.10 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
Facilities and Operations 

workplace safety standards (State of Washington 1992) and prevailing fire codes. In addition, proper 

storage for formalin must be provided on site. 

Bacterial Kidney Disease (BKD): BKD is caused by a ubiquitous systemic bacterium 

(Renibacteriwn salmoninam). Under some conditions, this disease can cause extensive mortality in 

salmon broodstock. The disease may also be transmitted from infected female salmon (via 

eggs/ovarian fluid) to offspring. 

As noted previously, adults selected as broodstock will be i4ected with erythromycin at Roza Dam 

during bio-processing activities. -They will also receive a second such treatment before being 

spawned. These injections should'minimize adult mortality due to BKD and may mitigate vertical 

transfer (parent to offspring) of the disease. 

Ceratomyxa: Research of project Fish Health Specialists has shown the presence of the 

protozoan Cerufomyxu shasra in returning salmon, however, to date the organism has not been found 

in juvenile salmonids held in liveboxes or recovered from migrants sampled at Prosser Dam (Harrell 

and Snell 1992). Currently, the organism is not expected to pose management problems. 

Others: Parasitic copepods (Anchor Worms) of the genus Lernea have been found on most 

maturing spring chinook salmon observed in the Yakima River (Harrell and Snell, 1993). These 

parasites have been reported to predispose adults to Saprolegnia and/or cause additional stress on 

adults held for broodstock (Phyllis Barney, USFWS, pers. comm.). There is no known treatment for 

anchor worms at this time, however, treatment options will be investigated if these copepods pose a 

threat to adult survival. '_ 

Mdnitoring: A technical support room will be provided for 'diagnostidroutine fish health 

monitoring activities as well as other 'project-related research activities. 

. Phvsical Features 

adult spring chinook salmon held as broodstock and consequently the number of fish to be removed 

The facility design will include physical features that minimize the mortality of 

from the natural spawning escapement. -, 

The construction of an upwelling process water supply, overhead spray, and provision of features 

which otherwise eliminate loss through jumping or injuries are required (Senn, et al. 1984). Water 

upwelling reduces a tendency of adults to jump. and the overhead spray serves to act as a cover, 

ppssibly refracting light. These features are incorporated into adult holding ponds of the recently 

constructed Snake River and upper Columbia salmon hatcheries (e.g., Lyons Ferry and Eastbank). 

Flexibility will be designed into the holding and fish handling facilities so that two primary groups of 

adults can be held separately and handled with minimum stress. External tags might be applied as the 

fish are collected at Roza Dam to provide the basis for broodstock research including the opportunity 

to assess time related differential mortality. 

Illumination required for security will only be used as necessary to accomplish tasks safely. 

Otherwise, fish held within the adult holding vessels should not be influenced by artificial illumination 

so that spawning is not delayed by inadvertent photoperiod extension. 

. 

*- 

Bio1ok-d arocessing 

handling of live fish for injection, maturation testing for maturation. Fish in- spawning condition will 

Biological processing of maturing adult spring chinook sdmon requires the 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 8.11 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 

- .- 
-I 

I 

., -> 

-Facilities and Operations ' 

be killed within the pond, and removed for disinfection following NMFS sockeye handling methods 

(Flagg, et al. 1991). 

A specialized area will be provided adjacent to the adult holding vessel(s) for the completion of prespawned fish handling. This area shall also provide containment of killing-related waste (blood, 

' 

, 

. 

mucous, washdown water, disinfectant) (State of Washington 1990, Appendix 5). *, 

2. SpawningMating 

Mature fish will be taken from the adult holding area following sorting/killing to a designated area 

(refer to biological -processing Area, below) for spawning, mating, and sampling necessary to support 

fish health, genetics, and long-term fitness monitoring and research. 

Disinfection procedures will be implemented to minimize the potential for the spread of pathogens 

. during transfer of fish &om the adult holding ponds to the spawning area. Iodophor solution of 100 

ppm provides general disinfection with a 5 minute exposure (Collinsworth and Allee 1988). 

SDawning 

with eggs and ovarian fluid retained together. Eggs and sperm (milt) from individual spawners will 

be placed in separate containers. 

As necessary, gametes will be stored to prevent or miqimize change from the ambient water 

temperature prior to fertilization. Troughs or refrigerated storage will be required to retain the 

gamete containers until fertilization. It is assumed that this gamete retention will be of short'duration, 

Eggs will be removed from females using the incision method (Leitritz and Lewis 1980) 

.. 

not exceeding-one hour. 'I 

\ 

Fertilization 

the extent to which containers and personnel must be disinfected (Carl Ross, Lyons Ferry Hatchery 

Manager, personal communication, 1993). Use of a similar approach to transfer samples to the 

technical support room will also be used to reduce or eliminate disinfection of foot traffic to and from 

the building. 

Mating 

group of adults which are ripe on the day of spawning. The mating z scheme will follow Hatchery 

Genetic Guidelines (Kapuscinski and Miller 1993). . , 

Biological ProcessinP Arm 

and fish health support activities (OFIT 1992b). The purpose of this area is to make the research and 

fish handling efficient, and worker-friendly, and to manage activities so that data accuracy is assured. 

Lifting will be minimized and should only be necessary for removal of carcasses from racks during 

spawning: There will be no requirement for lifting from the deck, except the necessity to place the 

killed fish onto racks. Post-spawn processing will occur on a table with the carcasses slid from work 

station to work station and eventually transferred to leak-proof plastic bins ("totes") as the processing 

is completed. 

The bio-processing area will serve the following functions: 

0 

Fertilization will take place before container transfer to a disinfection room to reduce 

z e 

Mating -will be randomized with respect to phenotypic traits, including size, within each 

A biological or %io-processing" area will be provided for research 

Technical Support Rsh Identification: Individual fish will be assigned a unique alphanumeric 

identifier that will support research/fish health activities. Multiple-part forms may be used to 

tabulate data derived during these activities (ibid.). 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 8.12 .Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
Facilities and Operations 

Spawning: Identifiers will be applied to the individual gamete containers. 

0 Mating: Mating procedures will follow Hatchery Genetic Guidelink (Kapuscinski and Miller 

1993). Gamete container identifiers will be integrated to provide the genetic history of the 

pairing. 

Pathogen Characterization: Cavity fluid will be sampled as eggs are removed and other 

appropriate tissues will be excised after spawning for the detection of infectious diseases (e.g., 

virus and BKD). Samples will be matched, by label, to individual incubation units. Results of 

the tissue analyses may determine the disposition of individual egg lots and influence fish health 

management practices. 

2- 

0 Genetic Sampling: Sahples of heart, eye, liver, and muscle tissues will be taken for 

electrophoreticand other genetic analyses. 

Morphometric Measurement: Morphometric work involving length and weight measurements 

will occur during bio-processing. Some of this work may precede spawning procedures. 

fish Identification: Coded wire tags, PIT tags (Rentice, et al. 1990), and other identifiers may 

be present in broodstock; therefore it will be necessary to keep the adults separated from the 

spawning process until the identifiers can be discriminated for proper matings to occur. 

0 

Biological sampling will require use of an adjacent working area (technical support room) for related 

information management, sample processing and storage, tag recovery and identification, other 

miscellaneous work, and technical equipment storage. 

Carcass Handlinp and Storape 

lift or a tractor equipped with lifting tines. Carcass disposal will be consistent with state and federal 

regulations and project policy. 

Spawned carcasses held in totes will be loaded onto truch by fork 

An area will be provided for daily storage, cleaning, and disinfection of totes. This area will also be 

used for equipment disinfection. 

C. Incubation 

Two systems, isolation-buckets (Novotny, et al. 1984) and vertical incubators (Senn, et al. 1984) will 

be used to incubate spring chinook salmon eggs at the Cle Elum Hatchery. Wells will provide 

pathogen-free process water for incubation @PA 1990). Spring chinook salmon eggs >will be isolated 

from fertilization through the eyed stage to allow for disease certification (CH2M-Hill 1991). 

Incubation will occur under dark or low-light (working) conditions. Filament lighting in the 

incubation room is preferred to fluorescent lighting (Bell 1990); 

Egg development during incubation will be controlled through using chilled water after development 

to the 128 cell stage (Combs 1965; Tang, et al. 1987). This provides flexibility to mimic natural 

conditions (BPA 1990). Managing the incubation temperature also accomplishes several objectives: 

(1) it regulates the number of days reared prior to transport to acclimation pond, (2) it allows growth 

control aimed at preventing the fish from attaining a larger than specified size, and (3) it provides 

opportunity to reduce the time between group ponding, and (4) it facilitates feeding of all fish through 

water temperature management. . 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 '8.13 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
Facilities and Operations 

Agency pathologists, per interview, (Hager- 1991), preferred a facility design which provided the 

following: - 

0 

0 

Isolation of incubating groups (species). The best-case design would provide separate roomi, 

not rooms partitioned with moveable curtains. Each room would be separately ventilated to 

further reduce risk of air-borne disease transfer and include other sanitation features. 

Use of isolation buckets for retaining fertilized eggs, by female, in summer chinook salmon, 

spring chinook salmon, and summer steelhead. This concern is driven by-diseases which may 

be present in'lhe adults and transmitted via gametes. . 

1. Disinfection' and Water-Hardening 

A disinfection (sanitation) room will be provided for post fertilization disinfection and waterhardening processes to increase protection from horizontally and vertically transmitted pathogens and 

to help control .the ipread of infectious agents within the incubation facility. 

Fertilized eggs will be transferred from the bio-processing area to the disinfection room. Eggs will 

be dipped for 5 seconds in 100 mg of .active iodine per liter of pathogen-free'water prior to placement 

into iso-buckets for 1 hour water-hardening in 100 ppm iodophor to maintain the desired 100 mg/L 

concentration of disinfectant (Chapman and Rogers 1990). After one hour in iodophor, pathogen-free 

water will be circulated/introduced to the containers to rinse disinfectant from fertilized eggs. 

Following water-hardening, iso-buckets will be transferred to the incubation room. 

. 

Isolation Bucket Incubatorq 

of females to be collected and retained for spawning (632). 

The incubation system uses a down-welling water supply and a pair of nested buckets. Eggs are 

retained in the upper (inner) bucket and flow is introduced at the top of the bucket and exits 

downward through a screened bottom. Water level is controlled by ports cut near the top edge of the 

bottom bucket which serves as a "trough" for the.egg bucket. Water will be delivered through mist 

nozzles at a rate of 18 gqlons per hour (Public Utility District NO. 1 of Chelan Co. Wa. 1988). 

2. Incubation Through Eyeing , , 

Iso-bucket incubation capacity will be provided equal to the number 

Water-hardened eggs in iso-buckets will be transferred to a separate incubation room for isolation of 

spring chinook salmon eggs. The iso-buckets will be placed into deep troughs that will be used to 

control wastewater. - 

Eggs will remain isolated by bucket until they reach the eyed stage and the parents have been 

characterized for important diseases (bacterial kidney disease, viruses). Chinook salmon eggs will 

have accumulated approximately 450 temperature units at eyeing (Senn, et al; 1984). 

Chemical treatment will be necessary to control fungus. Formalin is the only effective 

chemotherapeutant available presently but other agenQ are being actively investigated and may be 

available in the future. 

Eyed eggs will be physically shocked (Leitritz zic! Lewis 1980) and allowed to stand overnight before 

removal of undeveloped or infertile eggs("picking"). Picking and enumeration tasks will be 

accomplished by a mechanical egg sorter (ibid.). 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 8.14 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 

~ 

' 
Facilities and Operations 

3. Eyeing Through Emergence 

Vertical incubators will be used for the final phase of incubation to facilitate genetic r&mch with up 

to 50 individual families (Busack 1993a). Hatching fry will be provided substrate within trays @PA 

1990).' While there are several alternatives, the shallow tray incubation substrate of choice is heavy 

plastic netting which is folded and retained in four layers to fit within the trays (Fuss arid Seidel 

1987). 

Following shocking and removal of dead eggs, eyed eggs from each iso-bucket (mating) will be 

placed into vertical incubator trays that will be arrayed in two stacked 8 tray cabinets as a "stack". In 

normal production use, each tray has a carrying capacity of 5,000 eggs and each 16 tray stack is 

provided with up to 10 gallons per minute (gpm) (Senn, et.al. 1984). .The number of available 

vertical incubator trays should match the planned number of iso-buckets (632). 

. 

' At swim-up, fry will be transferred by pipe or by tray to rearing vessels with the actual ponding date 

determined by visual observations, condition factor, or ventral slit measurement (Fuss and Seidel 

1987). In the latter case, fry are to be ponded when the ventral slit has closed to 1-3 mm in width. 

Monitoring flow and temperature of incubation process water is mandatory. 

Fish Health 

positive indication of virus will not be destroyed automatically but will be managed as necessary, 

including possible isolation of high titer groups. 

Indoor Rearing 

research (Busack 1993a). The troughs will have sufficient volume to rear each group (assuming a 

maximum of 5,000 fish) to a size large enough for application of coded wire tags and fin-marks 

(approximately 250 fishllb). 

The rearing density index will be .175 lbs/ff/inch of body length @PA 1990). Assuming an average 

length at marking of 2.37", maximum rearing density will approximate .41 Ibs per ft3. The volume 

requirement per group 250/lb is 48.8 ff. 

The maximum inflow loading rate is 2 Ibslgpm. It is approximately one-half of the recommended 

value cited by Piper, et al. (1982) for chinook and coho salmon at 50°F because of handling and 

marking stress-related considerations. - Accordingly, the maximum flow requirement per trough will 

be 10 gpm. (Note: This quantity is only partially additive to the total flow requirement for the 

facility since vertical incubator flow will be available in 10 gpm increments for use as fry are 

ponded.) 

- 

Bacterial Kidney Disease (BKD) and IHN Virus: Egg takes from mating pairs with 

Fifty troughs will be provided for the indoor rearing of family groups forgenetic 

* 

EXPERIMENTAL TREATMENTS - FISH REARING 

Spring chinook salmon juveniles will be reared under a variety of conventional and experimental 

conditions (treatments) in hatchery vessels and acclimation ponds. The following discussion 

encompasses aspects of both experimental and controlled variables (those common to all treatments) to 

be applied to OCT, NlT, and LNIT treatment groups. # 

r 

!, 

. 

Planning Status Repdrt, May 1995 8.15 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
FaciIhx and, Operations , .- 

.. -. 

-. 

A. Outimal Conventional Treatment ,. 

The Optimal Conventional Treatment (OCT) is a treatment that incubates, rears, and acclimates ' 

salmonids using optimal conventional fish-culture methods derived from artificial propagation 

experiences within the Columbia River Basin. 

1. Hatchery R-earing / 

The spring chinook salmon production goal of the Cle Elum hatchery is 810,000 spring chinook 

smolts weighing 54,000 pounds (Table 8.2). The production population will be separated into 18 . 

groups, nine of which will be reared under the Optimal Conventional Treatment. The OCT fish will 

be reared under conditions in the hatchery and at off-site acclimationponds that are expected to 

produce the highest quality and most fit hatchery fish. 

Prior to the end of their rearing cycle (approximately one year post swim-up), all experimental groups 

will be traxkferred to off-site rearing ponds for acclimation and release (BPA 1990). This transfer 

will occur in January to assure their presence at the release site before the increase in thyroxine and 

other physiological indicators associated with smoltification (and effective homing)(hfaynard 1993 and ' 

1993a, Appendix A). 

By 'the end of the hatchery rearing cycle, OCT groups will have essentially attained their maximum 

size per fish (15 fpp) @PA 1990, Senn 1993) and maximum biomass of approximately 3,000 pounds. 

The planned size at release is within the range of release size criteria common fhroughout the region 

(Hopley 1993; Scribner 1993a; Maynard 1993b, Appendix A). 

, I 

.. 

Rearin? Density: controlled variable (applied, to all treatments) 

The maximum rearing density is 0.75 Ibs/ft? of rearing space following the chinook salmon yearling 

rearing standard adopted for the design of upper Columbia basin facilities including Eastbank 

Hatchery (Public Utility District NO. 1 of Chelan Co. Wa. 1988). Maynard (1993~~ Appendix A) 

summarized the results of spring chinook salmon rearing density experiments showing survival and 

contribution advantages provided by lower than normal pond loading rates. 

RearinP -Vessel: controlled variable 

By definition, OCT rearing vessels should represent the current Pacific salmon production standards 

in length, width, depth, and inflow. Raceway vessels typically conform to a ratio of 30:3: l'for 

length, width, and depth, respectively (Piper, et al. 1982). 

Following a literature review and a review of the PDR, Maynard (1993d, Appendix A) concluded that 

the recommended length and width were common to current design but the depth of 5 feet as 

represented in the PDR @PA 1990) was non-conventional. He further concluded that w%ter depth 

should be maintained at about 3.0 feet. The experimental design will assume a raceway design 

standard of.100' x 10' x 3.5' (operating depth) as the optimal conventional treatment in keeping with 

the Lyons Ferry raceway dimensions and current WDF design. 

Raceways will be installed as separate but adjacent units. Standardization of vessels is a critical 

factor needed to reduce experimental variation among the vessels. Maynard (1993e, Appendix A) 

provides the experimental rationale ~ for the arrangement of vessels on-site. 

Planning Status 'Report,'May 1995 8.16 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
Facilities and Operations 

Vessels will, for experimental flexibility, be dividable into four equal sections and will have infinitely 

variable water level control. Surface skimming is required to maintain proper fish health and will be 

provided by two surface level overflow weirs. These will be designed to provide a means - of 

routinely assessing pond inflow. 7. - 

Inflow: controlled variable 

4 

Flow will be provided as-necessary to maintain a high level of dissolved oxygen (not less than 7 ppm) 

@PA 1990). In particular, raceways will be supplied with 1.44 cfs (650 gpm) through a pond-width 

manifold following current WDF facility design. In addition, outlet screens will also span the width 

of the vessel. -- 

The fish growth model provided in the PDR @PA 1990) uses a variable temperature profile with 

constant temperature from May into September for spring chinook salmon culture. Accordingly, two 

water supplies will be required for the culture of spring chinook salmon at Cle Elum Hatchery: (1) a 

production quantity surface Water source to provide a fluctuating environment (water quality and 

temperature) needed to properly induce smoltification, and (2) a groundwater system to support 

production during the summer when surface water temperatures exceed the desired range for spring 

chinook salmon production. 

General Fish Culture: controlled variables 

The objective of the fish culture program is to produce high quality fish. The program will follow or 

modify standard practices which will be detailed or specifically referenced in facility and operations 

manuals. 

The project will rely heavily on the collective fish culture experience of management agencies, 

individuals, and on current salmonid culture literature including Leitritz and Lewis (1980), Piper, et 

al. (1982), Senn, et al. (1984), Wood (1979), Fowler (1989), and Collinsyorth and Moberly (1983). 

Fish Feedmiet experimental variqble 

"The health and well being of artificially reared fish is directly correlated with proper nutrition and 

feeding " (Fowler 1989). 

Fowler (ibid.) summarized general nutritional recommendations, quality control, and feed-related 

management practices. Specific spring chinook salmon nutritional requirements are presented in 

Appendix D (Hardy 1993), including storage criteria related to feed moisture levels. In particular, 

diets available for fish production fall into general categories based upon their general moisture 

content as follows: "dry" - less than 11 % moisture; "semi-moist" - 12-16% moisture; and, "moistw - 

greater than 16% moisture (ibrd.). 

The majority of spring chinook salmon reared at public fish culture facilities are presently started and 

reared to approximately 400/lb usi6 "closed-formula" semi-moist diets. The remainder of the 

production is usually accomplished through the use of Oregon Moist Pellet (0MP;Hublou 1963) 

formulations following bid specifications. Use of semi-moist feed in full-tern rearing of spring 

chinook salmon has been limited and not fully evaluated. Semi-moist diet trials have, however, 

provided favorable comparisons (growth, conversion, size variation, physiological measures) between 

spring chinook salmon reared on OMP and semi-moist diets (Hager, et al. 1992). 

. 

i 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 8.17 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon - 
Facilities and Operations 

- Diet 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Recommendationsfor OCT-reked fish (ibid.) are: 

Start fry on moist or'semi-moist diets. 

Rear juveniles on moist or semi-moist diets until approximately- 1 gram average size. 

Complete rearing on OMP or similar project-specific formulations. 

The upper Yakima spring chinook salmon production program will require approximately 136,000 

pounds of feed annually (BPA 1990). Diet procurement will follow project-specific manufacturing 

and nutritional specifications as detailed in Appendix D. 

FeedinP Methods. Growth Schedule experimental variable 

1 

First feeding of spring chinook salmon will occur following yolk absorption when at least 90% of the 

population is free swimming (Fowler 1989). Approximately 1,665 temperature uniti at 50°F are 

required for chinook salmon fry development prior40 the time of first feeding (Senn,'et al. 1984). 

Fish feed is ~~&only delivered by hand and use of several types of fe'eders that have a wide range 

in complexitjr-and application (ibid.). Fish will be fed following Piper, et al. (1982) and Fowler 

(1989), at frequencies recommended by manufacturer's feeding tables, or as otherwise determined by 

project fish health/quality control- staff. 

The fish will be reared in concert with the planned temperature regime (BPA 1990) such that the' 

projected growth schedule is follow@ 'and the desired size target is met at the appropriate time. 

Pond 'ClehnindPollution Abatement: controlled variable. - 

Pond cleaning will be a manual task. Typically; accumulated solids are removed by suction (vacuum) 

hose that discharges- to an "off-line" pollution abatement system. Cleaning will be accomplished in a 

manner which will not condition fish to become attracted to large moving objects.. 

A "General Upland Fin-Fish Hatching and Rearing National Pollutant Discharge 'Elimination System 

(NPDES) Waste Discharge Permit" from the State of Washington Department of Ecology is required 

to operate fish culture facilities (Appendix D). This permit requires facilities using "off-line" waste 

treatment to monitor discharge to &sure meeting discharge standards shown in Table 8.4 and the 

system performance criteria shown in Table 8.5. 

.- 

I 

Planning Status Repod, May 1995 8.i8 Yal&na.Spring Chinook Salmon- 
.. 

- 

Parameter Monthly Average . Instantaneous Max. 

Settleable Solids 0.1 (net d/L) 

Total Susp. Solids 5.0 (net mg/L) 15 (net mg/L)- 

.- Facilities gnd Operations 

Parameter 

Settleable Solids 

(% removd) 

Total Susp. Solids 

Total Susp. Solids 

(% removal) 

Monthly Average Instantaneous Max. 

90 

100 (mgW 

85 

Following the preferred experimental design (Hoffman et. al. IN PRESS), five acclimation sites with 

six ponds per site will be constructed. All ponds on each site will be supplied from a common water 

source and will represent each of the two treatments (OCT, NIT, ). Two of these sites will be 

located on the Yakima River between Ellensburg and Keechelus Dam and the other on the Teanaway 

River. The site selection process will consider biological and environmental criteria important to 

supplementation objectives. 

The acclimation ponds will’be sized to hold 45,000 spring chinook salmon. These ponds will be of a 

common design with a rearing volume of approximately 4,500 cubic feet (BSWG). They will be . 

designed with operational flexibility sufficient to accommodate experimental design requirements and, 

by site, will have common water supplies and drains. Smolts exiting from the ponds will access the 

receiving water by the pond drain system. Predators will be controlled to assure fish inventory and 

experimental integrity. 

Sites also feature security fencing, and an alarm system with flow/level sensors. The security fencing 

will be installed to provide protection from furbearers and bird predation systems will be installed to 

assure inventory important to experimental needs. The pond outlet structure will be designed for 

electronic monitoring of outmigrants (smolts). 

All ponds will be supplied with surface water with fluctuating temperature. Water delivery systems’ 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 8.19 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 

1 

I 

- - - - __ - - I___ --- - - -- - 
-. 

Facilities and Operations 

will use both pumped and gravity supplies. .. 

These vessels will be in use from January through May; Following post-release cleaning, the ponds 

will be drained and allowed to stand dry until the next rearing cycle. : 

The OCT groups will be reared in acclimation ponds without any modifications thereby representing 

normal practices. One of these groups will be represented in separate vessels within each of the five 

acclimation clusters to meet experimental design needs. 

General Fish Culture: controlled variable rAll acclimation ponds will be visited daily by project staff to assure project integrity and to do routine 

fish culture work (fish feeding, cleaning, intake and outlet screens, verifying flow, recording 

temperature and other factors, etc.). 

Rearing vessels will not be cleaned during use except as required for fish release. Mortality will be 

removed and counted daily and otherwise processed as necessary to meet project objectives (saving 

fish for later tag recovery, etc.). 

Because of the rearing density and anticipated low water temperatures, it is unlikely that disease 

treatment will be required during the acclimation and release phase of their culture. Any disease 

treatment, however unlikely, will be applied consistently with proper experimental methods. 

RearinP Procedures: controlled variables 

The planned maximum rearing density index for acclimation ponds is 0.11 Ibs/inch/@ @PA 1990). 

By mid-April, fish size is projected to be 15Ab attaining a peak acclimation pond loading of 3,000 

lbs. (BSWG.). Volitional outmigration is expected to offset the impact of increasing water 

temperature on the pond loading density through mid-May. 

Fish will be fed daily by hand such that nutritional needs for health and growth are met. Sampling 

for size and consideration of water temperature profiles will provide the basis for reducing size 

variability across ponds and clusters of acclimation ponds. 

- - 

~ 

Predator Control: controlled variable 

Predation by birds and furbearers will be controlled by the construction of fencing and bird covers to 

assure control of population inventory and experimental integrity. ~ 

Monitoring controlled variable 

Pond level and inflow will be monitored continuously by use of electronic technology (monitoring and 

telecommunication systems). 

Prerelease Activities: - controlled variables 

Prerelease activities will involve pond cleaning next to the outlet one week prior to release to meet 

pollution discharge standards if pond levels are lowered to induce migration (DOE, Appendix D). 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 .A 8.20 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon ~ 
Facilities and Operations. 

Post-release Activities: non-experimental 

Post-release activities will involve removal of support equipment, pumps, intake and outlet scrmx, 

stoplogs, and any other items that could be readily taken by vandals. All exposed supply and drain 

piping structures will be covered. 

Additionally, the ponds will be cleaned and allowed to stand dry until the next rearing season. Pond 

cleaning will range from addition of commercially available bacterials for aerobic digestion of fish 

waste to physical removal of accumulated material. 

On-site waste management opportunities will be developed in concert. with the State of Washington 

Department of Ecology such that water quality standardske not compromised. If fish are released, 

via pond drawdown, the following effluent limits apply (ibid.): 

Parameter 

Settleable Solids 

-' Instantaneous Max. 

1.0 ml/L 

Total Susp. Solids 100 mg/L . Accumulated solids will be hauled off-site for disposal or must be'otherwise processed "so as to ' 

prevent such materials from entering waters of the state" (ibid.). Senn, 'et al. (1984) detailed 

concerns regarding the presence of the botulism organism, clostridium botulinum (Type E), which 

may weigh against the use of fish pond waste as fertilizer. They further suggest that a fish health 

specialist be contacted regarding disposal of. the sludge. ' 

Fish Transportation - Juveniles: controlled variable - 

Spring chinook salmon juveniles will be transported from the Cle Elum Hatchery to off-site 

acclimation ponds for release. Preliminary planning for the project envisioned the use of a variety of 

fish transportation systems @PA 1990). Hauls from Cle Elum average 20 one-way miles (ibid.). 

Considering haul length and load-ing time, fish hauling time willprobably not exceed 1.5 hours. 

The recommended maximum loading rate for transporting spring chinook yearlings (15 fish/lb) is 1.0 

pounds per gallon at 50°F (OF" 1992). This rate is at the lower end of the range noted by Piper, et 

al. (1982) for 215 fish/lb chinook salmon. 

>. 

3. Research Support 

Fish Marking: controlled variable 

Knudsen (1993) summarized experimental and operational considerations associated with a wide 

variety of internal and external fish tags, visible implants, fin marks, and elemental scale marks.In 

addition to providing space for tag recovery as previously noted, hatchery facilities will also be 

designed to accommodate mobile marking units. 

Use of rare earth or elemental solutions will'require provisions for neutralization such as activated 

charcoal filters(ibid.). 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 8.21 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 

.. ~ 
. - Faulities and Operations 

., 

Fish Handling: controlled variable 

Juvenile fish handling will be accomplished using fhe method imposing the least stress or risk to fish 

health. Piper, et al. (1982) noted the importance of assuring an adequate oxygen supply, a clean 

'handling vessel and avoidance of over-loading nets and containers, water temperature shock, etc. 

Transport tank loading will be mechanized using fish pumps or Archimedes screw technology. 

Randomization 

Zero-age fish, including family groups will be randomly distributed into each of the treatment sub- ' 

populations (groups) before placement into separate vessels (treatments). Randomization will occur at 

the eyed-egg stage concurrent with automat& removal of dead eggs and enumeration of viable eggs. 

Use of automatic systematic random sampling equipment is envisioned. 

4. Behavior Techniques: experimental variable! 

\ 

. 

.. Does not apply. 

5. Exercise: experimental variable 

Does not apply. 

- 

6. Vessel Modifications -- 

Racewav Color: experimental variable -- 

-. 

, Do& not apply. ./ 

Overhead Cover: experimental variable 

Does not apply. 

7. In-water Structure: experimental variable 

." 

~ Do& not apply. 

8. Substrate: experimental -. variable 

Does not apply. I . 

9. Subsurface filtration: experimental variable - 

Does not apply. 

._ 

- B. New Innovative Treatment 

New Innovative Treatment (NIT) is a treatment that incubates, rears, and accli-mates spring chinook 

salmon using natural-like environments (e.g., natural cover, substrate, in-water structure)to produce 

- 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 8.22 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
Facilities and Operations 

-rJ1l with attributes that approxllnate those of naturally procdced spring cllinook. ODetails of this 

treatment are being further developed. 

This section describes the New Innovative Treatment of planned upper-Yakima River spring chinook 

salmon supplementation research. Five groups of these fish will be reared from initial feeding 

through release under artificial production cirmmtances that have been modified physically and ' 

procedurally to fit experimental purposes. 

- 

. 

Anticipated experimental rearing and release methods and procedures are detailed below. 

1. Hahhery and Acclimation Rearing 

- 

As previously noted, the spring chinook salmon production goal of the Cle Elum Hatchery-based 

activities is 810,000 fish weighing 54,000 pounds. Rqaring of the NIT portion (405,000 fish) will be 

accmnplished with methods intended to &ow enhancement of behavioral, morphologicd, and 

physiological characteristics that are important to survival. 

Rearinp Density: controlled variable 

- -- 

Since the benefits of lower rearing density on survival have been demonstrated (Banks 1990), and the 

project has chosen an optimal rearing density for OCT fish, the NIT fish will be reared at the same 

density as OCT fish in raceways and acclimation ponds. 

Rearin? Vessels: controlled variable 

(see' 0 CT) 

Inflow: controlled variable 

(see OCT) 

General Fish Culture: controlled variables 

Routine fish culture practices other than those discussed below will be standardized across all 

treatments. 

Fish FeedIDiet: experimental variable 

NIT fish diets will be supplemented with live organisms throughout their hatchery rearing period to 

condition released spring chinook salmon smolts to forage more effectively on naturally occurring 

food organisms. They will otherwise be fed with the OCT diet or possibly with an alternate prepared 

diet resembling the constituents of natural feed. Diets for NIT use will be manufactured following 

specifications that provide the desired nutrition requirements and appropriate feed delivery 

characteristics. 

NIT fish will be fed caloric amounts equal to-OCT and LNIT treatment groups. 

- 

(2). Ydu'mdKlickitat Fiahuirr Project Planning Statu8 Rrport 1992 -, 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 8.23 , . Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 

..------I--- - . -~ -i__ .... _I__ ___.___.~__~~_~~~_I~I_..._._.I . ~ . - - - - . ~- ._ 
Facilities and Operations ' 

, 

Feedinp Methods: experimental-variable 

Floating pellet feed will be introduced underwater. Feed delivery will be mechanical and sequenced 

to follow natural biorhythms from dawn to dusk.' Feeding frequency will be appropriate to achieve 

proper growth. 

Growth Sched ule: controlled variable 

- 

(see OCT) 

Pond CleanindPollution Abatement: controlled variable. 

a. Raceways: The raceway cleaning system will be designed to work effectively over natural 

substrates-and will not condition fish to seek moving objects. 

b. Acclimation Ponds: Cleaning will only take place as necessary to prepare the vessels for smolt 

release. It is expected that this will be limited to the area next to the outlet structure where settled 

t 

solids could be disturbed with pond drawdown or increased exit velocity. 

Fish Transportation -' .Tuveniles: controlled variable 

(see OCT) 

Predator Control: controlled variable 

\- ' r 

,' -, 

Predation by birds and furbearers will be controlled uy tle construction of fencing -and ,.:d covers to 

assure control of population inventory and experimental integdty. 'Predator avoidance fraining is 

. : discussed below. 

..Monitoring: controlled variable I, 

2. Research Support 

~ 

Fish Marking: controlled variable 

(see OCT) . . 

- 

.Randomization: controlled variable, . ,< 

(see OCT) 

3. Behavior Techniques: experimental variables 

Predator Avoidance Training: Avoidance training methodology will be applied to NIT experimental 

groups to allow fish to avoid predators. Fish will be trained to avoid predaceous fish, birds, and 

possibly mammds. 

Conditioning may: (1) follow the approach of Thompson (1966) in which fish were trained with 

electrified model predators; (2) the approach of Olla and Davis (1989) in which fish were conditioned 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 8.24 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 

. 
Facilities and Operations- 

- 

by exposure of fish to predators; or (3) be achieved by the placement of predators in cages in rearing 

vessels. 

4. Exercise: experimental variable 

Exercise is envisioned as a means of improving fish performance. This may be accomplished by the 

use of pumps or temporarily configuring vessel water supplies to create increased water velocities in 

raceways and acclimation ponds. 

. 

The planned exercise velocity will be one fish body length per second (Maynard 1993f, Appendix A). 

5. Vessel Modifications: experimental variable 

It is expected that standard raceways will be modified to improve fish quality and ultimately to 

achieve higher post-release survival ("quality"). 

Overhead Cover Overhead cover will be applied at a covered-to-uncovered ratio of 4:l (ibid.). 

a. Raceways: Use of overhead cover-will allow fish to become adapted to natural structures to 

avoid predation. It is expected that the effect of an undercut bank will be achieved by using 

pond-width aluminum-frames covered with camouflage netting. Approximately 80 % of the 

raceway surface will be covered. 

b. Acclimation Ponds: Use of floating covers will facilitate fish culture activities and meet 

experimental needs as well. 

6. In-water Structure: experimental variable 

Use of in-water structures is envisioned to create a varied rearing environment in both raceways and 

acclimation ponds. While specifics are not available, it is expected that the materials used may be as 

simple as denuded vegetation or more complex,'being constructed to meet the need. 

7. Substrate: experimental variable 

Vessels will be designed to allow randomization of vessels and substrate between years as required by 

experimentation. 

Racewav Color 

rearing environment of the color matching that of the natural background of the area into which the , 

fish will be released can be cryptically adapted. A period of at least seven weeks is required for full 

chromatophore expression. ~ 

- 

Donnelly (1991) ihd Maynard (in preparation) indicate that fish exposed to a 

Raceways will be modified to achieve the appropriate condition gS determined by field use of 

colorimetric methods. 

Substrate 

a. Raceways: The bottom of each NIT raceway will be covered with gravel substrate of color 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 8.25 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
\- ~ 

I' 

! 

 facilities and Operations 

similar to the general river substrate over which they will be released. The raceway wals will 

be painted to resemble stream background coloration. 

b., Acclimation Ponds: Acclimation ponds - will be lined with river rock. 1, 

8. Subsurface Filtration: experimental variable 

A rough substrate has the potential to collect settleable solids and improve environmental conditions 

within the formal rearing vessels through the actions of decay organisms. 

a. Raceways: Thebottom of each NIT raceway may be equipped with a substrate biological 

filtration system to enhance decomposition of organic materials that cannot be removed 

otherwise. 

b. Acclimation: does not apply. 

I 

- 

C. Limited New Innovative Treatment , - 

This report section describes the Limited New Innovative Treatment, an alternate treaaent that may 

eventually be tested with upper Yakima spring chinook salmon supplementation research. Nine 

groups of spring chinook salmon will be reared from incubation through transfer to acclimation ponds 

under normal artificial production (OCT). Their rearing will be completed in acclimation ponds 

under modified physical conditions identical to - NIT procedures. 

LNIT is a treatment applied to spring chinook salmon that uses the OCT during the incubation and , rearing, phase and uses the NIT during the smolt acclimationhelease phase. 

1. Hatchery Rearing 

As previously noted, the spring chinook salmon production goal of the CleElum Hatchery-based 

activities is 810,000 fish weighing 54,000 pounds, The production population will be separated into 

18 treatment groups, nine of which could eventually be reared under standard (OCT) rearing 

conditions in raceways until transfer to acclimation ponds. 

Except as noted under B (NIT) above, all variables associated with LNIT rearing will be controlled 

and identical to those discussed under A (00 above. As such, routine fish culture practices other 

than those discussed below will be standardized across all treatments. 

Rearing Densitv: controlled variable 

I 

(see OCT) 

RearinP Vessel: controlled variable 

(see OCT) .. 

-. . 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 8.26 , Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
Facilities and Operations 

Inflow: controlled variable 

(see OCT) 

IGeneral Fish Culture: controlled variables 

(see OCT) 

Fish Transwrtation - .luvenilq: controlled variable 

(see OCT) 

Fish Feed/Diet: experimental variabZe - identical to OCT i 

(see OCT) 

FeedinP Methods, Growth Schedule: Identical tq OCT 

(see OCT) 

2. Acclimation Raring 

The LNIT groups will be separately reared in semi-natural (NIT) condition in acclimation ponds. 

Rearing in acclimation ponds will be.accompanied with methods intended to allow expression of 

Eltcept as noted under B (NIT) above, all variables associated with rearing will be controlled and 

identical to those discussed under A (OCT) above. Routine fish culture practices other than those 

discussed below will be standardized across all treatments. 

Fish Feed/Diet: experimental variable - identical to NIT 

’ behavioral, morphological, and physiological characteristics that are important to survival, 

Feedin? Methods: experimental variables : identical to NIT. 

Growth Schedule: controlled variable - identical to OCT 

3. Researchsupport 

Fish Marking: controlled variable - identical to OCT 

Randomization: controlled variable - identical to OCT 

* 4. Behavior Techniques: experimental variable 

Raceways: identical to OCT . 

Acclimation Ponds: identical to NIT 

/ 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 8.27 Yakima Spring*Chinook Salmon 
- 

Facilities and. Operations. 

5. Exercise: experimental variable 

Raceways: identical to OCT 

Acclimation Pond: identical-to NIT , 

, 

6. Vessel Modifications: experhenfa1 variable 

Raceway Treatment: identical to OCT . 

Acclimation Pond: identical to NIT 

7. In-water Structure: experimental variable 

- 

Raceway Treatment: identical to OCT I' 

1 Acclimation Pond: identical to NIT 

8. Substrate: experimental variable 

Raceway Treatment: identical to OCTAcclimation Pond: identical to NIT 

9. Sub-surface Filtration: experimental variable 

~ Raceway Treatment: identical to OCT 

c 

Acclimation Pond: sub-surface filtration will not apply in acclimation p0nds.s 

STANDARD RELEASE TREATMENTS 

Fish will be allowed to outmigrate volitionally from acclimation ponds and the ponds will be managed 

in terms of inflows and water levels to minimize residualKing fish. 

Procedure Smolt release procedures will follow the experience of WDF in otherupper Columbia 

drainages (primarily the Snake, Wenatchee, and Methow river systems). Generally, screens will be 

removed at the onset of migration to provide smolts an opportunity to outmigrate without interruption. 

I 

Enumeration . Migrating fish will be counted as they pass out of the acclimation ponds through or 

management agency experience with fish counters. ~ 

. past sensing. heads of electronic fish counters; The outlet structure dai~ will reflect current 

Planing Status Reporti May 1995 8.53 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon I 
.- Monitoring 

9.0 Monitoring 

Monitoring has been planned to track project progress toward meeting objectives. Related to 

monitoring is the management and dissemination of information so that project results are available 

in a timely manner and a usable form. - 

The plan is organized into five sections according to monitoring: Quality Control, Product 

Specifications, Research, Risk Containment, and Stock Status. These groupings are not absolutely 

distinct; they simply provide a systematic way to present monitoring needs for each purpose. 

Monitoring activities to address all five purpose categories are then integrated into a single nonduplicative monitoring plan. This plan identifies measurements to be taken monitor experimental 

response variables and to contain risks associated with uncekinty. Future iterations of this plan will 

include more details on sampling methods and frequencies and a detailed quality-control program. The 

level of detail here is deemed sufficient to proced with NEPA documentation and design of facilities 

for supplementation of Upper Yakima spring chinbok . .. , 

Quality-Control Monitoring / 

The purpose of quality-control (QC) monitoring is to (1) assure that fish culture and monitoring 

activities are conducted as intended, (2) reduce to a minimum the variation from manageable sources 

other than-experimental treatments (3) assure the validity of the data collected, (4) assure proper 

record keeping and access to information, and (5) provide information needed for cost-effective 

operation. Quality control monitors performance of the facilities and their operators. Quality 

standards will be established for all fish-culture and data-collection activities. Quality-control 

monitoring procedures will be included in the operations manuals for all facilities *and field activities. 

Development of quality-control standards and monitoring protocols is a part of the certification 

tasks described in the URP. No further details about QC monitoring are covered in this section at 

this time. As the certification process proceeds, this portion of the mon'itoring plan will be expanded. 

Feedback from QC monitoring affects management and supervision of operational activities. It 

does not affect the treatment prescriptions. When QC standards are met, it is assumed that various 

treatments are being applied according to stated protocols . 

QC monitoring protocols are modified in response to changes in the treatment prescription, i.e. 

when the ,"Treatment Definitions and Descriptions" section of Chapter 8 is altered (e.g., through the 

results of product-specification monitoring). 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 9.1. Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
Monitoring 

, Product Specification@) - , ,* .,.. 

Product' specification monitoring is an extension of quality control, where the "product of the 

artificial environment" is monitored and'compared with a defined template. For the NIT, this template 

consists of a profile describing the natural ideal in terms of a set of measurable attributes (Assumption 

#325). For OCT, it is the standard used in conventional culture (Assumption # 21). The product of 

the artificial environment for the NIT treatment is described in terms of a history of attributes 

(measurements) of a group of fish from the selection of their parent broodstock to their liberation 

from the acclimation sites. The purpose of the NIT treatment is to produce attributes similar to natural 

fish. For the OCT, the product definition is obtained from other facilities or from the literature. 

. 

- 

Monitoring at this level measures how well the defined treatments (NIT/ and OCT) meet their 

respective product specifications. The product specifications are stated in ierms of attributes 

describing health, morphology, behavior and survival of hatchery fish (see Vol. 3, Chap. 8). 

Part of the product specification for NIT is an in-facility survival standard that requires prespawning and egg-to-smolt survival to exceed 80% and 65%, respectively. Survival by life stage 

from spawners trapped at Roza to the release of their offspring into the natural environment will 

therefore be monitored. 

Product specificaticp attributes include both static end-point measurements and growth and 

development profiles of hatchery fish over time (Le., histories of attribute measurements). They 

include both population means and descriptoh of diversity (frequencies and/or variances). Table 9.1 

lists the mekurement categories to be monitored, while the fish are still within the artificial 

environment. . 

Table 9.1. Categories of Observations needed to Monitor Product Complihce. _, 

I 

(3) The term "Performance" which was used in Chapter 9 of the PSR comes from the FWP framework 

terminology where e.g. "performance" of a flow strategy is measured as changes in travel time. We use 

"Product Specification" here to avoid confusion, since elsewhere we use the term "performance" to indicate 

survival, fitness etc. 

- 

Planning Status Report, May'1995 9.2 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 

.. 

I 
.. '% I .Monitoring 

Treatment Definitions arid Descriptions (Chapter 8) and the Operations Manual. When specifications 

are met, the treatments are assumed appropriate and the supplementation strategies and experimenpl 

protocols are implemented asplanned, Le., the Treatment Definitions and Descriptions and the 

Operations .Manual are meeting project objectives. When observations suggest that the fish do not 

meet the specification, a determination of the needed changes must be made. Changes are then 

implemented through modifications to the Treatment Definitions and Descriptions and/or the 

Operations Manual. 

The Product Specifications are modified based on results of research and risk-containment 

monitoring or new policy direction affecting objectives and strategies. 

Research 

There are critical uncertainties regarding both the artificial and natural environments within 

which the YFP supplementation project operates. Research activities are planned to test alternatives 

in the artificial environment (treatment effectiveness testing, e.g., NIT vs. OCT) and to compare 

performance of artificially and naturally reared fish (e.g., NIT vs. Natural). Assumption #200(4', 

for example, pertains to the relative performance of supplementation and natural fish, whereas #201 

and #202 pertain to differences bemeen NITs and OCTs. 

Success of the YFP also depends upon a progressively better understanding of the ecological 

interactions among and within species in the Yakima Basin. There are critical uncertainties about both 

intra- and inter-specific effects of supplementation. Research pertaining to the dynamics of the 

ecosystem is described under the heading of PTA (Patient Template Analysis) below. 

Treatment Effectiveness Testing 

A fundamental hypothesis is that new innovative hatchery treatments (NITs) will improve 

performance of treated fish significantly over optimal conventional treatments (OCTs) (see 

assumptions #201 and #202). YFP experiments are specifically designed to test this hypothesis. The 

monitoring requirements for testing specific hypotheses about differences between NU and OCT in 

terms of measurable response variablesQ are identified in this subsection. 

The different test treatments are compared in terms of performance with respect to survival, 

reproductive success, and in a more limited sense to long-term fitnessc6, and ecological 

- 

(4) Assumption #200: "Release of smolts that mimic natural fish ensures that post-release survival 

is greater than half the survival of wild smolts.'' 

(5) The term performance refers to quantitative and qualitative characteristics of groups of fish 

including fitness,survival, life-history. and ecosystem interactions. Performance is observed and 

measured in terms of response variables. 

(6) While the intent of the NIT treatment is to minimize genetic effects due to supplementation, the. 

ability to compare long term fitness among treatments is very limited. Straying rates into the 

Naches and American Rivers can perhaps be compared between treatments as a partial measure of 

adverse genetic impact. Genetic monitoring of the YFP is also covered under Risk Containment. 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 9.3 ' Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 

- 

. 

, 
Monitoring 

interactions". The experiment described in Chapter 6 is designed to detect a 50% difference in 

survival among treatments with 90% certainty. Response variables for testing hypotheses for the NITOCT comparison experiment are outlined in Table 9.2. Observations required (Le., where, what and 

why) to compute response variables are summarized in Table 9.3. 

. 

\ 

Comparing hatchery) and natural fish 

Assumption ROO is critical to the success of supplementation. ,The operation of Chandler 

Juvenile Monitoring Facility allows the comparison of survival between OCT and NIT smolts from 

release in the upper Yakiia to smolts at Chandler, as well as estimates of survival from egg to smolt 

for natural and hatchery fish. The juvenile monitoring facility at Roza may also prove valuable 

although its operation and utility are not comparable to Chandler at this time. The comparison of 

morphometrics, behavior, and survival of OCT, NIT and naturally produced smolts that survive to 

Chandler may help to refine the product specifications for improving the NIT. The estimation of 

survival from smolt to returning adults can also be made as returning adults are monitored at the fish 

- ladders on Chandler and Roza dams. 

. Another opportunity to compare performance of natural and hatchery fish occurs when the adults - return to Roza. Representative subsamples of hatchery and natural-origin fish can be marked and 

tracked allowing their spawning distribution, timing, and ,eggdeposition success to be compared. 

Tables 9.2 and 9.3 outline the monitoring plans for the NIT vs. Natural fish hypothesis testing. 

Patient-Terndate Analvsis - 1. 

An essential part of the YFP planning process is the so-called Patient-Template Analysis PA) 

where factors.limiting production are identified. The PTA is a part of an iterative process by which 

assumptions about the relationships between life histories and habitat are updated as new information 

is obtained and analyzed. New information from PTA may result, for example, in a modification of 

the template for the NIT. 

A preliminary PTA (RASP 1991) has been conducted and a draft report is in preparation for 

upper Yakima spring chinook. Additional analysis of existing data will provide a better understanding 

about the factors limiting spring chinook production in the Yakima Basin. 

The Natural Production Objectives-analysis and subsequent risk assessment have pointed out the 

critical nature of assumptions concerning intra-specific ecological interactions during the smolt 

outmigration. The feasibility of developing experiments to test hypotheses regarding the effects of 

hatchery fish on smolt-to- smolt survival of natural fish should be investigated. These'uncertainties are 

reflected in the risk-containment monitoring plan. 

. 

I 

4 

(7) No ecological response variables are identified to compare interaction effects of NIT and OCT 

fish. Ecological interactions are subject to research under the PTA topic. 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 9.4 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
Monitoring 

Population 

Response ~ 

Categories 

Post-Release 

Survival 

Table 9.2. Response Variables to Test Hypotheses 

- 

NIT vs OCT 

Response Variables for Hypothesis 

Testing Testing 

Survival from Smolt at release to smolt at 

Chandler 

Hatchery vs Natural 

Response Variables for Hypothesis 

Survival from smolt at Chandler to 

returning adult at Chandler and Roza 

Long-Term 

Fitness 

Ecological 

Interactions 

Survival from smolt at %handler to Adults 

at Chandler and Roza 

Straying Rate into Naches & American 

Rivers 

To be specified' 

To be specified in GMP 

To be specified 

* 

Reproductive 

success 

Returning Adults at Roza (by#,age,sex, . 

Straying rate into Naches & American . 

Spawning (time, loc, eggdcarc.) from 

Tagged samples (Roza) of OCT vs NIT 

adults. 

Spawning (time, loc, eggdcarc.) from 

Tagged' samples (Roza) of (OCT,NIT) 

vs Natural adults. 

RetumdSpawner'') 

ISmolts/Spawner I 

, 

(a) This is a highly variable statistic that in nature varies with density b well as with environmental 

conditions throughout their life-history, consequently the statistical power of tests based on this 

response variable is expected to be very poor. However because of the unusual opportunity to 

intercept and account for all adults returning to Roza, it can be measured and would provide a record 

of outcomes by brood year. 

. 

, 

Risk Containment 

Analysis of results from all monitoring levels contribute to decisions about the future of the 

project. The purpose of risk containment is to identify monitoring needs and to organize information 

required to make rational decisions based on projected benefits and risks. This is where we test the 

hypothesis that supplementation in fact works. 

- 

The statement of objectives in quantitative and qualitative terms defines project success. When 

these objectives are met or exceeded, the project' s continuation is justified. Conversely, failure to 

meet objectives suggests that the project should be significantly modified or perhaps ended. Our 

ability to distinguish success from failure depends upon the quality of the risk-containment monitoring 

Planning Stat& Report, May 1995 9.5' Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
Monitoring 

program. Conclusions about project success (Le., achievement of objectives) are manifested in 

decisions to continue or to reshape the project. These decisions are neverfinal; they are reexamined 

on an iterative basis according to the policy of adaptive management. At each-such iteration, an 

assessment is made regarding benefits and risks of the project, and the conclusions are affected by the 

results of new information. The question whether or not supplementation "works" is thus constantly 

reexamined ,and the conclusion is always conditioned upon available information. The decision to 

continue to supplement is synonymous to a conclusion that supplementation works (Le., the benefits 

exceed the risks) at that point in time. 

The determination of both risks and benefits requires a synthesis of all available information. 

This monitoring section should specify information needed to perform this synthesis, beyond what is 

needed to address the other four monitoring levels. The identification of the risk-containment 

monitoring needs is performed in a systematic way as described in Chapter 7, Risk Analysis: \ 

The risk analysis defines risk in terms of failure to meet objectives in four categories: genetics, 

experimentation, ecological interaction/ natural production, and harvest. The monitoring needs for all 

four categories have been integrated in Table 9.3. The risk analysis provides the rationale for the 

entries in the table (see Chapter 7). 

The entries in the second column of Table 9.3 are defined as follows: ~ 

ADLT MARK interr = sampling of adult fish; identifying whether or not they are marked; if 

they are marked ,the mark is decoded and the experimental treatment and replicate group of the 

fish are determined; a set of observations are recorded for each sampled fish including, time, 

location, size, sex, and other benign measurements; subsamples may also be subjected to tissue 

sampling as needed. 

ADLT ENUM = enumeration of fish by externally observable categories (e.g., marked'vs 

.unmarked). 

REDDS = observations on the spawning grounds, such as no. fiylredd, and also biosampling of 

/ 

- 

carcasses. 

GroupMARK = application of unique marks to juveniles of each replicate group, that can be 

decoded on returning adults (without harming the fish). 

ADULT TAGGING = application of individually unique marks to adults that are passed 

upstream at_ Roza or natural spawning. Representative subsamples of NIT, OCT, LNIT, and 

unmarked fish are selected and marked. These fish are subsequently tracked and observed on the 

spawning grounds, where time. and location of spawning are recorded; redds and carcasses may 

also be examined. 

The scope of the monitoring program may change as more information about needs and 

feasibility become available. The elements listed in Table 9.3 represent the high-priority monitoring 

needs that are also judged feasible based upon current technology. ' 

Density and distribution(time, space and habitat type) by life stage are identified as high-priority 

monitoring needs in the risk analysis for natural production and ecological interactions. Sampling 

plans to address this need will be addressed following completion of the Patient Template Analysis. 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 - 9.6 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
- 

1) Fi hulth 

Z) Morphology 

3)EkbVior 

4) suwid 

1) NIT- OCT, 2) 

Natural n NIT 

3)PTA 

1. Gaxtia 

2. EcolO&icaI . 

-3. 

, ADLT ENUM 

omupm 

Ulnilluru histnric8 

NBR(Iime.s&) 

R?rd Biwh 

IND MARK rub 

a~r of Hat fuh? 

MARK inrcrrql 

Itt of NAT fuh 

attr of HAT fuh 

attr of NAT fuh 

MARK intcrrog 

1,24 

1.2.3.4 1.23 

1.23.4 . 

23.4 

1 

4 

'1.23 3 

1.23 ' I :3 

4 1.2' 

1.2.3 3 - 

133 3 

4 1.2 . 

ADLT MARK intern 

ADLT MARK intcrr 

ADLT ENUM 

ADLTMARK'mtur 

ADLT ENUM 

1.2 4 

- 1.2 13.4 . 

1.4 .- 

1 13.4 

~~ 

MLT MARK hrr 

ADLT ENUM 

ADLT MARK inrerr 

MLT MARKiDtdrr 

ADLT ENUM 

ADLTENUM . 

1.2 1.4 

- 

1.2 1.4 

- 1.2 1.4 . 

Monitoring 

Stock Status Monitoring .r 

Monitoring of stock status (run size and spawning escapement) provides information essential to 

track long-term performance and fitness of the population. Monitoring needs for in-season run size 

assessment are included under risk containment monitoring (see Chapter 7 and Table 9.3). Stock status 

information includes abundance and distribution (by time, location, and habitat type) as well as other 

demographics. Target and key non-target species would be monitored. 

Table 9.3. Summary of Observations needed to Compute Response Variables 

MONITOR~NC 

LOCATIONS 

We=) 1. RuSh 

2 EKapemeat 

CE Hatch . 1.2 

13 

RmN 

Chandler N 

Tu1 FLbery I 

PmrerAD 1 

1 

-1 

1 

~ 

1.3.4 I .- I: I3 MLT MARK mtm -1 

ADLT ENUM 

ADULTTAGGINO 

1 

1 

Ron AD 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

(8) Quality Control Monitoring 'is not included. 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 , 9.7 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
.. 

Monitoring 

I- 

- 

Planning Status Report, May.1995 9.8 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
10.0 References 

References 

- 

Banks, J. L. 1990. A review of rearing density experiments: Can hatchery effectiveness be improved? 

NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFSF/NWC-87. 94-102. 

Bell, M. C. ,1986. Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biological criteria. Fish 

Passage Development and Evaluation Program, Corps of Engineers, N. Pac. Div., Portland, OR. 290 

P. 

Bell, M. C. 1990. Fisheries handbook of engineering requirements and biological criteria. Fish 

Passage Development and Evaluation Program, Corps of Engineers, N. Pac. Div., Portland, OR. 

Berman, C. H. and T. P. Quinn. 1991. Behavioral thermoregulation and homing by spring chinook 

salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (Walbaum), in the Yakima River. Journal of Fish Biology 

’ 

39: 301-312. - 

Bio-Specifications Workgroup, Yakima Fisheries Project. 1994, Optimal Conventional and New 

Innovative Treatments for the Upper Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon Supplementation Project: 

Treatment Definitions and Descriptions, and BiologicaI Specification$ for Design. Draft report to 

Bonneville Power Administration. 

BPA (Bonneville Power Administration). 1990. Preliminary Design Report for the Yakima/ Mickitaf 

Production Project. BDnneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. 

BPA Ponneville Power Administration). 1992. Drafi Environmental Impad Statemenf, Ydma 

Fisheries Project. DOEEIS-0169, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. 

Busack, C., C. Knudsen, A. Marshall, S. Phelps, and D. Seiler. 1991. Yakima Hatchery Experimental 

Design. Prepared for the Bonneviile Power Administration, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, 

Oregon. Project No. 89-082. August 199 1. r 

Chapman, P. F. and R. W. Rogers. 1992. Decline in iodine concentration of iodophor during water 

hardening of salmonid eggs and methods to reduce this effect. Prog. Fish-Cult. 54:81-87. 

Collinsworth, D. W. and B. Allee. 1988. Safer chemical use in Alaskan aquaculture. Alaska Dept. of 

Fish and Game Big Lake Hatchery staff and Div. Fish. Rehab., Enh., and Dev. Safety Committee. 

Juneau, AK. 90 p. 

Collinsworth, D. W., and S. A. Moberly. 1983. Fish Culture Manual. Alaska De@. of Fish and 

Game; Div. Fish. Rehab. Enh. and Dev. Juneau, AK. 9Op. 

Colt, J. E., K. Orwicz, and D. Brooks. 1991. Gas supersaturation in the American.River. Calif. Fish 

and Game 77(1): 41-50. - 

.. L 

Combs, B. D. 1965. Effect of Temperature on the development of salmon eggs. Prog. Fish-Cult. 

27: 134-137. , 

- , 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 . 10.1 ’ Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon = 
1 

References 

Dauble, D. and R. Miller. 195)3. Assessment of water supply characteristics at the Cle Elum site, 

Yakima Fisheries Project. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. (Drawin prep.) 

Davidson, F.- A. .1953. The Development of the Yakima River Basin for Irrigation and its Afect on the 

Migratory Fish Populations in the River. Prepared for the Yakima Indian Nation, Toppenish, 

Washington. August 1953. I 

Department of Ecology. 1990. General upland fin-fish .hatching and rearing National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System. waste discharge permit. State of Washington, Department of Ecology, 

Olympia, WA. General permit number :WA-G13 oo00. 

Donnelly, W. A. and F. G. Whoriskey Jr. 1991. Background-color acclimation of brook tiout for 

crypsis reduces risk of predation by hooded mergansers Lophodytes cucullatus. N. Am. J. Fish 

Management. 11:206-211. I. 

Fast, D., J. Hubble, T. Scribner, M. Johnston, and W. Sharp. 1990. Yukima/Mickitat Natural 

1 I Production and Enhancement Program. Prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration, Division of 

Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon. Prbject No. 89-120. December 1990, . 

Flagg, T. A., J. L. Mighel1;T. E. Ruehle, L. W. Harrell, and C. V. W. Mahnken. 1991. Cle Elum 

Lake restoration feasibility study: Fish husbandry research, 1989-1991. Annual Report, Bonneville 

Power Administration Division of Fish and Wildlife. Portland, OR. 52 p. 

Fowler, L. G. 1989. Feeds and feeding practices for improved fish health. Technological Transfer 

Series NO. 88-1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 33 p. 

-. 

Fuss, H. and P. Seidel. 1987. Hatchery incubation techniques at WDF hatcheries. State of 

Washington, Department of Fisheries, Technical Report No. 100. 86 p. 

Harrell, I;, W. and G. A. Snell. 1992. Yakima river fish health studies. Progress report*April - June, 

1992. Bonneville Power Administration Division of Fish and Wildlife. Portland, OR. 3 p. 

- 

Harrell, L. W. and G. A. Snell. 1993. Yakima River fish health studies. Progress report January - 

June, 1993. Bonneville Power Administration Division of Fish and Wildlife. Portland, OR. 4 p. 

Hoffman,-A., C. Busack, and C. Knudsen. 1995. Experimental Designs for Testing Differences in 

Survival Among Sdmonid Populations. Final report to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, 

Oregon. IN PRESS' 

Howell, P., K. 'Jones, D. Scarnecchia, L. LaVoy, W. Kendra,, and D. Ortinan.. 1985.. Stock Assessment of Gdumbia River Anadromous Salmonids (2 Vo1s.J; Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, 

Oregon. project^ No. 83-335. ' 1,032 pp. 

Hublou, W. F. 1 1963. Oregon pellets. Prog. Fish-Cult. 25(4): 175-180. 

Jefferts, K. B., P. K. Bergman, and H. F. Fiscus. 1963. A coded-wire identification system for 

macrc-organisms. Nature 1?8:460-462. . A 

Kapuscinski, A. R. and L.~ M. Miller. 1993. Genetics .hatchery guidelines for the Yakima/Klic!citat. 

U 

! 

~. 

'Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon .. Planning Status Report; ,May 1995 . -10.2 >I 

1 

, 

- . - ~ __ .~- - ...~l ~. ._ .. , 

-. , ., ., .~ ... ~ 

_I. 

.~ 
References 

,. 

I 

. Fisheries Projecc Public review draft. Bonneville Power Admin, Portland, OR, 

Leitritz, E. and R. C. Lewis. 198@. Trout and salmon culture. Calif. Fish Bull. 164. Calif. Dept of 

Fish and Game. 197 p. 

Maynard, D. In prep. The behavior and post-release survival of fall chinook salmon reared in 

conventional and semi-natural raceways. National Marine Fisheries Service, 7305 Beach Dr., Port 

Orchard, WA. 98366. 18 p. 

.. 

Moffit, C., A. Haukenes, and K. Peters. 1993. Regional Investigational New Animal Drug permits 

for erythromycin injectable and feed additive. IN: (Eds. J. Derwin and I. Brock) Proceedings of 43rd 

Annual Northwest Fish Culture Conference, Dec. 1-3, 1993, Wenatchee, WA. 64-73. 

RASP (Regional Assessment of Supplementation Project). 1991. Final Report for the Regional 

Assessment of Supplementation Project. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. 

Novotny, A. J., J. Mighell, and T. Flagg. 1984. Low flow isolation system for salmoriid egg 

incubation. In: (Ed. J. Gearheard) Proc. 35th N.W. Fish Culture Conference, Kennewick, WA. 132 p. t. 

Olla, B. L. and M. W. Davis. 1989. The role of learning and stress in predator avoidance of 

hatchery-reared coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) juveniles. Aquaculture, 76:209-214. 

Piper, R. G., I. B. McElwain, L. E. Orme, J. P. McCraren, L. G. Fowler, and J. R. Leonard. 1982. 

Fish Hatchery Management. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C. 517 

P. 

Prentke, E. F., T. A. Flagg, and C. S. McCutcheon. 1990. Feasibility of using implantable passive 

integrated transponder tags in salmonids. Am. Fish. SOC. Symposium 7:3 17-322. 

I 

Public Utility District NO. 1 of Chelan Co. WA. 1988. Eastbank Hatchery design memorandum. 

Senn, H., J. Mack, and L. Rothfus. 1984. Compendium of low-cost Pacific salmon and steelhead 

trout production facilities and practkes in the Pacific Northwest. U.S. Dept. of Energy, Bonneville 

Power Admin., Portland, OR. 488 p. 

State of Washington. 1990. Chapter 173-221A WAC - Wastewater discharge standards and effluent * 

limitations - 1990. State of Wash. Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 35 p. 

State of Washington. 1992. Chapter 296-62 Washington Administrative Code - General occupational 

health standards - 1992. Department of Labor and Industries, Olympia, WA. k1.12-166. 

Tang, J., M. D. Bryant, and E. M. Brannon. 1987. Effect of temperature extremes on the mortality 

and devemopment rates of coho salmon embryos and alevins. Prog. Fish-Cult. 54:81-87. 

Thompson, R. B. 19k6. Effects of predator avoidance conditioning on the post-release survival rate of 

artificially propagated salmon. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, WA. 156 p. 

Walters, C. J. 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. Macmil1,an Publishing 

Company, New York. 

Weydemeyer, G. 1992. Transporting and handling smolts. World Aquaculture, 23(4): -47-50. 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 . 10.3 - Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
References - 

Wood, J. W. 1979. Diseases of pacific salmon - their prevention and treatment. State of Washington, . 

Department of Fisheries, Hatchery Division. 82 p. 

-. 

Planning' Status Report, May 1995 

.. 

.- .- .- 

10.4 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 
Amendments 

11.0 Amendments 

The following lists document annual amendments to the-Planning Status Report. Amendments may 

be submitted by interested parties at any time. Amendments will be reviewed by the Scientific and 

Technical Advisory Committee and forwarded to the Policy Group. Accepted amendments will be 

incorporated into the Project Planning Status Report (PSR). An updated PSR will be printed and 

distributed on approximately an annual basis. Project Planning Status Reports have been updated in 

February, 1993; May, 1994; and May, 1995. 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 11.1 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 

c 
68-93 - 

69-93 

70-93 

71-93 

Vol. 3, Summary Table S. 1, page vii 

Vol. 3, Summary Table S.l, page vii 

Vol. 3, Summary Table S.l, page vii 

Vol. 3, Summary Table S.l, page vii 

Achieve consistency among stocks 

. Achieve consistency among stocks 

Achieve consistency among stocks 

Achieve consistency among stocks 

72-93 

75-93 

Vol. 3. Sect. 4, page 4..1 ' : Achieve consistency among stocks 

Vol. 3, Sect. 4, page.4.2 Achieve consistency among stocks .I 

75-93 

76-93 

77-93 

78-93 

Vol. 3, Sect. 5, Table 5.1, page 5.3 

Vol. 3, Sect. 5, Table 5.1, page 5.3 

Vol. 3, Sect. 5, Table 5.1, page 5.3 

Vol. 3, Sect. 5, Table 5.1, page 5.3 

Achieve consistency among stocks 

Achieve consistency among stocks 

Achieve consistency among stocks 

Achieve consistency among stocks 

79-93 

80-93 ' 

Vol. 3, Sect. 5; Tab16 5.1, page 5.3 

Voll3, Sect. 5, Tables 5.2 and 5.3, page 

5.4 

Achieve consistency among stocks 

' Achieve consistency among stocks 

-. 

83-93 . 

84-93 

Vol. 3, Sect. 5, Tables 5.2 and 5.3, page ~ 

5.4 

Vol. 3, Sect. 5, Tables5.3, page 5.5 

. Achieve consisfency among stocks 

.Achieve consistency among stocks 

85-93 

86-93 

87-93 

88-93 

89-93 

Vol. 3, Sect. 5, Tables 5.3, page 5.5 

Vol. 3, Sect. 5, Tables 5.3, page 5.5 

Vol. 3, Sect. 5, Tables 5.3, page 5.5 

Achieve consistency among stocks 

Achieve consistency among stocks 

Platts and Hemy (1988) as cited in 

R. Wiley peer review of 1992 PSR 

d 

. 

Vol. 3, Sect. 5, Tables 5.3, page 5.6 

Vol. 3, Sect. 5, Tables 5.3, page 5.6 

. Achieve consistency among stocks 

Achieve consistency among stocks 

0'- Amendments - . 

- Amendment . I -tion 

Justification . I Petitioner 

~~ ~~~____~ ~ 

65-93 I Vol. 3, Summary Table S.l, page vi I Achieve consistency among stocks PAC reviewers 

I 

I 

~ 

66-93 I Vol. 3, Su& Table S.l, page vi I Achieve consistency among stocks PAG reviewers 

67-93 I Vol. 3, Summary Table S.l, page vi . - -1 Achieve-consistency among stocks PAG reviewers 

PAG reviewers 

PAG 'reviewera 

PAG reviewera 

, PAG reviewers 

PAG reviewers 

PAG reviewers 

74-93 I Vol.3,Sect.S,Table5.1,pagt5.3 . I Achieve consistency among stocks PAG reviewers 

PAG reviewers 

PAG reviewers 

PAG reviewers 

PAG reviewers 

PAG reviewers 

PAG reviewers 

81-93 I ' Vol. 3, Sect. 5, Tables 5.2 and 5.3, page I Achieveco&stency among stdcks PAG reviewers I 5.4 

82-93- . Vol. 3, sect. 5, Tables 5.2 and 5.3, page 1 A;hieve consistency among stocks 1 5.4 

PAG reviewers 

PAG reviewers 

PAG reviewers 

PAG reviewers 

PAG -reviewers 

R. Wdey 

PAG revieweb 

PAG reviewers 

~~~~ ~ ~~~~ 

93-93 I Vol. 3, Sect. 5, Tables 5.3, page 5.6 I Achieve consistency among stocks 
91-93 

92-93 

I 93-93 ~ 

~ 94-93 

95-93 

96-93 . 

97-93 

98-93 

I 

,. 

Vol. 3, Sect. 5, Tables 5.3, page 5.6 Achieve cotkkency among stocks 

Vol. 3, Sect. 5, Tables 5.3, page 5.7 Achieve -consistency among stocks 

Vol. 3, Sect. 5, Tables 5.3, page 5.7 Achieve consistency among stocks 

Vol. 3, Sect. 5, Tables 5:4, page 5.8 -Achieve. consistency among stocks 

Vol. 3, Se'ct. 5, Tables 5.4, page 5.8 Achieve consistency among stocks 

Vol. 3, Sect. 6, page 6.1 Statement clarifidion D., Neeley 

Vol. 3, Sect. 6, page 6.3 . I Statement clarification D.. Neeley 

Vol. 3, Sect. 6, page 6.3 . I -Statement clarification - D. Nceley 

PAG reviewers 

PAG reviewers 

PAG reviewers 

PAG reviewers 

PAG reviewers 

Amendments 

1994 Location Justification 

Amendment 

Petitioner 

4-94 Vol. 3, Table 5.3, page 5.7 Add resolvable .uncertainty 

#325 

PAG 

5-94 Vol. 3, Summary Table S.l, page v Vol. 3, . 

Sect. -3, page 3.1 . 

~~ 

Add new natural production 

objectives #3 and #4 

PAG - PG 

Vol. 3, Sect. 4, page 4.1 

Vol. 3, &t. 4, page 4.2 

' Add new natural production PAG - PG 

strategy #3 . Delete old natural production 

strategy. #3 

Delete resolvable uncertainty 

#I95 ' 

Vol. 3, Sect. 5, Table 5.3, page 5.6 PAG 

Vol. 3, Gt. 5, Table 5.3, page 5.6 Delete resolvable uncextainty 

#198 

PAG 

Vol. 3, Sect. 5. Table 5.1, page 5.3 Add accepted-assumption . PAG 

#326 

Add accepted assumption 

#329 

Vol. 3, Sect. 5, Table 5.1, page 5.3 PAG 

. Vol. 3, Sect. 5, Table 5.1, page 5.4 PAG - - Add accepted assumption 

#33 1 

~~ 

Add accepted assumption PAG 

#332 

Vol. 3, Sect.5, Table 5.1, page 5.4 

Vol. 3, Sect. 5, Table 5.1, page 5.4 ~ Add accepted assumption 

#338- 

PAG 

Vol. 3, Sect. 5, Table 5.4, page 5.9 Add .resolvable uncertainty PAG - PG 

#327 - 

Add resolvable uncertainty 

#328 

Vol. 3, Sect. 5, Table 5.4, page 5.9 -PAG - PG 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 11.3 Yakima Spring Chinook 'Salmon 
Amendments 

Vol. 3, Sect. 5, Table 5.4, page 5.9 

Vol. 3, Sect. 5, Table 5.4, page 5.9 

Vol. 3, Sect. 5, Table 5.4, page 5.9 

Vol. 3, Sect: 5, Table 5.4, page 5.10 

Vol. 3, Sect. 5, Table 5.4, page 5.10 

Vol: 3, Sect. 5, Table 5.4, page 5.10 

6-94 Vol. 3, Section 7.0 

Vol. 3, Sect: 7, page 7.1 

VoI. 3, Sect. 7, page 7.1 

7-94 Vol. '3; Section 9.0 

Add resolvable uncertainty PAG - PG 

#333 . , 

Add resolvable uncertainty 

#334 

Add resolvable uncertainty 

#335 

Add resolvable uncertainty 

PAG - PG 

PAG - PG 

PAG - PG 

#336 

Add resolvable uncertainty 

#337 

Add resolvable unce&ty PG 

#new 

PAG - PG 

Update PAG I 

Clarification PG 

Clarification 

Update PAG 

1995 Location Justification Petitioner 

Amendments I 

STACIPG 

Vol. 3, Summary, par. -1, .page iii update supplementation scope STAClPG 

VOI. 3, SU+, par. 3, page iii revision to experimental . STAClPG 

. ,. 1-95 . ' Vol. 3, Preface, page ii change PSR date 

, 

design .. 

.\ 

Vol. -3, Table S. 1, page iv . update genetic strategy STAClPG 

Vol. 3, Table S.l, page v update nat. prod. objective STACIPG 

Vol.' 3. Table S. 1. page v- revision to nat. .prod. strategy STAClPff . 

numbers -\ 

Vol. 3, Table S.l, page vi revision to experimentation STAClPG 

I I 

.- 

I strategy numbe? -I I I Vol. 3, Sect. 3, page 3.1 

I 

update Nat Prpd Obj #3 . I STACIPG 

I I I I Vol. 3, Sect. &,'page 4.1 add Genetic Strategy #I STACIPG -, 

I I I 

. . Vol. 3, Sect. 4. page 4.1 . ' update Nat Prod Strategy #3 STACIPG 

Vol. 3, Sect. 4, page 4.2 

VOl. 3, Sect. 5, page 5.8 uprjate uncertainty #335 STACIPG , 

update Experimental Strat. #I ~ ShPG 

Viol. 3, Sect. 6, all . chapter redrafted to present STAClPG 

updated experimental desigxq .I 

I I I , 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 11.4 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 

.,... -__ - . . - .. 
Amendments. 

lVol. 3, Sect. 7, page 7.1 . change date of PSR STAClPG 

Vol. 3, Sect. 8, page 8.1 restatc LNIT treatment STAClPG 

Vol. 3, Sect. 8, page 8.2 restate LNIT treatment STACEG 

Vol. 3, Sect. 8, page 8.5- - restateLNITtreatment STAClPG 

Vol. 3, Sect. 8, page 8.6 restate LNlT treatment STACfPG 

VoI. 3, Sect. 8, page 8.14 restate LNIT freatment STACIPG 

Vol. 3; Sect. 8, page 8.17 restate LNlT treatment STACIPG 

i 

Vol. 3, Sect. 8, page 8.1 revise number and location of 

acclimation sites 

STAC/PG 

I' Vol. 3, Sect. 8, page 8.17 revise number and location of STACIPG' 

'- acclimation sites 

~ 

I. 

V~I. 3,Sect. 8, page 8.1 revision to'nurnbcr and pounds. STAClPG 

of smolts 

Vol. 3. Sect. 8, page 8.5 . revision to number and pounds STACLPG 

of smolts 

revision to number and pounds 

of smolts 

revision to number .and pounds 

of smolts - 

Vol. 3, Sect. 8, page 8.14 . STACIPGVol. 3, Sect. 8, pagc 8.15 STACIPG- 

., 

Vol. 3, Sect. 8, page 8.18 - - revision to number and pounds STAClPG 

- of smolts 

Vol. 3, Sect. 8, page 8.21 . revision to number and pounds STACIPG 

of smolts 

Vol. 3, Sect. 8, page 8.24 ' revision to number and pounds STAClPG '- 

of smolts 

Vol. 3,'Sect. 8, Table 8.2, page 8.6 , 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 11.5 Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 

revision to number and pounds 

of smolts 

STACIPG 

Vol. 3, Sect. 8, Table 8.3, page 8.9 

._ 

Vol. 3, Sect. 8, page 8.8 

Vol, 3, Sect. 8, Table 8.3, page 8.6 

revision to number and pounds 

of smolts 

revision. to number if adults 

revision to numbcr of adults 

STAClPG 

STACIPG 

STAClPG 

clarification 

clarification 

clarification 

Vol. 3, Sect. 9, par. 1, page 9.1 

Vol. 3, Sect. 9, par. 2, page 9.1 

VOI. 3. Sect. 9. par. 3. page 9.1 

. 

STACIPG 

STAClPG 

SACIPG 

Vol. 3, Sect. 9, par. 3, page 9.1 

VOl. 3, Sect. 9, par. 5, page 9.1 

change order of presentation STACIPG 

clarification STAClPG 
Amendments 

Vol. 3, Sect. 9, par. 6, page 9.1 

Vol. 3, Sect. 9, par. 1, page 9.2 

Vol. 3, Sect. 9, page 9.2 

Vol. 3, Sect. 9, par. 2, page 9.2 

Vol. 3, Sect. 9, par. 3, page 9.2 

Vol. 3, Sect. 9, Table9,1, page 9.2 

Vol. 3, Sect. 9, par. 5, page 9.3 

Vol. 3, Sect. 9, par. 2, page 9.4 

Vol. 3, Sect. 9, par. 6, page9.4 

Vol. 3, Sect. 9, Table 9.2, page 9.5 

Vol. 3, Sect. 9, Table 9.3, page 9.7 

VOl. 3, Sect. 10 

. 

clarification Sl'AClPG 

deleted footnote STACPG 

clarify LNlT description STACIPG 

norder for consistency STACPG 

STACIPG 

add fish health record STACIPG 

delete footnote ' STACIPG 

replacement paragraph STACPG 

redraft for accuracy STACIPG 

revisions to content STACIPG 

revision to content STACPG 

revision to content STAClPG 

' correction to survival rate 

.. 

.. 

Planning Status Report, May 1995 . 11.6 

. -_ 

.- 

Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 

, 
Y akima/Klickitat Fisheries Project 

Planning Status Report 1995 

Volume 5: Yakima Coho Salmon 

December 1995 - 

Prepared for 

Bonneville Power Administration 

Portland, .Oregon . 

.I 

.. 

,- 
0. 
Preface 

Preface 

This is Volume 5 of eight volumes of the 1995, Planning Status Report" for the 

YakimdKlickitat Fisheries Project. It contains an introduction detailing background$ 

information, project philosophy, and document organization, followed by specific information 

on Yakima coho salmon. A general summary of project planning for all species may be 

found in Volume 1. Detailed information for species other than Yakima coho salmon may be 

found in the following volumes: 

Volume 2: Yakima Fall Chinook Salmon 

Volume 3: Yakima Spring Chinook Salmon 

Volume 4: Yakima Summer Chinook Simon 

Volume 6:' Yakima Summer-Steelhead 

Volume 7: Klickitat Spring Chinook Salmon 

Volume 8: Klickitat Summer Steelhead. 

P 

(a) NOTE: Not all volumes have been updatd for 1995. 

Planning Status Report, December, 1995 
.. 

\ 
Summary 

Summary 

The immediate YKFP goal for Yakima coho salmon is to determine the feasibility of 

reestablishing a naturally spawning coho population and a significant fall fishery for coho, 

while keeping adverse ecological impacts within acceptable limits. 

The indigenous stock of coho is believed to be extinct. Naturally spawning coho salmon 

occurring in the Yakima River Basin are considered the result of hatchery outplantings. In 

1996, coho salmon will not be released under the auspices of YKFP in the'Yakima River 

Basin upstream from Wapato Dam. The YKFP does not currently release of coho salmon 

into the Yakima River. Annual releases of 700,000 coho smolt have been conducted in the 

past as part of the Columbia River Fish-Management Plan. Coho have been released under 

the auspices of that program since 1983. In earlier years, smolt were released directly into 

the Yakima River, without acclimation or additional rearing. Since 1994, however, these 

fish have been released from acclimation facilities downstream from Wapato Dam. While 

the acclimation and release program are not funded by BPA under YKFP, fish being 

acclimated and released under the CRFMP program would be used by YKFP in the proposed 

studies. Releases might also be sponsored under Mitchell Act reprogramming initiatives. 

The essential elements of the Yakima coho salmon program are captured in the 

objectives and strategies (Table S.l). Coho smolt survival will be monitored at the 

Chandler Juvenile Evaluation Facility and at selected sites in the river to determine food 

habits of the smolt. This study is designed to evaluate the potential risk of coho smolt 

predation on juvenile fall chinook primarily, with consideration also for other species of 

concern (e.g. rainbow/steelhead trout).. Returning adults will be enumerated at Prosser Dam 

fish ladders and in the various fisheries to detefmine smolt-to-adult survival rates. 

Coho strategies are based on 10 assumptions, 9 of which are considered resolvable. 

Many of these will likely be reclassified as unresolvable once the feasibility of resolution has 

been reviewed further. Risks associated with unresolvable uncertainties are managed through 

risk containment monitoring. Uncertainty resolution is an iterative process that is managed 

through the application of adaptive management. 

To date, coho salmon experimentation using the YKFP facilities has received limited 

consideration. The coho salmon experimental program has been only a small-scale 

experiment designed to determine possible interactions with juvenile fall chinook salmon. 

Experimental design is now being developed for this stock. Experimentation for addressing 

the resolution of coho salmon releases and reintroduction will provide information to 

facilitate future planning for Yakima coho salmon. 

- 

Studying Yakima coho salmon requires permanent and temporary facilities/structures to 

implement the program that is currently considered. Acclimation facilities have been 

incorporated under CRFMP. Other facilities currently in place or being planned for other 

Planning Status Report, December, 7995 
Summary 

stocks (Yakima spring and fall chinook salmon have application to the Yakima coho salmon 

program. - 

Monitoring for the project generally encompasses five levels: quality control, 

performance standards (attributes of smolts who best survive to reproduce), hypothesis 

testing, comprehensive analysis, and stock status (attributes of adults who survive). * Some of 

these may 'not be appropriate for the' coho feasibility studies. 

\ 

Planning Status Report, December, 1995 ~ 

. -..--- 

.I 
Summary 

Objectives 

Table S.l. Yakima Coho Salmon Objectives and Associated Strategies . 

Strategies - 

Determine the feasibility of returning ’ 

natural production of coho salmon to the 

Yakima River Basin. 

Determine the potential harvest benefits 

from reintroduction of coho salmon in the 

Yakima River Basin. 

Determine the predation impacts of 

releasing 700,000 acclimated coho smolts 

on non-target species of concern in the 

Yakima River. 

Evaluate the survival, escapement, and 

natural reproduction of introduced coho 

salmon in the Yakima-River Basin. 

Monitor release of 700,000 acclimated coho 

smolt into Lower Yakima River. 

Evaluate the survival, escapement, and , 

natural reproduction of introduced coho 

salmon in the Yakima River Basin 

Calculate potential harvest benefits., 

Monitor rel&e of 700,000 acclimated coho 

smolt into Lower Yakima River. 

Monitor and evaluate tribal and non-tribal 

salmon fisheries in Lower Yaltima River. 

Conduct food-habit -analyses of coho salmon 

released into the Yakima River Basin to 

determine the impact on juvenile 

rainbow\steelhead and fall chinook 

populations. 

Monitor release of 700,000 acclimated coho 

smolt into Lower Yakima River. 

I ., 

. 

Planning Status Report, December, X995 
Summary 

I- , 

Glossary 

Thfs glossary contains a list of abbreviations and acronyms, technical terms, and species’ . common and scientific names used in Volume 5 of the YKFP Planning Status Report. Words that 

would be defined in a desk-size dictionary (for example, the College Edition of the American 

Heritage Dictionary) are not included. Technical terms are defined as they are used in this report and 

may differ from uses in other fields. 

Abbreviations and Acronyms 

BKD 

BPA 

Council 

DOE 

EIS 

GHGs 

MN 

NEPA 

PAR 

PSR 

RASP 

RM 

URP 

USBR 

WDFW 

YIN 

YKFP - 

bacterial kidney disease 

Bonneville Power Administration 

Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Planning Council 

U.S. Department of Energy 

environmental impact statement 

Genetic Hatchery Guidelines ’ 

infectious hematopoietic necrosis 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Project Annual Review 

PlanningJStatus Report 

Regional Assessment of Supplementation Project 

river mile 

Uncertainty Resolution Plan 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation 

YakimaMickitat Fisheries Project 

, 

.~ 

.. Technical Terms 

acclimation-stage in rearing, proceeding release, intended to condition fish to the ambient 

environment - 

ancestral drainages-subbasin where parents spawned 

electrophoretic data-genetic data derived through a process called electrophoresis 

I 

. 

$y-early juvenile stage in salmonids ’ , 

gemtic risk-risk of affecting the genetic characteristics in such a way as to decrease the long-term 

productivity of a population. It encompasses four types: 

, 

eJrtnction-the risk of losing a population altogether. Once a population has gone extinct, all.its 

genetic material ,is irretrievably lost. - 

/ 

Planning Status Report, December, 1995 

-, 
Summary 

loss of within-population variability-reduction in genetic variability within a population as a 

result of low, effective population size, which can lead to inbreeding depression and genetic 

drift. 

loss of between-population variability-reduction in gene differences between populations as a 

result of excessive gene flow, which can lead to outbreeding depression. 

domestication selection-nonrandom change in genetic composition of a population as a result of 

anthropogenic selective forces, intended or not. The two main sources of domestication. 

selection imposed by hatcheries are nonrandom selection of broodstock and the selective force of 

the hatchery. 

jacks-male fish that are sexually mature at an early age, 1 year earlier than the earliest maturing 

females 

juvenile-fish that are not sexually mature 

Limited New Innovative Treatment (LZh'j-a treatment applied to spring chinook salmon that uses the 

OCT during the incubation to rearing phase and uses the NIT during other portions of the acclimation 

to release phase. 

locally adapted stock-a stock or population of fish that, although perhaps not native to the stream, is 

capable of sustaining some level of natural or artificial production 

natural production-spawning and rearing of wild or non-first-generation hatchery fish in the 

environment outside the hatchery. ~ 

New Innovative Treatment (NlTka treatment that incubates, rears, and acclimates spring chinook 

salmon using natural-like environments (e.g. , natural cover, substrate, in-water structure) to produce 

fish with attributes similar to naturally-produced spring chinook salmon. 

nontarget species-species not intended for supplementation . 

Optimal Conventional Treatment (OCThA tieatment that incubates, rears, and acclimates salmonids 

using optimal conventional fish-culture methods derived from artificial propagation experiences within 

the Columbia River Basin. 

premolt-fish that have not begun the physiological process of readying fhemselves for salt water 

entry 

a pretenninal harvest-fish that are caught along their migration route before reaching their subbasin of 

origin, as opposed to terminal harvests, which occur in that subbasin 

race-a subspecific designation indicating the season when adult salmonids return to the subbasin 

(e.g., spring, summer, fall chinook salmon) 

raceways-vessels designed to rear fish 

- 

redd-a number of adjacent nests (depressions in the streambed) where salmon eggs are deposited by 

one female 

Planning Status Report? December, 7995 

I 

. .- 
Summary ~. 

run(s)-used interchangeably with race in this report 

salmonids-trout, salmon and other fish of the family Salmonidae 

mZt-anadromous salmonid that is physiologically fit for salt water entry and is migrating seaward 

, 

smoZt:aduZt survival-the ability of a fish to survive from the time it leaves the subbasin as a smolt 

until the time it returns'to the subbasin as an adult . 

smolt:smoZt survival-the ability of a fish to survive from the time it becomes a smolt until the time it 

leaves the subbasin 

smoltiication-the process by which an anadromous fish becomes physiologically fit for. salt water 

entry . 

"status-index harvest"-harvest policy that determines the rate of harvest on the basis of the strength 

of all run components 

steezhead-sea-run rainbow trout 

stock-a population of salmonids managed' as a unit for supplementation purposes 

supplementation-artificial propagation in an attempt to maintain or increase natural production while 

maintaining long-term fitness of the target population and while keeping ecological and genetic 

impacts on nontarget species- within specified limits 

target species-a species intended for supplementation or production; refers to Yakima coho salmon 

in this volume 

6 

I Wildfish-indigenous fish that have never been in a hatchery system 

c. 

Common and Scientific Names . 

coho salmon-Oncorhynchus kisutch , 

chinook salmon-Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 

rainbow troutlsteel~ead-Oncorhynchus mykiss . 

I- 

.. 

- . Planning Status Report, December, 1995 
Contents 

r., , - Contents 

Preface .. ................................................... ,_ iii 

summary ............... .............................. V 

Glossary .......... .~-. ............... &-:. ....................... vii 

Abbreviations and Acronyms .................... : ................... vii 

Technical Terms .......................... : ...................... vii 

Common and Scientific Names ..................... : ... i .............. k 

1.0 Introduction ................................................ 1.1 

Adaptive Management Process ....................... ............. 1.1 

Document Overview ..... I. ............. : ..... i ................... - 1.4 

2.0 Background ................................................... 2.1 

‘Causes for Decline .. 1 .......................................... 2.1 

. Present Stock.Status .. : ......................................... 2.1 

Constraints to Action ................... : ........................ 2.4 

3.0 Project Objectives .............................................. 3.1 . 

4.0 Strategies.. ................................................ 4.1 

Strategiesto Meet Experimental Objectives . : i ........................... 

Experimental Objectives .................. ......................... 3.1 

~. 

4.1 / 

5.0 Maagement.of Assumptions and Uncertainties .. -: ....... .-‘. .............. Management of Accepted Assumptions ....... : .................. ..... 5.3 

Management of Unresolvable Uncertainty ............................ ~. ... Management of Resolvable Uncertainties ..... ; ....................... : . 5.4 

5.1 

5.4 

- 6.0 Experimental Design .............................................. 6.1 

7.0 Risk Analysis ............ :.......... .- .......................... 7.1 .. 

8.0 Facilities and Operations ......... : ................... I ............. 8.1 

9.0 Monitoring ......................... : ........................ 9.1 

Quality-Control Monitoring . .................................... 9.1 

Product Specification ............................... : ........... 9.2 

Risk Containment ............................................... 9.2 

Stock Status Monitoring ....... .I. .............. : .... : ............ 9.3 

- 

.- 

, .. 

. 

10.0 References ......... ...... I ................................ 10.1 

\ 

Planning Status Report, December, 1995 
figures and. Tables 

Figures 

1.1 Planning Cycle for the YakimdKlickitat Fisheries Project ..... : ............. -. 1.4 

~ ,- , 

. 2.1 Historical Distribution of Yakima Coho Salmon . i ............. : ............. 2.3 

.~ 

51 Resolution of Uncertainties Within the Yakiia/Klickitat Fisheries Project ........... , 5.2 

I 

- Tables 

S.l Yakima Coho Salmon Objectives and Associated Strategies .............. vi 

i 5.1 Accepted Assumptions Related to Management of Yakima Coho Salmon ..... 5.6 

5.2 

5.3 

Unresolvable Uncertainties Related to Management of Yakima Coho Salmon ... 

Resolvable Uncertainties Related to Management of Yakima Coho Salmon 

5.3 

That Can Be Stiidied in the Near Term .......................... 5.4 

Planning Status Report, December, 7995 
~ Introduction . 

I 1.0 . Introduction 

The YakimdKlickitat Fisheries Project (YKFP) is a supplementation project designed to 

use artificial propagation in an attempt to maintain or increase natural production while 

maintaining the long-term fitness of the target population, and while keeping ecological and 

genetic impacts on nontarget species within specified limits. The project is also designed to 

provide harvest opportunities. The planning, implementation, and evaluation of this project 

are guided by the framework developed by the Regional Assessment of Supplementation 

Project (RASP 1992a, 1992b, 1992~). The purpose of the YKFP is to: 

e 

e 

e 

e 

mitigate existing stocks of anadromous fish in the Yakima and Klickitat river basins 

while maintaining genetic resources 

reintroduce stocks formerly present in the basins 

increase abundance of naturally reproducing salmonid stocks in order to increase harvest 

opportunities for Yakama tribal members and other fishers. 

apply the knowledge gained through supplementation throughout the Columbia'River 

Basin, all consistent with the Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Conservation 

Planning Council's fish and wildlife program @PA 1994). 

# 

Essentially, the YKFP is an experiment to resolve uncertainties (through uncertaintyresolution taskwork) associated with supplementation at the same time that it accomplishes 

construction and implementation milestones.. As a "laboratory," the YKFP would help 

determine the role of supplementation in increasing natural production of anadromous 

salmonids. 

Since coho salmon are considered to be extinct in the-Yakima basin, current objectives 

for the coho program pertain to investigastions of feasibility questions regarding key 

uncertainties needed for long-range YKFP planning. It is important to note that the essential 

elements of the current coho program are captured in listed objektives and strategies. These 

should be expected to evolve consistent with the overall purpose of the YKFP as new 

information becomes avialble. 

Adaptive Management Process 

The YKFP endorses an adaptive management policy, which expects objectives and 

strategies to change as new information becomes available (as explained by Walters 1986). 

The cyclic adaptive management process is shown in Figure 1.1. The adaptive management 

-process revolves around three annual milestones: - 

Planning Status Report, December, 7995 1.1 Yakima .Coho Salmon 
Introduction 

completion of an updated long-range plin, the Planning Status Report (PSR), by 

February 1 of each year 

completion of an updated long-range plan to resolve uncertainties, the Uncertainty 

Resolution Plan (URP), by April 1 of each year 

the Project Annual Review (PAR), which is held during November of each year and 

may include a peer review of work completed and in progress. 

- 

- 

The PSR is intended to contain a complete description of the YKFP long-range plan. It * 

is intended to identify objectives, strategies, and assumptions with justifications documented 

and changes and modifications recorded. Objectives and strategies are changed through an 

amendment process, typically in response to new information about the validity of 

assumptions. 

L 

Each.annual PSR document provides an integral part of the YKFP adaptive management 

process. It is important to nnote that the present document for coho salmon reflects the 

status of planning completed in 1995, provid9ing dirqtion for project activities in 1996. It 

would be expected-to evolve in subsequent annual planning cycles. 

Underlying assumptions form the rationale for the choice of shtegies. The PSR 

identifies those assumptions that are accepted on the basis of their validity and applicability 

as established in the scientific literature or through peer-reviewed studies within the YKFP or 

elsewhere. Assumptions that are uncertain (those that lack documented justification) are 

classified as either resolvable or unresolvable: Those that are resolvable are scheduled for 

resolution through the URP. 

moves forward and as different phases of the project approach implementation, more detail is 

added. Strategies intended for implementation during the coming year are described in more 

detail than those planned for later implementation. Future strategies, however, are of detail 

sufficient to provide clear and focusid direction for project planning and uncertainty 

resolution. Consequently, the level of detail varies throughout the PSR. 

, 

- i 

The description of objectives and strategies is iterative in the sense that, as the project - 

Results of uncertainty-resolution work are- reported in memoranda and annual project 

progress and completion reports, all of which are summarized in the PAR. All underlying 

assumptions in the PSR are then reviewed and reclassified, and new assumptions added. 

Implications of these revisions on the strategies and objectives are assessed, along with risks 

and benefits, ~ and amendment proposals submitted for policy review. 

While justification for objective and strategy modifications may include technical 

judgment and policy preference, all changes in uncertainty levels of assumptions must be 

based on sqentific evidence, hence the importance of peer review. Conclusions from the 

Planning Status Report, December, 1995 1.2 .. Yakima Coho Salmon 

-. 
Introduction -, 

PAR about the progress of ongoing work and the revised uncertainties from the PSR are then 

used to amend the URP, and thus the adaptive management cycle continues (Figure 1.1). 

In planning for the following year, strategies (implementation or experimental) are 

considered on the basis of the validity of their underlying assumptions (i.e., likelihood of - 

meeting the stated objectives). Strategies are implemented only when the risk of failure is 

within acceptable limits. This risk is managed andreduced over time through implementation of the URP (Le., the prior removal of uncertainties) and the Monitoring Plan - - 

(Chapter 9). In other words, risk of strategy failure (Le., where objectives cannof be met 

and/or strategies cannot be implemented corre~tly) can be reduced through (1) preimplementation research or (2) risk-containment monitoring during implementation. The 

"Risk Analysis" (Chapter 7) is intended to aid in the selection of strategies for 

implementation. 

.. 

I 

Planning Status Report, December, 7995 1.3 Yakima Coho Salmon 
Introduction 

- 

so301068.1 

Figure 1.1. Planning Cycle for the YakimdKliclcitat Fisheries Project ~ 

Document Overview 

.\ 

salmon. The specific plans: 

In this volume, the PSR discusses the status of-projwt planing for Yakima coho 

I. 

Planning Status Rep.ort., December, lpS5 . 1.4 Yakima Coho Salmon 
- 

present background infohation ,' 

Introduction 

e 

9 

describe objectives, i.e statements*of what is to be accomplished in the genetics, natural 

production, experimentation, and harvest components 

state strategies that should accomplish these objectives and the assumptions on which 

these strzttegies are based 

outline how the uncertainties inherent in each assumption will be managed 

explain the experiments designed to test supplementation 

present the risk analysis conducted to describe management implications 

describe, as appropriate, the facilities for broodstock collection, hatcheries, rearing, and 

acclimation 

discuss the monitoring needs ~ 

present citations for references used to document or support statements. 

I 

, 

PJanning Status Report, December,. 1995 1.5 . 8. 

-. 

~ _- - . .- , . -. - - 

. 

Yakima Coho Salmon 

.. 
Introduction 

'J 

.. - 

\ 

Planning Status Report, December, 1995 1.6 Yakima Coho Salmon 
Background 

.. 2.0 Background 

Major historical production areas (Figure 2.1) for Yakima coho salmon occui~ed 

throughout much of the basin. Virtually all major upper Yakima River tributaries (Teanaway 

River and Taneum, Manastash, Swauk, Big, and Umtanum creeks) supported coho salmon. 

The Naches River and tributaries upstream from the Tieton River also produd substantial 

numbers of coho salmon. Less production also OCCUK~~ in the upper Tieton River (upstream 

from Rimrock Lake), the upper Cle Elum River and its'tributarigs (upstream from Cle Hum 

Dam); and Ahtanum and Logy creeks (Anonymous 1967; Bryant and Parkhurst 1950; 

Mongillo and Falconer 1980; Smoker 1956). 

Mullan (1983) estimates that coho salmon comprised 19% of the runs upstream from 

Roza Dam from 1949 through 1967. This run of coho salmon may have numbered 114,000 

fish. 

There is no historical data on age composition, size at age, or stock structure of Yakima 

River coho salmon. 

Causes for Decline 

The inbasin causes for decline include construction of unladdered dams, entrainment of 

juveniles in unscreened diversion canals, log driving on sudden releases of water; 

indiscriminate .and intensive local fishing, diking and channelization, *and loss of natural 

water storage and rearing habitat. Factors outside the basin included the advent of the major 

dams on the mainstem Columbia and the steady increase in fishing effort in the ocean and 

lower mainstem Columbia. 

- 

Present Stock Status 

The indigenous natural coho salmon no longer occur in the Yakima River Basin. The 

only natural production now occurring is thought to be the result of hatchery fish 

outplantings in the -basin. 

In recent years, 700,000 coho salmon have been released into'the Yakima River Basin 

as part of the U.S. versus Oregon Columbia River Fish Management Plan. These releases 

were intended to promote and diversify local fishing opportunities for the Yakama Indian 

Nation. -The program uses early-mn fish from lower Columbia River hatcheries (mainly 

Cascade Hatchery). Fisheries in the basin on returning hatchery fish have been negligible to 

date, Only a very low effort tribal subsistence fishery has occurred, and no sport fisheries 

have been allowed. ,. 

1 

Planning Status Report, December, 1995 2.1 - .. 

, 

Yakiina Coho Salmon 
Background 

Coho salmon spawn in late October/November. Columbia River coho salmon typically 

spend 1 year in freshwater before-outmigrating as yearling smolts in the spring (April/May). 

spawn. Sexually precocious males(jacks) return to spawn after 6 months at sea. 

, After outmigrating, coho salmon spend approximately 18 months at sea before returning fo 

- 

.. 

. Planning Status Report, December, 1995 2.2 - . 

.. .. -- . 

’ Yakima Coho Salmon 
Ck 

_- 

Figure 2.1. Historkd Distribution of Yakima Coho Salmon 

I 

- 

Planning Status Report, December, 1995 . 2.3 1 Yakima Coho Salmon 
Background 

Constraints to Action I 

,- 

Factors limiting successful implementation of coho salmon enhancement in the basin are 

lower mainstem ColumbiaRiver and ocean harvest rates and smolt mortality within the 

mainstem Columbia and Yakima River. An issue that affects the enhancement strategy for 

coho'salmon is habiht and water limitations imposed by existing uses. There are concerns 

about managing potentially adverse predatory effects by coho salmon on other fish species, 

particularly juvenile chinook salmon, and potential competition between naturally produced 

coho salmon and other fish. 

During development of the YKFP, releases of coho salmon into the basin will be 

coordinated among the respbnsihle managers. The project will strive to enhance feasibility 

studies in coordination with any coho releases. 

9 

? 

Planning Status Repoq, December, 1995 ' ' 2.4 Yakima Coho Salmon 

c 
Project Objkctives 

3.0 Project Objectives 

The project's objectives are statements of planned accomplishments. Accomplishments 

relate to genetics, natural production, experimentation, and harvest. Objectives for the coho 

salmon feasibility study are limited to experimentation objectives only. Natural production 

and harvest management objectives will be 'deyeloped as appropriate pending the outcome of 

feasibility studies. Genetic objectives are not expressed because no native stocks are present. 

Genetic objectives could be developed if natural spawning populations are established. ~ 

Experimentation Objectives 

The experimentation objectives are: 

1. Determine the feasibility of returning natural production of coho salmon to the Yakima 

River Basin. 

2. Determine the potential harvest benefits from reintroduction of coho salmon in the 

Yakima River Basin. 

3. Determine the predation impacts of releasing 700,000 acclimated coho smolts on 

juvenile fall chinook and steelheadhesident trout populations in .the Yakima River 

Basin. i 

Planning Status Report, December, 1995 3.1 Yakima Coho Salmon 

Strategies 

4.0 Strategies 

The project strategies are statements of action(s) to achieve specific objectives. These 

strategies have been developed based on current knowledge; they are provided with sufficient 

detail to allow planning of facilities, operations, and experimentation to proceed in a focused 

manner. Planned actions currently relate only to experimentation. Each strategy relates to at 

least one project objective. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

.- 

Strategies to Meet Experimentation Objectives 

The experimentation strategy is: 

Evaluate the survival, escapement, and natural reproduction of introduced coho 

salmon in the Yakima River Basin. This strategy relates to Experimentation 

Objective 1. 

Monitor release of 700,000 acclimated coho smolt into Lower Yakima River. This 

strategy relates to Experimentation Objective 1, 2, and 3. 

Calculate the potential harGest benefits. This strategy relates to Experimentation 

Objective 2. 

Monitor and evaluate tribal and non-tribal salmon fisheries in Lower Yakima River. 

This strategy relates to Experimentation Objective 2. 

Conduct food habit analyses of coho salmon released into the Yakima River Basin 

to determine the impact primarily on fd chinook populations with consideration 

also for rainbow/steelhead trout and other non-target species of concern. 

- 

Planning Status Report, December, 1995 4.1 Yakima Coho Salmon 
. 

. 
Management of Assumptions and Uncertainties 

5.0 Management of Assumptions and Uncertainties 

The project assumptions are suppositions or statements of conditions or perceptions 

under which the stated strategies will achieve the specified objectives. Assumptions are 

related to genetics, natural production, experimentation, and harvest. These lists are 

intended to be a complete list of significant assumptions that affect the choice of strategies to 

meet objectives. Each assumption relates to at least one strategy. 

The statement of an assumption includes some degree of uncertainty. The strategy may 

not be definitely achievable at a planned time, or for a given quantity or occurrence. To 

successfully implement the strategies stated in the previous section, the uncertainties must be 

resolved or the associated risk must be monitored. Within the context of the YKFP, 

uncertainty resolution is managed through the application of adaptive management (Walters 

1986). Planning, implementation, and evaluation are steps in an iterative process that over 

time reduced uncertainties and risk. 

The implication of errors in these assumptions is imporht. The wrong strategy could 

result in serious damage to a species/stock in the basin or the expenditure of monies without 

realizing benefits. The uncertainty associated with an assumption must be resolved or'the 

risk associated with the error must be contained. The manner in which uncertainties are - 

resolved depends on their organization (Figure 5.1). 

.3 

' 

The two major issues that have been identified as uncertainties are: 

* 1. Effect of predation of coho on other target and non-target species in the Yakima system, 

2. Effect of acclimation on increasing smolt to adult survival to determine the feasibility of 

the future coho program (Le. to reintroduce natural production of coho into the Yakima 

River Basin and to provide significant fisheries for Tribal and other fishers.) J 

The proposed monitoring program will assist in resolution of these uncertainties. 

J?bnnr'ng Status Report Decambar, 1995 5.1 

,. Yakima Coho Salmon 
Management of Assumptions and Uncertainties ~ 

. Figure 5.1. Resolution of Uncertainties Within the YakirndKlickitat Fisheries Project I\ 

PAanning Stat& Repwt Deambt?t, 1995' 5.2 , Yakima Coho Salmon 
Management of Assumptions and Uncertainties 

Assumption 

215 Habitat either is available or can be made available in 

the Yakima River Basin that can be effectively utilized by 

expanded populations of coho salmon. 

216 Smo1t:adult mortality related to mainstem passage, 

preterminal harvest, and ocean conditions will be less than 

or equal to those at present, and are understood well 

enough to refine strategies. 

217 In 1996, no coho salmon will be released upstrfrom'wapato Dam under the auspices of YKFP. 

218 In 1996, species interaction studies will be conducted 

using 700,000 smolts released downstream from Wapato 

Dam. 

219 Additional YKFP monitoring will be designed to 

evaluate interactions with other species of concern, 

particularly rainbow/steelhead trout. 

220 All harvesting of Yakima coho salmon can be 

monitored through catch sampling and reporting. 

- I 

Management of Accepted Assumptions 

~~ 

Strategy Relationship 

Experimentation Strategy 1 

Experimentation Strategy 1 

Experimentation Strategy 1 

and 5 

Experimentation Strategy 2 

and 5 

Experimentation Strategy 1 . 

and 5 

Experimentation Strategy 1 

3, and4 

Some assumptions related to the management of coho salmon are accepted on the basis 

.of edsting knowledge and information, pending documentation (Table 5.1). Each of these is 

deemed unl'ikely to be wrong and/or to have a minor impact on the success of the selected 

strategies in meeting the stated objectives. The accumulated risk associated-with potential 

errors in these assumptions is managed through monitoring. New information will gradually 

allow resolvable uncertainties to be moved into this accepted category. 

~ ~~ 

221 Fisheries in the basin can be managed and regulated, 

and laws enforced to ensure implementation of an agreed 

upon harvest strategy. 

Table 5.1. Accepted Assumptions Related to Management of Yakima Coho Salmon 

Experimentation Strategy 1, 

3, and 4 

325 Hatchery rearing and acclimation facilities cp be 

sited in the basin to increase coho salmon smolt 

production. 

I Experimentation Strategy 1 

. 

I. 

Bnnmg status ~epart ~e~ambt~, 7995 - 5.3 Yakima Coho Salmon 
y+.F5 

Management of Assumptions and Uncertainties 

Assumption . 

, - Table 5.1.' Accepted Assumptions Related to Management ,of Yakima Coho Salmon (continued) 

, 

Management -of Unresolvable Uncertainty 

Strategy 

Relationship 

Some critical uncertainties are not expected to be resolved as part of the YKFP supplementation experiment or other research efforts (Table 5.2). Most of them-are not feasible to 

resolve, and all are beyond the scope'of the YKFP. The risk that any of these assumptions 

resolved, the health and condition of the population can be monitored, for example, for signs 

of unexpected change. On the basis of new information and other evidence, strategies can be 

reevaluated. 

- are wrong is managed through monitoring (Figure 5.1). While the uncertainties cannot be 

- 

Table 5.2. ' Unresolvable Uncertainties Related to Management of Yakima Coho Salmon 

I 

-- 

.I 

I i 

224 The impact of sports fishery on coho salmon'5molts will 

not eff&t the experimental evaluation by stock and/or release 

group, or ~e introduction of a donor stock as a naturally 

producing stock. 

Experimentation 

Strategy 1 126 

Management of Resolvable Uncertainties 

Four methods can be used to manage the critical uncertainties that can be resolved: 

1) reviewing the scientific literature to determine how others have resolved or managed 

them; 2) conducting small-scale studies (Le., short-term experiments in the field or 

laboratory), feasibility studies, and baseline studies; 3) learning from studies or expexjments 

conducted outside of the YKFP; and 4) operating a coho salmon production facility in the 

Yakima River Basin. \ 

- 

Uncertainties that may be resolved (Table 5.3) are a high priority in the near term, 

because they affect the ability to implement the operations. Because the design and operation 

of a facility for coho salmon production is not complete, the assumptions that need to 

resolved via or during the operation of a conventional hatchery have not been stated. Plans 

for literature studies, small studies, and studies outside the Yakima River Basin are the 

subject of 'the Uncertainty Resolution Plan. 

The YKFP offers a unique opportunity to test fiypotheses intractable to small-scale 

studies. While the outcomes of small-sde studies can modify details of the lGge-scale 

experiments (e.g. , incubation facilities, rearing container design, acclimation pond design, 

feeding methods, and fish marketing methods), the results are not expected to fundamentally 

- 

I 

- Bnnhg Status Rem December, 1995 5.4 , Yakima Coho Salmon 
Management of Assumptions and Uncertainties 

change the experiment, but rather help ensure its success. The purpose of small-scale studies 

and facility planning is to "set up" the large-scale experiments. Consequently, it is important 

to define the experimental design for coho salmon in sufficient de& to make the planning 

focused and efficient. 

PIBnning Status Report Decwnbar, 1995 

- 

5.5 Yakima Coho Salmon 
. Management of Assumptions and Uncertainties 

Table 5.1. Accepted Assumptions Related to Management of Yakima Coho Salmon {continued) 

Table 5.3. Resolvable Uncertainties Related to Management of Yakima Coho Salmon - That Can Be Studied in the Near Term. I 

Assumption I 

~ 

90 Non-&gel species *and their ecological relationship 

to coho salmon mi be effectively identified and, 

described. ~~ 

87 The natural production potential of the Yakima 

River Basin is known for coho salmon. 

91 A natural production monitoring program can be 

gesigned and implemented that will have sufficient 

power to detFt specified levels of impact. . ’ 

Methods for evaluating risks and benefits are available. 

~~ ~ 

88 Production Cari be managed to avoid unintended 

ecological effects. , 

89 Acclimation pond sites can be identified. 

92 A production pragram’can be designed to produce 

adults for harvest. 

93 Prosser Dam is an appropriate site for broodstock 

collection. - 

~ 

95 An experimentation monitoring program can be 

designed and implemented that will have sufficient 

power to detect specified levels of impact. 

97 A harvest monitoring program can be designed and 

implemented that will have sufficient power to detect 

suecified levels of impact. 

PIBnnhg Status Rem Decwnbw, 1995 5.6 

, 

Strategy Relationship 

Experimentation Strategies 1 

and 5 

Experimentzition Strategy 1 

Experimentation Strategy 1 

Experimentation Strategy 1, 3, 

and 5 

133 

Experimentation Strategy 5 

ExDerimentation strategv 2 

Experimengtion Strategy 4 

Experimentation Strategy 2 

136 

All Experimentation Strategies 

143 

Harvest Strategy 4 145 

Yakima Coho Salmon 
Experimental Des*n 

Experimental Design 

The coho salmon program is designed to be an exgriment designed to determine 

possible interactions between juvenile coho and juvenile fall chinook salmon and 

rainbow/steelhead trout. No experimental design regarding supplementation has been 

developed for coho. The key population variable is terminal harvest contributions. . 

This monitoring program has been developed for the purpose of prioritizing the 

information needs for consideration of,future options for a YKFP coho program. This first 

phase of the coho program incorporates monitoring the outmigration survival, smolt to adult 

sukival, and predation on fall chinook juveniles and steelhead/rainbow trout or other non- * 

target species of concern from the 700,000 smolts currently being acclimated and released in 

the Yakima River Basin as mandated by the US v. Oregon agreement. This phase of the coho 

program is reduced from the full scale program originally described for the YKFP. One of 

the purposes of this reduction was to allow further research that would provide information 

on uncertainties that have been raised regarding the coho program. 

The proposed monitoring program will provide useful information on the uncertainties 

of the coho effort. First, the study is designed to address the issue of predation of coho 

smolts on other fish stocks in the Yakima basin. Of major initial concern here is @e 

predation of coho on fall chinook juveniles, with consideration'also for rainbow/steelhead 

trout and other non-target species. Additional research may be needed to address ecological 

interaction risks of coho with non-target species of concern. - 

Secondly, the design addresses the survival of coho smolt releases to returning adults. 

This uncertainty is addressed by acclimating all of the imported smolts. The proposed 

monitoring program will help determine if acclimation of presmolts before release into the 

Yakima River will improve the survival rate of smolts migrating out of the Yakima and to 

the returning adult stage. The survival of outmigrating smolts will be monitored at Chandler 

Juvenile Evaluation Facility at Prosser. -The survival rates of acclimated smolts will be 

compared to the survival rates of previous years releases when the fish were not acclimated. 

The returning adults will be monitored at Prosser dam fish ladders to determine smolt to 

adult survival rates. If it is determined later that actual experiments need to beconducted to 

address this uncertainty, these survival experiments could be conducted when monitoring 

facilities have been developed for adult monitoring of coho and other species. 

The information collected from this monitoring program would be used to determine 

how to proceed with further research and planning regarding options for a future YFKP coho 

program. If the survival rates of the acclimated smolts are sufficient to return adequate 

numbers of adults, and if ecological risks of coho smolts are determined to be at or below 

acceptable levels, YFKP program options would be explored. 

Planning Status Report, December, 1995 6. 1 Yakima *Coho Salmon 

.. 
*Experimental Design 

MONITORING FOR COHO PREDATION ON FALL CHINOOK 

Within this monitoringprogram, all 700,000 coho smolts would continue to be 

acclimated under the current Yakama Tribal program. The smolts would continue to be 

imported under the U.S, v Oregon Columbia River Fish Management Plan. The monitoring 

program address only the uncertainty of acclimated coho smolts preying on other target 

and non-target fish stocks of concern to the YKFP. The-main species of concern is juvenile 

-fall chinook. 

A preliminary food habits study was conducted on released coho smolts in 1992 by Dr. 

Paul James of Central Washington University. The results of this preliminary study, 

conducred at Prosser smolt trap, suggested that fish did not appear to be a major food source 

for coho smolts collected in the facility. In fact, no fish were identified in the stomach 

contents of the coho sampled. The main problem with the study design was that most of the 

food in the smolts collected was too digested to be identified. This problem was the result of 

the coho being collected from the holding /bnk at the Chandler smolt trapping facility. The 

smolts were held in the tank from the time they entered the facility until the days catch was 

worked up -a period of time that could be as long as twenty-four hours. This allowed for 

ample time for the digestion of prey items to occur. In the present monitoring plan a wider 

spectrum of the coho population (both actively migrathg and non-migrating) will be sampled . by expanding effort into the river system itself and better methods will be used to preserve 

gut content samples immediately after capture. 

It is suggested that a two year monitoring prograh be undertaken to determine the level 

of predation of coho smolts on juvenile fall chinook. The objective of the first year of the 

-progr&n will be to determine if coho predation on fall chinook is prevalent and under what 

conditions predation occurs.< It will also provide information on predation on other nontarget species of concern. If the results of the first year of the program indicate that coho 

are predators on fall chinook juveniles, the objective of the second year of the program 

would be to determine how many fall chinook are consumed by coho smolts. 

.. 

With this information in mind the following coho smolt monitoring program is * 

proposed: 

YEAR ONE (1996) 

OBJECTUE - Determine if coho predation on fall chinook or other species of concern is 

prevalent and determine conditions under which predation occurs. 

The following questions need to be answered to complete the objective of year one of . the program: Is coho predation on fall chinook or other species of concern common? At 

what times do coho eat these species? What environmental conditions correspond to high 

predation rates? At what size do coho prey on fall chinook and other species. of concern? 

Planning Sta_tus Report, December, 1995 

- 

6,2 Yakima Coho Salmon 
Experimental Design 

1. This program will utilize the ongoing Yakama Tribal acclimation and release program of 

700,000 hatchery coho smolts into the Yakima River below Wapato Dam. 

2. The 700,000 presmolts will be transported to the low tech acclimation and release 

facilities operated by the Yakama Indian Nation Fisheries Program. These facilities are 

located below Wapato dam (Granger Pond, Roza Wasteway #3 near Wapato, and the Wapato 

Canal net ponds). I 

3. The 700,000 .fish will be reared in the acclimation facilities .until they smoltify. and 

volitionally leave the facilities. Automatic fish counters at the exit of each acclimation pond 

will monitor the number of fish outmigrating each day. 

4. Sampling Strata and Effort:.Spatial and Temporal 

- 

I. 

The Yakima River wi! be divided into two major spatial strata: Marion D& to Prosser 

and Prosser to Horn Rapids. Using-aerial photographs of the river each major stratum 

will be divided into 1 km sampling stations. Total spnpling effort will be allocated 

based on the shifting distribution of coho above and below Prosser. Sampling effort will 

initially be targeted above Prosser until movement of coho out of the acclimation ponds 

and past Chandler indicates that effort should begin to shift to the lower river stratum. 

Effort will continue shifting to lower river stations based on estimates of coho 

movement past Prosser. 

Each day will be divided into four 6-hour strata and sampling will occur in two of these 

strata each day. Daily sampling stations will be randomly selected and 10 stations will 

be sampled per week. The catch per unit effort will be used to assess the relative 

density of coho within 'each sampling station. 

Some sampling effort will be directed at areas where fall chinook may be disoriented or 

densely populated (irrigation dam bypass outlets). 

The study will occur over a six week period beginning at the time coho begin 

volitionally exiting the acclimation ponds. Automatic smolt counters installed on each 

acclimation pond will allow monitoring of smolt movement patterns and accurate 

enumeration of the total number of fish released. An initial "shake down" sampling 

period of 2 days will occur prior to smolt movementso that gear, operational logistics 

and sampling procedures can be refined. 

5, Coho Sampling Methods and Protocols 

Fish will be collected using a boat equipped with an electroshocking unit. One 

supervisor, one boat operator and one technician will be required for operation. Coho 

weight, stomach weight and length measurements will be collected-and stomachs will be 

removed and placed into 10% formalin immediately upon capture. This will reduce the 

amount of digestion that will occur in the organisms. . 

I 

Planning Status Report, December, 1995 6.3 -. ' Yaktma Coho Salmon 

. 
Experimentaf Design 

, 

6. Coho Stomach Content Analysis 

Published reports of gastric evacuation rates for coho will be used to determine . length of time prey items could be expected to remain in coho stomachs. Based on 

the percentage of coho stomach that contain fall chinook (% coho stomachs) and the 

catch per unit effort (CPUE) of coho an index of predation intensity (PI) will be 

calculated for each sampling location. 

PI = % coho stomachs * CPUE 

Sampling locations with high PI values indicate high predation intensity. 

7. Ancillary -Information Collection 

Each day during daylight hours information on water temperature, flow, and turbidity 

will be collected at or near that day's sampling stations. CPUE of fall chinook will be 

measured, and habitat type and habitat structure will be described for each sampling 

period and location. A stepwise regression will be used to determine the variables that 

explain the greatest variation in the percent of coho that consumed fall chinook and' 

other species of concern. 

Lengths and weights of coho that consumed fall chinook will be compared to those that 

did not consume fall chinook in order to determine if there is a minimum size threshold 

at which predation occurs. I 

YEAR Two- (1997) 

- 

OBJECTIVE - Determine how many fall chinook are consumed by coho. 

-\ 

The specific details of when,. where, and how to sample coho will be based on results 

and experience from year one of this monitoring program. 

1. Collect coho smolts. 

2. Determine number of fall chinook and other species of concern in the stomachs of coho. 

3. Determine abundance of coho at times and places where predation occurs. 

4. Determine gastric evacuation rates specific for fall chinook in coho stomachs; 

,5. Determine how many fall chinook are consumed by coho using an equation that 

incorporates factors discussed above. 

- 

MONITORING FOR SURVIVAL RATES 

Planning Status Report, December, 1995 . . 6.4 Yakima Coho Salmon 
b Experimentaf Deslgn 

The second objective of the monitoring program is to deterrgine the survival rat& of 

coho smolts as they migrate out of the Yakima b&in, and the rate of survival from 

'outmigrating. smolt to returning adult. 

Smolt Monitoring Program 

The outmigrating smolts will be monitored at the Chandler Juvenife Evaluation Facility. 

Coho smolts from the acclimation pond releases would be sampled on a daily basis in 

conjunction with the daily operation of the sampling facility. The standard sampling and 

handling protocol will be followed for the smolt sampling facili'ty. Expansion of sample 

catches collected in the bypass sampling facility (or subsample catches when subsampling 

occurs) .to estimate the total passage of smolts'(through the bypass and in the river flow over 

the dam) from the basin will also follow established protocol utilizing expansion equations 

developed 6ver numerous years of sampling throughout a wide range of river flows. 

Survival from smolt at release to smolt at Prosser will be calculated from estimated passage 

at Prosser and total number of smolts counted out of the acclimation ponds. 

Adult Monitoring Program 

The returning adults will also be monitored at the Prosser Dam. The three ladders at 

Prosser are equipped with windows that have video monitoring equipment @at has been 

developed to record adult fish passage back into the Yakima basin. Returning adult hatchery 

coho will be identified as part of the ongoing video monitoring program that the Yakama 

Indian Nation is conducting. The survival rate from smolt to adult can be calculated as a 

ratio of the number of returning adults to the estimated number of outm3grating smolts. 

PJanning Status Report, December, 1995 ' 6.5 

~. 

Yakima Coho Salmon 
, 
Risk Analysis [ 

Risk Analysis ' 

In adaptive management, decisions are made in the face of uncertainty. Risks associated 

, with the uncertainty are contained (managed) by designing strategies (actions) as 

experiments, evaluating the outcome, and modifying the strategy responsively. This trialand-error approach requires a set of potential strategies, which can be evaluated to find the 

"best one. I' The nature of these strategy alternatives, along with an assessment of the 

specific risks associated with the initial strategies, may effect management decisions. These 

affects are management implications. 

The expected overall impacts of the YKFP are discussed in the final environmental 

impact statement for the project, which was issued in December. 1995. 

The YKFP has & annual process of evaluating strategies for implementation in the 

following year. This process will address four sets of questions: 

1. 

2. 

: 3. 

Are the strategies sufficiently well defined and are they feasible? If not, why not? 

What is missing? Are assumptions related to feasibility of facilities and operations 

(including monitoring) accepted? (If they are accepted, the Planning Status Report for 

the previous year would contain references to. reports and studies that address the 

specifics, including the existence of an approved design.) 

What are the risks(') associated with uncertainties? What is the likelihood that some of 

the accepted assumptions are wrong? What are the implications to genetic, natural production, experimentation, and harvest objectives if these assumptions are wrong? Have 

all types of risks been weighed for this analysis? 

What alternative strategies are feasible (including taking no action) and what are their 

implications?@) Are there alternative strategies for meeting the objectives for which 

the risks and implications are less severe? What are the implications of delaying 

implementation of the strategy? Can some of the critically uncertain ksumptions be 

effectively resolved through literature teview or near-term studies? If so, should they be 

referred to the Uncertainty Resolution Plan? 

In adaptive management, strategies may be implemented, even though they pose risk of ' uncertain outcomes, providing this risk is contained through monitoring. 

4. Are provisions in place for the five-level monitoring project (outlines in the section titled 

"Monitoring" in this report)? \ 

(a) Risk here refers to the likelihood of failing to meet genetic, natural production, 

experimentation, and/or harvest objectives. 

(b) Implications refer to the risks, costs, and other impacts of alternative strategies. 

Planning Status Report, December, 7995 7.1 Yakima Coho Salmon 

. 
~. 

Risk Analysis 

The managers of the Ywma Fisheries Project have determined that the preferred 

alternative for the first phase of the project will include. supplementation of,the upper Yakima 

spring chinook and a monitoring and evaluation of the currently ongoing importation, 

acclimation, and release of 700,000 coho smolts. Key to understanding the risk of the YKFP 

coho program is understanding exactly what the coho program is and what it is not. The 

YKFP coho program is a monitoring effort to be conducted on an existing program that - releases 700,000 acclimated coho smolts annually into the Yakima basin. The coho program 

itself does not release fish or involve any modifications in the way they are released. 

Therefore the coho program involves absolutely no increased risk to the fish resources of the 

Yakima basin. The only risks that needIo - be discussed then are risks to the objectives of the 

program. 

- 

The YKFP spring chinook program is a complex blend of genetic conservation, 

supplementation, experimentation, and harvest. Project objectives for it were therefore 

formulated in four categories: genetics, natural production, harvest, and experimentation. 

Accordingly, the spring chinook risk assessment document discussed in detail the risks of not 

meeting objectives in all four categories. The coho program is much simpler. Being only a 

monitoring effort, its objectives can be most concisely summarized in one category: research. 

Specifically, these research objectives are to determine: 

1) the feasibility of returning natural production of coho salmon to the Yakima.River 

Basin, I 

2) the potential harvest benefits from reintroduction of coho salmon in the Yakima River 

Basin, and 

3) the predation impacts of'releasing .700,000 acclimated coho smolts on fall chinook 

and other non-target populations of concern in the Yakima River Basin. 0 

The purpose of this document, -then is to evaluate and discuss the risk of the coho 

program not being able to achieve these objectives. 

Strategies to meet the first'two objectives are based on the detection and counting of 

returning adults from the annual smolt release of 700,000. Obviously, the survival rates of 

these fish is essential to meeting these objectives, so understanding the overall survival 

-picture is a key element of risk assessment. Coho are currently considered extinct in the 

Yakima basin, but approximately 700,000 yearling coho have been released there since 1982 

(except in 1984), as part of the U.S. vs. Oregon Columbia River Fish Management Plan. 

Before 1994, these released coho were not acclimated, and survival from smolt to returning 

adult has been about 0.04% (Watson 1993)- about 280'fish from the release of 700,000. 

Several factors potentially affecting survival have'changed since the 1993 estimates, 

which may lead to increased survival in the future. First, beginning in-1994, the coho were 

acclimated before release. This acclimation definitely resulted in an increase in the survival 

of the smolts from release to the smolt monitoring facility at Prosser dam. A recent three 

Planning Status Report, December, 7995 7.2 Yakima Coho Salmon - 
Risk Analysis 

year study comparing surviva of acclimated ani, nonacclimata early stock coho in the 

Umatilla River demonstrated that acclimation increased suq4val50% higher survival of 

acclimated coho (Technical Advisory Commikee, January 1995). Second, the ocean and 

river harvest of coho was greatly-reduced in 1994 due to the poor returns of adult fish 

throughout the Columbia. Third, the National Marine Fisheries Service is reviewing a 

petition to list coho as an endangered specie coastwide. If-this occurs there could be 

substantial reduction in the ocean and river harvest quotas in the future. 

On the other hand, there is considerable uncertainty in predicting survival rates to 

adulthood of any fish in the Columbia basin. Major'factors influencing survival include 

survival through outmigration in both the Yema and Columbia Rivers, ocean survival, 

future harvest levels on both sport and commercial fisheries, and upstream migration survival 

of adults returning to the Yakima basin. All these factors are obviously outside the control 

of the project. 

Risks to Research Objective 1. Determining the feasibility of returning natural 

production of coho salmon to the Yakima aver Basin. . 

The risk of most immediate concern is that the survival rate to adulthood will be so low 

as to preclude sufficiently precise estimation of survival rates. Imprecise estimates are likely 

to give an unduly pessimistic view 'of survival to be expected from a potential future 

expansion of the coho program. 

The second major risk to this objective would be the inability to evaluate reproductive 

success of the returning adults. This is a very real risk in that the coho smolts are currently 

being acclimated in areas that would not support natural production of coho due to the low 

flows and high temperatures in summer. If coho adults return to spawn near their 

acclimation release site the resulting progeny would either migrate out of the Yakima basin 

or die during the summer rearing period. Precision of estimates of natural production from 

returning adults would obviously be better by releasing fish in areas that are determined to be 

good coho spawning and rearing habitat, but this is not possible under the current release 

program. 

Both these risks could be reduced substantially-by release of large numbers of smolts, 

but at this time the potential increased risk to other species due to interactions seems too 

great to permit these larger releases. 

Risks to Research Objective 2. Determining the potentiZil harvest benefits from 

, reintroduction of coho salmon in the Yakima River Basin. 

Estimation of potential harvest benefits from releasing coho-depends entirely on the ' 

return rates to local fisheries, so the risks to this project are identical with the first risk listed 

for objective 1. If accurate information on the number and rate of returning adult coho 

salmon cannot be determined, the ability to make an informed decision on future expansion 

of coho releases would be impaired. Managers might expand *e programwhen it might not , 

Planning Status Report, December, 7995 7.3 Yakima Coho Salmon 
J Risk Anafysis \ 

be successfbl, or to restr Et the program when su&ival of cello returns COL-, _me produced 

a population of naturally reproducing coho. An incorrect decision has obvious consequences 

for a long-term objective of increasing coho salmon harvest opportunities for all fishers. 

Risk to Research Objective 3. Determining the predation impacts of releasing 

700,000 acclimated coho. smolts on fall chinook and other populations of concern in 

the Yakima River Basin. ' 

Coho releases have been approached cautiously because of the possibility that coho 

smolts may prey upon juvenile fall chinook as the coho migrate through fall chinook 

production areas in the lower reaches of theYakima basin. Research objective 3 relates to a 

monitoring program designed to resolve this question of predation. Since the research will 

be carried out entirely on the released smolts before they leave the basin, survival to 

adulthood, which dominated the risk picture for the other objectives, is not a ,factor here. 

Risks to objective three all relate to the possibility that the predation aspect of the monitoring 

plan will not give a sufficiently precise understanding of the predation impact to be expected 

from coho releases. The consequences of not understanding predation are clear. For 

example, there could be a decision to expand the coho program when expansion would 

depress fall chinook production, or to not expand and thus to forego production and harvest 

opprtunitie when expansion is warranted. 

- . 

, . Development of a sufficiently extensive and powerful research program to obtain the 

information the project needs on coho predation on fall chinook is a difficult task. Therefore 

the study will occur in stages. The first stage will essentially be a feasibility study conducted 

during the first year of the program. During this stage preliminary data will be collected that 

will be used to design a more sophisticated study that will yield the desired information 

needed in consideration of future coho program options fo? YKFP. This more sophisticated 

study will be the second stage of the YKFP coho program. Even with the benefit of the 

preliminary information, there could still be a risk of not gaining the information needed to 

precisely determine the predation impact of coho on the fall chinook population. However, 

this risk cannot be evaluated-until the first stage. work is completed. It is important to 

understand that the staging of the research is a risk -reduction strategy. The first stage work 

exists to reduce the risk of the full study. Any information it will yield is valuable. We 

view the risk of it being of no use as remote. 

. 

\ 

Pfanning Status Report, December, - 7995 . 7.4 Yakima Coho Salmon 

1 
I Facilities and Operations 

8.0 Facilities and Operations - 

Facilities needed for the YKFP currently include those for acclimation, release, and i 

monitoring. Acclimation facilities developed under the CRFMP will continue to be used for 

this program. Facilities are designed primarily for production of smolts to provide adults for 

harvest. Ultimate coho salmon production numbers will be determined after species interaction studies have been conducted. During February, approximately 700,000 yearling 

presmolts would be transferred from Columbia River hatchery facilities to acclimation ponds 

described previously where they would be reared and released to migrate volitionally from 

la@ April through early June. 

- 

Monitoring facilities and operations plans will be identified through the development and 

implementation of the URP. They will meet the needs -of the five levels of monitoring 

needed for the project. , 

3’. 

\ 

\ 

Planning Sfatus Report, December, 1995 8.1 . Yakrina Coho Salmon 

\ 
I 

, . ', 
Monitorhg 

9.0 Monitoring 

-. 

Monitoring has been planned to track project progress toward meeting objectives. 

Related to monitoring is the management and dissemhation of information so that project 

results are available in a timely manner and a usable form. Not all elements of the 

monitoring plan described below currently apply to the Yakima coho program. 

. 

The plan is organized into five sections according to monitoring: Quality Control, 

Product Specifications, Research, Risk Containment, and Stock Status. These groupings are 

not absolutely distinct; they simply provide a systematic way to present monitoring needs for 

each purpose. Monitoring activities to address all five purpose categories are then integrated 

into a single non-duplicative monitoring plan. This plan identifies measure_ments to-be taken 

monitor experimental response variables and to contain risks associated with uncertainty. 

Future iterations of this plan will include more details on sampling methods and frequencies 

and a detailed quality-control program. The level of detail here is deemed sufficient to 

proceed with NEPA documentation. 

Quality-Control Monitoring - 

The purpose of quality-control (QC) monitoring is to (1) assure that fish culture and monitoring 

activities are conducted as intended, (2) reduce to a minimum the variation from manageable sources 

other than experimental treatments, (3) assure the validity of the data collected, (4) assure proper 

record keeping and access to information, and (5) provide information needed for cost-effective 

operation. Quality control monitors performance of the facilities and their operators. Quality 

standards will be established for all fish-culture and data-collection activities. Quality-control 

monitoring procedures will be included in the operations manuals for all facilities and field activities. 

Development of quality-control standards and monitoring protocols is a part of the certification 

tasks Bescribed in the URP. No further details about QC monitoring are covered in this section at this 

time. As the certification-process proceeds, this portion of the monitoring plan will be expanded. 

Feedback from QC monitoring affects management and supervision of operational activities. It 

does not affect the treatment prescriptions. When QC standards are met, it is assumed that various 

treatments are being applied according to stated protocols . 

QC monitoring protocols are modified in response to changes in the treatment prescription, i.e. 

when the "Treatment Definitions and Descriptions" section of Chapter 8 is altered (e.g., through the 

results of product-specification monitoring). 

- 

Planning Status Report, December, 1995 9.1 

.- ." I 

Yakima Coho Salmon 
Monitoring 

- ProduU Sp&fication(a) f 

Product-specification monitoring is an extension of quality control, where the "product of the 

artificial environment" is monitored hd compared with a defined template. 

. Product specification monitoring collects information about the fish. Feedback affects the 

Treatment Definitions and Descriptions (Chapter 8). When specifications are met, the treatments are 

assumed .appropriate and the supplementation. strategies and experkental protocols are planned and 

implemented. When.observations suggest that the. fish do not meet the specification, a determination 

of the need& changes must be made. 

The Product- Specifications are .modified based on resule of research and risk-containment .. 

monitoring or new policy direction affecting objectives and strategies. 

Research 

There are critical uncertainties regarding both the &ifici+ and nabral environments within 

-which the.YKFP supplementation project operates. Success of the YKFP dso depends upon a 

progressively better understar;hing of the ecological interactions among and within species in the 

Yakima Basin. There. are critical uncertainties about both intra- and inter-specific effects of 

supplementation. Research pertaining to the'dynamics of the ecosystem is described under the heading 

of PTA (Patient Template Analysis) below. 

Patient-Template Analvsis ,- 

. An essential part of the YKFP planning process is the so-called Patient-Template Analysis PA) I 

. . 

where factors limiting-production are identified. The PTA is a part of 

assumptions about the'relationships between life histories and habitat are updated as new information 

is obtained arid 'analyzed. 

The Experimental Objectives analysis Ad subsequent risk assessment have pointed out the 

iterative process by which 

' critical nature of assumptions concerning intra-specific ecological interactions during the smolt 

outmigration. The-feasibility of developing experiments to test hypotheses regarding the effects of 

hatchery fish on smolt-to- smolt survival of na~rd -fish-shoul$ be investigated. These uncertainties are . reflected in the risk-containment monitoring plap. I 

.' .. 

Risk C,ontainment 

((a)) The term "Performance" which was used in Chapter 9 of the PSR comes from the 

FWP framework terminology where e.g. "perfo~ance" of a flow strategy is measured as 

changes in travel time. We use "Product Specification" here to avoid con&sion, since 

, elsewhere we use the term "performance" to indicate survival, fitness etc. 

?/annhg Status Re&, December, 1995 9.2 Yakima Coho Salmon _. 
' Monitoring 

Analysis of results from all monitoring-levels contribute to decisions about the future of the 

project. The purpose of risk containment is to identify monito&g needs and to organize information 

required to make rational decisions based on projected benefits and risks. This is where we tet the 

hypothesis that supplementation in fact works. 

The statement of objectives in quantitative and qualitative terms defines project success. When 

these objectives are met or exceeded, the-project's continuation is justified. Conversely, failure to 

meet objectives suggests that the project should be significantly modified or perhaps ended. Our 

ability to distinguish success from failure depends upon the quality of the risk-containment monitoring 

program. Conclusions about project success (i.e., achievement of objectives) are manifested in 

decisions to continue or to reshape the project. These decisions are never final; they are reexamined 

on an iterative basis according to the policy of adaptive management. At each such iteration, an 

assessment is made regarding benefits and risks of the project, and the conclusions are affected by the 

results of new information. The question whether or not supplementation "works" is thus constantly ~ 

reexamined, and the conclusion is always conditioned upon available information. The decision to 

continue to supplement is synonymous to a conclusion that supplementation works (i.e., the benefits 

exceed the risks) at that point in time. 

~ 

The determination of both risks and benefits requires a synthesis of all available information. 

This monitoring section should specify information needed to perform this synthesis, beyond what is 

needed to address the other four monitoring levels. The identification of the risk-containment 

monitoring needs is performed in a systematic way as described in Chapter 7, Risk Analysis. { 

The risk analysis defines risk in terms of failure to meet objectives in four categories: genetics, 

experimentation, ecological interactionhaturd production, and harvest. 

The scope of the monitoring program may change as more information about needs and 

feasibility become available. The elements listed in Table 9.3 represent the high-priority monitoring 

needs that are also judged feasible based upon current technology. 

Stock Status Monitoring 

Monitoring of stock sktus (run size and spawning escapement) provides information essential to 

track long-term performance and fitness of the population. Monitoring needs for in-season run size 

assessment are included under risk containment monitoring (see Chapter 7 ). Stock status information 

includes abundance and distribution (by time, location, and habitat type) as well as other demographics. 

Target and key non-target species would bemonitored. 

- 

Planning Status Report, December, 1995 9.3 Yakima Coho Salmon 

.. References 

10.0 References 

Anonymous. 1967. Supplementary Follow-up Report Spring chinook Salmon Program - 

Leavenworth, Entiat, and Winthrop Hatcheries. US. Fish and Wildlife Service, FAO, 

Leavenworth, Washing ton. 

BPA (Bonneville Power Administration). 1995. Revised DraB Environmental Impact I 

Statement, Yakma Fisheries Project. DOE/EIS-0169, Bonneville Power Administration, 

Portland, Oregon. 

Bryant, F. G., and Z. E. Parkhurst. 1950. Survey of the Columbia River and its TributariesPart ZK Special scientific Report: Fisheries No. 37. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

September, 1950. ! 

Mongillo, P., and L. Falconer. 1980. Y&ma Fisheries Enhancement Study Final Report. 

Washington Department of Game, Yakma, Washington. October 1980. 

Mullan, J. W. 1983. Overview of Artijkial and Natural Propagation of Coho Salmon (0. 

kisutch) on the Mid-Columbia River. U.S. Fish-and Wildlife Service, Report No. FWFAO84-4, Leavenworth, Washington. 

RASP (Regional Assessment of Supplementation Project). 1992a. Regional Assessment of 

Supplementation Project Summry Report Parts 1 and 3. Bonneville Power Administration, 

Portland, Oregon. 

RASP (Regional Assessment of Supplementation Project). 1992b. Regional Assessment of 

Supplementation Project Summary Report Parts 2 and 4. In preparation, Bonneville Power 

Administration, Portland, Oregon. 

RASP (Regional Assessment of Supplementation Project). 1992c. Regional Assessment of - 

Supplementation Project Final Repon. In preparation, Bonneville Power Administration, 

Portland, Oregon. 

- 

' 

Smoker, W. A. 1956. Evaluation of the Potential Salmon and Steelhead Production of the 

Yakma River to the Commercial and Recreational Fisheries. Report to the Washington 

Department of Fisheries, 19 pp. 

Walters, C. J. 1986. Adaptive Management of Reywable Resources. MacMillan-Publishing 

Company, New York. - 

Watson, B. D. 1993. Coho production objectives under the Yakma Fisheries Project. A 

prelimine proposal to the YKFP Policy Group of quantitative objectives for coho production 

under the YKFP. September 3, 1993. 

10.1 

/, Planning Status Report, December, 1995 Yakima Coho- Salmon 
P 

. 

, 

I- 

. -1 
Appendix C: Glossary of Species: Scientific Names 
P 
._ APPENDIXC ~ 

- -GLOSSARY OF SPECIES SCIENTIFIC NAMES 

Adder's tongue (Ophioglossum vulgatum) 

Aquatic earthworms (Oligochaeta) 

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

Bear grass (Xerophyllum tenax) 

Beaver (Castor canadensis) 

Bedstraw (Galium aparine) 

Belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon) 

Bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis) 

Bitter cherry (Prunw emarginata) 

Bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata) 

Black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) 

Black flies (Simuliidae) 

Black hawthorn (Crataegus douglasii) 

Black-capped chickadee (Parus atricapillus) 

Blackberry (Rubus spp.) 

Blue elderberry (Sambucus cerulea) 

Bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum) 

Bridgelip suckers (Catostomus columbianus) 

Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) 

Brown trout (Salmo trutta) 

Bull thistle (Cirsiurn vulgare) 

Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) 

Bulrush (Sciripus spp.) 

Bursage (Ambrosia acanhicarpa) 

Caddisflies (TrichopterakIydropsychidae) 

Caddis fly larvae (TrichoptedHydropsychidae) 

Carey's balsamroot (Balsamorhiza careyana) 

Carp (Cyprinus carpio) 

Cascades frog (Rana cascadae) 

Cattail (Typha latifolia) 

Channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) 

Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) 

Chinook salmon (spring, summer, fall) (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha] 

Chiselmouth (Acrocheilus alutaceus) 

Choke cherry (Prunus virginiana) 

Clover (Medicago spp.) 

Coho salmon (Oncprhynchus kisutch) 

Coltsfoot (Petasites frigidus) 

Columbian sharp-tailed grouse (Tympartuchirs phasianellus columbianrrs) I' 
c 

.. 

Common snipe (Gallinago gallinago) 

Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) 

Deer (Odocoileus spp.) 

Dock (Rumex spp.) 

Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) 

Douglas squirrel (Tamiasciurus douglasi) 

Elk (Cervus elaphus) . 

Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) 

Fireweed (Epilobium angustvollizrm) 

Fleabane (Erigeron spp.) 

Western garter snake (Thamnophis elegans-) 

Golden-crowned kinglet (Regulus satrapa) 

Goldenrod (Solidago spp.) 

Gqmd fir (Abies grandis) 

Gray wolf (Canis lupus) 

Green-fruited sedge (Carex interrupta) 

Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos = U. a. horribilis) 

Gull (Larus spp.) ' 

, 

. 

Hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus) 

Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) 

Hoover's tauschia (Tauschia hooveri) 

Huckleberry (Vaccinium spp.) 

- Hawthorn.(Crataegus spp.) *- 

Killdeer (Charadrius voeifery) . 

Kinnickinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi) 

. Knapweed (Centaurea spp.) ' 

, Kokanee (Onchbrhynch'us nerka) 

Lake trout (Salvelinus namayciuh) 

* Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) 

Largescale sucker (Catostomus macrocheilus) 

Leopard dace (Rhinichthys falcatus) 

Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) 

Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) 

Longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae) 

Lupine (Lupinus spp.). 

Appenix C/2 I 
Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus maimoratus) 

Mayflies (Ephemeroptem) 

Mock orange (Philadalphus lewisio 

Mountain whitefqh (Prosopium williamsoni) 

Mullein (Verbascum thapsus) . 

Northern flicker (Colaptes auratas) 

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) 

Northern red-legged frog (Rana aurora aurora) 

Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) 

Northern squawfish (Ptychocheilus oregonensis) 

Oak (Quercus spp.) 

Oceanspray (Holodiscus discolor) 

Oregon grape (Berberis nervosa) 

Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) 

Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti pacvca) 

Pacific yew (Taxus brevifolia) . 

Pearly everlasting (Anapahlis margaritacea) 

Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) 

Pine bro omrap e’(0ro banche pinorum) 

Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) 

Purple aster (Machaeranthera cairescens) 

Rainbow trout-(Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Raven (Corn& corm) 

Red Alder (Alnus rubra) 

Red osier dogwood (Cornus stolonifera) 

Red-breasted nuthatch (Sitta canadensis) 

Redside shiner (Richardsonius balteatus) 

Reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) - 

Rose (Rosa spp.) 

Rubber boa (Charina bottae) 

Rush (Juncus spp.) 

Russian knapweed (Centaurea repens) 

Sandberg’s bluegrass (Poa sandbergii) 

Sculpin (Cottns spp.) 

Sedge (Carex spp.) 

Sharp-tailed snake (Contia tenuis) 

Smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieui) 

Snowberry (Symphoricavpos albus) 

Sockeye salmon (Onchorhynchus nerka) 

. 
- Southern alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinata) 

Speckled dace (Rhinichthys oscuslus) 

Spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) 

Spring vetch (Vicia\sativa) 

Squirrel tail (Sitanion histrix)' 

Stoneflies (Plecoptera) ' 

Strawberry (Fragaria spp.) 

Sucker (Catostomus spp.) - Summer steelhead (Onchorhynchus mykiss) 

swamp saxifrage (Saxifraga integrifolia vu upetala) 

. Thimbleberry (Rubus pawiflorus)- 

Torrent sculpin (Cottus rhotheus) 

True flies (Diptera) 

Tumblemustard (Sisymbrium altissimum) 

Varied thrush (Ixoreus naevius) 

Victorin grape-fern (Botrychium mingangnse) 

Vine maple (Acer circinatum) 

c 

Western fence lizards (Scelopoys occidentalis) 

Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) 

Western red cedar (Thuja plicata) 

Western sage gr9use (Centrocercus urophasianus phaios) 

Western white pine (Pinus monticola) 

Westslope outthroat trout (Onchorhynchus clarki. lewisi) 

Wheatgrass (Agropyron spp.) 

Willow (Salix spp.) 

Ymow (Achillea millifolium). 

Yellow salsify (Tragopogon dubius) 

' Yellow perch (Percaflavescens) 

\ .. .- 

-- 

I) 
j Appendix D: Biological Assessments and Endangered 

Species Consultation 

. 

.* 

. 

. 
I 

\ 
Department of Energy 

’ P.O. Box 3621 

Portland, Oregon 97208-3621 

Bonneville Power Administration ’ 

Mr. William Stelle, Jr., Regional Director 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

7600 Sand Point Way, NE 

Bin C15700, Building 1 

Seattle, WA 98115 

Dear Mr. Stelle: 

In fhfWnent of the requirements for consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

as amended, we are enclosing a Biological Assessment (BA) of 1997-2001 hatchery operations of the 

proposed Cle Elum Hatchery. 

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), in cooperation with the Yakama Indian Nation and the 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, proposes to fund the construction and operation of an upper 

Yakima River spring chinook salmon hatchery and sateIl$e acclimation facilities near Cle Elum, 

Washington. This action responds to measure 7.4K. 1 of the 1994 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife 

Program. Contingent upon a favorable BPA Record of Decision and completion of consultation with the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), construction of the hatchery would begin in May 1996 and be 

completed in 1997. Broodstock collection would begin in 1997, and the first annual release of a maximum 

of 810,000 spring chinook salmon smolts would occur in 1999. The enclosed BA addresses potenhl 

effects of Cle Elm Hatchery operation on listed Snake River salmon. 

Based on the analysis in the BA, BPA has determined that the proposed operation of the Cle Elum 

Hatchery would not adversely affect Listed Snake River sockeye salmon, spring/smmer chinook salmon, or 

fall chinook salmon. ,We request your concurrence. Because we are awaiting completion of Section 7 

consultation with NMFS before beginning cons@ction of the Cle Elum Hatchery, we would appreciate 

your response at the earliest possible date. 

. Sinccrcly, 

Maryann Armbrust 

Environmental Policy, Strategy, and Analysis 

Enclosure 

cc: 

Mr. Me1 Sampson, Yakama Indian Nation 

Mr. Steve hider, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 
,. 

. 

.- 
Biological Assessment . 

1997-200 1 Hatchery Operations 

of the 

. Proposed 

Cle Elum Hatchery 

-, 

. 

Submitted to the National M&e Fisheries Service 

Bonneville Power Administration 

December 1995 

.- 

I, 

I- 
,I_ 

I .. ! 

, . I. BACKGROUND 

., . , The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), in cooperation with the Yakama Indian Nation 

~ .(MN) kd the Washington Department‘of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), proposes to find the . 

construction and operation of an upper Yakma River spring chinook salmon hatchery and 

satellite acclimation facilities near Cle EIiuq’Washington, hereaftet- referred to as the Cle Elum 

Hatchery. This action responds to measure 7.4K. 1 of the Northwest Power Planning Council’s 

(NPPC) Columbia River Bash Fish and Wildlife Program (NPPC 1994), which calls for BPA to 

“Fund design,’construction, operation qd maintenanct‘of a hatchery to enhance the fishery for. 

- - 

- 

. the Yakama Indian Nation as ~well-as other harvesters.” . \I 1 

- 

In accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, BPA is 

submitting this Biological Assessment, which Zissesses the effects of proposed Cle Elum Hatchery 

operations on listed anadromous fish, to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The 

proposed action represents an addition to BPA’s Artificial Propagation Program as previously 

described in the Biological Assessment of 1995-1999 Umatilla Hatchery Operations (BPA 1994) 

and the NMFS BioIo$cal Opinion for I995 to I998 Hatchery Operations in the CoIumbia River 

Basin . (NMJ?S 1995a). 

The Cle Elum.Hatchery project would consist of a central outplanting facility near Cle Elum, 

Washington, and three satellite acclimation facilities: two on the Yakima River (at Easton and at 

Clark Flat) and one on the North Fork Teanaway River (Figure 1). Several alternative locations 

are currently being considered for the Easton and Gorth Fork Teanaway River acclimation 

facilities (BPA 1995). 

The project is currently in the design and planning stage.- The final design of the facilities is nearly 

100% complefe. BPA has completedsa Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the 

project @PA 1995) and is currently completing the Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

BPA’s Record of Decision (ROD) for the project is expected in mid-February 1996. If the ROD 

and NMFS Biological Opinion are favorable, construction of the Cle Elum Hatchery would begin 

in May 1996 and be completed in l997. Juvenile rearing would begin in 1998, and annual 

releases of a maximum of 810,000 spring chinook smolts are expected to begin in 1993, Spring 

chinook salmon broodstock collection would begin in 1997 at Roza Dam on the Yakima River. 

The Ron collection facility is owned by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and would be 

operated cooperatively by the BOR and YIN (with BPA finding of the YIN personnel wh‘o would 

operate the facility). 

. II. LISTED ANADROMOUSSPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT 0 

.. 

No Snake River sockeye salmon, Snake Riyer spying/summer cknook salmon, or Snake River fall 

chinook salmon are present in the project area. The Cle Elum Hatchery. and acclimation facilities 

are not located in the critical habitat for these listed-species. However, spring chinook smolts 

produced by the Cle Elum facility would outmigrate through the critical habitat of these listed 

. species in-the mainstem Columbia River. Adult hatcherpproduced upper Yakima spring chinook 
.tit Ciiies 

8 Dams 

0 Cle Elurn Hatchery 

Spring Chinook A cclimaiion 

Sites I Proposed 

0 Alternate . 

A Juvenile Trapping Sites 

0 Adult Trapping Sites . 

Miles .. 

-. 

.- 

: Figure -I. Map of Upper Yakima River Basin 

’ showing location of project facilities. 

. 
,I 

,, 

wo,uld pass though the .. critical habitat in the mainstem Columbia River as they‘migrate upstream 

to the Yakima River. I I 

~ \ ., 

ID. PROPOSED PROPAGATION PROGRAM 

BPA proposes to find the Cle Elum Hatchery to undertake fishery research and mitigation 

activities in the YakimaRiver Basin. WDFW and MN, the project managers, would jointly direct 

the project. Research activities designed to increase knowledge of supplementation techniques 

would be conducted at the propagation facilities. These supplementation techniques would be 

applied to rebuild naturally spawning anadromous fish stocks historically present in the Yakima 

River Basin and, ultimately, to rebuild those throughout the Columbia River Basin. The 

uncertainties about the techniques, as well as the importance of supplementation to existing and 

potential future enhancement plans, make it imperative that supplementation be thoroughly 

evaluated using a systematic, experimental program, The Cle Elum Hatchery project would be 

designed to meet both the need for rigorous research and for responsiveness to changes as’ the 

project proceeds (BPh 1995). I 

. 1. Adult Collection 

.- 

Broodstock of upper Yakima River sprhg chinook salmon would be trapped at Roza Dam from 

late May -through September, beginning in ‘1997, Adult collection facilities are currently in place 

at Roza Dam and would be operated cooperatively sy the YIN and Bureau of Reclamation. The 

Roza collection facility is located on the Yakima River at,river kilometer (RK) 21 1 (river mile 

13 1). . The adult trapping facility (as descfibed by STAC 1995) incorporates proven design 

features and is_ located on the left bank of the Yakima River (Roza pool) approximately 92 m 

-(300 &) upstream of Roza Dam, It is hydraulically connected to the existing fishway by a flow 

control structure and‘a light-ported aluminum..pipe which serves a lake-level fish transport Channel 

’ (following Cowlitz Hatchery design). An intake provides a gravity source for the transport 

channel and a river water source, via pumps, for the-trapping facilities. The head end of the 

transport channel is a collection’areaconsisting of a “V”. trap entrance, crowder, and a Bonneville 

-r Hatchery-:style-fish lock and lift. From the top of the fish lock, a fish sorting flume (Prosser Dam . design) descends past four holding tanks and exits as a river return line.. Access to each holding * 

. tankis provided by remotely or automatically controlled quick-acting power gates. Holding tanks ’ 

are provided with a crowder. channel access port and individual crowders: The common crowder 

channel is provided with a crowder that is used to separatecrowd fish retained for hatchery 

transfer or for crowding to a fish-handling “scalloped” brail. A water-tolwater fish transfer brail 

. : 

. , - 

. 

’ . 

’ is used for lifting fish from the crowder channel and for fish transport truck holding. , , 0 

Fish would ascendthe Roza fishway and enter the trap via the transportation pipe. Trapped fish 

.would be crowded into the fish lock that would subsequentlybe closed and flooded to the 

elevation.of the fish sorting structure. -A false floor (lift) would be raised to crowd the fish 

upward within the lock: -Fish sorting would be managed by an operator controlling the lock-and 

lift operation. Fish would have the opportunity to exit the lock volitionally over the weir as flow 

-is increased or would be~otherwise encouraged to exit by raising the false floor-which serves as a 

‘ 

‘- \. ,. 

4 
brail. The individual controlling the fish lock would also be responsible for either sorting fish (by 

species) into holding tanks, or directing fish to pass through and exit into the Roza pool. 

A maximum of 1,100 upper Yakima River spring chinook salmon adults would be collected 

annually and transported to.Cle Elum Hatchery. Only naturally produced (non-marked) fish 

would be selected for hatchery use and no more than 50% of the available non-hatchery adults 

would be used for broodstock. 

2. Juvenile Rearing and Release 

Spring chino3k spawning, egg incubation, and fiy and juvenile rearing would be conducted at the 

Cle Elum Hatchery. The initial year of spawning would be 1997. The mating scheme would 

follow hatchery genetic guidelines developed for the Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project 

(Kapuscinski and Miller 1993), and samples of heart, eye, liver, and muscle tissues from spawned 

adults would be collected for electrophoretic and other genetic analysis. Fry would be ponded . 

and reared in raceways at the Cle Elum facility. Prior to the end of their rearing cycle 

(approximately one year after swim-up), all juveniles would be transferred to satellite rearing 

facilities for acclimation and release. Satellite.acclimation ponds would be located at two sites on 

the Yakima River (at Easton (RK 325 (RM 202)) and Clark Flat (RK 272 (RM 169)) and at one 

site near RK 3 14 (RM 195) on the North Fork Teanaway River, a tributary to the Teanaway 

River, which flows into the upper Yakima River (Figure 1). Smolts would be allowed to 

outmigrate vqlitionally from the acclimation ponds gom mid-April to mid-May, following five 

months of acclimation and imprinting. The annual spring chinook salmon production goal of the 

Cle Elum Hatchery is a release of 810,000 spring chinook smolts at 15 per pound and an average 

length of 151 mm (6 inches) and a range of 136 mm to 166 mm (5.4 to 6.6 inches). The initial 

smolt release is planned for spring 1999. 

- 

- 

Supplementation research with spring chinook. salmon in Cle Elurn Hatchery would initially 

compare two experimental treatments: 

0 

0 

1, 

Treatment A is an Optimal Conventional Treatment (OCT) that incubates, rears, and 

acclimates.spring chinook salmon using optimal conventional fish-culture methods derived 

from artificial propagation experiences within the. Columbia River Basin. One-half.of the 

juveniles reared at Cle Elum Hatchery would be reared using this treatment. . 

' 

Treatment B is a New Innovative Treatment -(NIT) that incubates, rears, and acclimat& spring 

chinook salmon using natural-like environments (e.g., natural cover, substrates, in-water . 

structures in rearing containers) to produce fish that display attributes of naturally-produced 

spring chinook salmon. One-half of the juveniles reared at Cle Elum Hatchery would be 

reared using this treatment. 

The production figure of 8 10,000 smolts is based on the number of released, smolts required to . 

produce enough returning adults to detect a relative between-treatment difference in adult survival 

of 5Q% (with a significance level of 0.1 and a 90% certainty, or power)-(STAC 1995). 

5 
~ 

* . Research monitoring would include measurements of,performance in four mainareas: 

; reproductive success (number of offspring .\ produced per spaher); 

long-term fitness .- (genetic diversity and long-term stock productivity);~ and 

. I 

. 0 post-release-survival (survival fromtime of release until the fish return to spawn); 

' 

ecological interactions ivith con-specifics-and non-target species (population 

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

\\ disease, and gene how). , I 

-- ~ 

<. ,. 

. .- The-following product specification attributes would also be modtored at the Cle Elum facility, 

- the acclimation ponds, and the juvenile monitoring facilities to determine whether the fish - produced by the project meet certain goals: 

0 fish health; 

0 morphology; 

0 behavior; and / 

-0, survival. - .- .I 

This production-scale comparison of the OCT and NIT would provide results relevant to 

Recovery Tasks 4.4.c. (developing methodsof achieGng high quality fish) and 4.4.d. (developing 

'new natural rearing systems) of the,WS Proposed Recovery Plan (NMFS 1995b). The 

complete upper Yakima River spring chinook experimental design is contained in the 1 

Yakima/Klckitat Fisheries Project Spring Chinook Planning Status Report (STAC 1995). 

, 

t The Cle'Elum Hatchej is the type of hatchery*envisioned by the National Research Council 

(NRC), which recommended that. the. goal of hatchery planning; management, and operations 

should be to assist recovery of wild populations and to increase knowledge about salmon ' 

(NRC 1995). TheNRC (1995) concluded that hatcheries should be thought of as laboratories 

' that can provide improved environments for stdying juvenile fish and for testing treatments to 

improve our understanding of what happens to juveniles after they leave the spawning Bieas. 

Seen in. that light, theNRC indicated hatcheries can be a powerful tool for learning about salmon. 

All phases of artificial propagation, fish transfers, and supplementation procedures for the 

Cle EIum Hatchery project would follow the fish health policy documented in the Integrated 

Hatchery Operations Team's (HOT) Policies and Proceduresfor Columbia Basin Anadromous 

' Salmonid Hatcheries (HOT 1994). Rigorous sanitation and-the use of disinfection procedures 

combined with optimum husbandry, isolation and quarantine practices, and a strong diagnostic 

and therapeutic program would minimize fish health concerns and reduce the potential for adverse. 

impacts from disease.on wild and hatchery-reared fish during operation of the Cle Elum Hatchery 

.I I 

. ~ - (~~~1995). 1 

'- 

, .- 

., 

6 .- 
3. .Adult returns 

Begin annual broodstock . 

collection at Roza Dam , 

Broodstock collection at 

Roza Dam 

Broodstock-cpllection at 

Roza Dam ' 

Broodstock collection at 

Roza Dam , 

Wild upper Yakima River spring chinook spawners are predominantly 4~year-old fish, with a small 

percentage of 3- and 5- year-old fish (Fast et al. 1991). Hatchery-produced adults would be 

expected to follow the game general maturation pattern. Therefore, 2000 would be the first year 

when any brood-year 1997 Cle Elum Hatchery adults would be expected to return to the upper 

Yakima River (as age 2+ fish), with the majority of the brood-year 1997 fish expected to return .in 

2001 at age 3+ (Table 1). . Adulf spring chinook salmon begin migrating upstream past Prosser 

Dam on the lower Yakima River in late April and have completed passage by late July 

' 

. (BPA1995). -1 

, 

. - 9- 

Rearing of brood-year 1997 fry 

Begin annual juvenile releases into 

Yakima River/North Fork 

Teanaway River.. Rearing of - 

brood-year 1998 fry: . .. 

Juvenile releases into Yakima 

RiverlNorth Fork Teanaway River. 

Rearing of brood-year 1999 fry. * 

Table 1. Proposed schedule of Cle Elum Hatchery propagation activities , 

. 

Broodstock collection at 

Rota Dam 

~~ 

YEAR 

1997 

1998 

Juvenile releases into Yakima 

River/No?th Fork Teanaway River. 

Rearing of brood-year 2000, fry. 

1999 

2004 

2001 

- ' PROPAGATION 

ACTIVITY 

7 

.- 

First year of hatchery 

adult returns (age 2 + 

fish) .- 

Hatchery adult returns 

continue. (age 2 + and 

3+ fish) . . 

MAXIMUM 

SPRING 

CHINOOK 

SMOLT 

RELEASE 

81 0,000 

81 0,000 

81 0,'OOO 

, 
\, . 

IV. ASSESSMENT 03 IMPACTS ~ 

A. Effects to Juveniles . , 

1. Migration Corridor Impacts ' % 

When juveniles released. from a hatchery cominingle with listed juveniles in the Columbia River 

migration corridor, there may be possible adverse effects due to transniission of disease, 

predation, and competition for food and space. We agreewith NMFS(1995a and 1995b) that 

considerable speculation, but little scientific information, is available concerning the overall effects 

to listed Snake River salmon fiom the-combined number'of hatchery fish in the Columbia River 

migration corridor and .that quantitative information on' the level of- impact to listed fish from 

hatchery actions is .not available.' Consequently, NMFS used qualitative analysis to assess effects 

of hatchery releases-on listed stocks in the'BiologicaI, Opinion for I995 to I998 Hatcheiy 

Operations in the Columbia River Bash o'm/iFS 1995a). We have also used a qualitative 

approach in this Biological Assessment. . . . 

cc. Snake River Sockeye Salriion 

,- 

' . 

.. ,. -. 

, 

' ~ Disease impacts would be mi+mal. All phases of artificial propagation, fish transfers, and 

. supplementation procedures for the.Cle Elum Hatchery project would follow'the fish health policy 

documented-in the Integrated Hatchery Operations Team's (HOT) Policies irnd Procedures for 

Columbia Basin Anadromous Salmonid Hatcheries-(HQT 1994). Rigorous sanitation and the 

use of disinfection procedures combined with optimum husbandry, -isolat'ion and quarantine 

practices, and a strong 'diagnostic-and therapeutic program should result in healthy smolts and 

reduce thepotentia1 for adverse impacts from disease transmission from Cle Elum Hatchery 

smolts to listed Snake River sockeye salmon smolts in the Columbia River migration corridor. 

Cle-Elum Hatchery spring chinook (at an exp&cted,average release size of I5 1 mm (6 inches)) 

would probably not be large enough to prey on Snake River sockeye. Sockeye salmon migrating 

out,of Redfish Lake range in size from 60 mm (2.4 inches) to 117 mm (4.7 inches) (IDFG 1993 as 

cited in NMFS 1995a): . . _, - 

4 

. 

' 

- There is only a. slight overlap.between the-migration,period of .Cle.Elum Hatchery spring chinook 

,smolts, which would be released between mid-April to mid-May (STAC 1995), and the 

.~ 'outmigration period of Snake River sockeye, which migrate past Lower Granite Dam between -- mid-May and early July (Fish Passage Center 1992 as cited.in NMFS 1995a). Most of the Cle 

' ' Elum spring chinook smolts would 'probably migrate through the Columbia River migration 

corridor prior to the sockeye .outmigration, thus minimizing any potential adverse effects-from _- 

competitioh or disease transmission.. Most importantly, the 8 10,000 spring chinook smolts I 

proposed fdr annual release from the Cle Elum Hatchery acclimation facilities is only 0.4% of the' 

197.4 million anadromous hatchery fish released into the Columbia Basin in 1994. The addition 

migration corridor would not significantly increase the current level of interaction, between 

hatchery ,and listed salmonids. Furthermore, the number of smolts proposed for release from %le 

- 

; .of this relatively small number of hatcheryspring chinook smolts into the Columbia River 

,I - 

8' 
.-- 

Elum Hatchery is certainly far below’the historical number of smolts produced by the estimated 

200,000 adult spring chinook that returned:each year to the Yakima Basin prior to 1900 (BPA). 

b. Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon 

Disease impacts would be minimal. All phases of artificial propagation, fish transfers; and 

supplementation procedures for the Cle Elum Hatchery project would follow the fish health policy 

documented in the Integrated Hatchey 0perations.Team’s (IHOT) Policies and$rocedures for 

Columbia Basin Anadromous Salmonid Hatcheries (MOT 1994): Rigorous sanitation and the 

use of disinfection procedures combined with optimum husbandry,-isolation and quarantine 

practices, and a strong diagnostic and therapeutic program should result in healthy smolts and 

would reducedhe potential for adverse impacts fiom disease transmission from Cle Elum 

Hatchery smolts to listed Snake River spring/summer chinook smolts in the Columbia River 

migration corridor. 

Predation is not a concern, since Cle Elum Hatchery spring chinook smolts would be expected to 

b& in the same general size range as listed spring/summer chinook salmon smolts: 

The release period for Cle Elum Hatchery spring chinook smolts (mid-April to fid-May) overlaps 

the migration period -(early April through June) for listed spring/Fummer chinook at Lower 

Granite Dam. Data is not available to allow a quantitative analysis of any competitive interactions 

between Cle Elum spring chinook and Snake River ,spring/summer chinook. However, the 

810,000-spring chinook smolts proposed for arhual release from the Cle Elum Hatchery - 

acclimation facilities is only 0.4% of the 197.4 million anadromous hatchery fish released into the 

Columbia Basin in 1994. The addition ofthis relatively small number of hatchery spring chinook 

smolts into the Columbia River migration corridor would not significantly increase the current 

level of inteiactionbetween hatchery and- listed salmonids. Also, the number of smolts proposed 

for release from Cle Elum Hatchery is certainly far below the historical number of smolts 

produced by the estimated 200,000 adult spring chinook that returned each year to the Yakima ~ 

Basin prior to 1900 @PA 1995). 

” d. 

.. 

. , 

,, 

. 

- 

c. I Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon 

Disease impacts would likely be minimal. All phases of artificial propagation, fish transfers, and 

supplementation procedures for the Cle Elum Hatchery project would follow the fish, health policy 

documented in the Integrated Hatchery Operations Team’s(IH0T) Policies and Procedures for . 

Columbia Basin Anadromous Salmonid HatcheriesQHOT 1994). Rigorous sanitatioc and the 

use of disinfection procedures combined with optimum husbandry, isolation and quarantine 

practices, and a strong diagnostic and therapeutic program would reduce the potential .for adverse 

impacts from disease transmission from Cle Elum Hatchery smolts to Snake River fall chinook 

- 

salmon smolts in the Columbia River migration corridor. , I, 

We considered the possibility that the Cle Elum spring chinook smolts might have an adverse 

predation impact on age-0 Snake River fall chinook outmigrants due to size differences. It has 

been suggested that predators prey on food items less than or equal to one-third of their length 

9- > 
,- 

r. 

(Parkinsonet al. 1989 as cited in Witty et al. 1995). Cle Elumspring chinook are-expected to 

have an average size of 151 mm (6-inches) and range from 136 mm to -166 mm (5.4 inches to 

.6.6%inches), while Snake River fall chinook, in 1991, ranged in size from 40 mm (1.6 inches) onMay 2 to 104 mm.(4.2 inches) on July 14'(Fish Passage Center I992 as cited in WS 1995a). 

Thus, the average Cle Elum'spring chinook smolt would be.more-than three times the size of t.he 

subyearling, 40 m-fall chinook smolts. 

-In a recent draft reiriew of the potential impacts of hatchery fish on naturally-produced salmonids 

in the migration corridor of the Snake and Columbia rivers (Witty et al. 1995), the reviewers ., 

examined hatchery steelhead predation on_ subyearling natural-chinook salmon because this 

interaction had the greatest potential adverse impact due to size differences. The reviewers 

indicated that most salmon and steelhead smolts released from Columbia Basin hatcheries are , 

smaller than 250 mm (10-inches); with residual steelhead exceeding.250 mim in the migration' I 

corridor. The reviewers-concluded that, since it is unlikely than hatchery steelhead prey on 

chinook salmon during the year in which the steelhead are released from the hatchery and few 

-residual steelhead- survive, the potential-impact of hatchery salmonid predation on natural 

salmonids in the mainstem-migration corridor is not a significant factor. Based on this review,. we 

conclude that Cle Elum Hatchery spring chinook smolts, which would be smaller than the typical 

. 

' 

.~ 

. 

.. 

- ~ migration corridor. NMFS (1995a)-also indicated that predation by hatchery fish on listed salmon 

' steelhead smolt, would not be a significant predator on subyearling fall chinook smolts in the 

1 

smolts is believed to be' low. ' ,. 

Most Snake River fall chinook pass Lower Granite Dam'fiom.mid-June through July 

(NMFS 1995a); while Cle Elum Hatchery spring chinook smolts will be released from mid-April 

to -mid-May.. . Therefore; most, if not all; ofthe Cle Elum. spring chinook smolts would probably 

migrate through the lower Columbia' River before Snake River fall chinook smolts would enter 

this migration corridor, minimizing the ppportunity for poten~al competition and disease 

transmission. Most importantly, the 810,000 spring chinook smolts proposed-for annual release 

from the Cle Elum Hatchery acclimation facilities is only 0.4% of the 19.7.4 million anadromous 

hatchey fish released-into the Columbia Basin in 1994. The addition of this relatively small 

number of hatchery spring chinook smolts into the Columbia River migration cor~dor would not 

. significantly increase the current overall level of interaction between hatchery and listedsalmonids. Also, the number ofsmolts proposed for release from Cle Elum Hatchery is certainly 

far below the historical number of smolts producedtby the estimated 200,000 adult spring chinook 

that returned each year to the-Yakima Basin prior to 1900 -@PA 1995). 

. . 

. , 

- 

B. Effects to Adults 

1 

1. Broodstock Collection 

If listed .SnakeXiver adults stray. outside their normal migration route they may.be incidentally 

captured at hatchery b.roodstock collection facilities and delayed.or prevented from reaching their 

natural spawning area. The potential for.SnakeRiver salmon-to stray into the Roza Dam 

. 

, 

. broodstock collection facility is examined as ,follows: - . > 

I~ 

,, 

.- 
a. Snake River Sockeye Salmon 

No adult sockeye salmon would be collected for broodstock at Roza Dam. There is overlap 

between the proposed spring chinook collection period at Roza Dam (late May through 

September) and the migration period of adult Snake River sockeye salmon at Ice Harbor Dam 

(mid-June through early September) (Dauble and Mueller 1993). However, Roza Dam is located 

at Yakima RK 21 1 (RM ‘13 1), and the distance between the SnakdColumbia River confluence 

and the YakimdColumbia River confluence is 18 RK (11 RM). Thus, a Snake River sockeye 

salmon would have to stray 229 RK (142 Rh4) from its normal migration route to reach Roza 

Dam. We believe straying this far off the migration route to be a highly unlikely event. 

Furthermore, in the extremely remote event of a Snake River sockeye salmon straying 229 RK 

and entering the Roza trap, it would be passed back to the Yakima River, because no sockeye 

would be collected for broodstock. The Roza collection facility is state-of-the-art, allowing 

sorting of fish and return to the river without removal fiom the water, and no adverse effects 

would be anticipated due to handling during the fish sorting process. Accordingly, we have 

concluded that the opportunity for the operators of the adult collection facilities at Roza Dam to 

encounter a Snake River sockeye salmon or cause them to modi@ their migration behavior is 

unlikely. 

b. Snake River Spring/Summer Chinook Salmon f 

Adult upper Yakima River spring chinook salmon-%guld be collected at Roza Dam from late May 

through September. This collection period generally coincides.with the migration period of Snake 

River spring/summer chinook. However, it is unlikely that any adult Snake River spring/summer 

chinook salmon would stray 229 RK fiom,their normal migration route and be incidentally 

collected at the Roza facility. Furthermore, spring chinook salmon in general have a low potential 

for straying (Chapman et al. 1991). Accocdingly, we have concluded that the opportunity for the 

operators of the adult collection facilities at Roza Dam to encounter a Snake River springlsummer 

chinook salmon or cause them to modify their .migration behavior is unlikely. 

c. Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon 

‘Fall chinook are not targeted for broodstock collection at the Roza’facility. Run timing for fall 

chinook at Ice Harbor Dam extends from mid-August to the end of October @auble and Mueller 

1993). There is some overlap of the spring chinook collection period at Roza Dam (late May 

through September) with the migration period of Snake River fall chinook salmon at Ice Harbor 

Dam. However, it is unlikely that any Snake River fall chinook salmon would stray 229 RK fiom 

their normal migration rode and be incidentally collected for broodstock at the Roza adult trap. 

’ Thus, we have concluded that the opportunity for the operators of the adult collection facilities at 

Roza Dam to encounter a Snake River fall chinook salmon or cause them to modi@ their 

migration behavior is unlikely. 

11 
2. Genetic Introgression 

Straying of hatchery-produced adult salmon into the Snake River system and‘ spawning with listed 

Snake River populations. Fukhetrnore, straying can lead. to breakdown in population st&cture if 

. - Snake River salmon may lead to outbreeding ‘depression and reductions in the fitness of natural 

. the strays make permanent genetic contributions. .Given these concerns, it is prudent to limit the 

. - genetic introgression by non-native hatchery fish inio natural populations @MJ?S 1995a). 

Potential straying of Cle Elum Hatchery adults into the Snake River system is assessed as follows: 

a Snake River Sockeye Salmon 

No sockeye salmon would be reared at the Cle Elum Hatchery. 

b. Snake Spring-Summer Chinook Salmon 

%?e believe the likelihood of Cle Elum Hatchsry spring chinook straying into the Snake River 

system’and spawning with Snake river^ spring/summer chinook is very low. This assessment is ’ ’ based on a several planned propagation measures that would enhance the homing ability of the 

- 

I. ., 

r 

1, 

hatchery-produced spring cfiinook: - - . , ., 

I, 

0 ?re-release acclimation of hatchery juveniles at upper Yakima River acclimation sites .~ above X-272&W 169). . t).’ 

The use of locally-adapted upper Yakima River spring chinook stock as broodstock. \- 

All hatchery-reared juveniles would be marked prior to release into the upper Yakima River, 

allowing ?dentification of any stray Cle Elum Hatchery fish arriving at Snake River hatcheries, and 

an estimate of the straying rate for Cle Elum Hatchery fish. 

c. Snake River Fall Chinook Salmon .. - 

No fall chinook salmon would be reared at the ClerElum Hatchery. 

d 

V.. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

‘Based on’our qualitative analysis, BPA has concluded that the operation of the Cle Elum. 

Hatchery and the Roza Dam broodstock collection facilities from 1997 through 2001 would not 

adversely affect the existence or recovery of Snake River sockeye salmon, spring/sun&er chinook 

salmon, or fall chinook salmon. 

Adverse impacts from Cle Elum spring chinook smolts on listed Snake River salmon smolts in 

the Columbia River migration corridor are unlikely. Application of state-of-the-art fish health 

and fish husbandry practice2 at the Cle Elum Hatchery would promote production of highquality, healthy smolts, thereby minimizing the risk of disease transmission to listed salmon . / 
juveniles in the migration corridor. Predation on listed smolts would not be signTficant. 'The 

number of CIe Elum Hatchery smolts proposed for annual release (810,000) is'extremely small 

compared to total Basin-wide hatchery releases in 1994 (197.4 million anadromous juveniles), 

and represents only 0.4% of this total. The addition of this relatively small number of 

hatchery spring chinook smolts into the Columbia River migration corridor would nit 

significantly-increase the cnrrent.overal1 level of interaction between hatchery and listed 

anadromous salmonids. 

The opportunity for the operators of the adult collection facilities. at Roza Dam to incidentally 

capture a Snake River sockeye salmon, spring/summer chinook salmon, or fall chinook salmon 

or cause them to modify their migration behavior is highly-unlikely due to the location of the 

collection facility 229 RK (142 RM) upstream .from the SnakeKolumbia River confluence. - 

The upstream location of the Cle Elum Hatchery acclimation and release sites and the use of 

locally-adapted upper Yakima River spring chinook stock for broodstock, early pre-smolt 

transfer to acclimation- facilities, and volitionaI.release would encourage strong .imprinting. in 

smolts and would be expected to greatly reduce, if not eliminate, straying.of CIe Elum 

Hatchery adults from the Yakima Basin. 

- 

.- 

As a reasonable and prudent alternative in the Biological Opinion for I995 to I998 Hatchery 

Operations in the Columbia River Basin, NMFS decided to limit anadromous hakhery releases to 

the 1994 level of 197.4 million fish. We assume tha$..a similar Basin-wide production cap will be 

in effect in 1999 when the initial Cle Elum Hatchery smolt release is proposed. Since the . 

qualitative analysis in this Biological Assessment shows no adverse effects to listed Snake River 

salmon, we suggest that, in 1999, production could be reduced at other hatcheries to 

accommodate the small amount of new annual production from the Cle Elum Hatchery under the 

Basin-wide production cap. An alternative approach would be to raise the production cap in 

1999 by an increment of 810,000 fish to accommodate the new Cle Elum Hatchery production. 

13 
. VI. REFERENCES .. 

BPA (Bonneville Power Administratibn). 1994. Biological Assessment. 1995-1999 Umatilla 

Hatchery operations. Submitted to the NationaLMarine Fisheries Service by Bonneville 

Power Administration, September, 1994. BPA, Poqland, OR. . 

1995. Yakima Fisheries Project Revised Draft Environmental Assessment. 

DOELEIS-0169, May 1995. Publication No. DOE/BP-2588. BPA, Portland, OK. 

Chapman, D., A. Giorgi, M. Hill, A. Maule, S. McCutcheon, D. Park, W. Platts, K. Pratt; J. Seeb, ' 

- L. Seeb, and F. Utter. 1991. Status of Snake River chinook salmon. Final Report 

submitted to ESA Adhnktrative Record for Snake River chinook salmon, 53 1 p. plus 

Appendix. Available fiom Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee, 10 1 SW. 

Main Street, Suite .8 10, Portland, OR 97204. 

I_ 

. Dauble, D. D. and R. P.'Mueller. 1993. Factors affecting the survival of upstream migrant adult 

salmonids in the Columbia River B-asin: I Final Report to BPA, June 1993. -Publication-No. 

DOE/BP-62611-2. BPA, Portland, OR. . 

,. 

Fast, Di, J. Hubble,.M. Kohn, and B. Watson: 199f. Yakima River spring chinook enhancement 

study. Final Report to BPA, September 1991. Publication No. DOEBP-39461-9. BPA, \ 

Portland, OR. 

.. 

\. .p 

.. *. - 

~ IHOT (Integrated Hatchery Operations Team). 1994. Policies and procedures for Columbia 

River Basin anadromous salmonid hatcheries, Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority, 

Portland, OR 

Kapuscinski, A. R., and L.M. Miller. 1993. Genetic hatchery guidelines for the YakimaKlickitat 

Fisheries Project. Public review draft. BPA, Portland, OR. .I 

.. 

NMFS (National.Marine Fisheries Service). ' 1995a. Biological Opinion'for 1995'to 1998. 

hatchery operations in the Columbia River Basin. Consultations conducted by National 

Marine Fisheries Service. April.5, -1995. NMFS, Portland, OR. . 

. 1995b. Proposed Recovery Plan for Snake River salmon. March 1995. NMFS, 

Portland, OR. 

NPPC (Northwest Power Planning Council). 1994. Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife 

Program. December 14, 1994. NPPC, Portland, OR. 

a 

NRC (National Research Council). 1995. Upstream: salmon and society in the Pacific . . 

Northwest. Prepublication copy. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 

14 
STAC (Science/Technical Advisory Committee) 1995. Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project 

planning status report 1995. Volume 3, Yakima spring chinook salmon. May-1995,. 

Prepared for BPA, Portland, OR 

< 

Witty, K., C. Willis, and S. Cramer. 1995. A review of potential'impacts of hatchery fish on 

naturally produced salmonids in the migration corridor of the Snake and Columbia rivers. 

Drak Final Report, June, 1995. S. P. Cramer and Associates, Inc., Gresham , OR. 

I 

H\yakima\yfp_ba.doc. 

'. 

15 . 
.. , 

, 
-. 

Department of Energy 

Bonneville Power Administration 

’ P.O.’Box 3621 

Portland, Oregon‘ 97208-3621 

December 18,1995 

Mr. David Frederick 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

3704 Griffin Lane S.E., Suite 102 

Olympia, WA 98501 I 

1 

Dear Mr. Frederick .. 

In complying with its responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, Bonneville 

Power Administration @PA) subrnits’the enclosed Biological Assessment of the threatened and 

endangered species listed in your letter (1-3-96-SP-58) of November 29,1995. 

BioloHcal Assessment - Conclusion: It is BPA’s opinion that the construction and operation of 

. proposed facilities within the Yakima Fisheries Project fall under the categories of either “no 

effect” or!‘may affect, not likely to adversely iffect.” 

We would appreciate a written response for our files indicating your concurrence with our 

conclusions. Please contact me at (503) 230-7349 if you have any questions. 

-/ 

Sincerely, ,. 

-_ ,.. 

, 

.. 

Enclosure 
v 

YFP Biological - Assessment 

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON 

THE BALD EAGLE, GRAY WOLF, GRIZZLY BEAR, PEREGRINE FALCON, I 

MARl3LED MURRELET, AND NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL . 

RESULTING FROM CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION 

OF HATCHERY FACILITlES AND ACCLIMATION PONDS 

FOR THE YAKIMA FISHERIES PROJECT 

Introduction 

.\ 

The Bonneville Power Administration&PA) proposes to construct and operate fisheries-related 

facilities in the upper Yakima River Basin to testthe principles of supplementation, with the 

evenhal goal of applying the results throughout the Columbia River Bas@.c Supplementation is a 

strategyfor reb'uilding fish spawning runs'by releasing artificially propagated fish into natural 

streams to increase natural production. The proposed facilities and activities, collectively called the . . -Yema Fisheries Project (YFP), will be jointly managed by the BPA, the State of Washington, 

imd the Yakima Indian Nati'on (YIM). 

,In support of theenvironmental impact statement (EIS) being prepared for the YFP, the Pacific 

Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) has initiated consultation with state and federal resource 

management agencies regarding the potential occurrence of threatened and endangered species in 

the vicinity of the proposed hatchery and acclimation pond sites (Attachment 1). 

. 

. 

In compliance with Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), this Biological Assessment 

(BA) addresses potenti@ impacts on those species (other than anadromous salmonids) listed as 

endangered or threatened under the ESA that may occur in the vicinity of the project sites. Listed 

species that may be present include the following: bald eagle (Haliaeem leucocephalus), gray 

wolf (Car% lupus), gkizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), 

occidentalis caurinu). 

Backmound 

* . marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus mamzoratus mamzoratus), and northern spotted owl (Strk - 

BPA proposes to construct a central hatchery facility for spring Chinook salmon at Cle Elum, and . . three acclimation ponds within upper Yakima River basin, one near Thorp (Clark Hat), one near 

Easton paston Ponds), and one within the drainage of the North Fork Teanaway River (Jack 

Creek). The general locations of theseproposed facilities are provided in Table 1. - 

1 
YFP Biolo~cal Assessment - 

Eadier drafts of the YFP EIS included a number of additional &e.s that have since been eliminated 

from consideration in the Final YFP EIS. The original environmental assessment @A) prepared 

for the siting and construction of proposed facilities (BPA 1990) found no significant impact on 

environmental resources. Hcwever, it was determined that additional information regarding the 

operation of fish production facilities and the potential impacts of the construction-of the ' 

acclimation ponds was necessary. A draft EIS, and subsequently a Revised Draft EIS (BPA 

1995), were prepared to address these issues. This BA has been prepared to support the Final EIS 

for the YFP, and is intended to fulfill requirements of the ESA, the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA), and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) regarding the consideration and 

protection of threatened >and endangered species. 

Pro i ect Description 

An overall description of the Yakima Fisheries Project is provided in the FEIS. General locations 

of the proposed facilities within the upper Yakima River Basin, and specific site locations and , 

layout diagrams for each of the proposed facilities, are provided in Attachment 2. Development of 

each site will include some clearing and earthwork, construction of the facilities, the laying of pipesfor water intake and discharge, construction and/or improvement of access roads, and installation . 

of fences around the site. Construction of the approximate 6-hectare (ha) (15-acre (ac.)) Cle Elum 

Hatchery facility is expectedto begin in Spring 1996, and construction of the acclimation sites in 

Spring 1997. The acclimation sites will each be less than 0.8 ha (2 ac.). The Cle Elum hatchery 

will be staffed full-time, year round, and will include several on-site staffresidences. The 

acclimation facilities will be operated primarily from January through May: Operatim of th-e 

acclimation sites will require daily visits by 1 to 2 people for up to. 8 hours per site. 

~ 

DescriDtion of Affected Environment 

The proposed facility sites are all along the Yakima River and the North Fork of the Teanaway 

River. The sites are all in Kittitas County, in naturally forested and non-forested areas. The 

forested areas are characterized by conifers, some of which have been logged. The non-forested 

areas are characterized by desert shrubs and grasses; much of it has been grazed by domestic 

livestock. A narrow band of broad-leaved, deciduous trees forms an essentially continuous 

riparian corridor along the banks of the Yakima Riverand its major tributaries. The existing 

environments in the vicinity of each of the proposed facility sites are described in the original EA 

(BPA 1990) and are briefly summarized in the following paragraphs. 

Cle Elum Hatchev Site. The proposed site is located on an approximately 200-ha (500-ac.)parcel 

that consists of an old oxbow or river channel cut off from the Yakima River by the Burlington 

Northern Railroad. The land is currently owned by Burlington Northern Railroad and Plum Creek 

Timber. The site includes wetlands, riparian forest, upland forest, and several large ponds. The 

proposed site for the hatchery supports second growth ponderosa pineDouglas fir upland forest. 

Black cottonwood is also abundant in the area. The understory vegetation is sparse. Wildlife 

observed in the area include osprey, common snipe, killdeer, belted kingfisher, hairy woodpecker, 

northern flicker, red-breasted nuthatch, raven, black-capped chickadee, golden-crowned kinglet, 

varied thrush, and Douglas squirrel. One beaver dam was noted. 

The riparian area along the Cle Elum River below Cle Elum Lake and the Yakima River in the 

vicinity of this site is used by wintering bald eagles and cavity-nesting waterfowl. However, large 

ponderosa pines and cottonwoods along the river that provide perches for bald eagles are limited 

on the hatchery site. Osprey have nested in two large snags on the northeast end of the site, about 

610 meters (m) (2000 feet (ft.)) from the proposed development area. Cavity-nesting waterfowl 

nest arong the John Wayne Trail, about 2 km (1.2 mi.) from the site. 

- 

. 

2 

.. 
', 

., 

YF'P Biological Assessment . \ . ,- 

.. .. 

:The siie is with@ an elk winterhg area (WDFW 1995). About 100 animals use the area along the 

Cle Elum River, below Cle-Elum Lake.Dam. The elk range on either side of the river and 

occasionally wander into the Southern po~on 4. . of the site.' 

Large woody debris, abundant an the site, provide'habitat forxeptiles and amphibians including 

sharp-tailed snakes, alligator lizards, western fence lizards, garter snakes, and rubber boas 

(Renfrow 1994). 

Easton Gravel Pond Acclimation Site.* The proposed site.is located next to the 1-90 corridor and is 

currently owned by the Washington Department of Transportation and private,parties. Much of the 

.adjacent forest land has been logged. The ponds are surrounded by cottonwoods with scattered 

pines and:Douglas fir. The understoj includes vine maple, willow, alderj and snowberry. The 

proposed acclimation pond.site is in a'highly disturbed area that includes a-large gravel pile. 

Vegetation is patchy and includes daisy, mullein, aster, goldenrod, and dock. Great blue herons. 

downy woodpeckeis, other cavity-nesting species, and amphibians probably use the riparian 

corridor along the periphery of the site and the adjacent ponds. 

Clark Flat Acclimation Site. This site is currently privately owned. The shoreline vegetation at the 

Clark Flat site consists of a narrow corridor of cottonwood and alder associated with shrub 

willows, wild rose, snowberry, red osier dogwood, choke cherry, and mock orange. There is 

some reed canary grass growing along an irrigation ditch. Common herbs include knapweed, 

Carey's balsam root, Sandberg's bluegrass, cheatgrass, and Russian thistle. The site is not in the 

coniferous zone, but a few scattered ponderosa pine trees and a single oak tree are in the general 

area. The adjacent slopes support bitterbrush and bluebunch wheatgrass. The site shows signs of 

overgrazing. The bitterbrush on the adjacent slopes may attract deer in the winter, and the tall trees 

along the Yakima River likely provide perch sites for wintering bald eagles. This site is near mule 

deer winter range (WDFW 1995). 

Jack Creek Acclimation Site. The proposed site is currently owned by Boise Caseade Corp. and is 

located in an open field dominated by wheatgrass, knapweed, yellow salsify, and yarrow. The site 

is in open range and has been heavily grazed by cattle. The shoreline vegetation along the creeks 

consists of cottonwood and alder. The adjacent forest is dominated by Douglas fir and ponderosa 

pine, with some grand fir. Some of the larger trees may provide perch sites for wintering bald 

eagles. Common shrubs include snowbeny, red osier dogwood, hawthorn, and vine maple. The 

area is a hunting unit and receives repeated recreational use by campers, hunters, and anglers. The 

site is located immediately south of the 29 Pines campground. \ The site is within an elk calving 

range (WDFW 1995). 

Environmental 'Impacts 

. 

4 

This assessment of potential effects on threatened and endangered species is based on field surveys 

conducted by PNNL and other workers, and on information provided by the Cle Elum Ranger 

District of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the 

Washington Departnient of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 

Bald Eade I 

A BA was prepared to assess potential impacts on bald eagles as pq of theoriginal YFJ? EA (BPA 

1990). At that time the BPA determined that the project would have no adverse affect on nesting or 

wintering bald eagles, their habitat, or food supply. 

PNNL conducted surveys during the winter of 1991/1992 at all of the proposed facility sites. The' 

Yakima River and all its tributaries with proposed acclimation sites were surveyed. Primary 

concentrations of eagles were found on tributaries to the Yakima River. Most of the eagles were 
.. 

YFP Biological Assessment 

observed perching in large trees, and no signs of nesting were observed. An aerial survey 

conducted by PNL in May 1993 covered the entire Yakima River mainstem from Stampede Pass to 

the Columbia River. No bald eagle nesting was observed. One pair of bald eagles is known to 

nest near Lake Cle Elum, and the USFS is attempting to encourage a second nest at Lake Kachess. 

The Clark Flat site is within a portion of the Yakima River that has been identified by WDFW as a 

bald eagle wintering area. The floodplain and associated wetlands within the approximate 37-km 

(23-mi.) river section between Yakima Canyon and the confluence of Swauk Creek (includjng the 

Clark Flat site) are used by approximately 25 to 30 wintering eagles (WDFW 1995). These birds 

may also range throughout the surrounding area during the winter in search of carrion. The 

construction of the acclimation facility will be timed to avoid the period of use by wintering bald 

eagles (November through March). Therefore, construction of the facility is not likely to adversely 

affect the eagles. The extent of night-roosting use of the area near the Clark Hat site is not known. 

If necessary, periodic surveys of the area can be performed to determine whether the area is being 

used for night roosting. Operation of the facility would involve daily visits by one to two people 

from January through May. If night roosting eagles were detected, these visits could be 

scheduled, if necessary, for mid-day, when the presence of humans is unlikely to disturb night 

roosting eagles. 

The Easton gravel ponds acclimation site and the Cle Elum hatchery site are within a stretchof the 

Yakima River (upstream from Swauk Creek) that is typically used by 10 to 15 bald eagles, 

especially in early spring (WDFW 1995). Eagles may occasionally perch on trees near the river at 

both sites, If they are observed in the vicinity, construction can be delayed until after the primary 

winter use period. Since both sites are located close to the interstate highway and other areas of 

intense human activity, the operation of the hatchery and acclimation sites are unlikely to affect 

eagles. 

Bald eagles may use the North Fork Teanaway drainage for a period each fall (WDFW 1995). 

They are unlikely to spend the entire winterin that area because of greater snow cover and lower 

temperatures than those in areas closer to the Yakima River mainstem (Lee Stream pers. comm.). 

If the North Fork Teanaway were to freeze over during the winter, the mount of prey forbald 

eagles would be limited. Construction of the facility would be timed to avoid the period of use by 

bald eagles. The operation of the facility in the North Fork Teanaway drainage would not 

significantly increase the level of human activity in the area, since the area'is used extensively for 

recreation, including hunting and snowmobiling. 

t 

. - 

It is concluded that the proposed activities are not likely to adversely affect bald eagles in the 

vicinity of the proposed YFP facilities. If the project is successful in increasing the numbers of. 

anadromous fish in the Yakima Basin, wintering bald eagles may ultimately benefit because of aiincreased food base. - 

Grizzlv Bear 

Isolated incidences of grizzly bears have been reported for uninhabited areas (e.g. minimal humar 

disturbance) on the eastern slopes of the Cascade Mountains in Washington. ~ Several-unconfirnic - 

sightings are reported each year in the Cle Elum Ranger District. 6urveys for grizzly bear habitat 

in the vicinity of proposed acclimation pond and hatchery faci€ities were conducted during the 

spring of 1992. No definitive sightings of grizzly bear have been reported near the Clark Hat or 

Easton Ponds sites. The Clark Flat site is not located within or near suitable grizzly bear habitat; 

the Easton Ponds site is within a relatively disturbed area, and is surrounded by an area of heav: 

human presence, including an interstate highway, residences, and a gravel pit. One grizzly bear 

was sighted in 1989 in the Teanaway Butte area approximately 16 km (10 mi.)north of Cle Elum 

(Almack 1990). If still present, the home range of that individual may overlap the Cle Elum 

hatchery site and the Jack Creek acclimation site. 
YFP Biological Assessment 

. The Cle Elum hatchery site does not contain manypf the elements (isolation, space, denning, and 

safety) considered essential for grizzly bear habitat (Craighead et d. 1982). The proposed site is 

located in close proximity to man-made features (such as highways, railroads, andxesidences) that 

may reduce the attractiveness of the site to grizzly bear: 

The Jack Creek site contains upland Ad riparian vegetation that could provide some forage for 

grizzly beat, but is not dominated by ,vegetation (i.e. huckleberries, kinnickinnick, or sedges) that . constitute primary forage for this species (Servheen 1992). The;Tack Creek site is located 

immediately adjacent to’the 29 Pines Campground, which may reduce the attractiveness of the site 

to grizzly bears, at least during the summer months while the area receives considerable 

recreational use. However, grizzlies could use the area for spring forage, and may also be attracted 

to the area in the spiing because of the potential presence of winter carrion. Since the pdck Creek 

site is located on private land that is not completely surrounded 6y federal land, this site is not 

within a designated recovery zone for grizzly ‘bear. 

The operation of an acclimation facility at Jack Creek.is not expected to adversely affect grizzly 

bear because the activities associated with the operation of the facility will not significantly increase 

the level of human-presence in the area. Also, because the facility will be fenced, the bears would 

not.be directly affected by the presence - of the facility. _. 

- Construction and operation of the proposed facilities at the Cle Elum, Clark Flat, and Easton-sites 

are expected to have no effect on grizzly bear. The Clark Flat site is located several miles from 

suitable habitat, and the Easton and Cle Elum sites are located adjacent to or near the interstate 

highway in disturbed areas that do not contain suitable grizzly bear habitat. 

Gray Wolf , 

Isolated sightings of gray wolf have been reported for uninhabited areas (e.g. minimal human 

disturbance) on the eastern slopes of the Cascade Mountains in Washington. Several unconfirmed 

sightingsare reported each year in the Cle Elum Ranger District. Surveys for gray wolf habitat in 

the vicinity of the proposed facilities were conducted by PNNL during the Spring of 1992. 

Howling surveys were also conducted within the Cle Elum Ranger District, USFS, during 1989, 

1990, and 1992. No gray wolf sightings have been reported in the vicinity of the proposed Clark 

Flat, Easton Ponds, or Cle Elum sites. Gray wolves were observed in the vicinity of Matthew’s 

Creek, approximately 6.4 km (4 mi.) NW of the Jack Creek Site, during the 1989 and 1990 

surveys. An unconfirmed sighting of a gray wolf was reported near the North Fork Teanaway 

River in 1992. 

The construction of the proposed facilities will not remove or significantly alter any habitat areas 

that are regularly used by gray wolves, and will not affect denning or the wolf prey base. 

However, the North Fork Teanaway drainage might be used by gray wolves, especially during 

spring because of deer fawning, elk calving, and the potential presence of winter carrion. 

The operahon of an acclimation facility at he Jack Creek site is not expectedto adversely affect the 

gray wolf because the activities associated with the operatiorof the facility will not significantly 

increase the level of human presence in the area. Also, because the facilities will be fenced;wolves 

would not be directly affected by the presence of the facility. 

Construction and operation of the proposed facilities at Cle Elum, Clark Flat, and Easton are not 

expected to affect gray wolves. The Clark Flat site is located several miles from suitable habitat, 

and the Cle Elum and Easton sites are located near the interstate highway in disturbed areas that do 

not contain suitable gray wolf habitat. 
YFP Biological - Assessment 

Perefine Falcon 

Peregrine falcons require rocky cliffs or outcrops greater than 18 meters (m) (60 feet (ft.) in height 

for nesting. The WDFW inventoried portions of the WenatcheeNational Forest and found no 

active nest sites within the Cle Elum Ranger District. There are no known outcrops or cliffs that 

would support peregrine falcon nesting in the vicinity of any of the proposed sites. Individuals are 

known to migrate through the region during spring and fall, and have been observed within the 

forests in the vicinity of the proposed facility sites. 

Use of habitat by peregrine falcons can be affected by timber harvest, road construction and 

-recreation. However,. the construction and operation of the proposed hatchery and acclimation 

ponds is unlikely to alter the use of the area by peregrine falcons, will not decrease the prey base 

for this species, and will not disturb any potentidnesting habitat. Because construction of the 

facilities will not result in the loss of significant amounts of riparian habitat, the use of the area by 

song birds is not likely to be affected. It is possible that smaller birds may be attracted to the 

acclimation ponds, which could expose those birds to predation by peregrines. However, this is 

not likely to have a detrimental effect on the peregrine falcons. 

It is concluded that the proposed activities may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect, 

peregrine falcons in the vicinity of the proposed facility sites. 

Marbled Murrelet 

Marbled murrelets forage in salt water and nest in large conifers (greater than 81 centimeters (cm) - 

or 32 inches (in.) diameter at breast height (dbh) within mature forest stands that are no more than 

approximately 80 km (50 mi) of the shore. A single marbled murrelet fly-over was reported in 

western Kittitas County in 1993 (Kim Flotlin pers. comm.). The region has not been extensively 

surveyed for murrelet habitat or nesting, so the extent of use by this species in the vicinity of the 

proposed facility sites is not known. 

The Easton acclimation site is located approximately 80 air-kilometers (50 mi.) from Puget Sound, 

and therefore may be at the edge of the known nesting distribution of murrelets. However, there is 

no suitable murrelet nesting habitat in the near vicinity of the proposed Easton site. 

Suitable nesting habitat does occur in the vicinity of the Jack Creek acclimation site.- However, the 

proposed site is at least 100 km (64 mi.) from Puget Sound, and is therefore outside of the known 

nesting range for the species. The Cle Elum hatchery site and the Clark Flat acclimation site are 

both out of the known range for the species, and there is no suitable nesting habitat at either of 

these sites. 

Construction of the proposed facilities will notTemove any large trees suitable for marbled murrelet 

nesting, and all of the sites are either at the outer edge or well outside of the known nesting 

distribution for murrelets. None of the sites are near proposed critical habitat for marbled murreleii 

(50 FR 154). Therefore, it is concluded that the consmction and operation of the proposed 

hatchery and acclimation facilities will have no effect on marbled murrelets. 

Northern Suotted Owl 

Surveys for northern spotted owls have been performed in the vicinities of the proposed YFP 

facilities. Additional information has been provided by the WDFW and the USFS. A summary of 

the status of each of the proposed facility sites in regard to spotted owls is provided in Table 2. 

None of the proposed sites are located in federal lands; therefore, none of the sites fall under the 

jurisdiction of the Northwest Forest Plan, and none have been designated as critical habitat. 

6 
YFP Biological Assessment 

Site 

Cle Elum 

- Table 2. Status of Northern Spotted Owls at Proposed YFP Facility Sites 

. 

Owl Habitat Site within a 2.9-kni 

(1.8 -mi.) 

management radius? 

Site inspections indicate no No ' 

suitable habitat at or near the 

Easton Ponds ' 

Clark Flat 

Jack Creek 

N 0 

,- Examination of aerial photos - indicates that the site is not 

suitable spotted owl habitat. , 

Examination of aerial photos No 

indicates that the site is not 

suitable spotted owl habitat. . ~ 

- 

Site itself is not suitable Yes 

habitat, but suitable habitat is . *. in vicinity. 

,, 

'Conclusion 

No impact on spotted owls 

will result from project 

construction or oueration. 

No impact on spotted owls 

will result from project 

c%nstruction or operation. 

No impact on spotted owls 

will result from project 

construction or operation. 

Construction can be timed 

to minimize disturbance. 

No suitable spotted owl habitat exists at the proposed Clark Flat acclimation facility site, or within 

several miles of the site. Construction and operation of an acclimation facility at this site will have 

no effect on spotted owls. 

The proposed Easton Ponds acclimation site does not contain suitable spotted owl habitat, nor is 

there suitable habitat in the near vicinity. ,The proposed site is near the boundary of several 

2.9-km (1.8-mi.) owl management circles. The proposed site is approximately 4 km (2.5 mi.) 

from both the Easton Ridge and Domerie Creek owl centers, and approximately 5 km (3 mi.) from 

the Big Creek-Lower owl center. The site is located adjacent to the 1-90 corridor in an area that has 

been .logged or otherfvise disturbed. Construction of an acclimation facility at this site therefore 

will not remove any spotted owl habitat, nor will it alter the habitat suitability for spotted owls in 

the area. Operation of the proposed facility will not significantly increase the level of human 

presence in the area, and therefore will not affect spotted owls in the vicinity. 

The Cle Elum Hatchery site does not' contain suitable habitat for spotted owls, nor is there suitable 

habitat in the near vicinity of the site. ,The closet known owl centers are the Prospect Creek 

(approximately 5.6 km or 3.5 mi. north) and Orso Creek (approximately 8 km or 5 mi. northeast), 

and several in the Taneum Drainage approximately 8 km (5 mi.) south on the far side of South Cle 

Elum Ridge. The most recent sighting of the Prospect Creek owl was during 1995 (Stan Sovern 

pers. comm.). A single male owl was observed at the Orso Creek center in 1994, but a female has 

not been observed at that center since 1992. Since the Cle Elum Hatchery site does not contain 

suitable spotted owl habitat, and is not in proximity to suitable habitat, construction and operation 

of the Cle Elum hatchery site is expected to have no effect on spotted owls. 

' 

I 

The Jack Creek site is proximal to suitable spotted owl habitat, although the site itself does not 

contain spotted owl habitat. A total of nine spotted owl centers have been identified in the general 

vicinity of the Jack Creek site; four of these centers were active in 1995 (Table 3). The proposed 

site is located within the 2.9-km (1.8-mi.) management radius for the Jungle Creek - Teanaway 

owl center, but this center has not been active since 1986, and it is unlikely to be used by spotted ,< 

,-- 

7 
YFP BioloPical Assessment 

owls in the near future. It is classified as a status 4 center. The proposed Jack Creek site is also 

within the 2.9-km (1.8-mi.) management radius for the Shirk Creek center; ihese owls were last 

observed in 1992. The proposed site is also on the edge of the 2.9-km (1.8-mi.) -management 

radius for the Teanaway North Fork Owl center. This owl center has been active, and owls were 

confirmed as using the area during the 1995 nesting season.' 

Development of Jack Creek site will not require the removal of any trees suitable for spotted ow1 

nesting, and the site is -located in an essentially open meadow with a few scattered trees, all less - . 

than 20 cm (8 in.) dbh. This type of habitat is not selected for fora6ng by spotted owls (Stan 

Sovern pers. comm.). Therefore, development of this site will norreduce the acreage of usable 

nesting or foraging habitat within the home range of any owls in the vicinity. 

The pnmary potential effect of construction would be disturbance of nesting owls from noise and 

increased human activity. Over the last several years, Boise Cascade has surveyed parts of thgarea 

surrounding the proposed site for spotted owl nesting sites and spotted owl habitat. They have 

determined that the proposed acclimation site is not within spotted owl habitat, and that no owls ax 

.known to nest within at least 0.8 km (0.5 mi.) of the proposed sites; The known owl centers in 

the area are also monitored yearly by the Pacific Northwest Research Station in Cle Elum; this 

monitoring was the primary source for the observation records listed in Table 3. 

.- 

, 

' 

- 

-, 

Owl Center Name Most Recent Year 

Owls Observed 

Indian Creek 1995 

Jack Creek 1995 

Jungle Creek North 1993 . 

Jungle Creek South 1991 

Jungle Creek - Teanaway 1986 

~ Rye Creek 1993 

Shirk Creek 1992 

S tandup Creek 1995 

Teanaway North Fork ' 1995 

I 

- 

- 

Distance from Jack Creek site to 2.9-km . (1.8 mi.) administrative boundary 

0.8 km (0.5 mi.) 

2.9 km (1.8 mi.) 

1.4 km (0.9 mi.) 

1.0 km (0.6 mi.) 

within 

1.4 km (0.9 mi.) 

within 

2.6 km (1.6 mi.) 

within or <0.2 km (0.1 mi.) 

If needed, additional surveys can be performed by BPA during the 1996 nesting season, and prior' 

to construction in the 1997 nesting season, to determine whether any spotted owls are nestingin 

the vicinity of the Jack Creek site. If active nests are found within 0.8 km (0.5 mi.) of the site, 

formal consultation with the USFWS will be initiated. Once constructed, the operation of the 

acclimation facility is expected to have no effect on spotted owls in the region because the activities 

associated with the operation of the facility will not significantly increase the level of noise or 

human presence. , 

8 
YFP Biolo&al Assessment . 

-- 

Federal Candidate' Species and Other Species of Concern 

Several additional species that may occur in the vicinity of the project sites are listed by the 

USFWS as candidate species or by tlie State of Washington as species of concern (Table 4). 

Surveys have not been specifically conducted for all of the species listed in Table.4, but some of 

them are known to occur at or near some of the proposed facility sites. The proposed actions are 

not anticipated ~~ to affect or jeopardize any of these species'of concern. 

Two federal candidate plant species of concern- (Clustered lady's slipper and Seely's silene) were 

identified by the USFWS as occurring in the vicinity of the proposed facility sites. However, the 

Washington State Naturdl.Heiitage Program determined that there are no known populations of 

these or other federal- or state-listed plants that would be affected by the proposed activities (see 

Attachment-.l). 

Bull trout are-known from a number of lakes, rivers, and creeks-in the Upper Yakima River Basin, 

including the North Fork Teanaway River and the mainstem of the 'Yakima River near Cle Elum. It 

is possible that increased natural production of target species (spring chinook) due to the YFP may 

result in adverse competitive interactions with bull trout. However, the proposed acclimation 

facilities have been sited to. minimize the potential for adverse interactions with other native species, 

while still achieving production objectives for the target species. 

Westslope cutthroat trout&e also present in'portions of the Yakima Basin; mainly at elevations 

between 677 and 988 m (2220 and 3240 feet) above sea level (Pearsons et al. 1994), but a few 

adults have beenobserved at lower elevations within both tributaries and the Yakima mainstem. A 

YFP increase in the natural production of spring chinook could increase'the level of interaction 

between these species. However, both competitive and predatory-interactions would probably 

favor the cutthroat over the chinook within the mainstem of the Yakima River and its lower . . 

tributaries. The spawnirig areas used by the two species will probably not overlap, because the 

cutthroat normally uses higher elevation portions of the tributaries.-The proposed acclimation^ 

facilities have been sited so as to minimize the potential for adverse interactions between the spring -. 

chinook and other native-species. 

The Pacific lamprey is occ&ionally observed in 'the upper Yakima River Basin, but very little 

information about its abundance and distribunon is available, and no adults have been seen (Todd 

Pearsons pers. comm.). Construction and operation of the proposed facilities are not expected to 

have any direct impacts on this species, and competitive, predatory, and other interactions between 

the Pacific lamprey and either juvenile or returning adult spring chinook are expected to be 

minimal. .. 

Six of the species listed in Table 4 are bats. Most of these require roost sites that include crevices 

in rocks or cliffs, caves, under the bark of trees,'or in snags or c-avities created by woodpeckers. 

They forage mainly in riparian areas. .The proposed activities are not expected tohave a significant 

effect on these species because no cliffs or-large rocks will be distur3ed and tr& removal will be 

minimal at all sites. Riparian areas will-not be-significantly or,permanently disturbed. 

. 

. 

.. ,. . - 

-\ 

.. 

.. 

. , 

. Western sage grouse require sagebrush steppe for nesting and foraging, and could be present in the 

vicinity of the Clark Flat acclimation site. Development of this site will not remove any sagebrush 

or other desert shrubs, and therefore will not disturb or remove sage grouse habitat. Known 

sharp-tailed grouse populations in Washington are currently restricted to Douglas and Okanogan 

counties. They were historically known to be in Kittitas county, but have not been observed in 

that areasince the 1950's (Lisa Fitzner pers. comm.). 

9 
YFF Bioloecal Assessment 

Table 4. Potential Federal Candidate and other Species of Concern near YFP sites 

I I 

Common Name Scientific Name status* 

Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus FC1 I I 

Westslope cutthroat trout . I I Oncorhynchus clarla’ lewisi I FC2 

I I 

Pacific lamprey I Lm@tratridentata . . FC2 I I I 

Spotted frog I Ranapretiosa FC1 I I I 

Cascades frog , I Ranacascadae I FC2 

Northern red-legged frog Rana awora mora FC2 

Tailed frog Ascaphaus truei FC2 ~ I 

Columbia sharp-tailed - grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus FC2 

Western sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianus phaios . FC2 1 I 

Harlequin duck I Histrionicus histrionicus. - FC2 I I 

Northern goshawk . I Accipiter gentilis FC2 I 

Ferruginous hawk I Buteo regalis. . I FC2 I 1 

Loggerhead shrike I Lanius ludovicianus FC2 I I I 

Olive-sided flycatcher I Contopus borealis I FC2 

Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes . FC2 

Gng-eared myotis Myotis evotis FC2 

Long-legged myotis Myotis volans ~ FC2 

Small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum FC2 

I I 

Yuma myotis I Myotis yumanensis FC2 

I IPale Townsend’s big-eared bat I Plecotis townsedii pallescens FC2 . I I 

Pacific fisher I Martes pennanti pacifica I ~ FC2. 

California wolverine Gulo gulo luteus FC2 

Clustered Lady’ s-slipper Cypripedium fasiculatum ~ FC2 

- 

I 

Seely’s silene 1- Silene seelyi FC2 I 1 I 

Golden eagle I Aquila chrysaetos sc I I I 

Osprey I Pandion huliaem SM I 

Cathmes aura. SM 

Sharptail snake Contia tenuis SM 

*FC1 = Federal Candidate category 1, FC2 = Federal Candidate category 2, SC = State Candidate, SM = State Monitor 

10 
. ‘YFP Biolocical Assessment 

.. 

The Cle Elum hatcheiy site is known to be an important herpetologic,al site (W. Leonard pers. 

comm.). The site isinhabited by ,a number of reptiles, including the sharp-tailed snakej rubber , 

boa, alligator lizard, Western fence lizard, three-species of garter snake, and possibly spotted 

frogs: It has the furthest-east known population of the Northwest garter snake (Leonard and Darda 

1995), and suppoqs some of the largest known populations of both sharp-tailed snakes and rubber . boas in he State of Washington. Sharp-tailed, snakes hide in the organic matter on the forest floor, 

and prey primarily on-slugs. These snakes have been found within some refuse piles in moist 

areas of the siIe. If necessary, impacts on sharp-tailed snakes and rubber boas can be minimized 

by avoiding, to the ejtent possible, prime habitat areas on site (especially along edges between 

-gmssy areas and conifer forests), minimizing disturbance to the slough and riparian areas, and 

selectively placing. the replacement habitat features such as 1arge:diameter conifer logs and slash 

piles. The presence of the proposed facility may ultimately serve to protect the populations in the 

area because undeveloped portions of.the site can be dedicated to tire maintenance and perpetual iori 

Harlequin ducks, northern goshaqks, golden eagles, turkey vultures, and ospreys are’ known to be 

.in the vicinity of the proposed facility sites,.primarily along the mainstem of the Yakima. River. 

Northern goshawks are also known to inhabit the North Fork Teanaway drainage, However, the - proposed activities are not expected to remove or significantly alterthe habitat or prey base used by 

these species. - 

I 

- 

. 

of wildlife, including reptiles. ~. 

~. 

The Cascades frog and northern red-legged frog will prQbably not be affected because they 

generally occur in areas either further west or at higher elevation than the proposed facility sites. 

The spotted frog could be in the vicinity of the Cle Elum hatchery site, but its presence there has . 

not beep confirmed. 

The remaining species listed in Table 4 may also be present at some or all of the proposed facility 

sites, but the distribution of these species in regard to the proposed facility sites has not been 

determined. The proposed activities are not expected to significantly remove or alter the habitat or 

prey base for any of the species listed in Table 4. 

.- ,. Con cl us i 0n.s 

The-potential impacts on ESA-listed species from the‘construction and operation of proposed 

facilities thin the Yakima Fisheries Project fall under the categories of either “no effect’’ or “may 

affect, not likely to adversely affect.” The specific conclusions for each species and site are listed 

in Table 5, and summarized in the following paragraphs. If, before or during construction, 

additional field observations or other data regarding the status, abundqce,.or usage of the affected - areas by these species suggest that potential impacts on these species would be greater or different 

than expected, plans to -avoid, minimize,. or othewisejmitigate those effects will be developed, or 

The construction and operation of the proposed hatchery facility at Cle Elum is expected‘to have no 

effect on grizzly bear, gray wolf, mkbled murrelet, and northern spotted owl because of a lack of 

suitable-habitat, proximity to on-going human activities, and a lack of indication that these species 

use the site. The%construction ofthe facility may affect peregrine falcons if significant riparian 

habitat that could support-a falcon prey base were lost. However, disturbance of the riparian zone 

is expected to be minimal. Construction and operation of the facility may affect bald eagles if 

roosting or perching trees were removed from the site. However, there are presently few suitable 

trees on site, and removal of any trees will be minimized to the extent possible. Bald eagles are not 

known to use the immediate area regularly for perching or roosting, So operation of the facility is . 

not likely to adversely affect bald eagles. Theaea will be monitored for bald eagle usage and, if. 

appropriate, additional mitigative efforts, will be initiated. 

’ 

: 

formal consultation with the USFWS will be initiated. % .- 

. .. 

11 
YFP Biological - Assessment 

SITE 

Cle Elum 

Easton 

Clark Flat 

Jack Creek 

. SPECIES 

Bald Eagle Grizzly GrayWolf Peregrine . Maibled’ Northern - Bear Falcon Murrelet Spotted Owl I 

May affect* No effect No effect May affect* No effect No effect 

May affect* No effect No effect May affect* No effect May affect* 

May affEct* No effect No effect May affect* No effect No effect 

May affect* May affect* May affect* May affect* No effect May affect* 

Construction and operation of the Clark Flat acclimation facility may affect bald eagles that winter 

in the area, but they are not likely to adversely affect the eagles.% The effects of construction can be 

minimized by timing the activities to avoid the period of bald eagle usage. Construction of the 

facility will not alter the habitat or reduce the prey base for bald eagles. Bald eagles may be 

affected during operation of the acclimation sites due to increased human presence. Such effects 

can be minimized by scheduling the daily visits during mid-day, when the eagles are not on their 

night roosts. The site will be monitored prior to mnstruction to determine the extent of night 

roosting. Peregrine falcons may be in the vicinity of the Clark Flat site during spring and fall 

migrations. The construction and operation of the proposed acclimation facility is not expected to 

alter the falcon prey base, and would not remove nesting habitat. Therefore, the development of 

this site is not likely to adversely affect peregrine falcons. Construction and operation of the Clark. 

Hat site is expected to have no effect on grizzly bear, gray wolf, marbled murrelet, or northern 

spotted owl because the site is not located in or near suitable habitat €or these species. 

Construction and operation of the proposed acclimation facility at Easton is expected to have no 

effect on Grizzly bear, Gray wolf, or Marbled murrelet because of the lack of suitable habitat 

and/or the close proximity of the site to high levels of human activities. Development of this 

facility may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect bald eagles, peregrine falcons, and northern 

spotted owls. Bald eagles are not known to use the site, but may be present in the general vicinity. 

Construction will not remove or significantly alter eagle habitat, and operation will not significantly 

increase the level of human presence in the area. Peregrine falcons could be affected if passerine 

bird habitat is removed, or if prey species ?ire attracted to the facility itself (whicl could be 

beneficial to peregrines). Disruption of riparian habitat will be minimal, so any impacts are not 

expected to be adverse or permanent. Because the proposed site is within 3.2- to 4.8 - km (2 to 

3 mi.) of known spotted owl centers, portions of the area in the vicinity of the acclimation site may 

be used by spotted owls. However, because the site is not in or adjacent to suitable owl habitat, is 

not within an area designated as critical habitat, and is not within 0.8 km (0.5 mi.) of a known owl 

nesting site, the proposed facility‘is not likely to adversely affect spotted owls. 

The development of the Jack Creek Site may affect all of the species being considered except the 

marbled murrelet. In all cases, however, construction and operation of an acclimation facility in 

this area is not likely to adversely affect these listed species. The proposed site is located on nonfederal land and is therefore outside the jurisdiction of the Northwest Forest plan, is not designated 

12 
c 

YFP Biolot-zical Assessment 

. 

as critical habitat for spotted owls, and is not within a designated recovery zone.for grizzly bear. 

Construction of the facility at Jack Creek will not remove habitat for any of the listed species, nor 

will it remove habitat for any prey species or otherwise alter the prey base. 

Most likely, the construction of the Jack Creek site will occur during the summer, ind therefore 

will not significantly affect wintering bald eagles. Surveys for spotted owls will be conducted 

I. prior to construction, and if owls ae found w3thin 0.8 km (0.5 mi.), formal consultation with the 

USFWS will be initiated. The only known owl center within 0.8 km (0.5 mi.) of the Jack Creek 

' site is currently a status 4 center where owls have not been observed for 11 years. Bald eagles 

may be in this area for at least part of the winter. If they are observed during operation of the 

facility, the daily visits will be scheduled to minimize disturbance to night roosting eagles. 

. 

Peregrine falcons would be adversely affected only if small bird habitat is lost.: Alteration of: the' 

riparian-zone, which would constitute much of the impoi-tant passerine bird habitat, will be 

minimal. Therefore, the facility is not likely to have an adverse effect on peregrine falcons. - Gray wolves and grizzly bear are potentially-present in the North Fork Teanaway Drainage, rind 

could therefore be affected by the constnktion and operation of an acclimation facility at the Jack 

Creek site. However, constfuction will not.remove any habitat regularly used by these'species, 

nor will it decrease or alter the prey base for these species. In addition, the animals will not have 

access to the facility itself. Therefore, it is concluded that development of a facility in this drainage 

'may affect; but is not likely to adversely affect, gray wolves or grizzly bears.. 

The proposed consmction and operahon of the Yakima Fisheries Project facilities is not expected 

to jeopardize or have a significant-effect on any species listed as candidates for protection under the 

Endangered Species Act, or on any species considered a species of concern by the. Washington 

State Deparpent of Fish and Wildlife. - .. -, 

-- 

. 

13 
YFP BioloPical Assessment 

References 

Almack, J. 1990. North Cascades grizzly bear investigations: 1989 Progress Report. 

c 

Washington Department of wildlife. Olympia, WA. 35 pp. 

BPA (Bonneville Power Administration) 1990. Yakima-Klickitat Production Project 

Environmental Assessment and.Finding of No Significant Impact. DOE/EA-0392, 

Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. 

BPA. 1995. Yakima Fisheries Project, Revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement. DOE/EIS0196. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. 

Craighead, J.J., J.S. Sumner, and.G.B. Scaggs. 1982. A definitive system for analysis of grizzly 

bear habitat and other wilderness resources. Wildlife-Wildlands Institute. Monogr. No. 1. 

University of Montana Foundation. University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 279 pp. 

Leonard, W.P. and D.M. Darda, 1995. Range extension for the Northwest Garter Snake 

(Thamnophis ordinuides) in Kittitas County, Washington. Herpetological Review 

(26)2: 110. 

i 

Pearsons, T.N., G.A.‘McMichael, S.W. Martin, E.L. Bertrand, M. Fischer, and S.A. hider. ~ 

1994. Yakima River Species Interaction Studies. Annual Report for 1993. Submitted to 

Bonneville Power Administration, Dec. 1994. 

Renfrow, B.D. 1994. Letter to D.R. Heinle dated December 9, ,1994 on Washington Department 

of Wildlife letterhead. 

Servheen, C. 1992. Grizzly bear recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Nat. Sci. Publ. .- 

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish knd Wildlife) 1995. Washington Wildlife Priorky 

312. University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 200 pp. 

Habitat System Database. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. 

’ 

The following individuals were contacted by telephone or letter regarding the preparation of this 

biological assessment: 

Tom Owens, WDFW, Olympia 

Lori Adkins, WDFW, Olympia 

Joe Buchannon, WDF’W, Olympia 

Lee Stream, WDFW, Yakima 

Steve hider, WDFW, Olympia 

Todd Pearsons, WDFW, Ellensburg ’ 

Lisa Fitzner, WDFW 

Sandy Norwood, WNHP, Olympia 

John Gamon, WNHP, Olympia 

Nancy Gloman, USFWS, Olympia 

Chondra Madrona, USFWS, Olympia 

Kim Flotlin, USFWS, Olympia 

Bill Noble, USFWS, Wenatchee 

Jo Ellen Richards, USFS, Cle Elum Ranger District 

Stan Sovern. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Cle Elum 

- 

Tim Quinn, Boise Cascade Corp., Yakima I William Leonard, WDOE & WNHP, Olympia 

‘14 ’ 

- 
.. 

. 

.- 

i 

.. 
. 

CORRESPONDENCE 

4 

.. 

\ 

., 
Noycrnber 6, i995 

jbncyGloinzn , 

U.S. Fish \Ijildlife Sewicz 

3701 Grifien Lme SE, Suiie 101 . 

Olympia, \VX 98501 . 

Site , 

ClzE!un H-rciiesy . 

Easion Ponds Xcclirnzdon Pond 

Clvk Flu Xcclimadon Pond 

Jack Creek Xcclimadon Pond Al~rern~iive 

Xori Fok Temaway Acclmadon Pond AlttmzdveOn behdf of tii2 Eonn~vil!e Power ACministmion, rhe Pacific Xonhwzst Xztiond L.abor~i@~ 

(PhXL) would like IO request updated infomadon regarding the presence of cn,dmger& 

t!!rE!end, ;xi ca;ldi&te spcies. md the occurrence of sptwi owls in the vicinin. of proposed 

hatchery and arclimadon pond shes for the Yakima Fisheries Project. SpxCi;+c l&arians thst 

should aid you LL processing inis rrqiiest.src hied in the following tible: 

I I I 1 

Township Rmge I Secdon 

20s 15E 33 

?ON 13E 12 (SW/.5) 

19N 17E 28 (SW.J4) 

21N 16E ' 8 (U2ER) 

2lN 16E 5 w2.Ef2 

Szverzl cf rhheie spes have teen reviewed previously by your office (Lerier l?om David Frecknck 

to Rosy MEizzh, 7 Ociokr 199.5). Idormation recieved as a rcsulr of this request will rzrnzh 

coilfidentid accorciing to provisions of the Memorandum of Understmding. formzlized by PSXL , 

with the Staie of Washington on 7 July 1992. If my fees are to be charged for~processing &is 

reqJert. plea-ce contact mz as smn a possible. If you hwe zny questions rezarding this request 

Sicerely, . 

Iplease conwt me on (509) 376-2551. .. 

Michael R. Sacksch&ky .~ 

Resexch Scientist 

BattelIe. Pacific XoFonhwest Xa!ationd Labontory 

P.O. Box 999. MSM K6-84 

Richlmd, VIA 99352 .- 

cc: Pi Smith, Bonnevillc Power Administration . N. \\'iertPaub. BOMC\$C Power Administration 

3. Gislwon, Bonneyillc Power AdminismGon 

, 

. A~ACHMENT 1 - CO~SPONDENCE 

-- , 

USW-S PAGE 1 OF 6 
United States Department of the Interioc 

FISH LYD WILDLIFE SERVTCE 

North Pacific Coast Ecoregion 

Western Washington Ofice 

3704 Gpfin Lane SE, Suite 102 

Olympia, Washington 9S591-2192 

(360) 753-9440 F.LY. (360) 755-9008 

.. 

Xodember 29, 1995 

5lichZel R. Sackrchewky 

Battelle, Pacific Xorthtvest Xational Laboratory 

Richland, Washington 99352 

FWS Reference: 1-3-96-SP-5s (X-Ref 1-3-34 SP-69s) 

Dear Xlr. SackschewLy: 

This is in response to your letter daied So\.ember 6, 1995, and received in thfs office on 

November 9. Enclosed is a list of proposed and listed threatened and e6dangered species, and 

candidate species (Attachment A) that m2y be present within the area of the proposed Yakima 

Fisheries Project acclimation pond sites in Kittitas County, Washington. The list llfills the 

requirements of the US. Fish and Wildlife Senice (Senice) under section 7(c) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We have also enclosed a copy of rhe requirements for 

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) compliance under the Act (-4rt2chment B). 

Should the Biologiczl Assessment determine rhat a listed species is likely to be affected (adversely 

or beneficially) by the project, the BPA should request iection 7 consultztion through this ofice. 

If the Biological .Assessment determines that the proposed action is "not likely to adversely affect" 

a listed species, the BPA should request Senice concurrence with thrt c!eiemhation through the 

informal consultztion process. Even if the Biological Assessment shows a "no eKec:" situztion, 

~ 

P.O. BOX 999 MSE K6-S-4 

I 

. 

we would zppreciare receiving a copy for our information. ~ ,- 

Candidate species are included simply as zdvanoe notice to federal azencies of species which m2y 

be proposed 2nd listed in tffe hture. However, protection pro\ided to czndidzte species now my 

preclude possible listing in the hture. If early evaruation of a project indicates that it is likely to 

adversely impact a candidate species, the BPA may wish to request technic21 zssistance from this 

office. . 

, 

In addition, please be advised that federal and state regulations may require permits in areas where 

wetlands are identified. You should contact the U.S. 'Army Corps of Engineers in Chztteroy, 

Washington, for federal permit requirements and the Washington State Depaitment of Ecology 

for state permit requirements. 

% 

ATTACHMENT 1 - CORRESPONDENCE USFWS PAGE 2 OF 6 
. 

.r 

1 

.. .. .. 

c 

Your in:erest in endragered species is apprecizted 

your responsibiliiies under the Act, plezse contact Chandra Mdrona (560) 75g-7762 or 

Jim llichaeis of tiiis site at the lelierhezd phoneizddiess. 

If you have additional questions' regarding 

. -~ ~. 

Da\idC.Frederkk . ~ /-'- Supervisor 

:x!jkp - ~- 

-. Enclosures . SE/BP.LVI-3-96-SP-5SrKit@as 1 - 

. c: BP.4 . 

WDFW, Region 3 

WIW, Olympii ~ 

,~ 

.- 1 

' 1 

ATTACH.hENT'1- CORRESPONDENCE USFWS PAGE 3 OF 6 
:\TTXCII3IEXT .-\ 

LISTED AKD PROPOSED ESDAXGERED ASD TIlREhTESED SPEClES ASD 

CASDIDATE SPECIES ~YIIICH 3L4Y OCCUR IVlTIlIX THE VICISITY OF THE 

PROPOSED YAKIMA FISRERIES PROJECT ACCLIXATION POSD SITES 

(T2ON Rl5.E S33 / T20S R13E Sl2 / T13S R17E S2S / T2lN R1GE SOS / TZIS RlGE SOI) 

LX KITTITAS COUSTY, WASIIISGTOS 

d 

F\VS REF 1-3-9G-SP-5S 

LISTED 

Bald eagle (Haheerris lerrcocepholris) - wintering bald eagles may occur in ihc vicink:; of ;hc 

project froni zbout OiioSef3 1 ihrough Ma:ch j 1. 

Gray wolf (Canis Irprrs) - cizy occur in the viciiiity of the project. 

Grizzly bear (Lhiis arclos = L!a. ?torribilis) - may occur in the vicicity of the project. 

Marbled murrelet (Bracl~yrampIiris nrarnrorafiis nrarriioratris) - murrcleis may occur in ;he 

vicinity of the project. I 

Sorthern spotted owl (Strix occidei!lalis caririiia) - may occur in the vicinity of the project 

throughout the year. 

Peregrine falcon flulco peregrb~irs) - spring 2nd fall migrant falcons may occur in the vicinity of 

the project. 

Major concerns that shod4 be addressed in your Biological Assessment of project imptcts to 

listed species are: 

1. Level of use of the project area by listed species. 

2. Effect of the,project on listed species’ primary food stocks, prey species, and 

foraaing areas, in addition to roosting, nesting, and dispersal hzbitat for appliczble 

species in all areis influenced by ihe project. 

. 3. Impzcis from project construction and implementation (e.g., increased noise.levels, 

increased humm activity and/or access, loss or degradztion of habitat) which mzy 

result in disturbance to listed species and/or their avoidance of the project =ea. . 

3 

ATTACHMENT 1 - CORRESPONDENCE USWS PAGE 4 OF 6 
l'I\OPOSED .' 

Xonc 

CASDID.4TE .- 

The following candidzie species may occur in the kinity of the project. 

1. 

' Bull trout f.YiiIwIi~iit.r coiflircniirsj 

Cz!ifc:nia :~olv~ri-.e (Gdo ~~do~i'riiciisj 

Columbizn sharp-railed grouse ~~~~~~~ct~iIi~~~~is~l~~siu~ic~liis colitmbiumsj 

Ferruginous hawk IBitieo regalis) 

Fringed myotis (bat) (A,@otjs ilg:ranocies) . . . 

Loggerhead shrike (Laiiiiis hidoviciariiis) 

Long-eared myot is (&+oris evuiis) 

Long-legged mjmij (.i.fj.oiis rolaiis) 

Sonhem goshzyk (4ccipiier gciiiilis) 

Sonhern red-legged frog (Raria uurora aiiroka) ,. 

Olive-sided flycatcher (Confopits borealis) ~ 

Pacific fisher ~4~rtespbn~a~iiipuccifica)~ 

PZle Townsend's (-\ws:ern) big- eared bat (Plecotzti foi;*iisendiii pallesciiis) 

Small-footed myotis (.'+Otis ciliolabritm) 

Spotted frog (l?mia preiiosa) 

Tailed frog (Ascnphaialcs triie!) 

~ Western sage grouse (Ceniroccrciis itr~p~ia~sia~iirspli~ios) 

Yuma nlyoiis (~~,~~oiis~7tiiinie1isis) ' 

Cypripediitiii fascicirlaririn (clustered lady's slipper) . 

SiIem.ste!i.i (SeeIy's siiene) -~ . 

Cascades frogfRaiia cascadaz) .. 

. 

, Harlequin duck (Hismiouicits histrionic~isj- 

. 

4 

f 

ATTACHMENT 1 - CORRESPONDENCE 

. 

IUSFWS PAGE 5 OF 6 
FEDER4L IIGESCIES' RESPOSEIBILI'TES USDER SECTIOSS .;(:I) ASi27(C) 

OF THE EXDASGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973, AS AJIESDED . 

liequires: 1. Federal agencies to utilize their-zuthorities to c2riy out progranis to consenz enhgercd i:id 

ihreaiened species; 

2. Consuiiation Kith F\YS when a'federal ,zction m2y 2Zct a hied en2aiTscied cr :hrez:ez:5 

species io ensure rhat xy ~ction zuthorized, funded, or cim'ed out by a federzl zgeilcy is ZOi 

likely to jeopardize rhe conrinued existence of listed species or resuir in rbe dejt&tion or 

adverse modificition of c~icA S2bi~. The process is^ i~itiz!ed by the Ceder21 zgenq ZSei 

it hqs determined if its 2ctionmy aKect (adversely or bineiicizlly) 2 listed speci~;; 2nd . 

Conference with 

hsbitzt. . I 

xhen 2 federzl zciion is likely to jeopardize the coa:ir,ued e:<isi?Z<s 

- of a prcpcsed- species or redt in destruciion or an adverse modific2iion of proposed ciiticz! 

SECTTOS 71cl- Biolo~cd Assessment for Com!mction Proiec!s * 

Requires federal zgencies or she? designees to prepare a BiologicAl &sessment @A) for construction piojecfs ody. 

The purp0s.e of the B.4 is to identi@ 2ny proposed andlor listed species which iskre likely to be ~fiected by 2 

constmtiion pioject. The process is injtizted by afderd 2geilcy in requesting a list afproposed 2nd listed iheiiened 

ad endangered species (list iitzched). The B.4 should be compl&ed within 180 d2ys afieiits iniiiiiion (or \viiSa 

such a time period 2s is muwa!ly zgreezble). If theB.A is not idiated nirhjn 90 6ays of receipt cf the species list, 

p?eese venfj, tht accuracy of rhe list nith our Senice. Xo irreversible corn-trnent of resouices is to b$ m2de dui%,p 

the BX process which would,icsuIt ii-\iolziion ofthe requirements under Section 7(a) ofthe Act. Plzi~-iirig, design, 

ind zdministrztive actions miy be tzken; however, no construction rnzy begin. 

To complete the B.\ your agency or its desigxe shcu!d: (1) conduct 2n onsite inspection of the 2re2 to be aKected 

by rhe proposal, which may include a detailed swey of the =ea to deternuhe if the species is-present 2nd whether 

suitable hzbitat exists for either expanding the existing population or potential reintroduction of the species; (2) 

review lkeriiture znd scien:Xc. d2t2 to determine species distribution, hzbit2.t needs, and other biolcgicrl 

requirements; (5) inteniew experts including those within the RVS,. Kational M2rine Fisheries Senice, ~taie 

consen*ztion department, universities, &d others who may have data not yet published in scientific literzture; (4) 

review 2nd analyze the effects of the proposzl on ihe species in terms of indiLiduals and populations, including 

considerztion ofcumul2tive ekts ofthe proposal on the species 2nd its hzbitai; (5) analyze alternatise zciions th2t 

may-provide consenation mezsures; urd (6)-prep&e a report documenting the results, including a discussion of 

study methods used, aiy.problerns encountered, &id other relevfit Liomztion. Upon compleiion, the ieport shou!d 

be fonvarded to our Endzngered Species Division, 3704 Griffin Lane-SE, Suite 102, Oljmpia, \{'A 98501-2192. 

i' "Construction project" means any major'federal action which significantly affects the quality of the hxxii 

en\iro;r;-nent (requiring an EIS), designed primzrily to result in the building or erection of human-made StNCtuieS 

such zs dams, buildings, roads, pipelines, chumels, and the like. This includes federal zction such 2s perncts, rrznts, 

license;, or other forms of federzl auihon'zztion or approv21 diich m;?y result in CO~~i~CiiO~. 

. 

ATT'ACHMENT 1 - CORRESPONDENCE USFWS PAGE 6 OF 6 

.. 
-, 

.. 

x 

I. 
. 

Site , . 

.. C!e Elum Hatchery 

. 

ToChship 

20N 

Sovcmber 6. 1995 

Easton Ponds Acclimation Pond 

Clzik Flat Acclimation Pond 

Jzck Cmk .4cclimztion Pond Aliemative 

Soh ForkTc&wriy Acclimation Pond Alternative 

Sandy Nonvood ' 

Washington Department of Natural Resources 

Haiyal Heritage Dagbase 

P.O. Box 47047 

Olympia, WA 9S50+7047 

' D& Sandy: 

20N 

19N 

21N 

21N - 

On behalfof the Bonneville Power Adminisoation. the Pzcific Ko&r*esr X;ztional Laboriiiov ' 

(PShZ) would like to request u@red infornation regarding endangered. threatened, and sensitive 

species in the ricinity of proposed'harchery and acchau'on pond sires for &e Yzljia Fisheiics 

Project. Specific locations that should aid you in processing this request a-e the following: 

All of the lis& sires, except the Xonh ForkTeanaway site, were reviewed by your office 

p~viously (Letter Smdy Xorumxl to Rqsy Maizaika. 18 July 1994). If qny fees are to be charged ~ 

for processing this request, pleve contact me as soon 2s possible. If you have my questions 

regarding this request please contact me on (509) 376-2554. 

Sincerely, 

hcchael R. Sackchewskv 

Research Scientist 

Bantlle, Pacific Non!west National Laboratory 

P.O. Box 999 MSN K6-83 

cc: P. Smith. Bonneville Power Administradon 

1 Ric!hd, WA 99352 - 

N. Weinoaub, Bonncviille Power Administration 

J. Gislason. Bonneville Power Adminisnation 

i 

A'ITACHMENT 1 - CORRESPONDENCE WMlP PAGE 1 OF2 
. ' WASHING70N STATE-DEPARTr.<EIJT OF 

. Natural - .- -_ - - -. _. Resources -_ - - .. . - , . - KA?EE!I COTiII<GI<~I.5 

November 17, 1995 Sir;cn.i:cr 

-Michael Sackschewsky .. 

, , Richland WA 99352- ~ .- 

Battelle - PNL 

PO Box 999 

'SUBJECT: ~ 5 Proposed Hatchery and Acclimation Pond Sites, Yakima Fisheries 

Project: Cle Elum Hatchery (T20N RlSE 533); Easton-Ponds 

Acclimation Pond (T20N R13E S12); .Clark F1.at Acclimation Pond 

(T19N R17E S28); ,Jack Creek Acclimation Pond Alternative (T21N 

R16E 508) ; and North Fork Teanmaj Acclimation Pond A1 ternative 

(T21N RT6E 505) 

- 

I. ,,. 

., 

. C!e've searched the Iiatural Eeritage Infornation Systa for. information on 

significant natural features in your s-tudy areas. 

records for rare plants, hich quality native wetlqnds or high quality native 

plant communities-in the vicinity of your projects. 

Currently, we have no 

The Washington Natural Heritage Program is responsible for information on the 

state's-endangered, threatened, and sensitive plants as well as:high quality 

native plant communities and wetlands. The Department of Fish and Wi-ldlife 

manages and interprets data on wildlife speciei of concern in the state. For 

information on animals of concern in the state, please contact.th2 Priority 

Habitats and Species Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wild1 ife, 600 

Capitol Way North, Olympia, VA ,98501-1091, or by phone (360), 902-2543. 

The Natural Heritage Information System -is not a~ complete inventory. of 

Washington's natural features. Many areas of the state-have never been 

thoroughly surveyed. 

area that we d,on't yet know about. 

final statement on the natural features of the areas being considered and 

doesn't eliminate the need or responsibility .for detailed on-site surveys. 

'I 

I 

There'may be .significant natural features in your study 

This response should not be regarded as a 

- , 

I hope you'll find this information helpful. .. Sincerely, _. 

&zi& %fi,GWm! ,

Sandy Norwood, Environnental Review Coordinator . 

Washington Natural Heritage. Program 

Division of Forest Resources 

PO Box 47016 

Olympia WA 98504-7016 

/- ' 1 

iJ 

(360) 902-1667, FAX (360) 902-1787. <. 

, FOREST RESOURCES DIVISION 

PO BOX 47016 I OLYIdPIA N'A 96504-7016 

PHOSE 360-902-1340 FAX 360-902-1763 

1111 WASHItICTON ST SE I PO BOX 27030 I OLYlrGPIA. \.\'A ?35@&7@00 

Equa! Opponuni:ylA!fir.712;i\.e Ac:ion Employer 

ATTACHMENT 1 - CORRESPONDENCE ' WNHP PAGEs2 OF 2 
November 6, 1995 

Lori Ad)cins 

Priority I-kbiuts and Species Pro-piis 

WGhingion Dzpmenr of Fish and Wildifc 

GCil N. Capitol Way 

Olympia, WA 98504 

Site Toikship Rmgz 

Cle Elum Hatchery 20X l5E 

Easton Ponds Acclimation Pond . 20s. 13E 

Clark Fla Xccliniaiion Pond 19N 17E 

Jack Creek Acclimation Pond Altemhdve 21N- !E 

. Xonh ForkTemawzy Xcclimkon Pond Alternative 31N 16E 

.' Section 

33 

1- 12(S\V/4) 

28 (S\V/4) 

8 Cu23/2) 

5 Cu2.wATTACHMENT 1 - CORRESPONDENCE WDFW PAGE 1 OF 11 
c. 

Nnvrmher 1.5. 1995 - 

Mk Seckschcwsky 

.P~citlc NWI~IWCSL Labs 

Beri!!p Bou!everJ 

.?.O. Bun 999 

RiclPa~id, WA .99352 

De& Mr. Sachchcwrky: 

T~S. Ictccr supersds my le& to you &,td Novembu 14, IS%. Tiii iem ccrreets projct 

rrae errors no:ed by ym ar?d i.nnFJiirlm yniir ndditinal m-ueals. 

Per your rqukr I have queried thc foUow+g.projecr mesfor poss9ic imoIvcmait h 

sporre'd owl menagemair coilce~~s: Ua E!.m Hakhcry at TZON 152 Q3, Jack Guk E: FIX. 

R16E SO& North Fork Teanaway at T2lN R16E SO5,'Easton.u TiON R13E S12 S'W. ad 

.Clark Fork'st T19N R17E S28. Bo& ll~c Jack Cnek and Norii Fork TC~~~AWAY situ uc 

c1icuIiipesso.l by thc manegcmcnt circlcs of rnyfriplc spovd owl 5zs. Tic Tcrnaway oik is 

potentially invofvd wiL$ jc.sit=s: 322,328,336, 660, and 700. T.e jnck Ged! site io 

potcntislly iryolvcd with siw: 322,336,'660,?'W.729, and 8Ti. -Ti: Ezrton cita is involvej. 

with site 773. Thc CIck Fork md Cle Elm 6:'s ore not involvcA k c?ord owl 

m~nnsgenent iiiks.nt~this &ne. I hive enclosed 8-smmq printoat of yo= dat.? request 

enditsrcsulu. ' . 

. ,- ,. 

c. Buhan 

AT~ACHMENT 1 - CORRESPONDENCE WDFW PAGE 2 OF 11 
c 

Appendix E: Harvest Management 
.. 

,- 

-. 

- 

.. 
APPENDIX E * 

HARVEST MANAGEMENT 

- In the Yakima River Basin, salmon and summer steelhead haivest management is a cooperative venture between the Yakama Indian Nation (YIN) and the Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). A subbasin harvest management planning process currently exists 

for spring chinook salmon and summer steelhead. 

Tribal subsistence fishing regulations for the Yakima River are adopted by the Yakama Nation 

Tribal Council. Technical staff prepare a set of options for fisheries that will provide for 

Tribal fishing opportunities while meeting conservation goals. The Council.reviews each 

option and adopts the one that best balances the needs of Tribal anglers with the needs of the 

resource. 

Fisheries management activities are outside the scope of the proposed project. 

However, during the review of the DEIS, numerous comments addressed this subject. Since 

changes in policies and planned efforts would influence enhancement efforts in the-basin, a 

detailed discussion of the status of specific resource management activities in the Yakima 

River Basin is presented below. 

Existing Harvest Management and Managers 

The YFP is designed to operate within the constraints of existing harvest management 

regimes. Harvest management issues are outside the scope of this EIS since BPA has no 

harvest regulatory authority. The Tribal and state fishery managers recognize the need for 

adequate harvest management regulations and will regulate the fisheries tQ assure that the 

objectives of the Yakima Fisheries Project (YFP) are met. 

In ocean waters off the U.S. coast, harvest is regulated by the coastal States out to 

4.8 kilometers (km) or 3 miles (mi.) fi-om shore. The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act of 1976 established the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and the 

Pacific Fishery Management Council to regulate harvest in the fishery conservation zone 

located from 4.8 to 322 km (3 to 200 mi.) of the coast. Public hearings are held by these 

management councils at various coastal locations. Public 'testimony is also accepted at their 

regulatory meetings. Final regulation proposals are adopted at their annual meetings and 

forwarded to the Secretary of Commerce for final approval and adoption. 

The WDFW and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (OD&) independently regulate 

non-Indian recreational salmon harvest in the Columbia River system. The WDFW also 

controls recreational salmon fisheries in the Washington tributaries of the Columbia. The 

WDFW and the ODFW regulate non-Indian recreational fishing for steelhead and other game 

species. Each of these agencies has an annual public hearing process for the consideration and 

adoption of regulations. . 

Appendix E/1 
.< 

- - - ,* 

r 

., .- 

*. 

Recommendations for Indian and -non:Indian commercial fisheries in the Columbia River are 

developed johtly-by technical stafTfr,om Tribal, state, and federal co-managers. These . 

recommendations, together with testimony by the public and Treaty Indian tribes, are’heard by 

the Columbia River Compact, which is empowered to approve regulations for non-Indian ’ - 

commercial fisheries. The Compact is composed of representatives from the WDFW and the 

ODFW. Public hearings are held in the Portland vicinity before each fishing period. 

The YIN and other Columbia Basin Treaty Indian Tribes (Nez Perce, Umatiba, Warm 

. ’ SpMgs) regulate Indian treaty fishing in Zone 6 (Bonneville to McNary dams) within the 

bounds set by the Columbia River compact. Tribal regulations generally are adopted ais0 by - the states into state law. Other Tribes in the Columbia Basin have treaty fishing rights. 

The WDFW and the YIN ate the entities with primary responsibility for management of 

resident fish harvest in the Yakima basin. Establishing- or. revising harvest regulations 

incorporates an extensive public involvement process. The WDFW assesses issues related to 

resource. status and‘recreational use and makes harvest recommendations to the Washington 

Fish and Wildlife Cormkssion, using available biological information and input from the 

public. The Washington Fish ana Wildlife Commission, with members appointed by the 

governor, establishes regulations for resident fish Species in State waters in an open public 

process. - 

Applicability to Other Stocks 

_. 

I 

.- 

The-harvest management planning process and the subsequent annual harvest management 

plan for spring chinook salmon fisheries provides a management framework that could be, 

applied to other species. In this plan, harvests are subordinate to escapement for the naturally 

spawning sp&g chinook salmdn stock. The State and Tribal managers agee that in-basin 

-. harvest rates should not exceed 20 percent of the number of-adults returning over Prosser 

Damuntil such time as optimum spawner stock size can be estimated. .At present, the Tribal 

subsistence fishery takes priority at run‘sizes below 5,000 adults at Prosser Dam. Above that 

number, a sport fishery may occur in a manner agreeable to the co-managers. 

Goals of Harvest Management 

Development of the annual harvest plan for Yakima River spring chinook salmon is part of a ‘ 

larger process that is intended to provide equitable harvests for treaty and non-treaty anglers 

in terininal fisheries above Bohneville Dam. The goal ofthis process is to allocate harvest 

area of the YIN in such a way as to be consistent with Federal court *&lings on Indian treaty , 

fishing rights. The State and Tribal co-managers have agreed that treatyhon-treaty harvest 

. sharing need.not be 50/50 in each terminal fishery, s6 long, as the sum ofprojected harvests 

across’all co-managed terminal fisheries is approximately 50/50 or is-considered “equitable.” 

This allows flexibility between the parties to prioritize harvest needs in terminal areas. 

Y 

,. 

. . opportunities between treaty and non-treaty anglers across terminal areas within the ceded . 

. 

- 

.- 

Appendix El2 , .r 
‘4 

Harvest Planning Process , 

The annual subbasin harvest planning process, in which the Yakima River basin is included, 

begins with a technical assessment of expected run sizes to the subbasins within the YIN’s 

ceded area. Harvestable numbers of fish are calculated for each terminal fishery, based on 

broodstock and natural spawning escapement needs. The co-managers next jointly develop 

harvest sharing goals, as described above, and propose time/area/gear regulations for their 

respective fisheries. The regulation packages are adopted by each party upon agreement. 

Catch-and-effort information is exchanged weekly between the co-managers during fishing 

seasons. 

Steelhead fisheries in the Yakima River Basin do not currently require the close harvest 

monitoring that is necessary to manage the spring chinook salmon properly. Tribal fisheries 

harvest very few steelhead in current chinook fisheries, and the recreational fishery is closed at 

this time. Most wild steelhead that return to the Basin spawn naturally. 

Relation between harvest Management and Supplementation 

In the event that supplementation of chinook salmon and steelhead stocks does not occur, 

harvest management alone could not serve to rebuild stock status above current levels. 

Current harvest levels on wild and natural components of chinook salmon and steelhead runs 

are relatively minor. For example, harvests of Yakima River spring chinook salmon in the 

Pacific Ocean and mainstem Columbia River are required by the Columbia River Fish 

Management Plan (CW) to remain below 12 percent when the aggregate upriver spring 

chinook salmon run does not reach the Bonneville Dam escapement goal of 128,000. This has 

been the case every year since 1977. The average terminal harvest rate in the Yakima River 

Tribal subsistence fishery has been 14 percent since 1980. Despite these low harvest rates, 

spring chinook salmon stock abundance in‘the Yakima River is not increasing. 

Out-of-basin harvest impacts on Yakima River wild steelhead also are minimal. Wild 

steelhead cannot be retained in non-treaty fisheries and must be returned to the water 

unharmed. A small incidental catch of wild steelhead may occur in non-treaty fall season 

gillnet fisheries below Bonneville Dam, but these fisheries are heavily regulated to minimize 

steelhead handling and mortality. The Indian fall chinook‘ gillnet fishery above Bonneville 

Dam is constrained by the CRFMP to harvest no more than 15 percent of wild Group A 

steelhead (of which the Yakima river stock is a component) crossing Qonneville Dam. 

Additional harvest impacts may occur during Zone 6 winter fishery, during any sockeye 

fishery, and during the spring/summer chinook subsistence fisheries. Management actions 

have reduced the actual harvest rates to around 12 percent or less in recent years as a result of 

constraints imposed by fall chinook management needs. These low harvest rates have not 

resulted in rebuilding of the-wild steelhead stock in the Yakima River system. 

The CRFMP limits hrther reductions in Columbia River fisheries. Existing harvest provisions 

in the plan are held at minimal levels to help rebuild upriver stocks. Upriver stocks of salmon 

and steelhead are managed under the Plan as aggregates of subbasin stocks because stock 

- 

- 

.- Appendix El3 
/ 

components cannot be identified in preterminal-fisheries. Alteration by the parties of existing 

provisions ofthe plan to managecfor individual Yakima River stocks within an aggregate is 

doubtfbl. However, management in the terminal tributaries is in no way prejudiced by 

aggregate mainstem management. Furthermore, modifications to existing plan provisions 

could produce imbalances in treaty and non-treaty harvest-sharing arrangements or violate 

regional and international harvest agreements. 

Harvest of a wide variety of species not targeted for supplementation is also managed within 

the Yakima subbasin. These include warmwater game fish species such as bass, perch, 

channel catfish, resident coldwater fishes (eg rainbow trout, bull. trout), whitefish, and 

squawfish. These species must be managed concurrently to achieve a balance among 

objectives such as recreational opportunity, resource protection and maintenance, and impact 

on YF'P supplementation activities or target stock rebuilding. , 

Appendix E/4 l 

? ,