Department of Energy 

Bonneville Power Administration 

P.O. Box 3621 

Portland, Oregon 97208-3621 

 

 ENVIRONMENT, FISH AND WILDLIFE

June 21, 2011 

In reply refer to: KEC-4 

To: Parties Interested in the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation’s (Yakama 

Nation) Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

You are invited to review and comment on the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the 

Yakama Nation’s Mid Columbia-Coho Restoration Program located in Chelan and Okanogan counties, 

Washington. The Yakama Nation would sponsor the reintroduction program; the Bonneville Power 

Administration (BPA) would provide the funding if approved. The draft EIS describes the proposed fish 

production program and hatchery facilities, and analyzes the potential environmental effects from 

program operations and facility construction. Your comments on the draft EIS will help us refine the 

environmental analysis and decide whether to fund the program. 

The restoration program is an effort to restore coho salmon to the Methow and Wenatchee basins using 

information and techniques developed as part of the Yakama Nation’s Mid-Columbia Coho 

Reintroduction Feasibility Project. The Yakama Nation has also prepared a Master Plan to guide the 

development of the reintroduction program. 

Project background 

Over the next 20-25 years, the proposed program would develop a locally adapted, self-sustaining 

population of coho in the Mid-Columbia basin, capable of supporting harvest. Hatcheries and acclimation 

facilities used in the feasibility studies would continue to be used. In addition, a new small hatchery in 

the Wenatchee basin is proposed; and a few existing ponds or side channels would be modified and new 

ones constructed to serve as semi-natural rearing and acclimation areas for juvenile coho salmon. 

Public Meetings

You are also invited to attend our open house public meetings on this project. The meetings will be held: 

July 13, 2011 5:30 – 8 p.m. July 14, 2011 5:30 – 8 p.m. 

Chelan Fire District 3 Community Center Methow Valley Community Center 

228 Chumstick Highway 201 South Methow Valley Highway 

Leavenworth, WA 98826 Twisp, WA. 98856

Meeting Agenda: 

5:30-6:00 Open house 

6:00-7:00 Presentation 

7:00-8:00 Return to open house 

Project team members will be available to take your comments on the draft EIS and answer any questions 

you may have.
2

How to comment

Comments are encouraged and will be accepted through August 8, 2011. Comments may be submitted 

online at: www.bpa.gov/comment, via mail to: Bonneville Power Administration, Public Affairs Office 

– DKE-7, P.O. Box 14428; or by fax to (503) 230-4019. You also may call us with your comment toll 

free at 1 (800) 622-4519. Please reference “Mid Columbia-Coho Restoration Program” with your 

comments. All your comments will be posted in their entirety on BPA’s website at 

www.bpa.gov/comment. Comments and responses to them will be made part of the final EIS. 

Copies available 

If you have received this letter, we are providing the entire draft EIS, including appendices, on CD. If 

you would like to receive a hard copy of the draft EIS please call BPA’s toll-free document request line at 

1 (800) 622-4519. Please leave a message naming this project, giving your complete address. The draft 

EIS and its appendices may also be viewed at the project’s website: www.bpa.gov/go/midcolumbiacoho. 

Next Steps 

BPA expects to complete and publish the final EIS in December 2011 and then issue a Record of 

Decision in spring 2012 that will explain BPA’s decision about whether to proceed with the project. 

 

For More Information 

If you need more information or have questions, please call me directly at (503) 230-5192 or toll free at 

1 (800) 282-3713 or e-mail me at sfbreeden@bpa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ Stephanie Breeden 

Stephanie Breeden 

Environmental Protection Specialist 

Enclosure: 

Draft EIS (CD) 


 Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement 

DOE/EIS-0425 

Bonneville Power Administration 

Okanogan County 

The Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation 

June 2011 
Abstract - Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

Environmental Impact Statement 

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

Title of Proposed Project: Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

Cooperating Tribe: The Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation 

State Involved: Washington 

Lead State Agency: Okanogan County 

Abstract: The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) describes a coho salmon restoration program 

sponsored by the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation (YN). BPA proposes to fund the 

construction, operation and maintenance of the program to help mitigate for anadromous fish affected by the Federal 

Columbia River Power System dams on the Columbia River. The YN wants to restore naturally spawning 

populations of coho salmon in harvestable numbers to the Methow and Wenatchee river basins in north central 

Washington State. The DEIS discloses the environmental effects expected from facility construction and program 

operations and a No Action alternative. 

The Proposed Action is to implement the remaining phases of the restoration program as outlined in the MidColumbia Coho Restoration Master Plan (YN 2010). This would involve building a new, small, in-basin adult 

holding/spawning, incubation and rearing facility on the Wenatchee River at one of two potential sites; and 

constructing and improving several sites in both the Wenatchee and Methow river basins for acclimating coho in key 

habitats in the upper portions of the basins. 

Public review of and comment upon this Draft EIS will continue through August 8, 2011. Responses to comments 

will be made part of the Final EIS, which is scheduled for completion in December 2011. BPA expects to issue a 

Record of Decision whether to implement the project in January 2012. 

For more information about the Draft EIS, please contact: 

Stephanie Breeden, Environmental Protection Specialist 

Bonneville Power Administration 

P. O. Box 3621, KEC-4 

Portland, OR 97208-3621 

Telephone: (503) 230-5192 

Email: sfbreeden@bpa.gov 

For additional copies of this document, please call 1-800-622-4520 and ask for the document by name. You may 

also request additional copies by writing to: 

Bonneville Power Administration 

P.O. Box 3621 

Portland, Oregon 97208 

ATT: Public Information Center – CHDL-1 

The EIS is also on the Internet at: http://efw.bpa.gov/environmental_services/Document_Library/MidColumbia_Coho_Restoration_Project/. 

For additional information on DOE NEPA activities, please contact Carol M. Borgstrom, Director, Office of NEPA 

Policy and Compliance, GC-54, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue S.W., Washington D.C. 

20585-0103, phone: 1-800-472-2756 or visit the DOE NEPA Web site at www.eh.doe.gov/nepa. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

i 

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ES-1

Underlying Need for Action .............................................................................................................................ES-1

Purposes ...........................................................................................................................................................ES-3

History of Coho in the Mid-Columbia Region ................................................................................................ES-3

Historical Conditions and Extirpation ...............................................................................................................ES-3

Current Conditions ...........................................................................................................................................ES-3

Coho Reintroduction Feasibility Studies .......................................................................................................ES-4

Current Experimental Program .......................................................................................................................ES-4

Proposed Action ...............................................................................................................................................ES-5

Vision and Biological Approach .......................................................................................................................ES-5

Facilities ..........................................................................................................................................................ES-6

Program Costs .................................................................................................................................................ES-8

No Action Alternative .......................................................................................................................................ES-8

Biological Approach .........................................................................................................................................ES-8

Facilities ..........................................................................................................................................................ES-8

Comparison of Alternatives ...........................................................................................................................ES-10

Summary of Environmental Effects ..............................................................................................................ES-11

CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION......................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Underlying Need for Action ........................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.2 Purposes ...................................................................................................................................................... 1-3

1.3 History of Coho in the Mid-Columbia Region ........................................................................................... 1-3

1.3.1 Historical Conditions and Extirpation ....................................................................................................... 1-3

1.3.2 Current Conditions ................................................................................................................................... 1-5

1.4 Coho Reintroduction Feasibility Studies .................................................................................................. 1-5

1.5 Decisions to be Made and Responsible Officials ..................................................................................... 1-6

1.6 Public Involvement and Scoping ............................................................................................................... 1-7

1.7 Issues Beyond the Scope of this EIS ......................................................................................................... 1-9

CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION .............................................. 2-1

2.1 Current Experimental Program .................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Proposed Action .......................................................................................................................................... 2-7

2.2.1 Biological Approach: Phased Reintroduction ........................................................................................... 2-7

2.2.2 Facilities ................................................................................................................................................. 2-12

2.2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation Plan ............................................................................................................. 2-27

2.2.4 Program Cost Summary ........................................................................................................................ 2-27

2.3 No Action Alternative ................................................................................................................................ 2-28

2.3.1 Biological Approach ............................................................................................................................... 2-28

2.3.2 Facilities ................................................................................................................................................. 2-28

2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Evaluation ....................................................... 2-29
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program

ii

2.4.1 Independent Science Review Panel Alternative .................................................................................... 2-29

2.4.2 Use of Egg Boxes .................................................................................................................................. 2-30

2.4.3 Use of Out-of-Area Wild Donor Fish ...................................................................................................... 2-30

2.4.4 Alternative Rearing Systems ................................................................................................................. 2-31

2.5 Comparison of Alternatives in this EIS ................................................................................................... 2-32

CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.................... 3-1

3.1 Introduction: How this Chapter is Organized .......................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Summary of Environmental Effects ........................................................................................................... 3-2

3.3 Overview of Wenatchee and Methow Basins and Project Sites .............................................................. 3-4

3.3.1 General Characteristics of the Basins ..................................................................................................... 3-4

3.3.2 Land Use at Proposed Project Sites ........................................................................................................ 3-5

3.4 Coho Status, Life Cycle and Distribution in Wenatchee and Methow Basins ........................................ 3-9

3.4.1 Coho Population Status ........................................................................................................................... 3-9

3.4.2 Coho Life Cycle ..................................................................................................................................... 3-10

3.4.3 Coho Distribution ................................................................................................................................... 3-10

3.5 Surface Water Quality ............................................................................................................................... 3-11

3.5.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................................................ 3-11

3.5.2 Types of Impact ..................................................................................................................................... 3-13

3.5.3 Impacts of the Proposed Action ............................................................................................................. 3-14

3.5.4 Impacts of the No Action Alternative ...................................................................................................... 3-37

3.5.5 Mitigation for the Proposed Action ......................................................................................................... 3-38

3.6 Surface and Groundwater and Water Rights .......................................................................................... 3-39

3.6.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................................................ 3-39

3.6.2 Types of Impact ..................................................................................................................................... 3-39

3.6.3 Impacts of the Proposed Action ............................................................................................................. 3-40

3.6.4 Impacts of the No Action Alternative ...................................................................................................... 3-50

3.6.5 Mitigation for the Proposed Action ......................................................................................................... 3-50

3.7 Fish ............................................................................................................................................................. 3-51

3.7.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................................................ 3-51

3.7.2 Types of Impact ..................................................................................................................................... 3-54

3.7.3 Impacts of the Proposed Action ............................................................................................................. 3-55

3.7.4 Impacts of the No Action Alternative ...................................................................................................... 3-70

3.7.5 Mitigation for the Proposed Action ......................................................................................................... 3-71

3.8 Priority Habitat, Plants, and Wildlife ........................................................................................................ 3-72

3.8.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................................................ 3-72

3.8.2 Types of Impact ..................................................................................................................................... 3-75

3.8.3 Impacts of the Proposed Action ............................................................................................................. 3-77

3.8.4 Impacts of the No Action Alternative ...................................................................................................... 3-85

3.8.5 Mitigation for the Proposed Action ......................................................................................................... 3-86
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

iii 

3.9 Wetlands .................................................................................................................................................... 3-86

3.9.1 Affected Environment ............................................................................................................................ 3-86

3.9.2 Types of Impact ..................................................................................................................................... 3-87

3.9.3 Impacts of the Proposed Action ............................................................................................................. 3-87

3.9.4 Impacts of the No Action Alternative ...................................................................................................... 3-93

3.9.5 Mitigation for the Proposed Action ......................................................................................................... 3-93

3.10 Floodplains .............................................................................................................................................. 3-94

3.10.1 Affected Environment .......................................................................................................................... 3-94

3.10.2 Types of Impact ................................................................................................................................... 3-94

3.10.3 Impacts of the Proposed Action ........................................................................................................... 3-95

3.10.4 Impacts of the No Action Alternative .................................................................................................. 3-100

3.10.5 Mitigation for the Proposed Action ..................................................................................................... 3-100

3.11 Visual Quality and Recreation .............................................................................................................. 3-101

3.11.1 Visual Quality ..................................................................................................................................... 3-101

3.11.2 Recreation ......................................................................................................................................... 3-105

3.12 Socioeconomics .................................................................................................................................... 3-109

3.12.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................................................................ 3-109

3.12.2 Impacts of the Proposed Action ......................................................................................................... 3-109

3.12.3 Impacts of the No Action Alternative .................................................................................................. 3-111

3.12.4 Mitigation for the Proposed Action ..................................................................................................... 3-111

3.13 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................................ 3-111

3.13.1 Affected Environment ........................................................................................................................ 3-111

3.13.2 Impacts of the Proposed Action ......................................................................................................... 3-114

3.13.3 Impacts of the No Action Alternative .................................................................................................. 3-115

3.13.4 Mitigation for the Proposed Action ..................................................................................................... 3-115

3.14 Public Health and Safety ....................................................................................................................... 3-115

3.14.1 Noise ................................................................................................................................................. 3-115

3.14.2 Air Quality .......................................................................................................................................... 3-117

3.14.3 Climate Change ................................................................................................................................. 3-120

3.15 Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................................................ 3-124

3.16 Unavoidable Adverse Effects and Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ........ 3-130

3.17 Short-Term Use of the Environment and Effects on Long-Term Productivity ................................. 3-130

CHAPTER 4. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ......................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Environmental Policy .................................................................................................................................. 4-1

4.1.1 National Environmental Policy Act ........................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.2 State Environmental Policy Act ................................................................................................................ 4-1

4.2 Northwest Power Act .................................................................................................................................. 4-1

4.3 Wildlife and Habitat ..................................................................................................................................... 4-2

4.3.1 Endangered Species Act ......................................................................................................................... 4-2
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program

iv

4.3.2 Fish and Wildlife Conservation ................................................................................................................ 4-2

4.3.3 Migratory Bird Treaty Act ......................................................................................................................... 4-3

4.3.4 Bald Eagle Protection Act ........................................................................................................................ 4-3

4.3.5 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 ............................................... 4-3

4.4 Heritage Conservation and Cultural Resources Protection .................................................................... 4-3

4.5 Floodplain/Wetlands Assessment ............................................................................................................. 4-4

4.5.1 Project Description and Impacts .............................................................................................................. 4-4

4.5.2 Alternatives and Mitigation ....................................................................................................................... 4-8

4.6 State, Area-wide, and Local Plans and Permits ........................................................................................ 4-9

4.6.1 Wenatchee and Methow Subbasin Plans ................................................................................................ 4-9

4.6.2 County Comprehensive Plans ............................................................................................................... 4-12

4.6.3 Permitting Issues ................................................................................................................................... 4-12

4.7 Clean Water Act ......................................................................................................................................... 4-13

4.8 Farmland Protection Policy Act ............................................................................................................... 4-14

4.9 Noise Control Act ...................................................................................................................................... 4-15

4.10 Clean Air Act ............................................................................................................................................ 4-15

4.11 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) ............................................................ 4-15

4.12 Environmental Justice ............................................................................................................................ 4-16

4.13 Energy Conservation at Federal Facilities ............................................................................................ 4-16

CHAPTER 5. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 5-1

CHAPTER 6. DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS ...................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Definitions .................................................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 Acronyms and Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... 6-3

CHAPTER 7. LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS ....................................................................... 7-1

CHAPTER 8. LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATION AND PERSONS CONTACTED ......................... 8-1

Appendices 

Appendix 1. Rearing and Brood Capture Site Descriptions

Appendix 2. Wenatchee Acclimation Site Descriptions

Appendix 3. Methow Acclimation Site Descriptions

Appendix 4. Resource Maps

Appendix 5. Monitoring and Evaluation Program

Appendix 6. Water Quality Data

Appendix 7. Water Quality Impacts

Appendix 8. Flood Impacts

Appendix 9. Impact of Fish Culture on ESA-Listed Fish

Appendix 10. Effect of Surface Water Withdrawals on ESA-Listed Fish 

Appendix 11. Climate Change Adaptation
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

v 

List of Figures 

Figure ES-1. Project Area Overview ......................................................................................................ES-2

Figure 1-1. Project Area Overview ............................................................................................................ 1-2

Figure 2-1. Wenatchee and Methow Basins in Relation to Upper Columbia River Dams ........................ 2-3

Figure 2-2. Current Program: Broodstock Collection Sites ...................................................................... 2-4

Figure 2-3. Current Program: Incubation and Rearing Sites ................................................................... 2-5

Figure 2-4. Current Program: Acclimation Sites ...................................................................................... 2-6

Figure 2-5. Proposed Action: Broodstock Collection Sites .................................................................... 2-16

Figure 2-6. Proposed Action: Hatchery and Rearing Sites .................................................................... 2-17

Figure 2-7. Proposed Action: Wenatchee Basin Primary and Backup Sites .......................................... 2-18

Figure 2-8. Proposed Action: Methow Basin Primary and Backup Sites ................................................ 2-19

Figure 2-9. Proposed Dryden Hatchery: Draft Site Plan with Flood Boundaries ................................... 2-23

Figure 2-10. George Hatchery (Backup Site): Draft Site Plan ............................................................... 2-25

Figure 2-11. Barrier Net Example ........................................................................................................... 2-26

Figure 2-12. Seine Net Example ............................................................................................................. 2-26

Figure 3-1. Difference from natural conditions in range of pH (top graph) and minimum DO (bottom 

graph) at permissible POTW loading with and without proposed hatchery at Dryden ...................... 3-23

Figure 3-2. Difference from natural conditions in range of pH (top graph) and minimum DO (bottom 

graph) at permissible POTW loading with and without George Hatchery discharge ........................ 3-25

Figure 3-3. Maximum (top line) and minimum (bottom line) total phosphorus concentrations simulated by 

QUAL-2K model compared for cases with and without the proposed project for 7Q10 low-flow and 

March climatic condition with maximum background loadings determined in WDOE TMDL............ 3-29

Figure 3-4. Maximum (top line) and minimum (bottom line) pHs simulated by QUAL-2K model compared 

for cases with and without the proposed project for 7Q10 low-flow and March climatic condition with 

maximum background loadings determined in WDOE TMDL ........................................................... 3-30

Figure 3-5. Difference from March background conditions in the range of pH (top graph) and minimum 

DO (bottom graph) with and without the proposed project in the Wenatchee basin ......................... 3-31

Figure 3-6. Visual Impact Analysis Study Area for the Dryden Incubation and Rearing Facility, 

Wenatchee River .................................................................................................................................... 3-102

List of Tables 

Table ES-1. Facilities used in current coho restoration program ...........................................................ES-5

Table ES-2. Summary of facilities: Proposed Action .............................................................................ES-6

Table ES-3. Peak operating costs (2013) by basin ...............................................................................ES-8

Table ES-4. No Action Alternative release numbers and locations .......................................................ES-9

Table ES-5. Comparison of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative to Purposes ............ES-10

Table ES-6. Summary of Impacts of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative ..................ES-11

Table 1-1. Summary of feasibility study goals and results ........................................................................ 1-6

Table 2-1. Facilities used in current coho restoration program ................................................................. 2-2

Table 2-2. Coho production timetable ....................................................................................................... 2-2

Table 2-3. Wenatchee basin program summary ..................................................................................... 2-10

Table 2-4. Methow basin program summary .......................................................................................... 2-11

Table 2-5. Proposed smolt release numbers (in millions) by basin and project phase .......................... 2-12

Table 2-6. Summary of facilities: Proposed Action ................................................................................. 2-14

Table 2-7. Peak operating costs (2013) by basin ................................................................................... 2-27

Table 2-8. No Action Alternative release numbers and locations ........................................................... 2-29

Table 2-9. Comparison of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative to the Purposes ............ 2-32

Table 3-1. Summary of Impacts of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative .......................... 3-2

Table 3-2. TP loads from two existing acclimation sites in Nason Creek ............................................... 3-15

Table 3-3. TP loads estimated for proposed acclimation sites in the Wenatchee basin ........................ 3-17

Table 3-4. TP loads estimated at backup acclimation sites: Wenatchee basin ...................................... 3-19

Table 3-5. Estimation of effluent phosphorus loads for proposed hatchery at Dryden ........................... 3-22

Table 3-6. Estimated contribution of TP loads from 50 days of acclimation activity in the three upper 

Wenatchee acclimation sites ............................................................................................................. 3-27
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program

vi

Table 3-7. TP loads estimated for proposed acclimation activity in the Methow basin .......................... 3-32

Table 3-8. TP loads estimated for backup sites in the Methow basin .................................................... 3-35

Table 3-9. TP loads estimated for the Methow basin with and without POTW loads ............................. 3-37

Table 3-10. TP loads estimated for No Action Alternative sites in Wenatchee basin ............................. 3-38

Table 3-11. TP loads estimated for No Action Alternative sites in Methow basin .................................. 3-38

Table 3-12. Summary of potential impacts in the Wenatchee and Methow basins from new groundwater 

withdrawals at primary acclimation and hatchery sites ..................................................................... 3-41

Table 3-13. Fish species documented in the Wenatchee and Methow basins ....................................... 3-52

Table 3-14. PHS Fish Species ................................................................................................................ 3-53

Table 3-15. ESA-listed fish by life stage presenta during construction of project facilities ..................... 3-56

Table 3-16. ESA-listed fish by life stage presenta during overwinter rearing and spring acclimation in the 

Wenatchee basin ............................................................................................................................... 3-58

Table 3-17. ESA-listed juveniles potentially displaced from existing Wenatchee basin habitat November - 

May .................................................................................................................................................... 3-58

Table 3-18. ESA-listed juveniles potentially displaced from existing Wenatchee basin habitat March - 

May .................................................................................................................................................... 3-59

Table 3-19. ESA-listed fish by life stage presenta during overwinter rearing and spring acclimation 

activities in the Methow basin ............................................................................................................ 3-60

Table 3-20. ESA-listed juveniles potentially displaced from existing habitat at primary Methow basin sites 

November - May ................................................................................................................................ 3-60

Table 3-21. ESA-listed juveniles potentially displaced from existing habitat at proposed primary Methow 

basin sites March - May ..................................................................................................................... 3-60

Table 3-22. Currently accessible habitat, habitat added by proposed new sites, and habitat excluded 

during coho overwinter rearing and spring acclimation ..................................................................... 3-62

Table 3-23. Juvenile Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout potentially displaced from currently accessible 

habitat at proposed primary rearing and acclimation sites in the Wenatchee basin a....................... 3-63

Table 3-24. Juvenile Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout potentially displaced from currently accessible 

habitat at proposed primary rearing and acclimation sites in the Methow basin a............................ 3-63

Table 3-25. Impacts on PHS Fish from the Proposed Action ................................................................. 3-69

Table 3-26. ESA-listed juveniles potentially displaced from existing habitat in spring: No Action .......... 3-70

Table 3-27. Federal and state listed species: plants .............................................................................. 3-73

Table 3-28. Federal and state listed species: wildlife a........................................................................... 3-74

Table 3-29. Critical Habitats .................................................................................................................... 3-75

Table 3-30. Project sites with documented occurrences of USFWS ESA-listed species and habitat .... 3-77

Table 3-31. Sites with documented occurrences of state-listed Priority Habitat and Species a............. 3-78

Table 3-32. Wetland conditions at or near project sites with construction activity.................................. 3-88

Table 3-33. Total estimated square feet of temporary and permanent wetland impacts ....................... 3-92

Table 3-34. Wenatchee acclimation and hatchery sites with development activities in floodplains ....... 3-96

Table 3-35. Methow acclimation sites with development activities in floodplains ................................... 3-99

Table 3-36. Recreational resources near proposed acclimation sites .................................................. 3-108

Table 3-37. County income and employment ....................................................................................... 3-109

Table 3-38. Maximum permissible noise levels (dBA) at three classes of property ............................ 3-116

Table 3-39. National and state ambient air quality standards ............................................................... 3-118

Table 3-40. Estimated annual greenhouse gas emissions from the Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration 

Program a......................................................................................................................................... 3-122

Table 4-1. Acclimation and hatchery sites with development activities in floodplains .............................. 4-5

Table 4-2. Estimated wetlands effects at project sites: temporary, permanent, and new created ........... 4-7

Table 4-3. Total estimated square feet of temporary and permanent wetland impacts............................ 4-8

Table 4-4. Construction sites (primary and backup) designated as farmland a...................................... 4-14
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Executive Summary ES-1 

Executive Summary

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), in partnership with the Yakama Nation (YN), proposes 

to fund transition of the Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program from its feasibility phase to a 

comprehensive program to restore naturally spawning populations of coho salmon in harvestable 

numbers to the Wenatchee and Methow river basins in north central Washington State. 

Construction of a new hatchery on the Wenatchee River in Chelan County, and construction and 

use of small acclimation facilities in natural settings in Chelan and Okanogan counties, are 

included in this proposal. Figure ES-1 shows the general project area. 

Since 1996, BPA has funded the Yakama Nation to study the feasibility of reintroducing coho in 

north central Washington, from which natural populations were extirpated. The studies show a 

reasonable likelihood of success for full-scale coho reintroduction, so the YN prepared a Master 

Plan (YN 2010) for a program to increase local adaptation and self-sustainability of the newly 

developed Mid-Columbia coho broodstock and to increase their abundance in the upper 

tributaries of the two basins. This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) analyzes the effects of 

the Proposed Action as described in the Master Plan and the No Action Alternative required by 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

Underlying Need for Action 

BPA’s underlying need for action is to return naturally spawning, locally adapted populations of 

coho to the Wenatchee and Methow basins as a way to help fulfill its obligations under the 

Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (Act), 16 U.S.C. § 839 et seq., 

Section 4(h)(10)(A); and the 2008 Columbia Basin Fish Accords Memorandum of Agreement 

with the YN and others. 

Under the Act, BPA must protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife affected by the 

development, operation, and management of federal hydroelectric facilities on the Columbia 

River and its tributaries. BPA must fulfill this duty in a manner consistent with the Columbia 

River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program developed by the Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council. The Council and its Independent Science Review Panel reviewed drafts of the Master 

Plan, and on March 9, 2010, the Council recommended that BPA implement the project as 

described in the plan. 

On May 2, 2008, BPA, Bureau of Reclamation, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers signed the 

2008 Columbia Basin Fish Accords Memorandum of Agreement with three of the Treaty 

Tribes—the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, the Confederated Tribes of 

Warm Springs Reservation, and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. 

The agreement includes funding for the YN’s Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program. BPA 

conditioned its funding commitment on securing a favorable recommendation from the Council 

and on compliance with all its other mandates, including NEPA. Salmon are a part of the 

spiritual and cultural identity of the Columbia River tribes. Salmon also play an important role 

in the economic well-being of tribal members. Restoring coho salmon to north central 

Washington would help the tribes to exercise their fishing rights as well as provide for fishing by 

sport and commercial fishers. Reintroducing coho in these basins could also contribute to 

restoring the ecological balance of the system. The Wenatchee Subbasin Plan recognizes that 

―Restoration of individual populations may not be possible without restoration of other fish and 

wildlife populations with which they co-evolved.‖ (NPCC 2004a). 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program

ES-2 Executive Summary 

Figure ES-1. Project Area Overview 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Executive Summary ES-3 

Purposes 

In meeting the underlying need, the alternatives considered should achieve the purposes listed 

below. BPA will base its choice among alternatives on how well each one meets them. 

 Develop a locally adapted, self-sustaining, naturally spawning coho stock that occupies 

its historical habitat in the Wenatchee and Methow river basins. 

 Increase the abundance of Mid-Columbia coho salmon to numbers sufficient to sustain a 

mainstem and terminal harvest in most years. 

 Maintain consistency with the Council’s Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife 

Program and its recommendations as well as with the visions and goals of other regional 

plans, including subbasin plans. 

 Maintain consistency with the coho production objectives specified in the 2008-2017 

United States v. Oregon Fish Management Agreement for the Wenatchee and Methow 

subbasins. 

 Minimize harm to natural or human resources, including species listed under the 

Endangered Species Act. 

History of Coho in the Mid-Columbia Region 

Historical Conditions and Extirpation 

Mullan (1984) estimated historical mid-Columbia River adult coho populations as follows: 

 Wenatchee basin—6,000 - 7,000

 Methow basin—23,000 - 31,000.

Prior to the establishment of BPA in 1937, mid-Columbia coho salmon populations were 

decimated by impassable dams, harmful forestry practices, and unscreened irrigation diversions 

in the tributaries, along with an extremely high harvest rate in the lower Columbia River. The 

loss of natural stream flow degraded habitat quality and further reduced coho productivity. Over 

the years, irrigation, livestock grazing, mining, timber harvest, road and railroad construction, 

residential and other development, and fire management also contributed to destruction of 

salmon habitat. By the 1930s, coho were considered extirpated from the mid-Columbia region. 

Current Conditions 

In the past two decades, conditions and practices have changed and improved to a certain degree. 

 Some of the local habitat causes of coho depletion have been corrected: many irrigation 

diversions have been screened, tributary dams have been removed, new logging practice 

regulations have provided increased environmental protection, mining has ended, and 

grazing practices have been improved. 

 Habitat Conservation Plans have been negotiated between fisheries resource managers 

and Mid-Columbia Public Utility Districts (PUDs)1to ensure that the hydroelectric 

projects associated with each plan can be considered to have No Net Impact on 

anadromous species. 

 

1

 Grant County PUD, Chelan County PUD, and Douglas County PUD. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program

ES-4 Executive Summary 

 The listings under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of several salmonid species that 

migrate through the lower Columbia River have curtailed coho fisheries in the ocean that 

once over-harvested the mid-Columbia stocks of coho. Fisheries restrictions based on 

ESA-listings have curtailed ocean harvest of Lower Columbia River coho from an annual 

average of 80% between 1970 and 1983; to 49% from 1984 to 1993; to 10% from 1994 

to 2007 (NMFS 2008a). These restrictions are likely to be in effect for a number of 

years. 

 Recent improvements in artificial production practices would also improve efforts aimed 

at supporting natural production. 

Coho Reintroduction Feasibility Studies 

In 1996, BPA began funding the Yakama Nation to study the feasibility of reintroducing coho to 

the mid-Columbia region.2 BPA analyzed the effects of a proposed plan for feasibility studies in 

the Mid-Columbia Coho Reintroduction Feasibility Project Final EA, completed in April 1999 

(DOE/EA-1282). Supplemental Analyses (DOE/EA-1282/SA-01, -02, -03, and -04) were 

prepared to analyze effects of additional activities and facilities proposed for the studies. 

Feasibility studies were designed to achieve two primary goals: 

1) Determine whether a broodstock can be developed from lower Columbia River coho 

stocks whose progeny can survive in increasing numbers to return as adults to the midColumbia region. 

2) Initiate natural reproduction in areas of low risk to sensitive species and in other select 

areas to study the risks and interactions with sensitive species. 

The feasibility goals have been met (see Table 1-1 in Chapter 1). The Yakama Nation prepared a 

Master Plan based on the results of the feasibility studies (YN 2010). The Master Plan, with 

review and assistance by a number of scientists and fish and wildlife agencies, developed the 

approach and biological rationale for building on the feasibility studies to realize the YN’s long 

term vision for coho in the region (see Proposed Action below and in Chapter 2). 

Current Experimental Program 

During the feasibility phase of the project, a local coho broodstock was developed. A total of 1.5 

million smolts are acclimated and released in the two basins annually. In 2009, approximately 

22,000 coho adults passed Rock Island Dam, the closest mainstem Columbia River dam 

downstream from the Wenatchee River mouth (Figure ES-1). Facilities used in the current 

program are listed in Table ES-1.

 

2

 Years after this project began (and was named), many entities in the region began using the term ―upper 

Columbia‖ to refer to the region in which the Wenatchee and Methow subbasins lie. We have chosen to continue 

using ―mid-Columbia‖ to refer to this project in order to demonstrate the continuity of the project from the 

feasibility studies onward. As well, because the Columbia River originates hundreds of miles upstream in Canada, 

the term ―mid-Columbia‖ seems to be more geographically accurate.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Executive Summary ES-5 

Table ES-1. Facilities used in current coho restoration program 

BROODSTOCK COLLECTION

Wenatchee Methow

Tumwater Dam Wells Fish Hatchery (FH)

Dryden Dam Wells Dam ladders

Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery (NFH) Winthrop National Fish Hatchery (NFH)

HOLDING, INCUBATION AND/OR REARING

Leavenworth NFH

Note: Rearing facilities provide coho for 

both basins

Winthrop NFH

Peshastin Incubation Facility

Cascade FH

Willard NFH

SMOLT RELEASES

Wenatchee Methow

 500,00 above Tumwater Dam in Nason Creek and and 

Beaver Creek

 500,000 from Icicle Creek

 300,000 from Winthrop NFH

 75,000 from Lower Twisp

 125,000 from Wells FH

ACCLIMATION

Wenatchee Methow

Leavenworth NFH (Icicle Creek) Winthrop NFH

Rohlfing Lower Twisp 

Coulter Wells FH

Butcher

Beaver

Proposed Action 

Vision and Biological Approach 

The Yakama Nation’s long-term vision for the Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration program, as 

stated in the Master Plan (YN 2010), is: 

To re-establish naturally spawning coho populations in mid-Columbia tributaries to 

biologically sustainable levels which provide significant harvest in most years. 

Building on the feasibility studies that have been conducted since 1996, the proposal would 

maintain a phased approach to reintroducing coho into the Wenatchee and Methow basins: two 

broodstock development phases and three natural production phases. The broodstock 

development phases were designed to eliminate transfers of lower Columbia brood coho and to 

encourage broodstock adaptation so that returning coho can reach key habitat within the basins. 

The first phase of broodstock development has been accomplished and lower Columbia 

broodstock are no longer used in the program; however, the second phase continues the process 

of increasing broodstock stamina. After all broodstock development goals are met (see Section 

2.2.1.2), the natural production phases would manage broodstock composition so that eventually 

the percent of natural-origin fish in the hatchery broodstock exceeds the percent of hatcheryorigin fish on the spawning grounds (HSRG 2004). The numbers of smolts released would 

increase from 1.5 million to 2.16 million for the first three years of the natural production phase, 

then return to 1.51 million and eventually decrease (see Table 2-5). This short-term increase 

would begin the local adaptation process by releasing enough smolts in the natural environment 

to increase the number of adults returning to each tributary to spawn without the aid of a 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program

ES-6 Executive Summary 

hatchery. The coho restoration program is designed to end when a self-sustaining naturally 

reproducing population that supports harvest is established. This goal would be met when there 

is a natural-origin return escapement of more than 1,500 coho to each basin, with a terminal and 

mainstem harvest in most years; it is expected to be achieved by approximately 2028. 

Facilities 

Facility requirements for the Proposed Action are listed in Table ES-2 and described in detail in 

Section 2.2.2. No new facilities would be required during the ongoing broodstock development 

phase. During the natural production phases, the plan proposes to continue rearing most program 

fish at existing hatcheries. A new, small, in-basin adult holding/spawning, incubation and 

rearing facility also is proposed for these phases at a site on the Wenatchee River near Dryden 

Dam or a site on the Wenatchee River downstream of Lake Wenatchee. 

Acclimation is planned at a combination of existing and new sites. Most acclimation sites would 

be existing water bodies (e.g., beaver ponds, side channels, etc.) and small constructed ponds. 

The project proposes to use existing broodstock capture sites in upstream areas in addition to 

those used during the broodstock development phase, all of which are owned by other entities 

and operated by the YN and/or other fisheries resource agencies. One broodstock capture site 

(Chiwawa Weir) would need to extend its period of operation in order to capture coho adults. 

Juvenile trapping for monitoring and evaluation of the program would take place at existing traps 

in both basins, with one exception: a new trap is proposed for the Little Wenatchee River, the 

site to be determined. 

Table ES-2. Summary of facilities: Proposed Action 

BROODSTOCK COLLECTION

Wenatchee C or F a Construction? Methow C or F Construction?

Dryden Dam C No Wells FH C No

Leavenworth NFH C No Wells Dam ladders C No

Tumwater Dam C No Winthrop NFH C No

Chiwawa Weir F No Methow State FH C No

Twisp Weir F For acclimation only

Lower Twisp F No

INCUBATION/REARING

Cascade FH C No construction

Note: 

Rearing 

facilities 

provide 

coho for 

both 

basins

Willard NFH C No construction

Winthrop NFH C No construction

Leavenworth NFH C No construction

Peshastin C No construction

Entiat NFH Backup C No construction

Proposed Dryden 

Hatchery F

New facility on 1.5 acres: hatchery building, 4 raceways, 2 rearing 

ponds, water pipelines, wells, waste treatment tank and wetland; 4 

acres total construction disturbance

Backup George 

Hatchery F

New facility on 1.5 acres: similar facilities to proposed Dryden 

site except no waste treatment wetland; 2.5 acres total construction 

disturbance

a. C = Currently in use; F = Future
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Executive Summary ES-7 

Table ES-2. Summary of facilities: Proposed Action (continued) 

ACCLIMATION/ADULT PLANTS (Primary)

Wenatchee C or Fa

Construction? Methow C or F Construction?

Leavenworth NFH C No Winthrop NFH C No

Beaver C No Lower Twisp C No

Butcher C

New well, 50-ft 

surface water 

channel

Goat Wall F No

Clear C No Gold F Expand pond

Coulter C No Heath F No

Rohlfingb C No Lincolnb

F No

Brender F No Mason F No

Chikamin F

New pond, water 

intake, 120-ft 

buried pipe, 70-ft 

surface discharge 

channel

MSWA

Eightmile F

New well, 500-ft surface 

water channel, 450-ft buried 

power line

Minnow F

New pond, 600-ft 

road Parmley F No

Scheibler F Expand pond Pete Creek Pond F No

Tall Timber F

New water intake, 

800-ft buried pipe Twisp Weir F

New pond, well, water intake 

on diversion ditch, 400-ft 

surface water channel, buried 

water (500 ft) & power (400 

ft) lines, 20-ft road

Two Riversc

F No

White River Springs F No

Dirty Face (adults) F No Hancock (adults) F No

ACCLIMATION (Backup)

Wenatchee C or F Construction? Methow C or F Construction?

Allen F No Balky Hill F No

Coulter/Roaring F No Biddle F No

Drydend

F New ponds, well, 

850-ft buried water 

supply & discharge

pipes

Chewuch AF

F New pond, well, 300-ft 

buried water delivery and 

discharge pipes, 50-ft buried 

power line

McComase

F

No MSRF Chewuch

F New pond, well, 1,000-ft 

surface water delivery & 

discharge channels, 100-ft

buried power line

Squadroni

F New pond, well, 

50-ft water supply 

& 20-ft discharge 

channels

Newby

F

New pond, intake structure,

400-ft surface water channel, 

350-ft buried discharge pipes.

Poorman F No

Utley F New 80-ft long channel as 

outlet for existing pond.

a. C = Currently used; F = Future

b. Construction at Rohlfing and Lincoln in 2011 is done under a different program; impacts are evaluated in other NEPA processes. 

c. Previously used by project; not in use currently.

d. Activities refer to those required if the Dryden site is used for acclimation only and not as a hatchery site.

e. McComas is a new site proposed to be constructed by Grant PUD; impacts will be evaluated in other permitting processes.
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program

ES-8 Executive Summary 

Program Costs 

The program currently is funded by BPA, Grant County PUD, and Chelan County PUD. 

(Douglas County PUD contributed $600,000 in 2008 towards capital costs related to the 

feasibility studies.) The current program also shares rearing costs with National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries). The total amount from 

NOAA Fisheries and Grant and Chelan PUDs is close to $1.5 million annually. The current 

program also shares monitoring and evaluation costs with Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (WDFW). If the Proposed Action is implemented, cost sharing with all these entities is 

expected to continue. Table ES-3 shows expected operating costs for 2013, the year they are 

likely to be at their peak. 

Table ES-3. Peak operating costs (2013) by basin 

Wenatchee Methow Total

Planning, Design, Permits - - -

Rearing $ 530,870 $ 388,385 $ 919,255 

Tagging $ 513,820 $ 375,911 $ 889,731 

O&M $ 955,706 $ 699,196 $ 1,654,902 

M&E $ 429,586 $ 314,286 $ 743,872

TOTAL OPERATING $ 2,429,982 $ 1,777,778 $ 4,207,760 

No Action Alternative 

NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of not taking the proposed action. BPA is 

the main funding source for this coho restoration project, although not the only one, as described 

above. If BPA were to choose the No Action Alternative, BPA would discontinue funding. A 

coho program would continue in the mid-Columbia basins, but at a reduced scope from the 

current program because funding would essentially be cut in half. Some existing cost-sharing 

might be reduced as well, commensurate with the program level. The reduced funding would 

require cutting staff numbers. The result would be reductions in all aspects of the current 

program. 

Biological Approach 

The program would be reduced from the current program. Reduced staff levels would mean that 

fewer fish could be incubated and reared, even if existing capacity remained unchanged. As a 

result, fewer fish would be released: 500,000 in the Wenatchee basin and 200,000 in the Methow 

basin, as opposed to the current level of 1 million in the Wenatchee and 500,000 in the Methow. 

No attempt would be made to expand production into new habitat; with reduced staff and 

funding, the program could not operate new acclimation facilities in natural production areas. 

The program primarily would be propagating hatchery fish and probably would be replaced by a 

hatchery program to promote fisheries only. The amount of monitoring and evaluation would be 

limited. 

Facilities 

The program would continue to rely on existing facilities. The new facilities proposed as part of 

the Proposed Action would not be constructed, and it is unlikely that existing facilities would be 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Executive Summary ES-9 

modified. While most of the existing infrastructure would be available, the lack of personnel 

would dictate its use. 

 Broodstock capture: The current broodstock capture locations—Tumwater, Dryden, 

Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery (NFH), Wells, Winthrop NFH—would remain 

available; however, the reduced budget would limit staff numbers, thus likely reducing the 

number of sites where broodstock would be collected. Numbers of broodstock collected 

would be half that of the current program. New broodstock capture locations would not be 

added. 

 Incubation/Rearing: Willard NFH, which receives 60% of its operating costs from BPA’s 

coho program dollars, would not be used as an incubation/rearing facility, and use of the inbasin Peshastin Incubation Facility would be eliminated. Instead, Cascade FH, Winthrop 

NFH, and Leavenworth NFH would be used at a reduced capacity. 

 Smolt releases: Table ES-4 shows a potential production program for the No Action 

Alternative and the acclimation sites that could be used. All but two of these sites are 

currently being used to acclimate coho. The exceptions, Lincoln and Heath in the Methow 

basin, currently are planned for spring Chinook and steelhead acclimation only; however, the 

Yakama Nation could choose to add coho acclimation at these sites sometime in the future. 

While the program depicted in Table ES-4 is possible, given the availability of sites, the 

reduced budget, with fewer staff available to stock and monitor sites, would probably allow 

use of only one or two release sites and the hatchery. 

 Monitoring and Evaluation: Until 2011, the Integrated Status & Effectiveness Monitoring 

Program (ISEMP) (BPA project #2003-017-00) contributed a quarter of the funding for the 

Nason Creek smolt trap; that contribution has now ended. Currently, Grant County PUD and 

BPA through the coho project are the only remaining funding agencies for this trap; without 

the BPA contribution, it is unclear whether Grant PUD would continue funding the trap 

without a cost-share available. No new traps would be installed. 

Table ES-4. No Action Alternative release numbers and locations 

Location Facility Name Smolt Release Total Basin Release

Wenatchee 

Rivera

Leavenworth NFH 100,000 500,000

Butcher Creek 100,000

Coulter Pond 100,000

Beaver Creek 100,000

Rohlfing Pond 100,000

Methow 

Riverb

Winthrop NFH 100,000 200,000

Lincoln 60,000

Heath 20,000

Lower Twisp 20,000

a. Wenatchee production would be spawned and eggs early-incubated at Leavenworth NFH and transferred to 

Cascade Hatchery (funded by Mitchell Act) for final incubation and rearing to the pre-smolt stage prior to 

transfer to acclimation/release sites identified above. 

b. Methow production would be spawned and eggs early-incubated at Winthrop NFH and transferred to 

Cascade NFH for final incubation and rearing to the pre-smolt stage prior to transfer to acclimation/release 

sites identified above. Some fish may be able to be reared at Winthrop NFH but at a very reduced number. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program

ES-10 Executive Summary 

Comparison of Alternatives 

Table ES-5 compares the two alternatives considered in detail in this EIS—No Action and the 

Proposed Action—in terms of how well they meet the purposes defined in Section 1.2. 

Table ES-5. Comparison of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative to Purposes 

Purpose Proposed Action No Action

Develop a locally adapted, selfsustaining, naturally spawning 

coho stock that occupies its 

historical habitat in the Wenatchee 

and Methow river basins

By providing funding for expanding 

coho distribution into natural 

production areas of the basins,

model results indicate that a locally 

adapted, self-sustaining, naturally 

spawning coho stock has an 

excellent chance of being 

established.

Without funding to expand into 

natural production areas, a locally 

adapted, self-sustaining, naturally 

spawning coho stock is unlikely to 

be established. The majority of fish 

produced by the project would be 

hatchery fish.

Increase the abundance of MidColumbia coho salmon to numbers 

sufficient to sustain a mainstem 

and terminal harvest in most years

Program projections indicate that by 

funding increased coho production 

for a limited period and expanding 

their distribution into natural 

production areas, natural coho 

abundance would be increased by 

2028 sufficient to sustain harvests.

Without BPA funding, numbers of 

juveniles reared would be reduced, 

thus reducing the likelihood that 

natural coho abundance would be 

increased sufficiently to provide 

significant harvest.

Maintain consistency with the 

Council’s Columbia River Basin 

Fish and Wildlife Program and its 

recommendations as well as with 

the visions and goals of other 

regional plans, including subbasin 

plans 

Would be consistent with the 

Council’s recommendation to

implement the program proposed in 

the Master Plan.

Would be consistent with subbasin

plans by restoring coho as part of 

ecologically balanced systems.

Would not be consistent with the 

Council’s recommendation to 

implement the program proposed in 

the Master Plan.

Would not be consistent with

subbasin plans because naturally 

spawning populations of coho are 

unlikely to be restored.

Maintain consistency with the coho 

production objectives specified in 

the 2008-2017 United States v. 

Oregon Fish Management 

Agreement for the Wenatchee and 

Methow subbasins

Continued BPA funding would 

provide the personnel, equipment, 

and facilities needed to maintain the 

U.S. v. Oregon production goal of 

1.5 million smolts released from the

Wenatchee and Methow subbasins.

Without BPA funding, the U.S. v. 

Oregon production goal of 1.5 

million smolts would not be met 

because personnel, equipment, and 

facilities would have to be reduced 

below current levels.

Minimize harm to natural or 

human resources, including species 

listed under the Endangered 

Species Act

Proposed mitigation measures 

would minimize harm to natural and 

human resources.

Approvals by and reporting to 

regulatory agencies would minimize 

the risk of adverse effects to listed 

species.

Could provide ecological benefits 

that would aid in listed species 

recovery.

With no construction of new 

facilities, natural and human 

resources would not be adversely 

affected.

Low numbers of naturally produced coho could reduce the risk of

adverse effects to listed species but 

also would not provide potential 

ecological benefits.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Executive Summary ES-11

Summary of Environmental Effects 

Table ES-6 summarizes the environmental effects, discussed in detail in Chapters 3 and 4. 

Table ES-6. Summary of Impacts of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative 

Impact Proposed Action No Action Alternative

Effects on water 

quality from 

facility

discharges

There would be minor, localized impacts from phosphorus in 

effluent, but model simulations show that the maximum 

possible impact of all facilities, including the proposed 

hatchery, would be undetectable downstream in the sections 

of the river that are water quality limited.

No change from current program, or 

reduced impacts: existing facilities would 

continue to be used, but fewer fish would

be produced, resulting in lower 

discharges of fish waste and chemicals 

attributable to the coho project. 

Effects of surface 

and groundwater 

withdrawals on 

surface water 

quantity

Local reduction in flows at withdrawal points for 

groundwater and in bypass reaches for surface water, offset 

by return flows from facilities. 

No change from existing conditions 

because no new withdrawals are 

proposed.

Effects of water 

withdrawals on 

groundwater 

supply

Local reductions at 5 acclimation sites and the hatchery; no 

regional reductions. 

No change from existing conditions 

because no new wells would be 

developed.

Effects of surface 

and groundwater 

withdrawals on 

water rights

Potential impact to ground water rights at Dryden; potential 

impact to on- or off-site wells at 5 acclimation sites. No 

impacts to surface water rights at any of the sites.

No change from existing conditions 

because no new wells would be 

developed.

Sedimentation 

effects on fish 

Minimal or no effects on ESA-listed and other fish from 

temporary sedimentation due to excavation and construction:

best management practices would be used for erosion control.

No sedimentation effects because no new 

facilities would be constructed.

Effects of surface 

water withdrawal 

on ESA-listed 

and other fish

- Relatively small withdrawal volumes at acclimation sites 

would not substantially reduce in-stream flow quantities, 

change habitat availability including hiding/resting/foraging 

habitats, or affect migratory movements (fry, juvenile, and 

adult) of listed salmonids. 

- Withdrawals from Dryden fishway and discharge into 

Peshastin Cr. could increase spawning habitat for summer 

Chinook in Peshastin Cr. but have little or no effect on 

species in Wenatchee R.

- Water intake systems would follow NMFS 2008 guidelines 

to reduce potential to entrain all fish species.

No change from current conditions 

because no new surface water 

withdrawals would be made.

Reduced access 

to migration or 

rearing habitat 

for ESA-listed 

and other fish 

Fish other than coho would be excluded from 2.5 acres of 4.6 

acres of currently accessible habitat at proposed acclimation 

sites in both basins. For ESA-listed fish, this translates to:

- Up to 113 spring Chinook juveniles and 237 steelhead 

juveniles excluded annually from Wenatchee basin sites out 

of a total annual wild population of 55,619 – 311,669 

Chinook smolts and 17,499 - 85,443 steelhead smolts.

- Approx. 314 spring Chinook juveniles and 201 steelhead 

juveniles excluded annually from Methow basin sites out of a 

total annual wild population of 15,306 – 33,710 Chinook 

smolts and 8,809 - 15,003 steelhead smolts. 

- Juvenile bull trout numbers excluded from sites in each 

basin are very small (Wenatchee 3; Methow 10).

Approximately 1⁄2 acre of currently 

accessible habitat at acclimation sites 

would be excluded from use by fish other 

than coho, for a total of 2 acres excluded 

from use for 6 weeks each year, due to 

potential use of 2 Methow basin 

acclimation sites not in 2010 program.

Trapping of fish 

at adult traps

Trapping at all but one trap is occurring under existing 

operations.

Potential take of bull trout at Chiwawa Weir if operations are 

extended to allow coho trapping.

Trapping could be reduced at Dryden 

Dam and Wells FH; without coho 

trapping, the traps would be open less, 

with potential for incidental take of listed 

fish reduced.
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program

ES-12 Executive Summary 

Impact Proposed Action No Action Alternative

Trapping of fish 

at juvenile traps

Incidental take of spring Chinook or bull trout is possible at a 

potential new trap on the Little Wenatchee R.; impacts would

be evaluated when location is proposed.

No change in current conditions; existing 

traps are operated with or without coho 

project. No new traps proposed.

Coho predation 

on ESA-listed 

fish

Studies show that approximately 0.28% of hatchery coho 

smolts and 2.7 % of naturally produced coho prey on listed 

species, with less than 1% of the Chinook fry population 

consumed. Listed populations would be monitored and 

changes evaluated to determine if increasing numbers of coho 

increase predation with adverse effects on listed species.

Minimal predation by hatchery smolts as 

in existing program.

Minimal predation by naturally produced 

smolts, as significant numbers of 

naturally produced coho are unlikely to 

be established. 

Competition 

between naturally produced 

coho and ESAlisted species

Studies show species use different microhabitats, so 

competition is not expected at low densities. Listed species 

would be monitored to determine if adverse effects occur 

with increasing densities.

Without the expanded program, naturally 

produced coho numbers and densities 

would remain low, so potential 

competition with listed species would be 

limited or non-existent.

Effects on 

ecological 

balance

The addition of coho carcasses at the onset of winter might

provide an increased marine-derived source of nutrients and 

improve over-winter survival for all species. Juvenile and 

adult coho provide prey for fish-eating predators including 

bald eagles, mergansers, otters, and bears. Ecological balance 

could improve with coho occupying a critical niche in the 

natural environment

Current conditions would continue; e.g., 

in Nason Creek, there is very little carcass 

production, leaving a potential void in the 

nutrient balance prior to the onset of 

winter. Little potential for improvement 

in ecological balance.

Habitat 

reductions for 

ESA-listed 

wildlife

Slight potential reduction in spotted owl habitat possible at 

Tall Timber (w/in 1 mi. of management circle); qualified 

biologist would confirm presence or absence of nests in any 

trees needing removal.

No change in current conditions.

Habitat 

reductions for 

state-listed 

wildlife 

No noticeable reductions in available habitat for any species

listed under WDFW Priority Habitat and Species program.

Slight increase in aquatic habitat due to new ponds.

No change in current conditions.

Disturbance to 

wildlife

Construction noise could cause certain species to avoid 9

sites for 1-60 days, May-October of 2012. 

Operations, including use of noise-baffled generators, would

not noticeably disturb wildlife because all primary sites 

currently experience human activity. 

No change in current conditions.

Effects on 

wetlands

Total estimated wetland impacts at primary sites:

- Temporary: 1,350 sq ft. would be replanted

- Permanently removed: 3,179 sq ft.

- New wetland created: 52,272 sq ft.

No change in current conditions.

Changes to 

floodplain 

function

Construction would occur in floodplains, requiring permits at 

up to 6 primary sites in the Wenatchee and 1 primary site in 

the Methow.

- Flood elevations are not expected to change.

- New ponds could add a small amount of flood storage.

- Excavated material would be disposed outside of 

floodplains and not change grade that could divert flood 

flows to nearby properties. 

No change in current conditions.

Effects on 

aesthetic/visual 

quality

Dryden Hatchery could reduce the contrast of the site with 

the surrounding area and add to the aesthetic appeal for 

viewers. Acclimation sites would not change visual quality.

No change in current conditions.

Effects on 

recreation

No interference with current recreation uses.

Generators at noise-sensitive acclimation sites would be 

enclosed in noise-muffling structures to meet state noise 

standards.

No change in current conditions.

Economic effects Minimal increase in employment, temporary and permanent.

No new infrastructure or services required. 

Loss of 11 permanent and 10 seasonal 

YN jobs.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Executive Summary ES-13

Impact Proposed Action No Action Alternative

Effects on 

harvest

Potential terminal, mainstem, and ocean tribal, commercial, 

and sport harvest by 2028.

No harvest of naturally produced fish; 

potential harvest of hatchery fish if 

program changes to harvest 

augmentation.

Effects on 

cultural resources

Unknown. Surveys scheduled for 2011 before Final EIS. No effect.

Noise effects Construction noise at residences or properties near 

acclimation sites 8 a.m. – 5 p.m. M-F, for 1 day to 4 months 

in 2012. Construction noise likely not noticeable for the 5-

month hatchery construction period due to noise from 

surrounding uses at Dryden.

Noise from generators would be muffled to meet state 

standards.

No change in current conditions.

Effects on air 

quality

Minor short-term increases in dust during spring and summer 

of 2012 from construction activities.

Undetectable increases in greenhouse gases.

No change in current conditions.

Consistency with 

comprehensive 

plans

Proposed activities would be consistent with goals and 

policies in Chelan County and Okanogan County 

comprehensive plans.

Current program is consistent with 

comprehensive plans in Chelan and 

Okanogan counties.

Consistency with 

subbasin plans

If successful, the program would restore naturally spawning 

coho populations to the Methow and Wenatchee subbasins as 

envisioned in both subbasin plans.

Would not restore natural populations of 

coho as called for in Wenatchee and 

Methow subbasin plans.

Consistency with 

Council F&W 

Program

Would implement Council recommendations regarding this 

program which began with its identification as a high-priority 

project in the 1994 Fish and Wildlife Program. 

Would not implement Council 

recommendations regarding this program. 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need 1-1 

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), in partnership with the Yakama Nation (YN), proposes 

to fund transition of the Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program from its feasibility phase to a 

comprehensive program to restore naturally spawning populations of coho salmon in harvestable 

numbers to the Wenatchee and Methow river basins in north central Washington State. 

Construction of a new hatchery on the Wenatchee River in Chelan County, and construction and 

use of small acclimation facilities in natural settings in Chelan and Okanogan counties, are 

included in this proposal. Figure 1-1 shows the general project area. 

Since 1996, BPA has funded the Yakama Nation to study the feasibility of reintroducing coho in 

north central Washington, from which natural populations were extirpated. The studies show a 

reasonable likelihood of success for full-scale coho reintroduction, so the YN prepared a Master 

Plan (YN 2010) for a program to increase local adaptation and self-sustainability of the newly 

developed Mid-Columbia coho broodstock and to increase their abundance in the upper 

tributaries of the two basins. This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) analyzes the effects of 

the Proposed Action as described in the Master Plan and the No Action Alternative required by 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

1.1 Underlying Need for Action 

BPA’s underlying need for action is to return naturally spawning, locally adapted populations of 

coho to the Wenatchee and Methow basins as a way to help fulfill its obligations under the 

Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (Act), 16 U.S.C. § 839 et seq., 

Section 4(h)(10)(A); and the 2008 Columbia Basin Fish Accords Memorandum of Agreement 

with the YN and others. 

Under the Act, BPA must protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife affected by the 

development, operation, and management of federal hydroelectric facilities on the Columbia 

River and its tributaries. BPA must fulfill this duty in a manner consistent with the Columbia 

River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program developed by the Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council. The Council and its Independent Science Review Panel reviewed drafts of the Master 

Plan, and on March 9, 2010, the Council recommended that BPA implement the project as 

described in the plan. 

On May 2, 2008, BPA, Bureau of Reclamation, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers signed the 

2008 Columbia Basin Fish Accords Memorandum of Agreement with three of the Treaty 

Tribes—the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, the Confederated Tribes of 

Warm Springs Reservation, and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. 

The agreement includes funding for the YN’s Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program. BPA 

conditioned its funding commitment on securing a favorable recommendation from the Council 

and on compliance with all its other mandates, including NEPA. Salmon are a part of the 

spiritual and cultural identity of the Columbia River tribes. Salmon also play an important role 

in the economic well-being of tribal members. Restoring coho salmon to north central 

Washington would help the tribes to exercise their fishing rights as well as provide for fishing by 

sport and commercial fishers. Reintroducing coho in these basins could also contribute to 

restoring the ecological balance of the system. The Wenatchee Subbasin Plan recognizes that 

―Restoration of individual populations may not be possible without restoration of other fish and 

wildlife populations with which they co-evolved.‖ (NPCC 2004a). 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program

1-2 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need 

Figure 1-1. Project Area Overview 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need 1-3 

1.2 Purposes 

In meeting the underlying need, the alternatives considered should achieve the purposes listed 

below. BPA will base its choice among alternatives on how well each one meets them. 

 Develop a locally adapted, self-sustaining, naturally spawning coho stock that occupies 

its historical habitat in the Wenatchee and Methow river basins. 

 Increase the abundance of Mid-Columbia coho salmon to numbers sufficient to sustain a 

mainstem and terminal harvest in most years. 

 Maintain consistency with the Council’s Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife 

Program and its recommendations as well as with the visions and goals of other regional 

plans, including subbasin plans. 

 Maintain consistency with the coho production objectives specified in the 2008-2017 

United States v. Oregon Fish Management Agreement for the Wenatchee and Methow 

subbasins. 

 Minimize harm to natural or human resources, including species listed under the 

Endangered Species Act. 

1.3 History of Coho in the Mid-Columbia Region 

1.3.1 Historical Conditions and Extirpation 

Mullan (1984) estimated historical mid-Columbia River adult coho populations as follows: 

 Wenatchee basin—6,000 - 7,000

 Methow basin—23,000 - 31,000

Prior to the establishment of BPA in 1937, mid-Columbia coho salmon populations were 

decimated by impassable dams, harmful forestry practices, and unscreened irrigation diversions 

in the tributaries, along with an extremely high harvest rate in the lower Columbia River. The 

loss of natural stream flow degraded habitat quality and further reduced coho productivity. Over 

the years, irrigation, livestock grazing, mining, timber harvest, road and railroad construction, 

residential and other development, and fire management also contributed to destruction of 

salmon habitat. By the 1930s, coho were considered extirpated from the mid-Columbia region. 

For several reasons, self-sustaining coho populations were not re-established in mid-Columbia 

basins despite plantings of 46 million fry, fingerlings, and smolts from Leavenworth, Entiat, and 

Winthrop National Fish Hatcheries between 1942 and 1975: 

 A substantial amount of critical physical fish habitat was lost or severely degraded (Tyus 

1990; Petts 1980; Diamond and Pribble 1978). 

 Existing coho programs were unsuccessful or lower priority than programs for other 

salmonid species. For example, the most recent coho hatchery program in the midColumbia region was at Turtle Rock Hatchery, funded by Chelan Public Utility District. 

The coho program was terminated due to poor adult returns, thought to be caused in part 

by pathogenic water supplies resulting in disease problems at the hatchery. Because fall 

Chinook and steelhead were higher priority species, they were given priority use of the 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program

1-4 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need 

limited supply of high quality hatchery water. The last coho releases from this program 

were in 1994. 

 Fish culture practices in general resulted in poor adult return rates. Rearing at high 

densities in concrete raceways, an incomplete understanding of fish health and nutritional 

needs, the use of water supplies with unnatural temperature profiles, and un-acclimated, 

non-volitional releases directly from hatcheries into the wild environment produced 

smolts with low survival rates. 

 Release locations did not support returns to high quality coho habitat. Releases from 

hatcheries did not imprint smolts with migratory clues that would encourage them to 

populate habitats that were far upstream of the release sites. 

 The construction and operation of mainstem Columbia River hydropower projects were 

detrimental to mid-Columbia River salmonid populations. Coho had to pass through a 

number of dams and reservoirs, leading to deaths from turbines, predation, migration 

delays, gas bubble trauma, and so forth. 

 Hatchery spawning protocols did not support the development of coho stocks that would 

be successful in the natural environment and migrate long distances to the upper 

Columbia basin. 

 Harvest was not managed for the protection of weak stocks. Open ocean troll and gill net 

fisheries, the lack of near real-time catch monitoring, and the limited ability to predict run 

sizes resulted in over-harvest of wild fish and weak hatchery stocks. 

Since Priest Rapids Dam northeast of Yakima, Washington, was completed in 1960, the peak 

escapement of adult coho upstream of the dam was probably never greater than 10,000 coho and, 

as of 1998, had not exceeded 1,300 since 1974 (WDFW/ODFW 1998). From 1988 to 1994, 

adult counts at Priest Rapids Dam averaged only 16 coho, probably a result of releases from 

Turtle Rock Hatchery, which annually produced about 600,000 coho smolts until the program 

was terminated in 1994 (WDFW/ODFW 1995). 

While no one knows for sure why natural populations of spring Chinook and steelhead persisted 

(admittedly at low levels) when coho did not, possible reasons include: 

 Very high harvest rates on coho in the lower Columbia River in the late 19th and early 

20th centuries—as much as 90-95%; other species were not harvested at this rate. 

 The fixed three-year coho life cycle. Spring Chinook and steelhead have greater 

variability in their life cycles than do coho. Spring Chinook can return as age 3, 4, or 5 

adults. Steelhead can be residents in freshwater for up to 3 years and then migrate to the 

ocean, or they can be freshwater residents for their entire life cycle and still have progeny 

that migrate to the ocean. This variability in life cycles allows more potential for at least 

some members of a generation of spring Chinook or steelhead to survive adverse local or 

regional environmental conditions. For coho, however, the production from any one 

spawning year would occupy the same habitat at the same time throughout their life 

cycle. Thus all would be exposed to extreme conditions at the same time, with the 

potential to significantly reduce the survival rate of the entire generation. 

 Unscreened irrigation diversions on small tributaries in mid-Columbia basins. Coho 

spawn in smaller tributaries than spring Chinook or steelhead, so these small diversions 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need 1-5 

could have diverted and trapped more coho juveniles than juveniles of other species that 

might not occupy small tributaries. This entrainment could have reduced the numbers of 

juveniles that survived to negotiate the other hazards that affect all salmonids in their life 

cycle. 

1.3.2 Current Conditions 

In the past two decades, conditions and practices have changed and improved to a certain degree. 

Some of the local habitat causes of coho depletion have been corrected, although there is still 

work to be done. For example, many irrigation diversions have been screened, tributary dams 

have been removed, new logging practice regulations have provided increased environmental 

protection, mining has ended, and grazing practices have improved. 

Habitat Conservation Plans have been negotiated between fisheries resource managers and MidColumbia Public Utility Districts (PUDs).3

 The plans have strict performance standards 

(survival criteria) for both project passage and hatchery compensation so that the hydroelectric 

projects associated with each plan can be considered to have No Net Impact on anadromous 

species. 

The ESA listings of several salmonid species that migrate through the lower Columbia River 

have curtailed coho fisheries in the ocean that once over-harvested the mid-Columbia stocks of 

coho. Fisheries restrictions based on ESA-listings have curtailed ocean harvest of Lower 

Columbia River coho from an annual average of 80% between 1970 and 1983; to 49% from 

1984 to 1993; to 10% from 1994 to 2007 (NMFS 2008a). These restrictions are likely to be in 

effect for a number of years. 

Recent improvements in artificial production practices would also improve efforts aimed at 

supporting natural production. Supplementation techniques, featuring refined genetic objectives, 

the production of ―natural-like‖ hatchery smolts, and acclimation and release in wild habitat, are 

being used. 

1.4 Coho Reintroduction Feasibility Studies 

In 1996, BPA began funding the Yakama Nation to study the feasibility of reintroducing coho to 

the mid-Columbia region.4 BPA analyzed the effects of a proposed comprehensive plan for 

feasibility studies in the Mid-Columbia Coho Reintroduction Feasibility Project Final EA, 

completed in April 1999 (DOE/EA-1282). Supplemental Analyses (DOE/EA-1282/SA-01, -02, 

-03, and -04) were prepared to analyze effects of additional activities and facilities proposed for 

the studies. 

Feasibility studies were designed to achieve two primary goals: 

1) Determine whether a broodstock can be developed from lower Columbia River coho 

stocks whose progeny can survive in increasing numbers to return as adults to the midColumbia region. 

 

3

 Grant County PUD, Chelan County PUD, and Douglas County PUD. 

4

 Years after this project began (and was named), many entities in the region began using the term ―upper 

Columbia‖ to refer to the region in which the Wenatchee and Methow subbasins lie. We have chosen to continue 

using ―mid-Columbia‖ to refer to this project in order to demonstrate the continuity of the project from the 

feasibility studies onward. As well, because the Columbia River originates hundreds of miles upstream in Canada, 

the term ―mid-Columbia‖ seems to be more geographically accurate.
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program

1-6 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need 

2) Initiate natural reproduction in areas of low risk to sensitive species and in other select 

areas to study the risks and interactions with sensitive species. 

The feasibility goals have been met; results are summarized in Table 1-1. 

Table 1-1. Summary of feasibility study goals and results 

Feasibility Study 

Goals Results Goal Achieved

1) Determine whether a 

broodstock can be 

developed from Lower 

Columbia River stocks.

Lower Columbia River (LCR) coho were transferred to the Wenatchee Basin in 

1999, 2000, and 2001. A limited number of LCR transfers were used to 

supplement local broodstocking efforts in 2002. Since 2003, no LCR broodstock 

have been released in the Wenatchee basin (YN 2010 Table 3-4). The program is 

currently releasing third generation local broodstock. Releases of LCR coho 

salmon smolts were discontinued in the Methow River basin in 2006. Broodstock 

collection goals have been met or exceeded since 2006 in the Wenatchee basin 

and since 2009 in the Methow basin. By no longer relying on the transfer of coho 

from Lower Columbia River hatcheries, YN has demonstrated that a local 

broodstock can be developed from Lower Columbia River stocks. Smolt-to adult 

returns (SARs) have trended upwards with each generation of broodstock 

development (YN 2010 Figures 3-1 & 3-2). 

Yes

2) Initiate natural 

reproduction in areas of 

low risk to sensitive 

species and in other select 

areas to study the risks 

and interactions with 

sensitive species. 

The YN has documented spawning escapement in the Wenatchee and Methow 

basins (YN 2010 Figures 3-4 & 3-5). In the Wenatchee basin, redd counts have 

ranged from a low of 28 in 2002 to a high of 1,666 in 2007 (mean = 627; YN 

2010 Figure 3-4). While redd numbers are lower in the Methow (a maximum of 

306 redds in 2007), the annual fluctuations are similar to the Wenatchee. Juvenile 

production has been documented in the Wenatchee (Methow analysis is 

incomplete). Annual population estimates of naturally produced coho emigrating 

from the Wenatchee River range from a low of 5,826 in 2002 to a high of 48,708 

in 2007 (YN 2010 Table 3-7). The naturally produced coho smolts have survived 

to return as adults. SARs for naturally produced coho range from 0.15% to 1.64% 

(YN 2010 Table 3-7). 

Studies of interactions with sensitive species (spring Chinook, steelhead, and 

sockeye) were developed under the direction, guidance, review and approval of 

the Mid-Columbia Coho Technical Work Groupa. Critical uncertainties answered 

include rates of residualism, redd superimposition, predation by hatchery coho on 

naturally produced spring Chinook fry, and competition for space and food 

during freshwater rearing. The YN detected no significant impacts on listed fish 

throughout the evaluations (YN 2010 section 3.2).

Yes

a. Members of the Technical Work Group (TWG) represented NOAA Fisheries, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington 

Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Northwest Power and Conservation Council, BPA, Colville Tribe, Nez Perce Tribe, U.S. Forest 

Service, Chelan County PUD, Douglas County PUD. 

1.5 Decisions to be Made and Responsible Officials 

BPA will use the final EIS to decide whether to fund continued coho reintroduction efforts, 

including the construction of new facilities, in the Wenatchee and Methow basins. The 

Responsible Official is the Administrator and Chief Executive Officer. 

The EIS is part of the second step in a 3-step project planning process established by the Council. 

The first step was preparation of the project Master Plan (YN 2010) which provides the basis for 

the proposal analyzed in this EIS. The third step is the final design and cost estimate review 

leading to construction of the proposed facilities, should BPA decide to fund the program. 

The Yakama Nation is a cooperating agency and assisted with preparation of this EIS. The YN 

must decide whether to support BPA’s decision on a preferred alternative for the Mid-Columbia 

Coho Restoration Program. As co-manager of fish and wildlife resources in the Wenatchee and 

Methow basins, along with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; and because of its 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need 1-7 

long-term cultural interest in the project; the YN must consider the potential effects of the project 

on the tribal community and the natural resources it manages. 

Okanogan County is a cooperating agency and has agreed to serve as the lead agency to satisfy 

Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) procedural requirements. 

Information in this EIS may also be used by other agencies to base decisions on permits, 

authorizations, management plans and other approvals associated with the project. 

1.6 Public Involvement and Scoping 

Over the years, the Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program has involved state and federal 

agencies, other tribes, Mid-Columbia public utilities, the Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council, and interested residents and citizens in developing and reviewing the scope of the 

feasibility studies, methods used, and monitoring and evaluation studies and results. The YN 

also consulted with these organizations and individuals, as well as with a variety of scientists 

throughout the region, to develop the Master Plan (YN 2010), on which the proposed action is 

based. 

On July 30, 2009, the public process for the NEPA review of the current proposed action began 

with the publication in the Federal Register of a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental 

Impact Statement. Meetings to provide an opportunity for the public to contribute to defining the 

scope of the EIS analysis and alternatives were held in Leavenworth, Washington, on August 20, 

2009 and in Twisp, Washington, on August 21, 2009. At those meetings, YN staff presented an 

overview of the proposed project, and oral and written comments were recorded at both 

meetings. Written comments were accepted by BPA until September 15, 2009 and are posted on 

BPA’s web site.

The following summary lists the general issues raised at the meetings and in written comments 

and where they are addressed in the EIS. Complete comments are accessible through the BPA 

website. http://www.bpa.gov/applications/publiccomments/CommentList.aspx?ID=79

Need for Project 

YN has access to adequate supplies of coho and other species on the lower Columbia; the 

tribes have plenty of money from casinos and should pay for the project themselves; too 

many ratepayer dollars are spent on salmon restoration projects that benefit only a small 

number of people; money should be spent on salmon programs in the lower Columbia, not 

here. (See Sections 1.1 and 1.2) 

Reviewers and Decision-makers 

Does the project receive an independent scientific review; who makes the decision on this 

project; which agencies have been involved in this project. (See Sections 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6) 

Alternatives to consider 

Can you get wild donor fish from out of the area, like Alaska or Canada; can you use egg 

boxes instead of hatcheries as an alternative rearing method. (See Section 2.4) 

No Action Alternative 

Effect on Yakama Nation’s ability to implement the program; effect on BPA’s ability to meet 

Power Act responsibilities. (See Section 2.5) 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program

1-8 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need 

Results of Feasibility Studies 

(Summarized briefly in Section 1.4; more detail in Master Plan [YN 2010]; greatest detail in 

project annual reports, cited in Chapter 5, References) 

Biological Program Design 

Manage composition of the return to incorporate more natural fish than hatchery fish in the 

broodstock; need clear production goals; number of adults for harvest vs. for broodstock; 

likelihood that population will be self-sustaining. (See Section 2.2.1) 

Facilities Location, Design, and Operation 

Provide details on project design and location of new and temporary facilities; water quality 

and temperature requirements for coho; how will acclimation ponds be maintained; are fish 

fed in the ponds; techniques of predator control, including use of paid employees or 

volunteers. (See Section 2.2.2 and Appendices 1, 2, and 3) 

Monitoring Program 

Compare survival rates of hatchery and natural fish; amount of mortality caused by dams; 

percent of fish released that return as adults; techniques used to monitor competition between 

naturally produced coho and other species; coho escapement; coho losses to predation; coho 

production numbers in small tributaries; superimposition of coho redds on summer Chinook 

redds. (See Section 2.2.3 and Appendix 5 [monitoring program techniques]; Section 3.7 

[redd superimposition]; Master Plan and annual reports [detailed monitoring results]) 

Existing Environment 

History of coho in basins; reasons for coho extirpation and how or if conditions are different 

now; why spring Chinook and steelhead persisted in the basins and coho did not; current 

status of coho; numbers of spring Chinook, steelhead and bull trout in Icicle Cr.; status of 

spring Chinook in Mission Cr.; existing water quality. (See Sections 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 3.4 [history 

and status of coho]; 3.5 [water quality]; and 3.7 and Appendix 9 [status of other fish species]) 

Impacts 

Fish: predation by coho on at-risk and/or ESA-listed species, including steelhead, spring 

Chinook, lamprey, bull trout; interspecies competition, specifically coho with steelhead and 

spring Chinook; differences in competition between hatchery and natural fish; benefits to 

listed fish from coho carcasses; benefits of volitional releases to other salmonids. (See 

Section 3.7) 

Water quality: effects of existing, new, and temporary facilities; effects of runoff 

contaminants on fish; effects of discharge from ponds; types of contaminants from ponds; 

disposal of carcasses from acclimation ponds; proposed mitigation. (See Section 3.5 [project 

effects on water quality]; 3.7 [discharge effects on fish]) 

Water use/quantity: effects of existing, new, and temporary facilities; effects of use of 

water from storage in riparian areas, ponds, irrigation; effects of project on water rights of 

irrigation districts; availability of water rights; proposed mitigation. (See Section 3.6) 

Floodplains: impacts to floodplain function, channel migration, riparian habitat. (See 

Section 3.10 and 4.5) 

Visual quality: effects on riverfront view of property owner. (See Section 3.11) 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need 1-9 

Recreation: effect of the Dryden facility on boaters. (See Section 3.11) 

Land use: effects on farmers; effects on state highway rights-of-way; access and mitigation 

issues on private property used for acclimation sites. (See Sections 3.11, 3.12, and 4.8) 

Socioeconomic: effect of project costs on electricity and irrigation rates. (See Section 3.12) 

Consistency with local, regional, and national plans and programs: consistency of this 

project and MOA projects in general with Northwest Power Act, ESA, and the Columbia 

Basin fish and wildlife program. (See Sections 1.1, 4.2, 4.3, and the last bullet in Section 1.7 

below) 

Harvest: effect of harvest on native runs of salmon, steelhead, walleye, and sturgeon in 

Wenatchee area; location of harvest; condition of fish for harvest; who can participate in 

harvest. (See Section 3.12 and the first bullet in Section 1.7 below) 

1.7 Issues Beyond the Scope of this EIS 

The following issues were raised during scoping but are beyond the scope of this EIS; the issues 

are more appropriately addressed in other forums or with other agencies, as specified below. 

 Potential for increase in gillnetting in the project area; effects of various harvest techniques, 

including gillnetting, on other species; how harvest is regulated on lower Columbia to protect 

mid-Columbia fish: (Harvest methods, timing, and numbers would be regulated by state, 

federal, and tribal agencies through the Columbia River Fish Management Plan (CRFMP), as 

part of Court-supervised requirements of U.S. v. Oregon).

 Use of surplus coho for Colville Tribal programs: (The potential for the Colville Tribe to use 

surplus coho to build a broodstock for programs under their jurisdiction is a short-term 

activity currently being negotiated and would not affect the number of coho available for this 

proposal). 

 Purchase of conservation easements in the lower Methow: (Habitat protection activities, 

including purchase of conservation easements, are part of other BPA and YN programs 

focused on protecting habitat of the ESA-listed mid-Columbia spring Chinook salmon). 

 Effects on wild coho: (No wild coho exist in these basins). 

 Effects on landowners of regulations regarding activities in riparian areas, e.g., cutting trees 

and keeping cattle out: (Washington State and federal agencies have regulations governing 

forestry and grazing practices in riparian areas. Coho in a stream would not change a stream 

classification or the state regulations governing forestry or grazing adjacent to the stream.) 

 Consistency of MOA projects with Northwest Power Act, ESA, and Columbia Basin fish and 

wildlife program. (Projects other than the one that is the subject of this EIS are beyond the 

scope of the analysis.) 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2 – Current Program 2-1 

Chapter 2. Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

This EIS analyzes in detail the Proposed Action and the No Action alternatives. Other options 

considered and eliminated from detailed analysis in this EIS are briefly discussed in Section 2.4. 

2.1 Current Experimental Program 

Chapter 1, Sections 1.3 and 1.4 describe the history of the Yakama Nation’s coho reintroduction 

experiments that BPA has funded to date. The history includes feasibility studies to determine if 

the Yakama Nation could succeed in developing a local coho stock, originating from lower 

Columbia River hatchery stocks, that would return to mid-Columbia tributaries with increasing 

survival rates. That goal was achieved (YN 2010): in 2009, 100% of the coho smolts released in 

both basins were progeny of second- and third-generation mid-Columbia broodstock (see Section 

1.4). 

The program currently is collecting more of its broodstock from upstream capture sites than 

during the feasibility studies. The objective is to determine if spawning more adults from 

upstream sites selects for characteristics that allow their progeny to exceed what might be the 

current limits of stamina and run timing for the reintroduced population. Such characteristics 

might allow coho to return to the better quality habitat in the upstream portions of the basins if 

they are acclimated in those areas as proposed in the Proposed Action (Murdoch et al. 2004). 

A total of 1.5 million smolts are acclimated and released in the two basins annually. In 2009, 

approximately 22,000 adults passed Rock Island Dam, the closest mainstem Columbia River 

dam downstream from the Wenatchee River mouth (Figure 2-1). Facilities used in the current 

program are listed in Table 2-1 and shown in Figures 2-2 through 2-4. 

The schedule of fish culture activities is shown in Table 2-2. The timing of egg and fish 

transfers between facility components is guided by this schedule. Adults are moved from 

capture sites to holding facilities in the fall for ripening and spawning. Green eggs are incubated 

at or near these holding facilities. All eyed eggs from the Wenatchee program and a portion of 

the Methow production are transported to hatcheries in late fall/early winter for final incubation 

and rearing to the pre-smolt stage. The following fall, some of the hatchery production can be 

moved to target watersheds for over-winter/intermediate rearing to take advantage of a prolonged 

period of imprinting on natal waters and rearing in a semi-natural environment. Site locations 

may vary depending on which rearing strategy is employed. In late winter to early spring 

(mostly weather dependent), the remaining pre-smolts are moved to final acclimation/release 

sites. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

2-2 Chapter 2 – Current Program 

Table 2-1. Facilities used in current coho restoration program 

BROODSTOCK COLLECTION

Wenatchee Methow

Tumwater Dam Wells Fish Hatchery (FH)

Dryden Dam Wells Dam ladders

Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery (NFH) Winthrop National Fish Hatchery (NFH)

HOLDING, INCUBATION AND/OR REARING

Leavenworth NFH

Note: Rearing facilities provide coho for 

both basins

Winthrop NFH

Peshastin Incubation Facility

Cascade FH

Willard NFH

SMOLT RELEASES

Wenatchee Methow

 500,00 above Tumwater Dam in Nason Creek and and 

Beaver Creek

 500,000 from Icicle Creek

 300,000 from Winthrop NFH

 75,000 from Lower Twisp

 125,000 from Wells FH

ACCLIMATION

Wenatchee Methow

Leavenworth NFH (Icicle Creek) Winthrop NFH

Rohlfing Lower Twisp 

Coulter Wells FH

Butcher

Beaver

Table 2-2. Coho production timetable 

May

BROOD AND EGGS

Adult Holding

Spawning

In-basin incubation

Out-of-basin incubation

HATCHERY REARING

Raceway/Tanks

Grow Out

ACCLIMATION

Overwinter

Short Term

Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2 – Current Program 2-3 

Figure 2-1. Wenatchee and Methow Basins in Relation to Upper Columbia 

River Dams 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

2-4 Chapter 2 – Current Program 

Figure 2-2. Current Program: Broodstock Collection Sites 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2 – Current Program 2-5 

Figure 2-3. Current Program: Incubation and Rearing Sites 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

2-6 Chapter 2 – Current Program 

Figure 2-4. Current Program: Acclimation Sites 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2 – Proposed Action 2-7 

2.2 Proposed Action 

The Yakama Nation’s long-term vision for the Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration program, as 

stated in the Master Plan (YN 2010) is: 

To re-establish naturally spawning coho populations in mid-Columbia tributaries to 

biologically sustainable levels which provide significant harvest in most years. 

Building on the feasibility studies that have been conducted since 1996, the proposal would 

maintain a phased approach to reintroducing coho into the Wenatchee and Methow basins: two 

broodstock development phases and three natural production phases. The broodstock 

development phases were designed to eliminate transfers of lower Columbia brood coho and to 

encourage broodstock adaptation so that returning coho can reach key habitat within the basins. 

The first phase of broodstock development has been accomplished and lower Columbia 

broodstock are no longer used in the program; however, the second phase continues the process 

of increasing broodstock stamina. After all broodstock development goals are met (see Section 

2.2.1.2), the natural production phases would manage broodstock composition so that eventually 

the percent of natural-origin fish in the hatchery broodstock exceeds the percent of hatcheryorigin fish on the spawning grounds (HSRG 2004). The coho restoration program is designed to 

end when a self-sustaining naturally reproducing population that supports harvest is established. 

This goal would be met when there is a natural-origin return escapement of more than 1,500 

coho to each basin, with a terminal and mainstem harvest in most years; it is expected to be 

achieved within five coho generations5(by approximately 2028). 

2.2.1 Biological Approach: Phased Reintroduction 

2.2.1.1 Objective and Measures of Success 

Biological Objective: By 2028, develop a locally adapted, naturally spawning coho stock in 

the Wenatchee and Methow river basins capable of supporting harvest. 

The Yakama Nation proposes to increase the fitness of reintroduced coho salmon by reducing the 

effects of hatchery breeding and emphasizing local adaptation. Broodstock composition would 

be managed to incorporate natural-origin fish in the broodstock and limit the proportion of 

hatchery-origin adults on the spawning ground. Ultimately, the natural environment must have a 

greater influence on the population than the hatchery environment. The objective would be 

considered successful when the following numeric goals have been achieved: 

Metric 1. The 3-year mean escapement of natural-origin returns in the Wenatchee (upstream 

of Tumwater Dam) and the Methow river basins exceeds 1,500 per basin. 

This metric predicts the abundance and effective population size required to satisfy the 

restoration goal without further hatchery supplementation. The figure of 1,500 per basin is 

supported by modeling results detailed in the Master Plan (YN 2010). Briefly, the All H’s 

Analyzer (AHA) model calculations predict a level of sustainability based on: 

 inputs from a habitat analysis system (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment [EDT]) that 

predicts an individual stream’s capacity for coho production;

 on harvest rates; and 

 on hydro-system and marine survival (YN 2010). 

 

5

 One coho generation = 3 years. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

2-8 Chapter 2 – Proposed Action 

Metric 2. Achieve a total harvest rate of 23%, which includes a 10% mixed stock harvest, 

10% mainstem harvest, and 5% terminal harvest in most years. 6

The harvest management plan was developed to ensure that exploitation rates are based on 

forecasts of survival, abundance, and escapement goals, and are responsive to fluctuations in 

abundance (e.g., due to fluctuating ocean conditions). A detailed description of the harvest 

management schedule throughout the phases of the project can be found in the Master Plan (YN 

2010). 

2.2.1.2 Phased Approach 

The proposed project, first described in the draft Master Plan submitted to the NW Power and 

Conservation Council (Council) in 2006, originally included five distinct phases. Since that 

version of the Master Plan was written, the first phase (Broodstock Development Phase 1), has 

been completed in both basins (YN 2010). The description of that phase is provided to show a 

complete picture of how each project phase is designed to build on the previous one. The 

program is projected to be discontinued after a minimum of five generations of natural 

production. 

The objectives of each phase are described in more detail below. 

 Broodstock Development Phase 1 was designed to develop a mid-Columbia broodstock 

from lower Columbia River coho, so that they would become increasingly adapted to the 

longer migration to mid-Columbia tributaries. This phase focused on eliminating reliance on 

lower Columbia stocks and transitioning to a local broodstock and has been completed in 

both basins; lower Columbia-origin broodstock are no longer used. Broodstock collection 

goals have been met or exceeded since 2006 in the Wenatchee basin and since 2009 in the 

Methow basin (see detailed summary of feasibility study results in the Master Plan (YN 

2010). 

 Broodstock Development Phase 2 would increase the percentage of broodstock captured 

from sites further upstream. The objective is to ensure that the reintroduced stock can reach 

the preferred habitat in the upstream portions of the basins (Murdoch et al. 2004), in 

preparation for the Natural Production phases. Both Wenatchee and Methow basins are 

expected to operate in this phase until 2013 or later. 

 Natural Production Phases focus on decreasing domestication selection and increasing 

fitness in the natural environment. These phases differ from broodstock development in that 

broodstock development selects for coho that can return to the Wenatchee and Methow rivers 

but does not address loss of fitness and adaptation to the natural environment. During the 

natural production phases, hatchery coho would be introduced to areas predicted by a habitat 

analysis system (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment [EDT]) to be the most successful for 

coho. Broodstock compositions would be managed to increase the proportion of natural 

influence (PNI) in the population, with the goal of having a PNI value greater than 0.5; that 

is, the natural environment must have a greater influence on the population than the hatchery 

environment. Harvest could be used as a mechanism to manage the broodstock composition. 

Potential harvest schedules are detailed in the Master Plan but are only theoretical until actual 

 

6

 These three types of harvest do not add up to 23% because the harvests occur sequentially. Harvest on 10% of the 

mixed stocks would leave the remaining 90% of the run subject to a 10% mainstem harvest; after the mainstem 

harvest, the remaining 80% of the run would be subject to a 5% terminal harvest. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2 – Proposed Action 2-9 

returns of hatchery-origin and natural-origin coho occur. The natural production phases are 

described below. 

o Natural Production Implementation Phase proposes high smolt release numbers into 

most habitat areas for one generation (3 years). The goal is to begin the local adaptation 

process by releasing enough hatchery smolts in the natural environment to result in a 

sufficient number of adult coho returning to each tributary to spawn without the aid of a 

hatchery. Their progeny would in turn produce enough returning first-generation naturalorigin adults to be incorporated into the broodstock as the natural production phases 

continue. This phase is expected to begin in both basins in 2013. 

o Natural Production Support Phases 1 and 2 would emphasize further local adaptation 

and naturalization. Initially, release numbers would be reduced by 30% from the 

numbers released during the Natural Production Implementation Phase. The goal would 

be to increase the proportion of natural-origin fish in the broodstock (pNOB) to 35% and 

to limit the proportion of hatchery-origin fish on the spawning grounds (pHOS) to 75%. 

When this initial goal is reached, managers would continue to reduce the hatchery 

program size, increase the proportion of natural-origin broodstock and decrease the 

proportion of hatchery-origin coho in the spawning grounds to the point that the PNI 

value is greater than 0.5 (pNOB = 80%, pHOS less than 65%). A PNI greater than 0.5 is 

predicted to result in increased natural fitness and survival rates for the population (L. 

Mobrand, pers. comm.). The Wenatchee and Methow basins are expected to begin this 

phase in 2016. The total expected duration of the Support Phases is 4 generations (12 

years). 

Tables 2-3 and 2-4 summarize key goals and management strategies for the five phases in each 

basin. These goals and strategies are the Yakama Nation’s best estimate of a program that has a 

realistic ultimate goal while acknowledging that many unknowns exist because of the 

experimental nature of this goal. A contingency plan was developed that suggests alternate 

courses of action in case goals of each phase are not met within the timeframe proponents 

believe is reasonable. This plan is detailed in the Master Plan (YN 2010). It suggests a decisionmaking process that includes evaluating reasons the goal was not achieved, determining if the 

cause can be ameliorated, and considering alternate courses of action or program changes. See 

Section 4.3.5 of the Master Plan for the detailed contingency plan. 

Although water quality data collected for this project indicate that flows and temperatures 

currently are more than adequate to support this project (see Appendix 6), one of the potential 

reasons a goal might not be achieved could be related to water temperature and flow changes 

resulting from climate change. For example, Karl et al. (2009) suggest that approximately ―onethird of the current habitat for the Northwest’s salmon and other cold water fish will no longer be 

suitable for them by the end of this century as key temperature thresholds are exceeded.‖ It has 

also been suggested that up to 40 percent of Northwest salmon populations may be lost by 2050 

(Battin et al. 2007). These projections could result in more emphasis on regional hatchery 

production. In light of these concerns, it is important to understand how climate change could 

affect the Proposed Action, how it can be monitored, and the types of actions that may be 

necessary in the future to respond to those changes. Appendix 11 describes potential climate 

change adaption strategies that could be pursued based on projected changes in conditions.
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

2-10 Chapter 2 – Proposed Action 

If program or facility changes are required to respond to climate change or other contingencies, 

project proponents recognize that decision-makers must take into account political policies and 

ramifications as well as scientific methods and practices. If the Proposed Action is implemented, 

any changes to the approved original program must fall within legal limits established for the 

program, must still meet policy goals of many organizations at many levels, and must be 

scientifically credible. Changes are likely to require additional environmental review. 

Table 2-3. Wenatchee basin program summary 

Broodstock 

Development 

Phase 1 

(Completed)

Broodstock 

Development 

Phase 2 

Natural 

Production 

Implementation

Natural 

Production 

Support

Fully Restored 

Population

Management 

Goal

-Eliminate 

transfers of 

Lower 

Columbia River 

broodstock.

-Broodstock 

collection = 

1,312.

-―Fine tune‖ 

broodstock so 

that returning 

coho can reach 

key habitat in 

the basins.

-Broodstock 

collection = 

1,050.

a

-Initiate natural 

production in key 

habitat areas. 

-NOR b

escapement >600.

-Develop locally

adapted fully 

integrated stock. 

-NOR 

escapement >900

-Self-sustaining, 

naturally 

reproducing 

population is 

established.

-NOR 

escapement 

>1,500. 

-Terminal and 

mainstem 

harvest in most 

years. 

Management 

Strategy

-Primary release 

site in Icicle 

Creek. 

-Broodstock 

collected at 

Dryden Dam 

and 

Leavenworth 

NFH. 

-Release 50% 

of smolts above 

Tumwater Dam, 

50% in Icicle 

Creek. 

-Broodstock 

collected at 

Dryden and 

Tumwater Dam.

-Release 

Wenatchee 

broodstock in 

areas predicted by 

EDT to be most 

productive for 

coho in sufficient 

numbers to seed 

habitat and begin 

local adaptation. 

-Implement 

schedule for 

harvest and

broodstock 

management. 

pNOB c= 10% 

pHOS c= 90%

-Continue local 

adaptation and 

reduce effects of 

hatchery 

breeding.

-Convert to 

integrated 

hatchery 

program and

move towards 

PNI >0.5.

d

 

-Implement 

matrix schedule 

for harvest and 

broodstock 

management. 

pNOB = 80% 

pHOS = 65%

-Harvest 

according to the 

matrix schedule.

-Implement 

hatchery 

supplementation 

as needed to 

prevent 

extirpation and 

achieve harvest 

goals, subject to 

condition that 

PNI >0.5. 

a Broodstock Development Phase 2 would be considered completed when 50% of the broodstock are available for trapping at 

Tumwater Dam. 

b

 NOR = natural-origin recruits: the number of natural-origin coho allowed to pass collection points and proceed to spawning 

grounds. 

c

 pNOB = proportion of natural-origin fish in broodstock; pHOS = proportion of hatchery-origin fish on spawning grounds. 

d

 PNI = proportionate natural influence (in the population). 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2 – Proposed Action 2-11

Table 2-4. Methow basin program summary 

Broodstock 

Development 

Phase 1

(Completed)

Broodstock 

Development 

Phase 2

Natural 

Production 

Implementation

Natural 

Production 

Support

Fully Restored 

Population

Management 

Goal

-Eliminate 

transfers of 

Lower 

Columbia 

River 

broodstock. 

-Broodstock 

collection = 

656. 

-Encourage 

broodstock 

adaptation so 

that returning 

coho can reach 

key habitat 

within the 

basins. 

-Broodstock 

collection = 

1,312 trappable 

coho: at least 

656 aat 

Winthrop NFH, 

the remainder at 

Wells FH.

-Initiate natural 

production in key 

habitat areas.

-NOR b

escapement >600.

-Develop 

locally 

adapted, fully 

integrated 

stock. 

-NOR 

escapement 

>900.

Self-sustaining 

naturally 

reproducing 

population is 

established.

-NOR escapement 

>1,500. 

-Terminal and 

mainstem harvest 

in most years. 

Management 

Strategy

-Primary 

release site(s) 

at Winthrop 

NFH and Wells 

FH. 

-Primary 

broodstock 

collection site 

is Wells Dam.

-Primary release 

site(s) at 

Winthrop NFH

and selected 

tributaries 

(Twisp, 

Chewuch, etc.).

-Primary 

collection site(s) 

at Winthrop 

NFH and 

tributary weirs.

-Release Methow 

broodstock in 

areas predicted by 

EDT to be most 

productive for 

coho in sufficient 

numbers to seed 

habitat and begin 

local adaptation. 

-Implement 

matrix schedule 

for harvest and 

broodstock 

management. 

pNOB c= 10% 

pHOS c= 90%

-Continue the 

local 

adaptation 

process and 

reduce effects 

of hatchery 

breeding. 

-Convert to 

integrated 

hatchery 

program and 

move towards 

PNI >0.5.

d

 

-Implement 

matrix 

schedule for 

harvest and 

broodstock 

management. 

pNOB = 80% 

pHOS = 65%

-Harvest 

according the

matrix schedule.

-Implement 

hatchery 

supplementation 

as needed to 

prevent extirpation 

and achieve 

harvest goals, 

subject to 

condition that PNI

>0.5. 

a A total of 1,312 broodstock would be needed to increase release numbers during the Natural Production ImplementationPhase, 

some of which may be trapped at Wells FH. 

b

 NOR = natural-origin recruits. 

c

 pNOB = proportion of natural-origin fish in broodstock; pHOS = proportion of hatchery-origin fish on spawning grounds. 

d

 PNI = proportionate natural influence (in the population).
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

2-12 Chapter 2 – Proposed Action 

Table 2-5 shows proposed smolt release numbers for each phase in both the Wenatchee and 

Methow basins. 

Table 2-5. Proposed smolt release numbers (in millions) by basin and project phase 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027

WENATCHEE

Broodstock Dev

Phase 1

Phase 2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Natural Production

Implementation 1.16 1.16 1.16

Support Phase 1 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81

Support Phase 2 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40

WEN. SUBTOTAL 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.16 1.16 1.16 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40

METHOW

Broodstock Dev

Phase 1 0.50 0.50

Phase 2 0.50 0.50 0.50

Natural Production

Implementation 1.00 1.00 1.00

Support Phase 1 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70

Support Phase 2 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35

MET. SUBTOTAL 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35

TOTAL 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 2.16 2.16 2.16 1.51 1.51 1.51 1.51 1.51 1.51 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75

2.2.2 Facilities 

The ongoing Broodstock Development Phase does not require construction of new facilities. 

The Natural Production phases, beginning in approximately 2013, would require additional 

acclimation facilities, some of which currently exist, a few of which would require new 

construction. A new in-basin incubation and rearing facility also is proposed. 

Additional acclimation facilities are needed in order to acclimate juveniles in tributaries 

throughout the basins so that they return to those tributaries to spawn as adults, thus increasing 

the distribution of naturally spawning coho throughout the basins. An in-basin incubation and 

rearing facility is proposed to replace the Entiat NFH, which is no longer available to the coho 

program.7 Such a facility located within the project area reduces the transfer of fish and gametes 

between watersheds and reduces transportation stress for part of the juvenile coho population, 

but capital costs would be minimized by keeping the size of the new facility small and 

continuing to use additional rearing capacity at existing available facilities. 

2.2.2.1 Facility Locations 

Broodstock Development Phase 

Fish produced for the ongoing broodstock development phase are captured at existing adult traps, 

produced from existing hatcheries, and released from acclimation sites that do not require new 

construction. Locations of the facilities are shown under the description of the current program 

(Section 2.1) in Figures 2.2 through 2.4. 

 Broodstock capture: 

Wenatchee: traps at Leavenworth NFH, Tumwater Dam and Dryden Dam. 

Methow: trapping facilities at Wells Dam and FH and at Winthrop NFH. 

 

7 Entiat NFH is not available to the coho program because the hatchery’s focus is changing to a summer Chinook 

program which overlaps with coho spawn timing, causing logistical problems with holding and spawning. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2 – Proposed Action 2-13

 Broodstock holding and incubation: 

Winthrop NFH for adult holding, spawning, and incubation; Leavenworth NFH for adult 

holding, spawning and early incubation (green to eyed egg); Peshastin Incubation Facility for 

early incubation only. Entiat NFH would be used only as a backup site. 

 Rearing to pre-smolt size: 

Cascade FH and Willard and Winthrop NFHs.

 Acclimation: 

Wenatchee: Rohlfing, Coulter, Butcher, and Beaver ponds in the upper Wenatchee and the 

Leavenworth NFH on Icicle Creek. 

Methow: Winthrop NFH, Lower Twisp, and Wells FH. 

Natural Production Implementation Phases 

The plan proposes to continue rearing most program fish at existing hatcheries during the Natural 

Production Implementation Phases. A new, small, in-basin adult holding/spawning, incubation 

and rearing facility also is proposed for these phases at a site on the Wenatchee River near 

Dryden Dam or a site on the Wenatchee River downstream of Lake Wenatchee. See Figure 2-6 

and ―Facility Designs‖ later in this section.

Acclimation is planned at a combination of existing and new sites. Most acclimation sites would 

be existing water bodies (e.g., beaver ponds, side channels, etc.) and small constructed ponds. 

See Section 3.3.2 for a brief description of each site, or Appendices 2 and 3 for more detailed 

descriptions and photographs. For locations, see Figures 2-7 and 2-8. 

The project proposes to use existing broodstock capture sites in upstream areas in addition to 

those used during the broodstock development phase, all of which are owned by other entities 

and operated by the YN and/or other fisheries resource agencies. One broodstock capture site 

(Chiwawa Weir) would need to extend its period of operation in order to capture coho adults. 

Figure 2-5 shows their locations. 

Juvenile trapping for monitoring and evaluation of the program would take place at existing traps 

in both basins, with one exception: a new smolt trap is proposed for the Little Wenatchee River, 

the site to be determined. 

The proposed acclimation and release system has the following characteristics: 

 At least two acclimation/release sites are proposed in each major tributary stream (one 

low in the system and one as far upstream as is practical); and one site is proposed in 

most minor streams.

 A total of 24 acclimation sites are proposed in the Wenatchee and Methow basins: 13 in 

the Wenatchee and 11 in the Methow. 

 In each basin, one additional site would be for adult plants (Hancock and Dirty Face). 

 Nine of the 24 acclimation sites would require some kind of construction, as follows: 

o A new pond at three sites (Minnow, Chikamin, Twisp Weir) 

o Expansion of existing ponds at two sites (Scheibler, Gold) 

o New wells at three sites (Butcher, MSWA Eightmile, Twisp Weir) 

o New water delivery systems at five sites (Butcher, Tall Timber, Chikamin, 

MSWA Eightmile, Twisp Weir) 

o New buried power lines at 2 sites (Butcher, MSWA Eightmile) 

o New road at 2 sites (Minnow, Twisp Weir) 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

2-14 Chapter 2 – Proposed Action 

 New groundwater rights are required at 5 sites (1 Wenatchee, 4 Methow); new surface 

water rights at 3 sites (2 Wenatchee, 1 Methow). 

 Six sites require generators (Rohlfing, Butcher, Two Rivers, MSWA Eightmile, Lincoln, 

Twisp Weir). 

 Twelve sites are potentially capable of over-winter acclimation (ten sites are proposed to 

be used in any one year, five in each basin). 

 Eight of the sites have been used in the past by the current coho program. 

Table 2-6 lists all the facilities that might be used for the proposed program, including alternative 

(backup) sites that might be used if one or more of the preferred (primary) sites is unavailable. 

The table shows those currently in use as of 2010 (C), those proposed for use in the future (F), 

potential backup sites, and whether any require new construction. Locations are shown on 

Figure 2-5 (Broodstock Collection Sites), Figure 2-6 (Hatchery and Rearing Sites) and Figures 2-

7 and 2-8 (Primary and Backup Project Sites). Further detail is provided in Appendix 1 (Rearing 

and Brood Capture Site Descriptions); Appendix 2 (Wenatchee Acclimation Site Descriptions) 

and Appendix 3 (Methow Acclimation Site Descriptions). 

Table 2-6. Summary of facilities: Proposed Action 

BROODSTOCK COLLECTION

Wenatchee C or Fa Construction? Methow C or F Construction?

Dryden Dam C No Wells FH C No

Leavenworth NFH C No Wells Dam ladders C No

Tumwater Dam C No Winthrop NFH C No

Chiwawa Weir F No Methow State FH C No

Twisp Weir F For acclimation only

Lower Twisp F No

INCUBATION/REARING

Cascade FH C No construction

Note: 

Rearing 

facilities 

provide 

coho for 

both 

basins

Willard NFH C No construction

Winthrop NFH C No construction

Leavenworth NFH C No construction

Peshastin C No construction

Entiat NFH Backup C No construction

Proposed Dryden 

Hatchery F

New facility on 1.5 acres: hatchery building, 4 raceways, 2 rearing 

ponds, water pipelines, wells, waste treatment tank and wetland; 4 

acres total construction disturbance

Backup George 

Hatchery F

New facility on 1.5 acres: similar facilities to proposed Dryden 

site except no waste treatment wetland; 2.5 acres total construction 

disturbance

a. C = Currently in use; F = Future 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2 – Proposed Action 2-15

Table 2-6. Summary of facilities: Proposed Action (continued) 

ACCLIMATION/ADULT PLANTS (Primary)

Wenatchee C or Fa

Construction? Methow C or F Construction?

Leavenworth NFH C No Winthrop NFH C No

Beaver C No Lower Twisp C No

Butcher C

New well, 50-ft 

surface water 

channel

Goat Wall F No

Clear C No Gold F Expand pond

Coulter C No Heath F No

Rohlfingb C No Lincolnb

F No

Brender F No Mason F No

Chikamin F

New pond, water 

intake, 120-ft 

buried pipe, 70-ft 

surface discharge 

channel

MSWA

Eightmile F

New well, 500-ft surface 

water channel, 450-ft buried 

power line

Minnow F

New pond, 600-ft 

road Parmley F No

Scheibler F Expand pond Pete Creek Pond F No

Tall Timber F

New water intake, 

800-ft buried pipe Twisp Weir F

New pond, well, water intake 

on diversion ditch, 400-ft 

surface water channel, buried 

water (500 ft) & power (400 

ft) lines, 20-ft road

Two Riversc

F No

White River Springs F No

Dirty Face (adults) F No Hancock (adults) F No

ACCLIMATION (Backup)

Wenatchee C or F Construction? Methow C or F Construction?

Allen F No Balky Hill F No

Coulter/Roaring F No Biddle F No

Drydend

F New ponds, well, 

850-ft buried water 

supply & discharge

pipes

Chewuch AF

F New pond, well, 300-ft 

buried water delivery and 

discharge pipes, 50-ft buried 

power line

McComase

F

No MSRF Chewuch

F New pond, well, 1,000-ft 

surface water delivery & 

discharge channels, 100-ft

buried power line

Squadroni

F New pond, well, 

50-ft water supply 

& 20-ft discharge 

channels

Newby

F

New pond, intake structure,

400-ft surface water channel, 

350-ft buried discharge pipes.

Poorman F No

Utley F New 80-ft long channel as 

outlet for existing pond.

a. C = Currently used; F = Future

b. Construction at Rohlfing and Lincoln in 2011 is done under a different program; impacts are evaluated in other NEPA processes. 

c. Previously used by project; not in use currently.

d. Activities refer to those required if the Dryden site is used for acclimation only and not as a hatchery site.

e. McComas is a new site proposed to be constructed by Grant PUD; impacts will be evaluated in other permitting processes.
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

2-16 Chapter 2 – Proposed Action 

Figure 2-5. Proposed Action: Broodstock Collection Sites 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2 – Proposed Action 2-17

Figure 2-6. Proposed Action: Hatchery and Rearing Sites 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

2-18 Chapter 2 – Proposed Action 

Figure 2-7. Proposed Action: Wenatchee Basin Primary and Backup Sites 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2 – Proposed Action 2-19

Figure 2-8. Proposed Action: Methow Basin Primary and Backup Sites 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

2-20 Chapter 2 – Proposed Action 

2.2.2.2 Factors Considered in Facility Location 

Incubation/rearing sites 

 Water quality and quantity. 

 Proximity to other program facilities, especially acclimation sites.

 Availability of power: Three-phase power is required to operate water pumps, chillers, 

and other major motor-driven machinery. 

 Environmental impacts.

 Environmental liability: Sites that have previously been used in other ways may have 

ground contamination, resulting in potential liability. 

 Flexibility to adapt to future fish culture needs and changes in fish culture practices. 

 Access in winter and high water periods. 

 Cost. 

Acclimation sites 

Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT, a habitat analysis system) was used to quantify the 

capacity of tributaries in each basin that would be expected to provide high-quality coho habitat. 

Factors considered in identifying potential acclimation sites included the following: 

 Water quality and quantity. 

 Proximity to expected habitat based on model predictions, local experience, and 

professional judgment. 

 Flexibility to adapt to monitoring results. For example, little is known about the 

preferred habitat of coho in snow-dominated watersheds, despite a thorough literature 

review and visits to Fraser River tributaries in British Columbia with First Nation groups 

and the interior Fraser coho recovery group. Ponds in multiple locations in the tributaries 

and sites scattered throughout the basins help maintain flexibility. If monitoring shows 

that habitat in certain areas is more productive, then those areas can be emphasized as the 

program progresses. 

 Potential for low rearing densities, i.e., maximum density of 0.3 pounds of fish per cubic 

foot (lb/ft3) at release for water supplies with high reliability, and 0.1 lb/ft3for sites 

without backup water supply systems.8

 Natural rearing environment. 

 Environmental impacts. 

 Accessibility by staff and by smolt trucks. 

 Potential for overwintering coho. 

 Distribution throughout the basins. 

 Cost. 

 Willing property owners. 

 

8

 Studies have shown a survival benefit to low rearing densities, but it is unclear why both low volume densities and 

large rearing units perform well. They may reduce stress by providing escape areas when fish perceive threats (YN 

2010 Appendix A). 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2 – Proposed Action 2-21

2.2.2.3 Facility Designs 

Hatchery Design 

 Site functions: All captured local Wenatchee brood would be trucked to the proposed 

facility for holding and spawning. Eggs would be reared to the eyed stage, after which 

most would be moved to the lower river facilities, Cascade FH and Willard NFH, for 

hatching and early rearing. Eggs that remained would be reared until ready to be moved 

to acclimation sites. Some juvenile coho would also be trucked back to Dryden from the 

lower river hatcheries after spawning season for rearing through the winter. 

 Production numbers: 1,300 adults, 1,400,000 eyed eggs, 200,000 smolts reared full-term. 

 Development timing: Current plans call for hatchery construction to start in 2012 and 

operation to begin in 2013. 

Dryden (Proposed Site) 

Site Information 

 Location, elevation: Near the mouth of Peshastin Creek at Wenatchee River (river mile 

[RM] 18.6); in T24N, R18E, SW 1⁄4 of S22 in Chelan County; adjacent to Dryden Dam; 

elevation 984 feet. 

 Ownership: The 24-acre Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) 

property is lot number 241822745006, zoned Commercial Agricultural Lands (AC). 

 Flood designation: Zone X500 (between 100- and 500-year floods). 

 Land use: Used in the past by WSDOT for storage of highway sand. The site currently 

provides access to Dryden Dam and Fishway, portage for river rafters, and fishermen’s 

access to the Wenatchee River. 

 Access: Plowed, paved roads. 

 Utilities: 3-phase power is available at the nearby Dryden right bank ladder facility. 

Water Supplies 

 Groundwater availability: Drill logs for nearby wells and the geology of the site suggest 

productive groundwater conditions. Historic gravel deposition at the Peshastin alluvial 

fan may have left layers of clean gravel. 

 Groundwater withdrawal: Shallow wells near the river are proposed, minimizing impacts 

to deeper wells in the vicinity and producing water with some seasonal temperature 

variation. The production goal is 3.3 cubic feet per second (cfs) (including a 50% safety 

factor). 

 Surface water supply: Wenatchee River water is proposed to be pumped from the 

Dryden fishway. An intake would be built into the existing concrete structure. This 

location allows water to be pumped at all river flow conditions without affecting fishway 

operation and does not require excavation in the river bank for construction. Water 

would be delivered to the hatchery in an 850-foot-long buried pipeline. Modeling for the 

hatchery estimates that a minimum flow of 3.1 cubic feet per second (cfs) is needed. 

Applying a 50% safety factor results in a water requirement of 4.7 cfs. 

 Water Return. The option of returning water (and fish) upstream of the removal location 

in Peshastin Creek, at the dam, or just downstream of the dam would be possible by 

installing various return pipelines. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

2-22 Chapter 2 – Proposed Action 

Facilities 

 Adult holding: Four concrete raceways (100 x 10 x 4 feet deep), with multiple divisions in 

the raceways to allow sorting. 

 Incubation: Vertical stack incubators and deep troughs inside a hatchery building would be 

fed with aerated, chilled groundwater. 

 Rearing: The four concrete raceways would be used for fish production when adults are not 

present. Also, two ponds (40 x 120 x 3 feet deep) would add low-density rearing space. 

 Predator control and cover: The site would be fenced and an overhead net system installed 

over the rearing units. 

 Waste treatment: Discharge water treatment would likely require a high degree of nutrient 

removal to meet conditions of the Total Maximum Daily Load restrictions in place for the 

Wenatchee River (see Chapter 3, Section 3.5.1). Two treatment systems are proposed. An 

off-line treatment tank (10 x 20 x 4 feet deep) would hold and settle wastes vacuumed from 

the rearing units. Water from the hatchery would be directed to a 2-acre constructed wetland 

for additional nutrient removal. The waste treatment system would meet National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements. 

 Support systems: A 3,000-square-foot hatchery building would enclose the incubators, 

rearing troughs, offices, and a small shop. Generators would provide backup power. Parking 

would be provided for up to 10 vehicles. 

 Site footprint: The Yakama Nation would acquire approximately 18.5 acres of the 24-acre 

parcel owned by WDOT, the purchase funded by other YN habitat projects in addition to the 

coho project. The hatchery site would require 1.5 acres of land. The full hatchery facility, 

including pipelines, water supply construction, the constructed wetland, and hatchery 

facilities, would require construction disturbance to a total of 4 acres of land. The additional 

14.5 acres of the acquired parcel could be used by the YN in the future to re-establish a 

connection between an historic side-channel and Peshastin Creek. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2 – Proposed Action 2-23

Figure 2-9. Proposed Dryden Hatchery: Draft Site Plan with Flood Boundaries 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

2-24 Chapter 2 – Proposed Action 

George (Backup Site) 

A facility would be constructed at this site only if the Dryden site becomes infeasible. 

Site Information 

 Location, elevation: Downstream of Lake Wenatchee at Wenatchee River (RM 51.6); 

T27N, R17E, NW 1⁄4 of S26 in Chelan County; elevation 1,870 feet. 

 Ownership: The 150-acre parcel is currently in private ownership. The Yakama Nation is 

considering buying the site for habitat mitigation. 

 Flood designation: Most of the site is in Zone A3, in the 100-year flood hazard area. The 

Base Flood Elevation near the proposed hatchery site is 1,875 feet. 

 Land use: The site is undeveloped and has been logged in the past. It is zoned RR20, rural 

residential with a minimum lot size of 20 acres. 

 Access: Un-surfaced, primitive roads provide limited access. 

 Utilities: 3-phase power is 4,000 feet away. 

 Soils: The Natural Resources Conservation Service classifies soils on the site as adfluvial 

(NRCS 2010).

Water Supply 

 Groundwater: A preliminary evaluation would identify the potential for developing 

groundwater on the site. Two or more new wells could produce the required 3.3 cfs. 

 Surface water: 4.7 cfs of surface water would be pumped from the Wenatchee River. A 

submerged intake screen would be built into an existing rock barb in the river (Figure 2-10). 

 Pipelines: Surface water and groundwater would be delivered to the hatchery in separate 

pipelines approximately 1,500 feet long. 

Facilities 

 Adult holding: Four concrete raceways (100 x 10 x 4 feet deep). 

 Incubation: Vertical stack incubators and deep troughs inside a hatchery building would be 

fed with aerated, chilled groundwater. 

 Rearing: The four concrete raceways would be used for fish production when adults are not 

present. Two ponds measuring 40 x 120 x 3 feet deep would add low-density rearing space. 

 Predator control and cover: The site would be fenced and an overhead net system installed 

over the rearing units. 

 Waste treatment: Discharge water treatment would likely require a high degree of nutrient 

removal to meet conditions of the Total Maximum Daily Load restrictions in place for the 

Wenatchee River. An off-line treatment tank measuring 10 x 20 x 4 feet would hold and 

settle wastes vacuumed from the rearing units. Treated water from the hatchery would be 

directed to the existing 5,600-foot-long side channel on the site for further nutrient removal 

prior to entering the Wenatchee River. 

 Support systems: A 3,000-square-foot hatchery building would enclose the incubators, 

rearing troughs, offices, and a small shop. Generators would provide backup power. 

Parking would be provided for up to 10 vehicles. 

 Site footprint: Hatchery facilities would require 1.5 acres of land. Including pipelines, 

water supply construction, and hatchery facilities, a total of 2.5 acres of land would be 

disturbed. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2 – Proposed Action 2-25

Figure 2-10. George Hatchery (Backup Site): Draft Site Plan 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

2-26 Chapter 2 – Proposed Action 

Acclimation Site Designs 

Details of designs for each acclimation site (primary and backup) are outlined in Appendix 2 for 

Wenatchee basin sites and Appendix 3 for Methow basin sites. Photographs accompany the site 

descriptions. Figures 2-11 and 2-12 show a typical acclimation pond used by this program. 

Net systems would be used to confine coho during the acclimation period at most sites. They 

can be configured in one of two ways (Figures 2-11 and 2-12). Both types are temporary and are 

in place only during acclimation. They would be designed to minimize premature escape and 

would include jump barriers and double lead lines. Double lead lines are weighted lines woven 

into the bottom of the net to maintain a sealed barrier across the earthen bottom of the pond. 

Where loss of habitat and/or coho interaction with listed fish species is not expected to have 

negative impacts, nets that fully block fish passage in the ponds (barrier nets) could be installed. 

They are placed perpendicular to the flow (Figure 2-11). 

Figure 2-11. Barrier Net Example 

Where free passage of fish up- and downstream is required, seine nets could be used: they form 

an enclosed impoundment of only a portion of the pond (Figure 2-12). 

Figure 2-12. Seine Net Example 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2 – Proposed Action 2-27

2.2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation Plan 

The success of the proposed coho reintroduction plan depends on extensive monitoring and 

evaluation to answer key questions such as: 

 which acclimation sites are most successfully producing fish that return to coho habitat; 

 when the program in each basin can move into a new phase; 

 whether continued supplementation would be appropriate; and 

 whether naturally produced coho are adversely affecting listed and sensitive species. 

The monitoring and evaluation plan is outlined in Appendix 5, but is not discussed further in this 

EIS because it is essentially the same as the current program. 

2.2.4 Program Cost Summary 

This section summarizes estimated costs for all the program elements. Costs are based on a fish 

release plan that is expected to last until 2028, as shown in Table 2-5 (Section 2.2.1). 

The program currently is funded by BPA, Grant County PUD, and Chelan County PUD. 

(Douglas County PUD contributed $600,000 in 2008 towards capital costs related to the 

feasibility studies.) The current program also shares rearing costs with National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries). The total amount from 

NOAA Fisheries and Grant and Chelan PUDs is close to $1.5 million annually. The current 

program also shares monitoring and evaluation costs with Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (WDFW). If the Proposed Action is implemented, cost sharing with all these entities is 

expected to continue. 

Estimates of the capital and operating costs cover the proposed project period from 2012 through 

2028. Capital costs are expected to total $6,730,000 and would include land purchase and 

facility construction. All capital costs are expected to be incurred in 2012. To minimize capital 

costs, the Proposed Action makes extensive use of existing regional facilities, including those for 

brood capture, rearing, and acclimation. 

Operating expenses include the operation and maintenance of these facilities, as well as the 

monitoring and evaluation program, and general and administrative project costs. Operating 

costs would change over time. Expenses during years when release numbers and operating costs 

would be at their maximum are shown in Table 2-7. Of these costs, approximately 27% is 

projected to be contributed by Chelan County and Grant County PUDs. Their share of the 

operating costs gradually increases so that by 2017 they would contribute approximately 36% of 

the operating costs. After 2018, contributions are less certain; for example, Douglas County 

PUD is expected to contribute funding but the amount is unknown at this time. 

Table 2-7. Peak operating costs (2013) by basin 

Wenatchee Methow Total

Planning, Design, Permits - - -

Rearing $ 530,870 $ 388,385 $ 919,255 

Tagging $ 513,820 $ 375,911 $ 889,731 

O&M $ 955,706 $ 699,196 $ 1,654,902 

M&E $ 429,586 $ 314,286 $ 743,872

TOTAL OPERATING $ 2,429,982 $ 1,777,778 $ 4,207,760 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

2-28 Chapter 2 – No Action Alternative 

2.3 No Action Alternative 

NEPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of not taking the proposed action. 

Presently, BPA is the main funding source for this coho restoration project, although not the only 

one, as described in the previous section. The total amount from NOAA Fisheries and Grant and 

Chelan PUDs is close to $1.5 million annually. If BPA were to choose the No Action 

Alternative, BPA would discontinue funding. A coho program would continue in the midColumbia basins, but at a reduced scope from the current program because funding would 

essentially be cut in half. Some existing cost-sharing might be reduced as well, commensurate 

with the program level. The reduced funding would require cutting staff numbers. Full-time 

staff would be reduced from 18 to a maximum of 7; up to 10 seasonal positions would be 

eliminated. The result would be reductions in all aspects of the current program.

2.3.1 Biological Approach 

The program would be reduced from the current program (see Section 2.1 for a description of the 

current program). Reduced staff levels would mean that fewer fish could be incubated and 

reared, even if existing capacity remained unchanged. As a result, fewer fish would be released:

500,000 in the Wenatchee basin and 200,000 in the Methow basin, as opposed to the current 

level of 1 million in the Wenatchee and 500,000 in the Methow. No attempt would be made to 

expand production into new habitat; with reduced staff and funding, the program could not 

operate new acclimation facilities in natural production areas. The program’s broodstock 

currently is essentially a domesticated hatchery stock, not adapted to conditions in the wild. 

Without acclimation and release of coho from more sites in high-quality habitat, coupled with

the deliberate selection for increased percentages of natural-origin fish in the broodstock that 

originate from that habitat, the likelihood that viable natural populations of coho would be 

established is low. The program primarily would be propagating hatchery fish and probably

would be replaced by a segregated hatchery program9to promote fisheries only.

The amount of monitoring and evaluation would be limited. In addition to reduced staffing 

levels, no PIT tags would be used, compared to 3,500-8,000 juveniles PIT-tagged per site under 

the current program (50,000 total for both basins); and only 50% of the hatchery releases would 

be marked with coded wire tags (CWTs), compared to a 100% CWT marking scheme with BPA 

funding. Spawning ground surveys likely would be reduced from the current program, and no 

monitoring of interactions between naturally produced coho and listed species would be done. 

2.3.2 Facilities 

The program would continue to rely on existing facilities. The new facilities proposed as part of 

the Proposed Action would not be constructed, and it is unlikely that existing facilities would be 

modified. While most of the existing infrastructure would be available, the lack of personnel 

would dictate its use. 

 Broodstock capture: The current broodstock capture locations—Tumwater, Dryden, 

Leavenworth NFH, Wells FH, Winthrop NFH—would remain available; however, the 

reduced budget would limit staff numbers, thus probably reducing the number of sites where 

broodstock would be collected. Numbers of broodstock collected would be half that of the 

current program. New broodstock capture locations would not be added. 

 

9

A segregated hatchery program manages hatchery-origin fish as a reproductively distinct population. Only 

hatchery-origin adults are used for broodstock and are not allowed to spawn in the wild. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives Considered but Eliminated 2-29

 Incubation/Rearing: Willard NFH, which receives 60% of its operating costs from BPA’s 

coho program dollars, would not be used as an incubation/rearing facility, and use of the inbasin Peshastin Incubation Facility would be eliminated. Instead, Cascade FH, Winthrop 

NFH, and Leavenworth NFH would be used at a reduced capacity.

 Smolt releases: Table 2-8 shows a potential production program for the No Action 

Alternative and the acclimation sites that could be used. All but two of these sites are 

currently being used to acclimate coho. The exceptions, Lincoln and Heath in the Methow 

basin, currently are planned for spring Chinook and steelhead acclimation only; however, the 

Yakama Nation could choose to add coho acclimation at these sites sometime in the future. 

While the program depicted in Table 2-8 is possible given the availability of sites, the 

reduced budget, with fewer staff available to stock and monitor sites, would probably allow 

use of only one or two release sites and the hatchery. 

Table 2-8. No Action Alternative release numbers and locations 

Location Facility Name Smolt Release Total Basin Release

Wenatchee River a Leavenworth NFH 100,000

500,000

Butcher Creek 100,000

Coulter Pond 100,000

Beaver Creek 100,000

Rohlfing 100,000

Methow River b Winthrop NFH 100,000

200,000

Lincoln 60,000

Heath 20,000

Lower Twisp 20,000

a. Wenatchee production would be spawned and eggs early-incubated at Leavenworth NFH and transferred to 

Cascade Hatchery (funded by Mitchell Act) for final incubation and rearing to the pre-smolt stage prior to 

transfer to acclimation/release sites identified above. 

b. Methow production would be spawned and eggs early-incubated at Winthrop NFH and transferred to 

Cascade NFH for final incubation and rearing to the pre-smolt stage prior to transfer to acclimation/release 

sites identified above. Some fish may be able to be reared at Winthrop NFH but at a very reduced number. 

 Monitoring and Evaluation: Until 2011, the Integrated Status & Effectiveness Monitoring 

Program (ISEMP) (BPA project #2003-017-00) contributed a quarter of the funding for the 

Nason Creek smolt trap; that contribution has now ended. Currently, Grant County PUD and 

BPA through the coho project are the only remaining funding agencies for this trap; without 

the BPA contribution, it is unclear whether Grant PUD would continue funding the trap 

without a cost-share available. No new traps would be installed. 

2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Evaluation 

2.4.1 Independent Science Review Panel Alternative 

During reviews of the Master Plan prepared for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council 

(Council), its Independent Science Review Panel (ISRP) suggested modifications to the program 

design. In some cases, their suggestions became part of the proposal. The most recent and 

significant alternative suggested by the ISRP is reproduced below from the ISRP letter of 

November 24, 2009 (Memorandum ISRP 2009-47 to Tony Grover, Director, Fish and Wildlife 

Division, Northwest Power and Conservation Council from Eric Loudenslager, ISRP Chair).
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

2-30 Chapter 2 – Alternatives Considered but Eliminated 

Under ideal circumstances one program design would involve splitting the combined 

production into lower and upper releases, each with unique tags, in the first 

generation. These two groups would be genetically identical for all practical 

purposes. The proportions (or numbers) of each of these two groups that arrive at 

Tumwater Dam would be compared. In this first generation, this would measure the 

environmental effect of the different release sites on the migration distance within the 

subbasin. In the second generation, fish that returned to Dryden and fish that 

returned to Tumwater would be mated within return locations. Paired releases of the 

progeny of these parents would be conducted both in the upper and lower sites in the 

river. The contrast of return site between the two subpopulations released from the 

same location would serve as a measure of response to selection (adaptation). The 

magnitude of the response would serve to predict the number of generations required 

to achieve the goals for each of the program phases and facilitate establishing 

causation, which is needed if the contingency plan needs to be implemented. If a 

program like this was used it would make a significant contribution to documenting 

genetic and environmental sources of variation influencing an attempt to reestablish 

a self-sustaining extirpated population. 

While this approach to program design could provide interesting data, it delays practical results 

in favor of a scientific exercise that develops alternative program designs in order to model their 

potential differing outcomes in advance. In addition, it would be difficult to evaluate the effect 

of migration distance on adult coho survival within the two basins. After surviving the hundreds 

of miles of migration from the Columbia River mouth to the mid-Columbia basins, it is unlikely 

that adult migration distance within the basins would be a significant survival factor. For 

example, in the Wenatchee basin, the distance between Dryden Dam and Tumwater Dam is only 

15 miles, compared to the 486 miles and 7 dams from the mouth of the Columbia River to 

Dryden Dam. More likely, the in-basin key to survival would be the habitat conditions within 

the basins, and, for the Wenatchee, the hydrographic difficulty for adults (rather than the 

distance) of reaching high quality spawning and rearing habitat above Tumwater Canyon (K. 

Murdoch, YN Fisheries Biologist, personal communication, November 2009). 

This ISRP alternative does not require detailed evaluation in this EIS because the effects on the 

environment would fall within the range of effects already being analyzed. 

2.4.2 Use of Egg Boxes 

During scoping, it was suggested that egg boxes could be used instead of building a hatchery. 

This is not a feasible alternative. Egg boxes could not replace a hatchery in this case for two 

main reasons. Due to the time of year and locations where coho spawn, egg boxes placed in 

those areas probably would freeze and the eggs would be killed. Even if egg boxes were used, 

the project still would need to capture, hold, spawn, and early-incubate the eggs, which would 

require the same infrastructure as proposed. 

2.4.3 Use of Out-of-Area Wild Donor Fish 

During scoping, a commenter suggested that the project use wild donor fish from other regions 

such as Alaska or Canada. At the outset of the feasibility studies, the project investigated using 

coho from the Fraser River in British Columbia to develop a locally adapted broodstock. This 

stock was the only remaining wild stock in the Northwest that migrates long distances, similar to 

the coho that used to occupy the mid-Columbia basins. At the time (mid-1990s), such fish were 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2 – Alternatives Considered but Eliminated 2-31

unavailable. With declining coho populations in the Fraser system, it is currently unlikely that 

an international agreement could be negotiated. 

2.4.4 Alternative Rearing Systems 

The Master Plan for the coho reintroduction program evaluated several alternative rearing 

systems, including the following: 

 Existing public hatcheries 

 A central conventional hatchery 

 Small watershed rearing facilities 

 Natural habitat rearing facility 

 Long-term rearing at acclimation sites 

 Constructed habitat 

The analysis in the Master Plan shows that the alternative of using existing hatcheries has a much 

lower overall cost than the other options. It has no capital cost and a moderate operating cost. 

The construction and use of multiple small watershed hatcheries is estimated to have a very high 

total cost; all the other options are intermediate (YN 2010, Appendix B.1). 

The differences in operating costs reflect the higher expense of producing fish from multiple 

locations. There is a certain fixed base cost associated with operating a facility that is 

independent of the numbers of fish produced. The difference between producing all the fish at 

one location versus at multiple locations may be in excess of $6,000,000 over a 20-year period. 

Differences in capital cost result from the number of facilities and their complexity. 

Important factors used to evaluate rearing system options include the ability to produce fish that 

return to targeted areas at high survival rates. The degree of difference between the various 

systems’ adult survival rates is unknown. Adult return rates are expected to be affected by the 

type and length of acclimation: long acclimation periods in natural conditions would improve the 

performance of fish produced from conventional hatcheries (YN 2010, Appendix B.2). 

The central, conventional hatchery and the small watershed rearing facility had too many 

disadvantages related to cost and operational difficulties. Also, the natural habitat rearing 

facility is an untested concept. These alternatives were eliminated as rearing options. The 

program combined and modified the remaining options into the proposal evaluated in this EIS. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program

2-32 Chapter 2 – Comparison of Alternatives 

2.5 Comparison of Alternatives in this EIS 

Table 2-9 compares the two alternatives considered in detail in this EIS—the Proposed Action 

and the No Action Alternative—in terms of how well they meet the purposes defined in Section 

1.2. Table 3-1, at the beginning of Chapter 3, summarizes the environmental effects of both 

alternatives. 

Table 2-9. Comparison of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative to the Purposes 

Purpose Proposed Action No Action

Develop a locally adapted, selfsustaining, naturally spawning 

coho stock that occupies its 

historical habitat in the Wenatchee 

and Methow river basins

By providing funding for expanding 

coho distribution into natural 

production areas of the basins,

model results indicate that a locally 

adapted, self-sustaining, naturally 

spawning coho stock has an 

excellent chance of being 

established.

Without funding to expand into 

natural production areas, a locally 

adapted, self-sustaining, naturally 

spawning coho stock is unlikely to 

be established. The majority of fish 

produced by the project would be 

hatchery fish.

Increase the abundance of MidColumbia coho salmon to numbers 

sufficient to sustain a mainstem 

and terminal harvest in most years

Program projections indicate that by 

funding increased coho production 

for a limited period and expanding 

their distribution into natural 

production areas, natural coho 

abundance would be increased by 

2028 sufficient to sustain harvests.

Without BPA funding, numbers of 

juveniles reared would be reduced, 

thus reducing the likelihood that 

natural coho abundance would be 

increased sufficiently to provide 

significant harvest.

Maintain consistency with the 

Council’s Columbia River Basin 

Fish and Wildlife Program and its 

recommendations as well as with 

the visions and goals of other 

regional plans, including subbasin 

plans 

Would be consistent with the 

Council’s recommendation to 

implement the program proposed in 

the Master Plan.

Would be consistent with subbasin

plans by restoring coho as part of 

ecologically balanced systems.

Would not be consistent with the 

Council’s recommendation to 

implement the program proposed in 

the Master Plan.

Would not be consistent with

subbasin plans because naturally 

spawning populations of coho are 

unlikely to be restored.

Maintain consistency with the coho 

production objectives specified in 

the 2008-2017 United States v. 

Oregon Fish Management 

Agreement for the Wenatchee and 

Methow subbasins

Continued BPA funding would 

provide the personnel, equipment, 

and facilities needed to maintain the 

U.S. v. Oregon production goal of 

1.5 million smolts released from the

Wenatchee and Methow subbasins.

Without BPA funding, the U.S. v. 

Oregon production goal of 1.5 

million smolts would not be met 

because personnel, equipment, and 

facilities would have to be reduced 

below current levels.

Minimize harm to natural or 

human resources, including species 

listed under the Endangered 

Species Act

Proposed mitigation measures 

would minimize harm to natural and 

human resources.

Approvals by and reporting to 

regulatory agencies would minimize 

the risk of adverse effects to listed 

species.

Could provide ecological benefits 

that would aid in listed species 

recovery.

With no construction of new 

facilities, natural and human 

resources would not be adversely 

affected.

Low numbers of naturally produced coho could reduce the risk of

adverse effects to listed species but 

also would not provide potential 

ecological benefits.

The intent of the Proposed Action is to further mitigate the adverse effects of the Federal 

Columbia River Power System on fish in the Wenatchee and Methow basins by restoring 

naturally spawning coho salmon runs to these basins. Coho runs to these basins were virtually 

non-existent by the end of the 20th century due to a combination of factors discussed in detail in 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 2 – Comparison of Alternatives 2-33

Section 1.3.1. By applying the most current findings regarding acclimation and integrated 

hatchery reform, the Yakama Nation, through the Proposed Action, endeavors to establish selfsustaining, naturally reproducing coho populations in the Wenatchee and Methow basins. To 

that end, the YN would implement best available science for production and acclimation to 

encourage a locally adapted population that would eventually rebuild the coho runs to 

harvestable numbers. By reintroducing coho in these basins, BPA and the Yakama Nation also 

hope to contribute to restoring the ecological balance of the system. The Wenatchee Subbasin 

Plan recognizes that ―Restoration of individual populations may not be possible without 

restoration of other fish and wildlife populations with which they co-evolved.‖ (NPCC 2004a). 

By funding the Proposed Action, BPA would make continued progress toward meeting its 

obligations under the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act and the 

2008 Columbia Basin Fish Accords. 

The No Action Alternative would be unlikely to achieve a self-sustaining, naturally reproducing 

population. The broodstock currently used by the coho program in the Wenatchee and Methow 

basins is essentially a domesticated hatchery stock, not adapted to conditions in the wild. 

Without the acclimation and release of coho from new sites in key habitat coupled with 

deliberate selection for increased percentages of natural-origin fish in the broodstock, with 

increased numbers of those fish originating from high-quality habitat, the likelihood that viable 

natural populations of coho would be established is low. This alternative would likely further 

reduce the very low risk to listed fish posed by naturally spawning coho. A harvestable number 

of coho could be produced if the current program were replaced by a program to produce only 

hatchery fish, funded by other entities. However, such an outcome is not predictable, would not 

help restore natural populations as envisioned in the subbasin plans, and would not meet BPA’s 

obligations under the Northwest Power Act and the 2008 Fish Accords. 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Environmental Effects 3-1 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences

3.1 Introduction: How this Chapter is Organized 

This chapter analyzes the potential effects of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative 

on the physical, biological, and human environments. 

 Section 3.2 summarizes the environmental effects analyzed in the remainder of the chapter. 

 Section 3.3 provides an overview of the geography of the two basins and a brief description 

of each project site. 

 Section 3.4 discusses the past and current status of coho salmon in the basins. 

 Sections 3.5 through 3.14 evaluate the effects of the Proposed Action and the No Action 

Alternative on environmental and human resources. 

 Section 3.15 discusses the cumulative effects of the project. 

 Sections 3.16 and 3.17 identify adverse effects that cannot be avoided, irreversible and 

irretrievable commitments of resources, short-term uses of the environment, and effects on 

long-term productivity. 

The analysis considers the effects of the alternatives in the following categories of action: 

o development and operation of a new small hatchery for adult holding/spawning, 

incubation and rearing; 

o development and operation of new, expanded, and existing acclimation and adult plant 

sites; 

o changes in the numbers and locations of coho being released into the basins. 

Direct, indirect, and combined effects are described for each resource affected. 

Effects of program use of facilities that are not proposed for physical modification or change in 

current operations are not evaluated. These facilities include: 

 hatcheries near Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River (Willard and Cascade), impacts of 

which have been evaluated in other processes; 

 Winthrop NFH and Leavenworth NFH; 

 existing juvenile and broodstock capture sites in the two basins where operations would 

remain the same; 

 the monitoring and evaluation program, because it is essentially the same as the current 

program, effects of which were evaluated in previous NEPA processes. 

Although impacts of these sites and programs are not evaluated in this EIS, maps in the main 

document and in Appendix 4 show the locations of all facilities proposed for use in this program,

and Appendix 5 describes the monitoring and evaluation program in detail. 

The Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Master Plan (Master Plan) (YN 2010) is incorporated by 

reference in this EIS in its entirety. It includes biological data, ecological rationale, and 

environmental and engineering research used to support much of the analysis in this EIS. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program

3-2 Chapter 3 – Summary of Effects 

3.2 Summary of Environmental Effects 

Table 3-1 summarizes the environmental effects that are discussed in detail in Chapters 3 and 4.

Table 3-1. Summary of Impacts of the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative 

Impact Proposed Action No Action Alternative

Effects on water 

quality from 

facility

discharges

There would be minor, localized impacts from phosphorus in 

effluent, but model simulations show that the maximum 

possible impact of all facilities, including the proposed 

hatchery, would be undetectable downstream in the sections 

of the river that are water quality limited.

No change from current program, or 

reduced impacts: existing facilities would 

continue to be used, but fewer fish would 

be produced, resulting in lower 

discharges of fish waste and chemicals 

attributable to the coho project. 

Effects of surface 

and groundwater 

withdrawals on 

surface water 

quantity

Local reduction in flows at withdrawal points for 

groundwater and in bypass reaches for surface water, offset 

by return flows from facilities. 

No change from existing conditions 

because no new withdrawals are 

proposed.

Effects of water 

withdrawals on 

groundwater 

supply

Local reductions at 5 acclimation sites and the hatchery; no 

regional reductions. 

No change from existing conditions 

because no new wells would be 

developed.

Effects of surface 

and groundwater 

withdrawals on 

water rights

Potential impact to ground water rights at Dryden; potential 

impact to on- or off-site wells at 5 acclimation sites. No 

impacts to surface water rights at any of the sites.

No change from existing conditions 

because no new wells would be 

developed.

Sedimentation 

effects on fish 

Minimal or no effects on ESA-listed and other fish from 

temporary sedimentation due to excavation and construction:

best management practices would be used for erosion control.

No sedimentation effects because no new 

facilities would be constructed.

Effects of surface 

water withdrawal 

on ESA-listed 

and other fish

- Relatively small withdrawal volumes at acclimation sites 

would not substantially reduce in-stream flow quantities, 

change habitat availability including hiding/resting/foraging 

habitats, or affect migratory movements (fry, juvenile, and 

adult) of listed salmonids. 

- Withdrawals from Dryden fishway and discharge into 

Peshastin Cr. could increase spawning habitat for summer 

Chinook in Peshastin Cr. but have little or no effect on 

species in Wenatchee R.

- Water intake systems would follow NMFS 2008 guidelines 

to reduce potential to entrain all fish species.

No change from current conditions 

because no new surface water 

withdrawals would be made.

Reduced access 

to migration or 

rearing habitat 

for ESA-listed 

and other fish 

Fish other than coho would be excluded from 2.5 acres of 4.6 

acres of currently accessible habitat at proposed acclimation 

sites in both basins. For ESA-listed fish, this translates to:

- Up to 113 spring Chinook juveniles and 237 steelhead 

juveniles excluded annually from Wenatchee basin sites out 

of a total annual wild population of 55,619 – 311,669 

Chinook smolts and 17,499 - 85,443 steelhead smolts.

- Approx. 314 spring Chinook juveniles and 201 steelhead 

juveniles excluded annually from Methow basin sites out of a 

total annual wild population of 15,306 – 33,710 Chinook 

smolts and 8,809 - 15,003 steelhead smolts. 

- Juvenile bull trout numbers excluded from sites in each 

basin are very small (Wenatchee 3; Methow 10).

Approximately 1⁄2 acre of currently 

accessible habitat at acclimation sites 

would be excluded from use by fish other 

than coho, for a total of 2 acres excluded 

from use for 6 weeks each year, due to 

potential use of 2 Methow basin 

acclimation sites not in 2010 program.

Trapping of fish 

at adult traps

Trapping at all but one trap is occurring under existing 

operations.

Potential take of bull trout at Chiwawa Weir if operations are 

extended to allow coho trapping.

Trapping could be reduced at Dryden 

Dam and Wells FH; without coho 

trapping, the traps would be open less, 

with potential for incidental take of listed 

fish reduced.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Summary of Effects 3-3 

Impact Proposed Action No Action Alternative

Trapping of fish 

at juvenile traps

Incidental take of spring Chinook or bull trout is possible at a 

potential new trap on the Little Wenatchee R.; impacts would

be evaluated when location is proposed.

No change in current conditions; existing 

traps are operated with or without coho 

project. No new traps proposed.

Coho predation 

on ESA-listed 

fish

Studies show that approximately 0.28% of hatchery coho 

smolts and 2.7 % of naturally produced coho prey on listed 

species, with less than 1% of the Chinook fry population 

consumed. Listed populations would be monitored and 

changes evaluated to determine if increasing numbers of coho 

increase predation with adverse effects on listed species.

Minimal predation by hatchery smolts as 

in existing program.

Minimal predation by naturally produced 

smolts, as significant numbers of 

naturally produced coho are unlikely to 

be established. 

Competition 

between naturally produced 

coho and ESAlisted species

Studies show species use different microhabitats, so 

competition is not expected at low densities. Listed species 

would be monitored to determine if adverse effects occur 

with increasing densities.

Without the expanded program, naturally 

produced coho numbers and densities 

would remain low, so potential 

competition with listed species would be 

limited or non-existent.

Effects on 

ecological 

balance

The addition of coho carcasses at the onset of winter might

provide an increased marine-derived source of nutrients and 

improve over-winter survival for all species. Juvenile and 

adult coho provide prey for fish-eating predators including 

bald eagles, mergansers, otters, and bears. Ecological balance 

could improve with coho occupying a critical niche in the 

natural environment

Current conditions would continue; e.g., 

in Nason Creek, there is very little carcass 

production, leaving a potential void in the 

nutrient balance prior to the onset of 

winter. Little potential for improvement 

in ecological balance.

Habitat 

reductions for 

ESA-listed 

wildlife

Slight potential reduction in spotted owl habitat possible at 

Tall Timber (w/in 1 mi. of management circle); qualified 

biologist would confirm presence or absence of nests in any 

trees needing removal.

No change in current conditions.

Habitat 

reductions for 

state-listed 

wildlife 

No noticeable reductions in available habitat for any species 

listed under WDFW Priority Habitat and Species program.

Slight increase in aquatic habitat due to new ponds.

No change in current conditions.

Disturbance to 

wildlife

Construction noise could cause certain species to avoid 9

sites for 1-60 days, May-October of 2012. 

Operations, including use of noise-baffled generators, would 

not noticeably disturb wildlife because all primary sites 

currently experience human activity. 

No change in current conditions.

Effects on 

wetlands

Total estimated wetland impacts at primary sites:

- Temporary: 1,350 sq ft. would be replanted

- Permanently removed: 3,179 sq ft.

- New wetland created: 52,272 sq ft.

No change in current conditions.

Changes to 

floodplain 

function

Construction would occur in floodplains, requiring permits at 

up to 6 primary sites in the Wenatchee and 1 primary site in 

the Methow.

- Flood elevations are not expected to change.

- New ponds could add a small amount of flood storage.

- Excavated material would be disposed outside of 

floodplains and not change grade that could divert flood 

flows to nearby properties. 

No change in current conditions.

Effects on 

aesthetic/visual 

quality

Dryden Hatchery could reduce the contrast of the site with 

the surrounding area and add to the aesthetic appeal for 

viewers. Acclimation sites would not change visual quality.

No change in current conditions.

Effects on 

recreation

No interference with current recreation uses.

Generators at noise-sensitive acclimation sites would be 

enclosed in noise-muffling structures to meet state noise 

standards.

No change in current conditions.

Economic effects Minimal increase in employment, temporary and permanent.

No new infrastructure or services required. 

Loss of 11 permanent and 10 seasonal 

YN jobs.
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program

3-4 Chapter 3 – Summary of Effects 

Impact Proposed Action No Action Alternative

Effects on 

harvest

Potential terminal, mainstem, and ocean tribal, commercial, 

and sport harvest by 2028.

No harvest of naturally produced fish; 

potential harvest of hatchery fish if 

program changes to harvest 

augmentation.

Effects on 

cultural resources

Unknown. Surveys scheduled for 2011 before the Final EIS. No effect.

Noise effects Construction noise at residences or properties near 

acclimation sites 8 a.m. – 5 p.m. M-F, for 1 day to 4 months 

in 2012. Construction noise likely not noticeable for the 5-

month hatchery construction period due to noise from 

surrounding uses at Dryden.

Noise from generators would be muffled to meet state 

standards.

No change in current conditions.

Effects on air 

quality

Minor short-term increases in dust during spring and summer 

of 2012 from construction activities.

Undetectable increases in greenhouse gases.

No change in current conditions.

Consistency with 

comprehensive 

plans

Proposed activities would be consistent with goals and 

policies in Chelan County and Okanogan County 

comprehensive plans.

Current program is consistent with 

comprehensive plans in Chelan and 

Okanogan counties.

Consistency with 

subbasin plans

If successful, the program would restore naturally spawning 

coho populations to the Methow and Wenatchee subbasins as 

envisioned in both subbasin plans.

Would not restore natural populations of

coho as called for in Wenatchee and 

Methow subbasin plans.

Consistency with 

Council F&W 

Program

Would implement Council recommendations regarding this 

program which began with its identification as a high-priority 

project in the 1994 Fish and Wildlife Program. 

Would not implement Council 

recommendations regarding this program. 

3.3 Overview of Wenatchee and Methow Basins and Project Sites 

3.3.1 General Characteristics of the Basins 

The Wenatchee basin is located within Chelan County in north central Washington. It consists 

of five sub-watersheds (the Chiwawa, White, Little Wenatchee, and Wenatchee rivers and Nason 

Creek), which drain a combined total of approximately 1,300 square miles (NPCC 2004a). The 

headwaters of the basin are in the Cascade Mountains and include portions of the Glacier Peak 

and Alpine Lakes wilderness areas. The Wenatchee River joins the Columbia River at river mile 

(RM) 470 between Rocky Reach and Rock Island dams. The majority of the basin is forested; 

the composition of forest species changes as distance from the Cascade crest increases and 

elevations decrease. Vegetation and wildlife habitat types consist of wet mixed-coniferous 

forests (mountain hemlock, silver fir and western hemlock), dry mixed coniferous forests 

(subalpine fir, grand fir, Douglas-fir, and/or ponderosa pine), grasslands, shrub steppe, 

herbaceous wetlands (sedges and rush), montane coniferous wetlands, and riparian wetlands 

(willow, black cottonwood, alder and red osier dogwood, with quaking aspen and bigleaf maple 

at the edges) (NPCC 2004a). These diverse habitats support an estimated 341 species of fish and 

wildlife (NPCC 2004a). Topography in the basin varies from mountainous alpine slopes (10,541 

feet elevation at Glacier Peak in the White River watershed) to wide river valleys (600 feet 

elevation at the town of Wenatchee). 

Land uses in the Wenatchee basin consist of commercial forest (86 percent areal coverage), 

commercial agriculture (1 percent), rural (12 percent), urban (0.5 percent), and open water 

(0.3 percent). Approximately 76 percent of the lands in the basin are managed by the U.S. Forest 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Overview of Basins and Sites 3-5 

Service (USFS). Approximately 18.5 percent of the basin is privately owned. Private lands 

border almost two-thirds of the mostly lower-gradient streams that support anadromous (sea-run) 

fish such as salmon and steelhead. Agriculture consists primarily of orchards (93 percent) with 

some production of hay, grains and row crops (6.5 percent) (NPCC 2004a). 

The Methow basin is in Okanogan County in north central Washington. It consists of five subwatersheds (the Methow, Twisp, Chewuch and Lost rivers and Early Winters Creek), which 

drain a combined total of approximately 1,825 square miles (NPCC 2004b and 2004c). The 

Methow River joins the Columbia River at the town of Pateros. Vegetation and wildlife habitat 

types consist of mixed coniferous forests (upper-montane and mid-montane), lodgepole and 

ponderosa pine woodlands, upland aspen forests, grasslands, shrub-steppe, herbaceous wetlands, 

montane coniferous wetlands, riparian wetlands, agriculture and urban/mixed use. These diverse 

habitats support well over 300 species of fish and wildlife. Topography in the basin varies from 

mountainous alpine slopes with elevations greater than 8,500 feet, to wide river valleys with 

elevations of approximately 800 feet. Land use in the basin consists of forest land (86.5 

percent), rangeland (9.6 percent), other land uses (2.3 percent), and cropland (1.6 percent). More 

than 80 percent of the basin is managed by the USFS. Grazing and croplands are primarily in the 

lower and mid reaches of the basin. Agriculture consists of orchards, alfalfa and other irrigated 

crops. 

3.3.2 Land Use at Proposed Project Sites 

Figures 2-5 through 2-8 show the general locations of project sites in each basin. Large-scale 

maps of each proposed and backup site can be found in Appendix 4. The specific map number 

for each site is identified in the descriptions below. 

3.3.1.1 Hatchery Sites 

Dryden (Primary): The site is on property that contains an existing adult trapping facility 

adjacent to Dryden Dam at the mouth of Peshastin Creek (Figure 10c). The Washington State 

Department of Transportation (WSDOT) currently uses the site for gravel storage. Highway 2 

passes by the site. The majority of the site is disturbed bare ground with small patches of grass 

and weedy species. Land use in the vicinity is dominated by light industrial development 

associated with the dam, residential and commercial development associated with the community 

of Dryden, and agricultural use. The hills south of Highway 2 contain second growth coniferous 

forest. 

George (Backup): The George site is an undeveloped property consisting of multiple parcels 

totaling 150 acres along a large bend in the Wenatchee River (Figure 10ad). The site is accessed 

via gravel roads from State Route (SR) 207 and Beaver Valley Road. The topography is 

relatively flat; a majority of the site is below the base flood elevation for the Wenatchee River. 

Habitat is diverse and includes forested, shrub-scrub, emergent and open-water wetland and 

mixed deciduous and coniferous upland forest. Land use in the vicinity of the George site 

includes recreational areas, residences, farms and ranches, and private and federal forest lands. 

The landscape is dominated by mature forest, wetland systems, and riparian habitat associated 

with the Wenatchee River.

3.3.1.2 Primary Wenatchee Basin Acclimation and Adult Plant Sites 

Beaver: This site contains a pond currently used by the project for coho acclimation (Figure 

10h). The pond is on property owned by a recreation-oriented guest facility. An un-surfaced 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program

3-6 Chapter 3 – Overview of Basins and Sites 

road extends 1,000 feet from the guest lodge to the pond. Chiwawa Loop Road is also within 

about 1,000 feet of the site but is not visible from it. 

Brender: The Brender site includes an existing pond on an undeveloped parcel in the 

community of Cashmere (Figure 10b). Brender Creek flows through the site and an unpaved 

road provides access. Land use in the vicinity is dominated by residential and commercial 

development associated with the community of Cashmere. Highway 97 is about a quarter mile 

to the north. 

Butcher: The Butcher site includes an existing pond currently used by the project for coho 

acclimation (Figure 10e). Highway 2 is a few hundred feet to the south and visible from the site. 

A paved access road from Highway 2 runs along the north side of the site and provides access to 

it. Butcher Creek flows into the pond and Nason Creek flows adjacent to the east side of the 

pond. Additional land use near the site includes a vacation home, an electrical transmission 

corridor, and a highway rest stop about a mile west of the site. 

Chikamin: The Chikamin site, on the same property as the Minnow site (described below), is in 

a rural undeveloped area more than 15 miles from Highway 2 (Figure 10l). Chiwawa River 

Road provides access to the site. There is no existing pond. Timber has been harvested on the 

property and on the surrounding parcels. 

Clear: The Clear site includes several existing ponds on property with a private campground, 

small cabins, and mowed lawns. The site is about 10 miles from Highway 2 (Figure 10i). Public 

roads provide access. 

Coulter: The Coulter site is less than a mile from Highway 2 and includes an existing pond 

currently used by this project for coho acclimation (Figure 10e). Coulter Creek flows into and 

out of the pond. A vacation home that is part of a community of vacation homes is located near 

the site. An unpaved road associated with the vacation homes provides access. 

Dirty Face: The Dirty Face site includes creeks that flow through an open field before entering 

the White River. The mouth of the creek is in the Chelan Wildlife Area - White River Unit and 

is owned and managed by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Figure 10k). A 

vacation home is on adjacent property. The property is about 10 miles north of Highway 2. 

White River Road provides access. 

Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery: The Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery (NFH), 

operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), is on Icicle Creek Road, about 2 miles 

south of the city of Leavenworth (Figure 10d). The coho program currently acclimates and 

releases coho in Icicle Creek on hatchery property. 

Minnow: The site, with no existing pond, is on the same undeveloped property as the Chikamin 

site, from which timber was harvested in the past (Figure 10l). 

Rohlfing: The Rohlfing site is less than a mile from Highway 2 and includes an existing pond 

fed by a seasonal creek where the project currently acclimates coho (Figure 10g). A vacation 

home is at the site; an unpaved road associated with a community of vacation homes provides 

access. An electrical transmission corridor and railroad tracks are nearby. 

Scheibler: The Scheibler site includes an existing pond associated with Chumstick Creek 

(Figure 10ab). Chumstick Highway provides access to the site. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Overview of Basins and Sites 3-7 

Tall Timber: The site is on the Tall Timber Ranch more than 15 miles from Highway 2 

(Figure 10j). A church camp is operated at the ranch. White River Road provides access. 

Two Rivers: The Two Rivers property, about a mile from Lake Wenatchee, contains an 

operating gravel mine (Figure 10ak). The site includes an existing acclimation pond with a 

connection to the Little Wenatchee River that the coho project has used in the past. Little 

Wenatchee Road provides access. There is no public power at the site. 

White River Springs: Beaver dams created ponds from springs that flow into the White River 

(Figure 10k). The site is on property with residential structures about 11 miles north of 

Highway 2. 

3.3.1.3 Backup Wenatchee Basin Acclimation Sites 

Allen: The Allen pond is in the Valley Hi residential community, in open space used for 

recreation by the community (Figure 10a). 

Coulter/Roaring: The Coulter/Roaring site includes a pond system created by beaver dams on 

Yakama Nation property (Figure 10e). While the wetland is owned by the Yakama Nation, 

access to potential acclimation sites is through private property on an unpaved road. The site is 

less than a mile from Highway 2. Land use on YN property is habitat preservation; on adjacent 

properties it is recreation and rural residential. 

McComas: The site includes existing ponds located near the White River about 5 miles north of 

Highway 2 (Figure 10ak). Land use is habitat preservation and rural residential. Little 

Wenatchee Road provides access. 

Squadroni: The Squadroni site is on residential property near Highway 2, which is visible from 

the site (Figure 10f). If the site is used, a pond would be constructed that would connect to an 

existing ditch that connects to Nason Creek. An electrical transmission corridor and railroad 

tracks are located on the south side of Nason Creek. 

3.3.1.4 Primary Methow Basin Acclimation and Adult Plant Sites 

Goat Wall: A residence is adjacent to an existing pond; access is via Lost River Road 

(Figure 10y). 

Gold: The site contains a series of small, man-made ponds adjacent to the South Fork of Gold 

Creek (Figure 10n). It is in a rural residential area, with several homes adjacent to the 

acclimation site. Walking trails and benches are located along the ponds and the creek. 

Hancock: The Hancock site is a parcel of rural residential property associated with Hancock 

Spring, which flows into the Methow River (Figure 10t). A farm house is on the property, the 

majority of which is comprised of grass hay or pasture. 

Heath: The Heath site includes existing ponds associated with springs that flow into the 

Methow River. The site is a ranch located near Highway 20 (Figure 10w). The highway 

provides access to the site and is visible from it. Structures associated with the ranch occupy part 

of the site, but the majority of the property is comprised of grass or hay/pasture. The adjacent 

upstream property is the Big Valley Unit of the Methow State Wildlife Area, owned and 

managed by WDFW for riparian habitat protection and wildlife conservation. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program

3-8 Chapter 3 – Overview of Basins and Sites 

Lincoln: The Lincoln site includes existing ponds adjacent to the Twisp River (Figure 10ai). 

The property includes a conservation easement purchased by the Methow Conservancy. A farm 

and residence is adjacent to the ponds. 

Lower Twisp: The Lower Twisp site is owned by the Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation 

and includes several ponds used for steelhead acclimation and one pond used for coho 

acclimation for this project. The site is less than a mile from the center of the town of Twisp and 

is adjacent to the Twisp River (Figure 10q). Twisp River Road provides access. A building 

associated with the Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation occupies part of the site. 

Mason: The Mason site includes three man-made ponds near the mouth of Eightmile Creek; the 

ponds were used for coho acclimation in 1998. The site is about 10 miles north of the town of 

Winthrop; West Chewuch River Road provides access (Figure 10z). A vacation home is located 

at the site. 

MSWA Eightmile: The site is in the Methow State Wildlife Area (MSWA), which is owned 

and managed by WDFW property managed for wildlife conservation and public recreation 

(Figure 10z). The well proposed for the site would be on private land in a field near the existing 

side channel; the side channel is on property owned by WDFW. 

Parmley: The Parmley site includes an existing farm pond adjacent to Beaver Creek, about 6 

miles from the community of Twisp (Figure 10m). Beaver Creek Road provides access to the 

site, which also contains a rural home with several farm structures. 

Pete Creek Pond: The Pete Creek site includes a pond on a disconnected side channel of the 

Chewuch River about 4 miles north of the town of Winthrop (Figure 10v). An unpaved road off 

of the West Chewuch River Road provides access to the site. A rural home with several building 

structures and a nine-hole golf course is located adjacent to the pond. The MSRF Chewuch site 

(a backup site) is about 2,000 feet to the south. 

Twisp Weir: The site is on the south side of Twisp River Road approximately 5.5 miles from 

Highway 20 (at Twisp) (Figure 10p). It includes an existing man-made acclimation pond for 

spring Chinook salmon, a salmon weir, and a smolt trap owned by Douglas County PUD and 

operated by WDFW. The existing acclimation pond and weir are accessible from Twisp River 

Road via existing gravel roads. A residence is located on the portion of the Twisp Weir site 

north of Twisp River Road. The western portion of the site, south of Twisp River Road, is a 

fenced mowed grassy field, with a shed covering a camping trailer close to the Twisp River. 

Winthrop National Fish Hatchery: Winthrop NFH, about half a mile from the center of the 

town of Winthrop, is operated by USFWS; it has ponds associated with a back channel of the 

Methow River (Figure 10s). The coho project currently uses the hatchery facilities for 

broodstock collection, incubation, rearing, and acclimation. 

3.3.1.5 Backup Methow Basin Acclimation Sites 

Balky Hill: The site includes an existing pond near Beaver Creek about 3 miles north of 

Highway 20 (Figure 10r). Land use is agriculture. Structures associated with the farm are 

adjacent to the pond. The site is accessed via Beaver Creek Road. 

Biddle: The site contains two existing ponds; a rural vacation home overlooks the ponds.

Access is via Wolf Creek Road (Figure 10x).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Overview of Basins and Sites 3-9 

Chewuch Acclimation Facility: The Chewuch AF site, on the east side of the Chewuch River,

is on a parcel occupied by a recreational vehicle campground (Figure 10u). An existing 

acclimation pond operated by WDFW is adjacent to the site. Access is via the Eastside Chewuch 

Road bridge. 

Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation - Chewuch: The mission of MSRF, which owns the 

site, is to enhance and preserve salmon habitat. A large estate is adjacent to the site (Figure 10v). 

Newby: Newby is a small high-gradient tributary of the Twisp River just upstream of the Twisp 

trap. The site is recreation property. Access is via the Twisp River Road and the Newby Creek 

Road (Figure 10p). 

Poorman: The site includes four large ponds near the Twisp River located about 3 miles from 

the community of Twisp (Figure 10o). Twisp River Road provides access to the site. A rural 

home with several farm structures is on the site. 

Utley: The site contains a large pond fed by spring water adjacent to the Twisp River. A rural 

home is adjacent to the ponds. Access is via a 1,200-foot gravel road from Twisp River Road 

(Figure 10ah).

3.4 Coho Status, Life Cycle and Distribution in Wenatchee and 

Methow Basins 

Timing of project activities and their impacts depends on the coho life cycle, abundance, and 

expected distribution. This section summarizes current conditions for coho in the two basins. 

3.4.1 Coho Population Status 

Historically 120,000-166,500 coho were attributed to the mid- and upper Columbia tributaries 

(Yakima, Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow, and Spokane rivers) (Mullan 1984). Mullan (1984) 

estimated that the Wenatchee River supported adult returns of approximately 6,000 – 7,000 coho 

and the Methow River supported 23,000 – 31,000. 

By the 1930s, coho populations in the mid-Columbia region were considered extirpated. As 

discussed in Chapter 1, Section 1.3.1, although no one knows for sure why natural populations of 

spring Chinook and steelhead persisted when coho did not, possible reasons include: 

 Very high harvest rates on coho in the lower Columbia River; 

 Unscreened irrigation diversions on small tributaries in mid-Columbia basins; 

 The fixed three-year coho life cycle versus the variable life cycles of spring Chinook and 

steelhead which provide more adaptability to changes in the environment. 

Before the current coho reintroduction program began in the Wenatchee and Methow basins, two 

attempts were made to rebuild coho populations. Between the early 1940s and the mid-1970s, 

the USFWS raised and released coho as part of the mitigation for the construction of Grand 

Coulee Dam (Mullan 1984). Chelan PUD also had a coho hatchery program until the early 

1990s. While some natural production might have occurred from these releases, fish were not 

released in natural production habitats in the watersheds. The programs overall were not 

designed or intended to re-establish naturally spawning populations—they were for harvest 

augmentation—so coho populations in mid-Columbia basins continued to be considered 

extirpated.
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program

3-10 Chapter 3 – Coho Status, Life Cycle and Distribution 

The Yakama Nation, funded by BPA, began a feasibility study in 1996 to evaluate coho 

reintroduction in mid-Columbia tributaries. Since the reintroduction of coho to the Wenatchee 

River in 1999, the number of adult returns has ranged between an estimated 350 to 5,031 (C. 

Kamphaus, YN Fisheries Biologist, personal communication, Feb. 28, 2011). A portion of these 

fish are taken into the hatchery for broodstock development; the remainder are allowed to spawn 

naturally. The first generation of naturally produced coho smolts emigrated from the Wenatchee 

River basin in 2002 with an estimated population size of 17,000 (Murdoch et al. 2004). In 2003, 

approximately 36,700 naturally produced coho smolts emigrated from the Wenatchee River (T. 

Miller, WDFW, unpublished data). 

Since 1999, adult returns to the Methow River have ranged from 140 to 1,680 (C. Kamphaus, 

YN, personal communication, Feb. 28, 2011). Similar to the Wenatchee, a portion of the coho 

returning to the Methow River are used for broodstock development. At this point in the 

reintroduction process, neither population could sustain itself without hatchery supplementation. 

3.4.2 Coho Life Cycle 

Because the historical stocks of coho salmon were decimated near the turn of the 20th century, 

most life history information was obtained through affidavits from older residents of the 

Wenatchee and Methow basins. The historical information suggests that these fish were 

probably early-returning-type adults, ascending the mid-Columbia tributaries in August and 

September (Mullan 1984). The coho currently occupying these basins that were developed from 

lower Columbia River stocks spawn from October to mid-December. Coho are reported to use a 

varied size range of substrate for spawning, from fine gravel to coarse rubble; the material 

typically is 6 inches (15 cm) in diameter or smaller (Groot and Margolis 1991). 

In general, coho salmon emerge from eggs February through April. They rear in their natal 

tributaries. A portion of juvenile coho migrate downstream during the fall, presumably seeking 

over-winter habitat (Sandercock 1991). Some juvenile coho may also migrate upstream to 

overwinter in small tributaries (Tripp and McCart 1983). In studies done in the Wenatchee 

basin, the diets of both hatchery and naturally produced juveniles were dominated by insects 

(Murdoch et al. 2005); to a lesser extent juveniles prey on crustaceans and other juvenile fish 

(Groot and Margolis 1991, Murdoch et al. 2005). Typically, Columbia River coho spend a year 

in freshwater before out-migrating as yearling smolts in the spring (April and May). After outmigrating, coho spend approximately 18 months at sea before returning to their natal tributaries 

to spawn. Sexually precocious males (jacks) return to spawn after six months at sea. 

3.4.3 Coho Distribution 

Historically, many of the two basins’ tributaries supported coho production, although little is 

known about their spatial distribution. Since the YN’s program of coho feasibility studies began, 

coho have been found to spawn in the mainstem Wenatchee River (near the Wenatchee River 

confluence to Lake Wenatchee); in Nason, Beaver, Icicle, Peshastin, Chumstick and Mission 

creeks; and possibly in Chiwawa River. In 2004, coho also returned to the Little Wenatchee 

River to spawn. Coho salmon returning to the Methow basin are spawning in the mainstem 

Methow, Chewuch and Twisp rivers and in small tributaries such as Gold, Libby, and Beaver 

creeks. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Surface Water Quality 3-11

3.5 Surface Water Quality 

The analysis of water quality impacts is extensive due to the concerns raised during scoping by 

agencies and citizens. Consultants were hired to evaluate discharges from existing coho 

acclimation sites and current water quality in the vicinity of proposed new sites; and to assess 

project impacts to water quality in both basins using several methods, including modeling based 

on the QUAL-2K model developed by Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE). The 

consultants provided two detailed reports which are appended to this EIS (Appendix 6 Water 

Quality Data and Appendix 7 Water Quality Impacts). Their data, analyses, and conclusions are 

incorporated by reference and summarized in this section. Please consult the appendices if more 

detail is desired. 

3.5.1 Affected Environment 

Washington’s water quality standards are the basis for protecting and regulating the quality of 

the state’s surface waters. The standards identify designated and potential uses of water bodies, 

such as aquatic life, swimming, fishing, domestic and agricultural water supplies, etc.; they set 

water quality criteria to protect those uses; they contain anti-degradation policies to protect high 

quality waters; and in many cases they specify how criteria are to be implemented, for example 

in permits (Washington Dept. of Ecology website: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/water.html). 

Under section 303(d) of the 1972 federal Clean Water Act, states, territories, and authorized 

tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters, known as 303(d) lists. The listed impaired 

waters do not meet water quality standards that regulatory entities have set for them. The law 

requires that these jurisdictions establish priority rankings for waters on the lists and develop 

TMDLs (Total Maximum Daily Loads) for them. TMDLs determine the amounts of pollutants 

that a given water body (river, marine water, wetland, stream, or lake) can receive and still meet 

water quality standards (EPA website: http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/cwa.html).

In the Wenatchee watershed, the lower section of the Wenatchee River below the city of 

Leavenworth, portions of Icicle Creek, Mission Creek, and Brender Creek are on the State of 

Washington’s 303(d) list of impaired water bodies for dissolved oxygen (DO), acidity/alkalinity 

(pH), and temperature. In other words, at times, especially during the low-flow summer and fall 

period, these waters have too little dissolved oxygen, have high pH levels, and are too warm for 

designated uses including aquatic life. WDOE has determined that the most critical impairments 

are in the lower Wenatchee River downstream of the City of Leavenworth, and in Icicle Creek 

below the Leavenworth NFH (Carroll et al. 2006, Carroll and Anderson 2009). 

Water quality deterioration in the Wenatchee River and the lower portion of Icicle Creek more 

severely affects aquatic life compared to Mission and Brender Creeks because of the volume of 

water carried and the fact that these water bodies provide important travel pathways for 

salmonids during their migration to spawning grounds in the upper portions of the watershed. 

Therefore, to improve the water quality in the lower sections of the Wenatchee River and Icicle 

Creek, WDOE produced load allocations for total phosphorus originating from point and nonpoint sources that affect the water quality of the lower Wenatchee River. The WDOE TMDL 

study recommended load allocations to Mission and Brender creeks to reduce the phosphorus 

loading to the lower Wenatchee River (Carroll and Anderson 2009). Given the importance of 

water quality in the lower Wenatchee River and WDOE’s focus on it in the TMDL study, water 

quality analyses for this EIS emphasize the water quality impacts of discharges in this section of 

the Wenatchee River. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program

3-12 Chapter 3 – Surface Water Quality 

The Wenatchee River upstream of Leavenworth is not included in the State’s 303(d) list for DO 

and pH violations (Carroll and Anderson 2009). However, the WDOE TMDL document has 

recommended a limit for the total phosphorus (TP) loads entering the lower Wenatchee River 

from sources upstream of Leavenworth to help alleviate water quality degradation in the lower 

section of the Wenatchee River where the TMDL is in effect. 

The Methow River is not listed in the State’s 303(d) list of impaired water bodies for pH or 

dissolved oxygen violations. However, it is currently listed for temperature. 

Aquatic organisms are very sensitive to reductions in DO levels in the water. The health of 

aquatic species depends on maintaining an adequate supply of oxygen dissolved in the water. 

Oxygen levels affect growth rates, swimming ability, susceptibility to disease, and the relative 

ability to endure other environmental stressors and pollutants (Carroll and Anderson 2009). 

The pH value is a measure of the relative acidity or alkalinity of water (hydrogen ion 

concentration); it both directly and indirectly affects the ability of waters to have healthy 

populations of fish and other aquatic species. A lower pH value (below 7) indicates that an 

acidic condition is present, while a higher pH (above 7) indicates a basic or alkaline condition. 

A pH of 7 is considered to be neutral. Since the pH scale is logarithmic, a water sample with a 

pH of 8 is ten times more basic than one with a pH of 7 (Carroll and Anderson 2009). 

Aquatic organisms, including fish and the food they eat, are at times exposed to high pH levels in 

parts of the lower Wenatchee watershed. High pH stresses aquatic organisms by impairing their 

salt and water balancing processes and increasing the toxicity of some contaminants. 

Anadromous (sea-run) species of fish encounter this stress in their adult upstream migration, and 

as juveniles in rearing areas and during downstream migration. In addition, salmonid eggs in the 

substrate are exposed to the high pH as surface water flows through spawning gravels (Carroll 

and Anderson 2009). 

Nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen are essential for plant growth and aquatic community 

health. However, as in the lower Wenatchee River, too much of one or both of these nutrients 

(phosphorus in the lower Wenatchee and Icicle Creek) can cause excessive aquatic plant growth 

(Carroll and Anderson 2009). 

In streams affected by eutrophication, natural re-aeration processes cannot compensate for plant 

and bacterial respiration, and DO levels become too low at night. Additionally, pH becomes 

high at night and too low during the day. These 24-hour (day to night) swings in DO and pH can 

be harmful, and even fatal, to fish and aquatic insects (Carroll and Anderson 2009).

Nutrients can also create nuisance conditions in streams by choking them with excessive plant 

and algae growth. These conditions may interfere with water intake structures, water conveyance in irrigation canals, and fishing, boating, and swimming (Carroll and Anderson 2009). 

Washington state law provides protection for surface water quality through an anti-degradation 

policy (WAC 173-201A-300 of Washington Administrative Code; WAC 2006). Under this law, 

three levels of protection are provided: Tier I protection extends to all water bodies and 

maintains the current and designated uses for a given water body and prevents any further 

pollution; Tier II does not allow degradation of surface waters that are of exceptional quality 

(that exceed the water quality standards) through new or proposed actions unless such 

degradation is necessary and in the overriding public interest; and Tier III protection applies to 

water bodies classified as outstanding resource waters. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Surface Water Quality 3-13

Much of the upper Wenatchee subbasin and nearly the entire Methow basin exceed the water 

quality standards for temperature, DO, and pH. Thus, these waters are protected by the Tier II 

anti-degradation policy. The lower Wenatchee River and portions of Icicle Creek where the 

TMDL is in effect (to prevent pH and DO violations) are protected under the Tier I policy. 

Most of the existing and proposed acclimation-related sites are located in waters protected by the 

Tier II anti-degradation policy. Washington State requires the permit applicant to perform a Tier 

II anti-degradation evaluation if the proposed activity has the potential to cause a measureable 

change in water quality. The measurable changes relevant to this project are defined in the 

Washington Administrative Code as: 

 temperature increase of 0.3 degree Celsius (C) or greater; 

 DO decrease of 0.2 milligrams per liter (mg/L) or greater; 

 pH change of 0.1 unit or greater. 

For Tier I waters, human-caused discharges must not affect the existing and designated uses. 

3.5.2 Types of Impact 

Project activities could cause the following kinds of impacts to water quality. 

Construction 

 Construction can increase sediment levels where construction activity is in the stream or 

in riparian areas, with resulting effects on fish and other aquatic species. See analysis 

and impact avoidance measures in Section 3.7 Fish.

 Construction equipment operating in or near streams can leak petroleum products and 

other pollutants. Such leakage would be minimized by proper equipment maintenance, 

use of absorbents, and refueling away from the water body. 

Operation 

 Discharges from the proposed hatchery and acclimation sites could increase nutrient 

levels in streams. 

 Carcasses from returning adult coho could increase the nutrient content of the waters in 

which they spawn. Because this is part of a natural ecological process, it is presumed to 

be on balance a desirable condition and was not a factor in the analysis of water quality 

impacts. See discussions in Section 3.7 Fish. 

 Chemicals used at the proposed new hatchery could affect water quality if not properly 

handled or disposed. This issue is addressed in Chapter 4, Section 4.11. 

The analysis of potential water quality impacts in this EIS focuses on increases in pH and DO 

attributable to nutrients added from the proposed coho rearing and acclimation sites in the 

Wenatchee and Methow basins. WDOE determined that phosphorus is the primary nutrient 

causing growth of algae in the lower river and therefore is the primary concern for water quality 

degradation. For that reason, phosphorus was the primary nutrient considered in the analysis. 

Discharges from coho rearing and acclimation facilities might contain nutrients (phosphorus and 

nitrogen) at levels that promote growth of algae. Algal photosynthesis and respiration cycles can 

induce changes in pH and DO beyond the ranges found under natural conditions. Such changes 

may violate water quality standards and can negatively impact the designated uses of water 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program

3-14 Chapter 3 – Surface Water Quality 

bodies in the basins, which include swimming; domestic, industrial, and agricultural water 

supply; aesthetic values; wildlife habitat; harvesting of aquatic life; and spawning, rearing, and 

migration for ESA-listed fish. 

Whether discharges from acclimation sites contribute measurably to phosphorus loads depends 

not only on the amount of nutrients discharged but on the amount of flow in the receiving stream, 

the stream’s temperature, the bioavailability of the nutrient form,10 and the amount of time the 

nutrients remain in the system. Cooler water is less conducive to algae growth than warm water. 

Higher volumes of water tend to flush the nutrients through the system more quickly and thus 

reduce concentrations, which reduces the potential for algae to grow. All these factors were 

considered in the analysis. 

3.5.3 Impacts of the Proposed Action 

The following process was used to evaluate the local and combined impacts of the acclimation 

sites: 

 For discharges from existing project sites that are in waters protected by the Tier II 

policy, compare the phosphorus levels to existing background conditions to assess 

whether acclimation-related discharges produce algal blooms that could cause a change 

in DO and pH beyond the mixing zone of the discharge that would violate the state 

standards. 

 For discharges from proposed sites in waters protected by the Tier II policy, compare 

estimated phosphorus load from those sites to existing background load to assess the 

likelihood of change in DO and pH that would violate the state standards. 

 For the lower Wenatchee River (currently protected by Tier I policy), determine whether 

proposed activities are likely to cause a measurable change in DO and pH, as defined in 

the state standards, that is sufficient to affect the existing and designated uses.

In order to assess the impacts of proposed coho acclimation activity on water quality, analysts 

estimated nutrient loading (total phosphorus [TP]) at two operating coho acclimation sites in the 

Wenatchee basin, Rohlfing and Butcher. Estimates from these operating Nason Creek sites were 

used to forecast the amount of nutrients that could be contributed to downstream waters by 

proposed new sites in both basins. To estimate these loads, data were collected in 2009 and 2010 

on stream flow and water quality both upstream and downstream of the two operating sites. 

Where appropriate, water quality modeling was used to facilitate the evaluation. 

Using data from active coho acclimation sites as a way to assess water quality impacts of the 

proposed sites is reasonable because: 1) the sites would be used to acclimate the same species; 

2) feeds are expected to be similar or identical to those used in the operating Nason Creek sites; 

3) climatic conditions are similar, which would result in similar metabolism; and 4) the majority 

of the acclimation sites are small, natural ponds that are fed by small tributary streams. 

Table 3-2 shows estimates of TP loads from the Rohlfing and Butcher sites. Based on these data, 

the TP load contributed to the receiving stream was estimated to be 0.32 milligrams (mg) per day 

 

10 Phosphorus is an essential nutrient for algal growth. However, not all forms of phosphorus can be taken up by 

algae. Any form of phosphorus that is readily available for biological uptake is said to be bioavailable (i.e., 

available for ready assimilation by algae). 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Surface Water Quality 3-15

per fish (Table 3-2). To estimate the contribution of each proposed site, this average per-day 

figure was multiplied by the number of fish to be acclimated at that site. This contribution was 

evaluated against the phosphorus loads calculated at the mouth of the major creeks that carried 

these loads into the Wenatchee and the Methow rivers in order to assess the significance of the 

loads relative to the background loads in the system. 

Table 3-2. TP loads from two existing acclimation sites in Nason Creek 

Rohlfing ButcheraTotal

2009 2010 Overall 2009 2010 Overall 2009 2010 Overall

Total number of fish 

acclimated 101,000 85,656 186,656 136,000 144,632 280,632 237,000 230,288 467,288

Average TP load (g/d) 35.72 38.53 74.25 51.35 22.66 74.02 87.07 61.19 148.27

TP load per fish 

acclimated (mg/d/fish) 0.35 0.45 0.40 0.38 0.16 0.26 0.37 0.27 0.32

a. Coulter is also an existing site, to be used alternately with Butcher in the Proposed Action. Number of fish acclimated would be 

the same as Butcher; therefore TP loads would be the same. 

g/d = grams per day 

mg/d/fish = milligrams per day per fish 

3.5.3.1 Wenatchee Basin Acclimation Sites (Primary) 

Table 3-3 shows the estimated TP loads at the primary sites proposed in the Wenatchee basin. 

The estimates for each site are discussed in the following subsections. Sites are grouped 

according to the rivers or streams into which discharge from the sites empties. 

White River (3 sites) 

Two acclimation ponds and an adult plant site are proposed in the White River watershed. The 

White River flows into Lake Wenatchee (Figure 2-7 in Chapter 2). Flows in the White River 

were estimated based on the WDOE gauge near Plain. Water quality data were derived from 

multiple sources, including data collected by the Yakama Nation (Appendix 6, Water Quality 

Data), supplemented by monitoring data collected in Lake Wenatchee by Grant County Public 

Utility District (Grant PUD 2009) and Chelan PUD (2009 – unpublished data). 

Tall Timber: This site is the most upstream of the three proposed acclimation ponds and 

does not flow directly into the White River, but it is located close to the confluence of the 

Napeequa and White rivers. The estimated TP load from this acclimation site is 19.1 g/d, 

which is less than one fifth of a percent of the average TP loads delivered by the White River 

to Lake Wenatchee during the acclimation periods in 2009 and 2010 (Table 3-3). This level 

is well within the natural variability of the TP loads in the White River. Moreover, loads 

released at this site would have to travel more than 10 miles before entering Lake Wenatchee. 

Nutrient loading in Lake Wenatchee is of concern because it can promote growth of algae. 

In-stream processes between Tall Timber and the lake, such as dilution, settling, or use by 

organisms, would reduce the load downstream from the discharge. Downstream phosphorus 

data collected from active sites in Nason Creek suggest that concentrations can be expected 

to return to background levels within a few miles downstream of the discharge. Given this 

evidence and the distance of the discharge from Lake Wenatchee, it is reasonable to conclude 

that loads from the Tall Timber discharge are unlikely to cause a measurable change at the 

mouth of White River when it enters Lake Wenatchee. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program

3-16 Chapter 3 – Surface Water Quality 

White River Springs: This is one of the smallest proposed ponds, with acclimation of 

50,000 coho. Loads from this site are expected to be quite small, at less than one-tenth of a 

percent of the average White River loads. 

Dirty Face: Data from Nason Creek are not applicable to the Dirty Face site because the 

project proposes to enclose adult fish at this site. Adult fish are not fed, so water quality 

impacts associated with the acclimation and feeding of juvenile fish are not relevant here. 

Little Wenatchee River – Two Rivers 

The Two Rivers site is located upstream of the Little Wenatchee River’s confluence with Lake 

Wenatchee (see Figure 2-7, Chapter 2). This is one of the larger sites, with an estimated 120,000 

coho proposed for acclimation. 

WDOE’s gauge at Little Wenatchee River below Rainy Creek was used to estimate flows. As 

with White River, water quality data came from data collected for this project, as well as from 

the Grant and Chelan PUD monitoring programs (Grant PUD 2009; Chelan PUD 2009 –

unpublished data). 

The estimated loads contributed by this proposed site are higher than for individual White River 

sites because of the greater number of fish proposed for acclimation. Nevertheless, the TP loads 

from acclimation activity are estimated to be about one-third of a percent of the average TP loads 

carried by Little Wenatchee River during the acclimation period (Table 3-3).

Chiwawa River (3 sites) 

Three sites are proposed in the Chiwawa River watershed. The Chiwawa flows directly into the 

Wenatchee River near Plain, Washington. Flow data for this site were obtained from the U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) gauge at the Chiwawa River near Plain. Water quality data were 

collected by the Yakama Nation near the mouth of the Chiwawa River. 

Minnow: This is the most upstream of the three proposed acclimation ponds and enters the 

Chiwawa River through Chikamin Creek. TP contributions from this site are expected to be 

less than one half of a percent of the load carried by the Chiwawa River during the 

acclimation period (Table 3-3). Also, given its distance from the mouth of the Chiwawa 

River (Figure 2-7), loads from this site are likely to be reduced by in-stream processes and 

are unlikely to impact the Wenatchee River. 

Chikamin: The Chikamin site is close to the Minnow site and similarly enters the Chiwawa 

River through Chikamin Creek. Because the number of fish acclimated at this site is the 

same as at the Minnow site, the TP contributions from this site are expected to be similarly 

less than one half of a percent of the load carried by the Chiwawa River during the 

acclimation period. As with the Minnow site, TP loads would be assimilated in-stream due 

to the distance from the confluence with the Wenatchee River, and therefore are unlikely to 

impact its water quality. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Surface Water Quality 3-17

Table 3-3. TP loads estimated for proposed acclimation sites in the Wenatchee basin 

Proposed Site

No. of Fish 

(thousands)

TP 

Loada

(kg/d)

Receiving 

Streamb

No. of 

Daysc

No. of 

Sampling 

Eventsd

Record 

Start Date

Record 

End Date

Receiving 

Stream Loade 

(kg/d)

Relative 

Contribution 

(%)

Tall Timber 110 0.035 White River 84 14 3/15/2009 4/12/2010 19.1 0.18

White River Springs 50 0.016 White River 84 14 3/15/2009 4/12/2010 19.1 0.08

Two Rivers 120 0.038 Little Wenatchee 83 12 3/23/2009 5/9/2010 11.8 0.33

Chikamin 100 0.032 Chiwawa 71 7 4/4/2009 5/9/2010 7.3 0.44

Minnow 100 0.032 Chiwawa 71 7 4/4/2009 5/9/2010 7.3 0.44

Clear 150 0.048 Chiwawa 71 7 4/4/2009 5/9/2010 7.3 0.66

Beaver 100 0.032 Beaver N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Scheibler 65 0.021 Chumstick 23 2 4/11/2009 5/3/2009 2.7 0.77

Leavenworth NFHf100 0.032 Icicle N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.5 2.21

Brenderg50 0.016 Brender N/A 11 3/10/1997 5/3/2004 1.2 1.39

Notes: 

a. Estimated from average load of 0.32 mg per fish per day calculated from measured data at active discharges in Nason Creek. 

kg/d = kilograms per day 

b. Nearest stream for which estimation of TP load at the downstream end of the receiving stream was possible. 

c. Number of days in the acclimation period over which interpolation of loads was possible with available flow and concentration data. 

d. Number of water quality sampling events during the acclimation period (3/10/2009 through 5/10/2009 and 3/23/2010 through 5/9/2010). To maximize data 

coverage, this period was extended to include additional samples. Some events included collection of duplicates. 

e. TP load estimated at the mouth of the receiving stream was based on nutrient data collected during the acclimation period. 

f. Loads for the receiving stream (Icicle Creek) represent the total load at the mouth of Icicle Creek for 2002 as determined in WDOE TMDL. 

g. Average TP load for receiving stream (Brender) was calculated over the acclimation months (March through May) based on historical flow and TP data 

reported by WDOE for Brender Creek near Cashmere Station (45D070). 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program

3-18 Chapter 3 – Surface Water Quality 

Clear: Discharge from the Clear Creek site would enter the Chiwawa River through Clear 

Creek close to the confluence with the Wenatchee River. This is the largest site proposed in 

the Wenatchee basin, with 150,000 coho planned for acclimation. Therefore, this site has the 

highest estimated TP load of all the sites. However, in terms of relative magnitude, this load is 

about two-thirds of a percent of the average TP loads carried by the Chiwawa River. 

Therefore, this site, on its own, is not expected to significantly alter loads to the Wenatchee 

system. 

Beaver 

Water quality data for this site is limited and was not sufficient to estimate background TP loads in 

the stream. Beaver Creek drains a watershed that is smaller but geographically similar to nearby 

streams where it was possible to compare TP loads from acclimation ponds to background TP 

loads (for example Chiwawa and Chumstick). Assuming background TP concentrations in Beaver 

Creek are comparable to nearby streams, where water quality impacts from acclimation discharges 

with similar numbers of fish were estimated to be negligible, a similar impact can be expected for 

TP loads from the proposed facility on Beaver Creek. 

Chumstick Creek - Scheibler 

The Scheibler site is 8.1 miles upstream of the confluence of Chumstick Creek with the Wenatchee 

River. Water quality data collected by the Yakama Nation at the mouth of Chumstick Creek and 

flow estimated by WDOE near the river mouth were used to calculate background loads 

(Appendix 6 Water Quality Data). Even though nutrient data were collected in 2010, the loading 

calculations used data from 2009 only, due to lack of flow measurements in 2010 (WDOE has 

suspended the gauge operation). The loads from acclimation pond activity are estimated to be less 

than one percent of the average background load carried by Chumstick Creek (Table 3-3). 

Therefore, the water quality impacts are expected to be negligible. 

Icicle Creek – Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery 

Facilities at the Leavenworth NFH currently are being used for acclimation as part of this project. 

Discharges from this facility flow through the main hatchery outfall that dominates the Icicle 

Creek flow during low-flow season. Data at Icicle Creek were not collected as part of this project,

and Leavenworth NFH discharge reports for its National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permit contained no nutrient data. Thus, TP load specified at the Icicle Creek mouth in 

the WDOE TMDL (Carroll et al. 2006) was used as a basis for comparison. 

The proposed coho acclimation is estimated to contribute about 2 percent of the TP loads used in 

the WDOE TMDL for summer low stream flows (―7Q10 conditions‖). However, because coho 

are acclimated over the winter and during spring, a large portion of the load would enter Icicle 

Creek during spring high flow; therefore, it is likely to be rapidly flushed from the system and 

would be unlikely to directly affect water quality in the lower Wenatchee River and Icicle Creek. 

Brender Creek 

Brender Creek site discharge would reach the Wenatchee River through Mission Creek. Mission 

Creek is on the state’s 303(d) list for violations in DO and pH under low-flow conditions. The 

water quality surveys for this EIS focused on the upper watersheds where the majority of the sites 

are proposed and did not include Mission or Brender creeks. A comparison to historical water 

quality and flow data available for this site from WDOE suggests that TP loads discharged from 

the acclimation site could contribute up to two percent of the loads carried by the creek, indicating 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Surface Water Quality 3-19

that loads from this site could exacerbate the local water quality problems. However, most of the 

nutrient discharges would occur during spring high flow, so dilution and flushing of the nutrients 

through the system would play a major role in mitigating the local impacts. Further, the estimated 

average contribution of 16 g/d of TP is a negligible proportion of the loads carried by the 

Wenatchee River. Thus impacts in the critical portions of the lower Wenatchee River are also 

likely to be negligible. 

3.5.3.2 Wenatchee Basin Acclimation Sites (Backup) 

Table 3-4 shows TP loads estimated for acclimation activity at backup sites in the Wenatchee 

basin. One or more of these sites might be used if any of the proposed sites cannot be used. Each 

site is discussed separately in the following subsections. 

Table 3-4. TP loads estimated at backup acclimation sites: Wenatchee basin 

Proposed 

Site No. of 

Fish 

TP 

Loada

(kg/d)

Receiving 

Streamb

No.

of 

Daysc

No. of 

Sampling 

Eventsd

Record 

Start 

Date

Record 

End Date

Receiving 

Stream 

Loade 

(kg/d)

Relative 

Contribution 

(%)

McComas 50,000 0.016 White R. 84 14 3/15/2009 4/12/2010 19.1 0.08

Squadroni 105,000 0.034 Nason Cr. 112 22 3/14/2009 5/9/2010 6.3 0.53

Coulter/

Roaring 105,000 0.034 Nason Cr. 112 22 3/14/2009 5/9/2010 6.3 0.53

Allenf50,000 0.016

Peshastin 

Cr. N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.2 10.46

a. Estimated from average load of 0.32 mg per fish per day calculated from measured data at active discharges in Nason 

Cr. 

kg/d = kilograms per day 

b. Nearest stream for which estimation of TP load at the downstream end of the receiving stream was possible. 

c. Number of days in the acclimation period over which interpolation of loads was possible with available flow and 

concentration data. 

d. Number of water quality sampling events during the acclimation period (3/10/2009 through 5/10/2009 and 3/23/2010 

through 5/9/2010). To maximize data coverage, this period was extended to include nearby samples. Some events 

included collection of duplicates. 

e. TP load estimated at the mouth of the receiving stream was based on nutrient data collected during the acclimation 

period. 

f. There were no data available for the receiving stream. Loads from the WDOE TMDL model for the 7Q10 natural 

conditions simulation (summer low stream flows) are used here for comparison. 

McComas 

The McComas site is located on White River; it might be used to acclimate up to 50,000 juvenile 

fish. The corresponding phosphorus loads are expected to be less than one-tenth of a percent of 

the loads carried by White River (Table 3-4). Therefore, the impacts are not expected to adversely 

affect water quality. 

Squadroni 

The Squadroni site is located on Nason Creek. If used, 105,000 fish are expected to be acclimated 

at this site. Based on the active Nason Creek sites, the TP load due to acclimation activity is 

expected to be 34 g/d (see Table 3-2). This is about half a percent of the TP loading from Nason 

Creek to the Wenatchee River. Moreover, as discussed previously, analysis of loads shows that 

the active acclimation sites at Rohlfing and Butcher, with more than twice the number of fish 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program

3-20 Chapter 3 – Surface Water Quality 

(237,000 in 2009 and about 230,000 in 2010), did not adversely affect water quality in Nason 

Creek. Thus, the Squadroni site, if developed, is not likely to adversely affect water quality. 

Coulter/Roaring 

The Coulter/Roaring site is part of a wetland complex owned by the Yakama Nation. As with 

Squadroni, if used, up to 105,000 fish could be acclimated here; impacts are likely to be similar to 

those at Squadroni. However, because this site is in a wetlands complex, the TP loads from ponds 

probably would be assimilated within the marsh environs. Thus, impacts from acclimation activity 

are expected to be minimal. 

Allen 

The Allen site, if used, would acclimate up to 50,000 fish, which could result in phosphorus 

loading of up to 16 g/d to Peshastin Creek. No nutrient or flow data were available for Peshastin 

Creek for the month of March. To obtain a general idea of the relative contribution of nutrients 

from this site to the total load in the stream, the loading estimate for the site was compared to the 

loads specified in the WDOE TMDL summer natural conditions model (Carroll and Anderson 

2009). The model specifies a TP load of 200 g/d under 7Q10 low-flow conditions in Peshastin 

Creek. At summer flow levels, acclimation activity at the Allen site could contribute about 10 

percent of the total phosphorus load carried by the stream during the summer season. Summer 

flows are substantially lower than typical spring flows when acclimation would actually occur. 

For example, based on 1990 – 2010 flow records from the USGS gauge on the Wenatchee River at 

Monitor, average flow in August-September is roughly 16% of the average flow in April-May. 

Thus, even if background concentrations of phosphorus remain at 4.7 micrograms per liter as 

estimated in WDOE TMDL study (Carroll and Anderson 2009), one can expect that loads in 

spring would be roughly 5 times higher. Based on this calculation, it can be expected that the 

acclimation-related loads would be less than 2% of the background loads carried by the stream. 

When viewed in light of the flushing effect from higher flows, this small proportional increase in 

TP loading is unlikely to produce a measurable change in the water quality. 

3.5.3.3 Hatchery Sites 

Dryden (Primary) 

The Dryden site is proposed for use as a year-round rearing operation. Therefore, it was necessary 

to evaluate impacts during low-flow conditions when water quality is most vulnerable to increases 

in nutrient loading. 

The QUAL-2K model was used in the WDOE TMDL process (Carroll et al. 2006; Carroll and 

Anderson 2009) to allocate nutrient loading of point and non-point sources to bring DO and pH 

into compliance with existing state regulations. A phased implementation of load reductions has 

been recommended in the TMDL. Based on discussion with WDOE (November 12, 2009, 

meeting with Ryan Anderson, Yakima Regional office, Yakima), it is assumed for this evaluation 

that the load reduction measures will be implemented as recommended in the TMDL. 

The QUAL-2K model was set up for 7Q10 low-flow conditions, with publicly owned treatment 

works (POTW) discharging at design flow and a phosphorus concentration of 90 micrograms per 

liter. Other sources were set to the estimated maximum natural condition values as determined in 

the WDOE TMDL (Carroll and Anderson 2009). 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Surface Water Quality 3-21

Nutrient loading for the proposed hatchery was estimated based on rearing approximately 220,000 

smolts, with about 110,000 smolts removed in November and 110,000 removed the following 

March. Table 3-5 presents the details on the nutrient loading expected from hatchery operation. 

The average flow for the month of September, estimated at about 0.06 cubic meter per 

second (m3/s) (about 1,000 gallons per minute), was specified for the QUAL-2K model. Discharge 

from the hatchery was assumed to occur immediately upstream of Dryden Dam at river kilometer 

(RKM) 56.5 (RM 35.1). 

The Skretting Nutra Fry feed proposed for use at the hatchery contains about 1.42% phosphorus by 

weight. Tipping and Shearer (2007) report a phosphorus retention range of 29% to 36% for coho 

fed commercial diets with similar phosphorus content (range 1.1% to 1.3%). Similar research on 

rainbow trout estimated phosphorus retention at 50% (Flimlin et al. 2003). This analysis assumed 

the average of these values, 39% phosphorous retention. The effluent from the hatchery would be 

treated prior to discharge to the Wenatchee River. For analysis purposes, a treatment efficiency of 

50% was assumed, which is the minimum requirement for any treatment system. 

The phosphorus loads estimated for the month of September (see Table 3-5) were specified as a 

point source in the QUAL-2K model. Other water quality parameters were set to the same values 

as those used for Leavenworth NFH in the Icicle Creek water quality model used in the WDOE 

TMDL analysis (Carroll et al 2006). This is appropriate because the level of treatment at Dryden 

Hatchery is expected to be similar or better than what is being implemented at Leavenworth NFH. 

All other settings remained unchanged from the 7Q10 simulations in the WDOE TMDL analysis 

(Carroll and Anderson 2009). 

Model simulations for flow, TP, DO, pH, and temperature over the length of the Wenatchee River 

are shown in graphs in Appendix 7, Section 4.2.9. The modeling shows that effluent from the 

hatchery is unlikely to significantly change flows and water quality in the lower Wenatchee River 

due to the relatively small flows out of the proposed Dryden Hatchery. Indeed, DO remains in 

compliance downstream of the hatchery discharge, and the change in minimum DO meets the ―no 

measurable change‖ criterion laid out in state standards. Hatchery effluent would have no effect 

on temperature. 

The model predicts that pH could exceed the upper limit of 8.5 units downstream of the Cashmere 

public treatment works (POTW) discharge. After about RKM 60 (RM 37.3), there is little 

difference in the model predictions with and without the proposed hatchery discharge. This 

suggests that the pH excursion11 does not result from the hatchery loads, but is rather a 

consequence of the Cashmere treatment works loads. This interpretation is reinforced by the 

WDOE TMDL, which acknowledges that Cashmere POTW discharge should release phosphorus 

at less than 90 micrograms per liter to prevent pH excursion downstream of the city of Cashmere. 

In the vicinity of the hatchery as well as downstream of the Cashmere POTW, the difference in the 

pH range marginally exceeds the measurable change criterion (by much less than 0.1 unit which is 

well below the limits of instrument accuracy—see Chapter 5 in Appendix 6) and is well within the 

typical ranges encountered within a day (Figure 3-1). 

Based on the analysis provided here, it is expected that the discharges from the Dryden Hatchery 

would have minimal impacts on the water quality of the lower Wenatchee River even under critical 

low-flow conditions. 

 

11 Excursion is the word used to indicate that a water quality limit has been exceeded. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-22 Chapter 3 – Surface Water Quality 

Table 3-5. Estimation of effluent phosphorus loads for proposed hatchery at Dryden 

Month

Number 

of Fisha

Flow 

(m3/s)

Total 

Weight of 

Fish (kg)

Feed Rate 

(g feed/

g fish/d)

Phosphorus 

Feed Rateb

(g/d)

Phosphorus Concentration (mg/L)

Effluent 

Phosphorus 

Feed Load (g/d)

Untreated 

Effluentc

After 

Treatmentd

Mar 236703 0.010 106.5 2.9% 43.86 0.051 0.016 0.008 6.69

Apr 235135 0.015 190.5 2.8% 75.73 0.060 0.018 0.009 11.55

May 233578 0.020 315.3 2.7% 120.90 0.069 0.021 0.010 18.44

Jun 232031 0.028 511.6 2.6% 188.89 0.078 0.024 0.012 28.81

Jul 230495 0.033 663.8 2.6% 245.08 0.085 0.026 0.013 37.38

Aug 228968 0.041 906.7 2.5% 321.88 0.091 0.028 0.014 49.09

Sep 227452 0.060 1627.4 2.4% 554.62 0.106 0.032 0.016 84.58

Oct 225946 0.079 2420.8 2.2% 756.27 0.111 0.034 0.017 115.33

Nov 224449 0.089 2929.1 2.0% 831.85 0.108 0.033 0.016 126.86

Dec 112963 0.048 1626.7 1.9% 438.87 0.106 0.032 0.016 66.93

Jan 112215 0.049 1666.4 1.9% 449.59 0.107 0.033 0.016 68.56

Feb 111472 0.049 1705.5 1.9% 460.15 0.108 0.033 0.017 70.17

Mar 110733 0.052 1843.7 1.9% 497.43 0.111 0.034 0.017 75.86

Notes: 

a. Numbers back-calculated to produce 220,000 smolts, and assuming mortality of 0.7 percent per month, with 110,000 fish removed in November and 

the remaining 110,000 removed in March. 

b. Skretting Nutra Fry diet contains 1.42 percent phosphorus by weight. 

c. Assumes assimilation of 39 percent based on a highly digestible diet. 

d. Assumes treatment efficiency of 50 percent. 

mg/L = milligrams per liter 

m

3

/s = cubic meters per second 

kg = kilograms 

g feed/g fish/d = grams of feed per gram of fish per day 

g/d = grams per day 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Surface Water Quality 3-23

Figure 3-1. Difference from natural conditions in range of pH (top graph) and minimum DO (bottom graph) at 

permissible POTW loading with and without proposed hatchery at Dryden
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-24 Chapter 3 – Surface Water Quality 

George (Backup) 

The George site is being considered as an alternative to the Dryden site if a small hatchery at 

Dryden is determined to be infeasible. Discharge from the George facility would enter the 

Wenatchee River 1.8 miles downstream of the Lake Wenatchee outlet. Discharges from this 

hatchery, if operated, would flow through an existing flood overflow side channel for about a 

mile before entering the Wenatchee River. 

The hatchery is expected to be operated under the same conditions as Dryden, so the same 

QUAL-2K modeling approach was used to evaluate the discharge impacts. The impact of 

hatchery operation was evaluated for 7Q10 summer low flow conditions. The only difference 

between this model setup and the one employed for Dryden is the location of the discharge. 

The discharge from the facility would enter a channel that is vegetated significantly and flows 

only during flood events. Therefore, it is unlikely that the entire hatchery discharge would enter 

the Wenatchee River during critical summer conditions, due to infiltration losses to the 

underlying aquifer. Also, significant amounts of nutrients would be assimilated in the 20 acres 

of side-channel habitat between the hatchery discharge and the river. However, for the purposes 

of this evaluation it is assumed that the entire discharge would reach the Wenatchee River 

without any assimilation of phosphorus and without any loss in flow. This is likely a substantial 

over-estimate of the loading to the Wenatchee River but provides a worst-case scenario. 

Analysis shows that changes to flow are minimal given the small quantity of flow expected from 

the discharge, and the predicted temperature range showed negligible change over the simulation 

of natural conditions. Phosphorus concentration was predicted to increase downstream of the 

discharge, but the differences over natural conditions are imperceptible past Tumwater Dam,

approximately 35 kilometers (km) (22 miles) downstream. In the same section of the river, both 

dissolved oxygen and pH show significantly wider ranges compared to the natural condition 

predictions. Graphs in Section 4.2.10 in Appendix 7 demonstrate these differences. 

Figure 3-2 shows the difference from maximum natural conditions when hatchery discharges are 

included. In the section of the river upstream of Tumwater Dam, the hatchery discharge 

noticeably changes the existing condition, particularly between RKM 5 through 15 (RM 3.1 

through 9.3), where the changes are predicted to exceed the threshold for measurable change. 

These differences can be explained from the context of the hatchery loading relative to the 

background phosphorus load. The hatchery loading contributes about 9% of the background 

load in the upstream section. The relative contribution for the Dryden Hatchery was calculated 

to be about 3% of the predicted background load immediately upstream of the discharge. Thus, 

the higher background concentration downstream of the George Hatchery discharge could 

produce a measurable change in DO and pH on a localized scale. 

Because a very conservative estimate was used for specifying the load (i.e., the entire hatchery 

discharge and all phosphorous would reach the Wenatchee River); and because in the 

downstream reaches, particularly in the TMDL domain (i.e., downstream of the city of 

Leavenworth), the water quality changes resulting from the hatchery loads are imperceptible 

from the background condition; it is concluded that, while localized impacts are possible due the 

hatchery, impacts farther downstream are unlikely. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Surface Water Quality 3-25

Figure 3-2. Difference from natural conditions in range of pH (top graph) and minimum DO (bottom graph) at 

permissible POTW loading with and without George Hatchery discharge 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-26 Chapter 3 – Surface Water Quality 

3.5.3.4 Combined Impacts of Wenatchee Basin Hatchery and Acclimation Sites 

The combined impact of the proposed coho restoration activities on water quality in the 

Wenatchee basin is expected to be negligible for the reasons listed below. Explanation of these 

conclusions follows the list. 

 The nutrient load is negligible. The maximum total addition of phosphorous due to the 

project, at peak production levels, is estimated to be 0.38 kilogram per day during the 

acclimation period, which is about 1% of average Wenatchee River load when acclimation 

activity is ongoing. 

 Despite the conservative modeling assumptions used, impacts to DO and pH due to 

upstream acclimation are estimated to be negligible in the TMDL domain (the lower 

Wenatchee River downstream of the city of Leavenworth). 

 Lower water temperatures during the acclimation period limit in-stream biological activity. 

 An analysis of travel times suggests that the residence times of any nutrients discharged to 

the system would be small during spring high flows that are prevalent when feed rates are 

highest. Therefore, most of the loads would be removed during spring high flows and 

impacts are not expected later in the year, including the summer low-flow period. 

 In-stream data collected from the Wenatchee basin showed that most of the phosphorous 

being discharged is not in a readily bio-available form. Even the travel times calculated 

under low-flow conditions were not expected to provide a sufficiently long residence of the 

total phosphorus loading in the system, thereby keeping it largely unavailable for biological 

uptake during transport through the basin. 

The analysis supporting these conclusions is discussed below. 

The QUAL-2K model developed by WDOE for the purpose of establishing load allocations 

(Carroll et al. 2006; Carroll and Anderson 2009) was applied to assess both the combined and 

cumulative impacts for the Wenatchee River (referred to as the lower Wenatchee subbasin). The 

portion of the Wenatchee basin composed of Lake Wenatchee and its tributaries, the White River 

and the Little Wenatchee River (referred to as the upper Wenatchee subbasin), was evaluated 

based on mass balance analyses using existing water quality and flow data. 

Upper Wenatchee Subbasin to Lake Wenatchee 

Lake Wenatchee is a deep water lake (maximum depth of nearly 100 feet) that is fed by the Little 

Wenatchee River and the White River and discharges to the Wenatchee River. Three of the 

proposed acclimation sites discharge to this receiving water system: the Two Rivers site in the 

Little Wenatchee River and the Tall Timber and White River Springs sites in the White River. 

While the Dirty Face site is in the White River system, it is an adult plant site, not a juvenile 

acclimation site. Adults are not fed, so nutrient additions to the river from feed would not occur 

from that site.

Given the relatively large size of the lake and its associated long hydraulic retention period, it is 

unlikely that loads entering the lake would reach the Wenatchee River directly; instead, they are 

likely to be cycled within the lake. Data comparing pH levels flowing into and out of the lake 

show that pH levels are substantially lower when leaving the lake. The lake likely buffers the 

upstream phosphorus loads and transmits only a fraction of the upstream loads to the Wenatchee 

River. Therefore, the water quality impact of concern within the upper Wenatchee subbasin is 

Lake Wenatchee proper. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Surface Water Quality 3-27

To estimate the combined impact of the three proposed locations, the total phosphorus loads 

anticipated from acclimation activity were calculated based on the proposed number of coho to 

be acclimated. Table 3-6 shows the relative contribution of the loads from combined acclimation 

activity in the White River and the Little Wenatchee River. In 2009, these loads were estimated 

to contribute less than 0.25% of the total background loads that entered the lake over the 

acclimation period (March through May) from these two tributaries. This calculation does not 

account for in-stream assimilation, which, if considered, would further reduce the relative 

contribution from acclimation activity. 

Table 3-6. Estimated contribution of TP loads from 50 days of acclimation activity in the three 

upper Wenatchee acclimation sites 

Location

No. of 

Fish

TP Loading from 

Acclimationa(kg)

TP Load In 

Systemb(kg)

Contribution 

to Total

Little Wenatchee River 120,000 1.92 604.50 0.32%

White River 160,000 2.56 1242.86 0.21%

kg = kilograms 

a. Assumes 0.32 mg/d/fish (derived from active sites in Nason Creek; see Table 3-2) 

b. Loads calculated using 2009 flows and TP measurements from 3/23/2009 to 5/10/2009 

Lower Wenatchee Subbasin – Wenatchee River 

The WDOE TMDL model was used with minimal changes to determine the Wenatchee River 

and Icicle Creek phosphorus load allocations (Carroll and Anderson 2009) and to assess the 

potential impacts of the proposed acclimation sites on water quality in the lower Wenatchee 

subbasin. Changes to the model focused on representing conditions for the month of March, as 

represented by the assumptions listed below. Modifications were also made to air and water 

temperature functions to reflect March conditions. Using these assumptions to set up the 

evaluation model ensured that the maximum potential impact was identified in the results. 

1. March was chosen as the critical period for evaluation. All the proposed acclimation sites 

would be operational at this time. Flows later in the spring increase significantly, diluting 

nutrient loads and scouring attached algae from the system. Approximately half the sites 

might be operated through the winter, but due to the smaller number of fish being acclimated, 

low water temperatures, and low feed rates, water quality impacts in winter are expected to 

be lower than during March. 

2. Flows in March were specified as the 7Q10 summer low flow calculated by WDOE for the 

TMDL evaluation (typically, March flows are somewhat higher). 

3. Phosphorus discharged due to acclimation activity was considered to be 100% bioavailable 

(i.e., phosphorus discharges are all in the orthophosphate form such that they can be readily 

taken up by algae during photosynthesis). 

4. Phosphorus released from the acclimation ponds is not assimilated in the receiving stream 

before it reaches the Wenatchee River. This assumption ensures that, in the model, the entire 

phosphorus load discharged from the ponds reaches the Wenatchee River; normally, 

however, some phosphorus would be assimilated before reaching the Wenatchee River. 

5. Average phosphorus loads from the proposed acclimation ponds that were developed based 

on the data collected from the active ponds in Nason Creek from late March through early 

May are applicable in March, even though feed levels in March are lower than later in the 

acclimation period because fish are smaller in March. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-28 Chapter 3 – Surface Water Quality 

To assess the combined impacts, TP loads were estimated for the active sites (Table 3-2) and 

proposed sites (Table 3-3). Dryden facility inputs for the month of March (Table 3-5) were also 

used. The estimated TP loads from the discharges were included with the background 

orthophosphate load in the model. The final orthophosphate concentrations were calculated 

using the flows used in the model and the combined load estimate. 

Even though a separate analysis was done for upper Wenatchee subbasin sites in White River 

and Little Wenatchee River (see previous subsection), and given that Lake Wenatchee would

buffer TP loads originating from the upper subbasin sites, discharges from these sites were 

represented in the model as being 100% available at the outlet of Lake Wenatchee. These 

assumptions provide an estimate of the maximum potential impacts in the Wenatchee River. 

Figure 3-3 presents predictions for combined TP impacts and compares them to background 

conditions. TP is higher in the upper reaches (upstream of Leavenworth) and declines steadily 

after an initial increase. The increase in the first 10 kilometers (6 miles) of the river reflects 

inputs from the Nason Creek, the upper Wenatchee subbasin, and the Chiwawa River sites. 

Much of the phosphorus appears to be assimilated around RKM 27 (RM 16.8), which is 

upstream of Tumwater Canyon. 

Differences in the range of DO simulated with and without the project-related loads are 

negligible; the maximum difference is less than 0.1 milligram per liter (mg/L). The daily 

minimum DO is well above the water quality threshold for DO. These results indicate that in the 

absence of other nutrient sources, the project alone is not expected to adversely impact DO 

resources within the Wenatchee River. 

The range of pH with the project is generally equal to the range simulated for the natural 

conditions (Figure 3-4). At approximately RKM 27 (RM 16.8), the upper bound of the pH 

appears to be somewhat higher than the pH simulated for background conditions. This is a 

consequence of the higher algal levels simulated in this reach over background conditions. 

Finally, there is no appreciable difference in the range of the temperature simulated with and 

without the project loads. 

The measurable change criterion defined in Section 3.5.1 was the basis for determining potential 

water quality impacts of the proposed project. The range of pH evaluated against the measurable 

change criterion of 0.1 unit is presented in Figure 3-5. The model simulations are generally well 

below the criterion. The minor increase in the difference in range near RKM 27 can be attributed 

to induced biological activity associated with project loads. Nonetheless, these increases are 

well below the criterion. Figure 3-5 also shows that the DO concentrations simulated by the 

model do not produce any deficit that exceeds 0.2 mg/L. The only deviation from the 

background conditions appears to be at RKM 27 and is associated with algal activity. 

The spatial differences in TP, DO, and pH simulated by the model with and without the loads 

from the proposed project show that the majority of the phosphorus load from the project enters 

in the upstream reaches, and much of it is assimilated in the Wenatchee River prior to entry into 

the lower reaches (below the city of Leavenworth). These results indicate that even under the 

worst-case flow and project-related loading conditions simulated here, the proposed project 

would not adversely impact water quality. The model simulations demonstrate that the 

maximum predicted impact from the proposed project, including discharges from the proposed 

hatchery at Dryden, is so small as to be undetectable. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Surface Water Quality 3-29

Figure 3-3. Maximum (top line) and minimum (bottom line) total phosphorus concentrations simulated by QUAL-2K model compared 

for cases with and without the proposed project for 7Q10 low-flow and March climatic condition with maximum background 

loadings determined in WDOE TMDL 

Maximum (top line) and minimum (bottom line)
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-30 Chapter 3 – Surface Water Quality 

Figure 3-4. Maximum (top line) and minimum (bottom line) pHs simulated by QUAL-2K model compared for cases 

with and without the proposed project for 7Q10 low-flow and March climatic condition with maximum background 

loadings determined in WDOE TMDL 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Surface Water Quality 3-31

Figure 3-5. Difference from March background conditions in the range of pH (top graph) and minimum DO (bottom graph) with and 

without the proposed project in the Wenatchee basin
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-32 Chapter 3 – Surface Water Quality 

3.5.3.5 Methow Basin Sites (Primary) 

The site-specific acclimation-related nutrient loads for the Methow sites were calculated using an 

approach similar to that of the Wenatchee sites. Loads estimated from measured data at active 

acclimation sites in Nason Creek (see Table 3-2) were used for this analysis. The TP loads 

estimated for the proposed sites in the Methow basin are shown in Table 3-7.

Table 3-7. TP loads estimated for proposed acclimation activity in the Methow basin 

Proposed 

Site

No. of Fish 

(thousands)

TP Loada

(kg/d)

Receiving 

Stream

Goat Wall 50 0.016 Methow

Heath 200 0.064 Methow

Winthrop 

NFH 100 0.032 Methow

MSWA 87.5 0.028 Chewuch

Mason 87.5 0.028 Chewuch

Pete Creek 

Pond 125 0.040 Chewuch

Lincoln 110 0.035 Twisp

Twisp Weir 110 0.035 Twisp

Lower Twisp 30 0.010 Twisp

Parmley 50 0.016 Beaver

Gold 50 0.016 Gold

a. Estimated from average load of 0.32 mg per fish per day calculated 

from measured data at active discharges in Nason Creek 

kg/d = kilograms per day 

Methow River Mainstem (3 sites) 

Goat Wall: This is the most upstream site proposed that would discharge directly into the 

Methow River. For the relatively small number of smolts (50,000) acclimated, the TP 

loading to the Methow River is expected to be about 16 g/d. The average flow from 1990 

through 2010 for the months of March through May in this section of the Methow River 

(USGSG Gage 12447383, Methow River near Goat Creek) is about 900 cfs, which is 

comparable to the flow at the mouth of the White River in the Wenatchee basin (WDOE 

Station 45K090, March through May average from 2003 through 2010 is about 1,000 cfs). 

Given the predominantly forested nature of the upper portions of the Wenatchee and Methow 

basins, the background phosphorus concentrations are likely to be similar. It was shown that 

a TP load of up to 35 g/d (see Table 3-3) from individual acclimation-related discharges in 

the White River would comprise only a very small fraction (less than a fifth of a percent) of 

the background load. Given the similarity in the flows and land type between the two 

watersheds, the impacts of discharges from Goat Wall are expected to be similarly negligible 

in this reach of the Methow River. 

Heath: About 200,000 smolts are expected to be acclimated in a large pond at the Heath site. 

The TP loads from this site are estimated to be four times that of Goat Wall at about 64 g/d. 

This site is located upstream of the city of Winthrop in the same section of the river as Goat 

Wall (although farther downstream). Therefore, the assessment applied for Goat Wall can be 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Surface Water Quality 3-33

applied here. Even though the load is almost double, it is still expected to be a small fraction 

of the background conditions and comparable in magnitude to the largest load expected for 

the White River sites. Similar to Goat Wall, the impacts are expected to be negligible. 

Winthrop National Fish Hatchery: Discharges from this public hatchery are covered by a 

discharge permit. The loads from acclimation activity are expected to be about 32 g/d. Some 

level of treatment of the discharge that is associated with hatchery operations is expected. 

Thus, the loads from this site would be even smaller. Therefore, potential impacts related to 

acclimation activity are expected to be negligible. 

Chewuch River (3 sites) 

Methow State Wildlife Area (MSWA) Eightmile: The MSWA Eightmile site is the most 

upstream proposed site on the Chewuch River, located in a side channel above the confluence 

with Eightmile Creek. About 87,500 smolts are proposed to be acclimated, for which the 

estimated TP load to the system is 28 g/d. The watershed for the Chewuch is similar to the 

upper portions of the Methow River (predominantly forested with very little human 

influence). Thus, a similar approach as that used for the upper Methow sites (Goat Wall and 

Heath) was used here. The long-term (1991 through 2010) average flow for March through 

May reported at the USGS Gage in Winthrop is about 700 cfs, which is lower than but 

comparable to the upper Methow River flows. Given the similarity in the subbasin 

characteristics, background loads, and acclimation-related nutrient loads, water quality 

impacts from acclimation activity are expected to negligible. 

Mason: Discharges from Mason would enter the Chewuch River through Eightmile Creek. 

The number of smolts to be acclimated at this site is identical to MSWA Eightmile. Given 

Mason’s proximity to that site and their similar in-stream conditions, impacts are also 

expected to be similar. 

Pete Creek Pond: Approximately 125,000 smolts are expected to be acclimated at this site, 

corresponding to a TP load of 40 g/d. This site is proposed on the lower Chewuch River 

where the watershed and background loads would be comparable to the other two Chewuch 

River sites. While the acclimation-related loads are expected to be higher (by 40% compared 

to MSWA) due to the greater number of fish acclimated, the background loads in the 

Chewuch River are much higher than the proposed new loads. Therefore, acclimation-related 

impacts on the receiving stream are expected to be negligible.

Twisp River (3 sites) 

Lincoln: This site is the most upstream among the proposed sites on the Twisp River. The 

TP load in the discharge associated with the proposed acclimation of 110,000 smolts is 

expected to be about 35 g/d. 

The primary human influence in the Twisp River occurs near the city of Twisp, which is at 

the confluence of the Twisp and Methow rivers, leaving much of the Twisp River watershed 

as forest—similar to the upper section of the Methow River and the Chewuch River. 

Therefore, background phosphorus concentrations in the Twisp River likely would be 

similar. The Twisp River flows are smaller than those in the upper Methow River and 

Chewuch River (average flow at the USGS Gage 12448998 on the Twisp River near the city 

of Twisp for March through May in 1990 through 2010 is about 440 cfs). Therefore, 

background loads in the Twisp River would be smaller, and the acclimation-related loads can 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-34 Chapter 3 – Surface Water Quality 

be a larger proportion of the background loads than what would be encountered in the 

Chewuch River and upper Methow River sites. Even if the proportion is double what is 

expected at the upper Methow River and Chewuch River sites, it is still expected be a small 

fraction of the background conditions (see proportions calculated for the upper Wenatchee 

River sites in Table 3-3 for an order of magnitude estimate). Impacts on the receiving stream 

are therefore expected to be negligible. 

Twisp Weir: This site is approximately midway between the Lincoln site and the confluence 

of the Twisp River with the Methow. As with Lincoln, the TP load in the discharge 

associated with the proposed acclimation of 110,000 smolts is expected to be about 35 g/d. 

Given that in-stream conditions are similar to the Lincoln site and the same number of fish is

proposed, impacts resulting from the Twisp Weir site are expected to be negligible. 

Lower Twisp: The site is close to the Twisp River confluence with the Methow River. For 

the 30,000 fish proposed at this site, the acclimation-related TP loads are expected to be 

similar—less than 10 g/d. Given the site’s proximity to the Methow River, greater dilution 

of the TP load can be expected downstream of the confluence. Therefore, impacts for this 

site would likely be lower than for the Lincoln site. 

Beaver Creek – Parmley 

The Parmley site is expected to acclimate 50,000 smolts. The TP load associated with this site is 

an estimated 16 g/d. Beaver Creek is smaller than the other streams considered thus far; 

however, the number of fish proposed for acclimation at this site is proportionally smaller. 

Consequently, the nutrient loading that could occur as a result of acclimation at this site is also 

expected to be smaller than the other sites previously discussed. Impacts are therefore likely to 

be negligible. A more definitive evaluation was not possible due to the lack of sufficient data for 

calculating background loads in the creek. 

Gold Creek – Gold 

This proposed site is located in the lower Methow basin. About 50,000 smolts would be 

acclimated here, with a corresponding TP load of about 16 g/d to Gold Creek. Gold Creek is 

similar in size to Beaver Creek. Also, because this is the only acclimation site proposed on Gold 

Creek with the same number of fish as proposed for the Parmley site on Beaver Creek, localized 

impacts are expected to be similarly negligible. 

3.5.3.6 Methow Basin Sites (Backup) 

Seven backup sites are being considered for the Methow basin, one or more of which would be 

used if one or more of the proposed sites is determined to be infeasible. The TP loads estimated 

for these sites are presented in Table 3-8 and discussed in the following sections. 

Chewuch Acclimation Facility 

This existing acclimation facility might be expanded if other sites on the Chewuch River are not 

developed. About 125,000 smolts would be acclimated at the site. The TP loads associated with 

this activity would be about 40 g/d. The assessments from the other Chewuch River sites would 

apply here due to the similar location and number of fish. Impacts are expected to be negligible. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Surface Water Quality 3-35

Table 3-8. TP loads estimated for backup sites in the Methow basin 

Proposed 

Site No. of Fish 

TP Loada

(kg/d)

Receiving 

Stream

Chewuch AF 125,000 0.040 Chewuch

MSRF 125,000 0.040 Chewuch

Biddle 50,000 0.016 Wolf

Utley 83,000 0.027 Twisp

Newby 83,000 0.027 Twisp

Poorman 83,000 0.027 Twisp

Balky Hill 50,000 0.016 Beaver

a. Estimated from average load of 0.32 mg per fish per day calculated 

from measured data at active discharges in Nason Creek. 

kg/d = kilograms per day 

Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation (MSRF) Chewuch 

The number of fish acclimated at the MSRF site would be the same as for the Chewuch 

Acclimation Facility (about 125,000). Given the site’s proximity to the confluence with the 

Methow River and the similarity of the estimated TP loads to the other Chewuch sites, localized 

impacts on the Chewuch River due to TP loading from this site are expected to be negligible. 

Biddle 

This site is on Wolf Creek. About 16 g/d of TP would be discharged due to acclimation of about 

50,000 smolts. This site is on a relatively small creek, and the impacts are likely to be similar to 

those estimated for the Parmley and Gold Creek sites. Lack of data prevented a detailed 

evaluation of localized impacts associated with this site. 

Balky Hill 

This site is located on Beaver Creek, and impacts are expected to be similar to those at the 

Biddle and Parmley sites. As with the Biddle site, due to lack of sufficient data, a detailed 

evaluation of localized impacts was not possible. 

Utley 

The Utley site would acclimate 83,000 smolts, if used. For those 83,000 smolts, the TP loads are 

expected to be about 27 g/d. The number of fish would be less than at Lincoln and Twisp Weir 

(the two primary sites) on the Twisp River, which are projected to have negligible impacts, so 

this site would also be expected to have a negligible impact. 

Newby 

The Newby site is downstream of the Utley site and would acclimate the same number of smolts, 

if used. The TP loads and the impacts are expected to be similar to the Utley site. 

Poorman 

This acclimation site is the farthest downstream of all backup sites on the Twisp River. Because 

the site would acclimate the same number of fish as the other Twisp sites, Poorman would also 

be expected to have a negligible impact. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-36 Chapter 3 – Surface Water Quality 

3.5.3.7 Combined Impacts of Methow Basin Acclimation Sites 

A rigorous mass balance model, such as the one developed by WDOE for the Wenatchee basin, 

was not undertaken for the Methow basin due to the lack of data for model development and 

calibration. The evaluation for the Methow basin applied existing data. Historical information 

on phosphorus concentrations for the acclimation months was limited. Therefore, the 

evaluations of the potential for the acclimation-related TP loads to dominate the background 

conditions are based on a comparison to the impacts assessed for the Wenatchee basin. This 

method is possible because the characteristics of the Wenatchee and Methow basins are 

comparable. 

Both watersheds are predominantly forested. Both have the high peaks of the Cascade 

Mountains that contribute the majority of flows through snowmelt in spring. In both basins, 

much of the precipitation occurs during the months of October through March, and this 

precipitation is predominantly in the form of snow (Andonaegui 2001; Konrad et al. 2003). 

Although the Methow basin is somewhat drier than the Wenatchee, the flow patterns are 

consistent between the two basins, with similar peak-flow and low-flow periods. This indicates 

that flow-driven processes such as mobilization of particulates, dilution of nutrients, in-stream 

re-aeration, and habitat conditions for attached algae are likely to be similar between the two 

basins. 

The Methow basin is sparsely populated, even between Winthrop and Pateros.12 Konrad et al. 

(2003) concluded, based on an analysis of water quality data collected throughout the basin, that 

human-caused impact is generally low. The major human sources of water pollutants in the 

basin are the publicly operated treatment works (POTWs) at Twisp and Winthrop and the 

Winthrop NFH. 

Based on data collected by WDOE for March, April, and May 2005-2009, the average TP load 

over the 3-month period was estimated at approximately 39 kg/d. As with the Wenatchee basin, 

the loads generally followed the flow, with peaks in May that were much larger than March and 

April. 

In order to estimate the combined impact of the proposed project, the TP loads from POTWs 

were separated from the overall loads to provide an estimate of background conditions. Based 

on discharge monitoring reports (DMR), the average daily loads from the POTWs were 

estimated and subtracted from the average loads calculated for the Methow River at Pateros. A 

DMR was not available for Winthrop NFH. Thus, the loads from this facility could not be 

differentiated. 

Acclimation activity may contribute about 0.9% of the average background loads (Table 3-9). 

Noting that loads from Winthrop NFH and other minor point sources were not included, this is 

likely an overestimate of the relative contribution of the acclimation activity loads. In addition, 

discharge monitoring report data from fall were used for estimation of the loads due to lack of 

data for spring periods. Despite these limitations, the estimate of loads is considered reasonable, 

because loads from municipal POTWs generally do not show strong seasonal variability and 

basin flows in October through February are generally comparable to flows in early spring. 

 

12 Population of less than 5,000, based on 2000 census. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Surface Water Quality 3-37

Table 3-9. TP loads estimated for the Methow basin with and without POTW loads 

Source TP Load (kg/d)

Methow River at Pateros a39.20

Twisp POTW b1.30

Winthrop POTW c0.58

Estimated Background Load 37.31

Acclimation Activity Loads d0.32

a. Average over March - May calculated from paired TP and flow data collected respectively by WDOE (48A070) and 

USGS (12449950) in the Methow River at Pateros in 2005 through 2009. 

b. Based on NPDES discharge monitoring report information from October 2009 through February 2010. 

c. Based on NPDES discharge monitoring report information from November 2009. 

d. Sum of the loads estimated for the individual sites in Table 3-7.

As a check on the load estimates for the Methow basin, a similar loading calculation was 

performed for the Wenatchee basin, where point source discharge data were available for spring,

and the results for the two basins were compared. Once the human influences were subtracted 

from the loads, the background load at the downstream reaches of the Wenatchee and Methow 

basins are 25.6 kg/d and 37.3 kg/d respectively (see Table 15 in Appendix 7 Water Quality 

Impacts and Table 3-9 above). The similarity in the characteristics of the two basins is supported 

further by the fact that the geographic areas and the background TP loads are proportional 

between the two basins; i.e., the background TP load in the Wenatchee basin is 69% of the 

Methow basin load, and the Wenatchee basin covers an area 73% the size of the Methow basin. 

Project sites in the Wenatchee basin contribute approximately 1.5% of the background load. 

This is higher than the Methow basin estimate of 0.9%. This difference is expected because a 

larger number of fish are proposed for acclimation in the Wenatchee basin (about 1.15 million 

versus 1 million in Methow) and because of the contribution of TP loads from the proposed yearround rearing activities at the Dryden facility in the Wenatchee basin. 

The modeling for the Wenatchee basin suggests that, even for critical conditions, acclimationrelated nutrient loads are not expected to produce a measurable change in DO and pH (see 

discussion in Section 3.5.3.4 ―Combined Impacts to Water Quality of Wenatchee Basin 

Acclimation Sites‖). Based on the analysis in this section and considering the similarities 

between the two basins, it is concluded that the TP loads introduced to the Methow basin from 

this project are unlikely to produce a measurable change in DO and pH (defined in Section 

3.5.1). 

3.5.4 Impacts of the No Action Alternative 

3.5.4.1 Wenatchee Basin 

The mechanistic modeling approach used for estimating the combined and cumulative impacts 

for the Proposed Action (see Section 3.5.3 Impacts of the Proposed Action) was used for the No 

Action Alternative sites in the Wenatchee basin. The estimated phosphorus loads for the sites in 

the No Action Alternative (Table 3-10) were used to calculate the phosphorus concentrations of 

the respective tributaries receiving the discharge in the QUAL-2K model. Loading from any 

other site in the Proposed Action that is not listed in Table 3-10 was excluded. All other 

simulation conditions and modeling assumptions remained unchanged from the Proposed Action 

simulations. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-38 Chapter 3 – Surface Water Quality 

Table 3-10. TP loads estimated for No Action Alternative sites in Wenatchee basin 

No Action Site No. of Fish TP Loada(kg/d) Receiving Stream

Rohlfing 100,000 0.032 White River

Coulter 100,000 0.032 White River

Butcher 100,000 0.032 Little Wenatchee River

Beaver 100,000 0.032 Beaver

Leavenworth NFH 100,000 0.032 Icicle 

Total 500,000 0.16

a. Uses an estimate of 0.32 mg/d/fish derived from active sites in Nason Creek; see Table 3-2.

3.5.4.2 Methow Basin 

Under the No Action Alternative, 200,000 fish would be acclimated in the Methow basin 

(Table 3-11), which is 20% of the number of fish for the Proposed Action (Table 3-7). 

Therefore, the TP loads for the No Action Alternative are expected to be lower by 80%. Based 

on the background and basin loads estimated for the Methow basin in Table 3-9, it is expected 

that the No Action Alternative would contribute less than 0.2% of the basin loads. Therefore, 

water quality impacts on the Methow River are expected to be negligible if the No Action 

Alternative is implemented. 

Table 3-11. TP loads estimated for No Action Alternative sites in Methow basin

No Action Site No. of Fish TP Loada(kg/d) Receiving Stream

Heath 20,000 0.006 Twisp River

Lincoln 60,000 0.019 Twisp River

Lower Twisp 20,000 0.006 Methow River

Winthrop NFH 100,000 0.032 Methow River

Total 200,000 0.064

a. Uses an estimate of 0.32 mg/d/fish derived from active sites in Nason Creek; see Table 3-2; numbers don’t add up due to 

rounding.

3.5.4.3 Combined Impacts 

The combined impact simulation showed that the impacts to water quality are negligible if the 

project were to continue without the changes in the Proposed Action (see Appendix 7, Section 

6.1.1). This is to be expected, given that the results discussed in previous sections demonstrated 

that, even with the greater number of sites in the Proposed Action, impacts would be negligible. 

3.5.5 Mitigation for the Proposed Action 

The project proposes several practices to reduce nutrient levels, several of which are already 

incorporated into the design of the project: 

 Acclimate and release small numbers of coho smolts from multiple sites to dilute the 

loads and reduce local effects. 

 Select ponds with flow rates that are higher than those used in constructed regional fish 

facilities so that there is substantial dilution of nutrients in the discharges. 

 Acclimate in large, natural ponds; their higher water volumes provide greater dilution of 

fish feed and wastes and buffer nutrient loading to the receiving stream. 

 Feed high-phosphorus-digestibility foods. 

 Periodically remove sediments from some acclimation ponds to eliminate potential longterm accumulation of nutrients. 

 At the Dryden Hatchery, treat water at a level comparable to Leavenworth NFH. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Surface and Groundwater and Water Rights 3-39

3.6 Surface and Groundwater and Water Rights 

3.6.1 Affected Environment 

The potential affected environment for this resource includes surface water flows, surface water 

temperatures, water quality, local groundwater levels, and existing users (water rights) in the 

immediate vicinity and downstream of the sites where new groundwater sources are developed. 

The potential affected environment at individual sites is discussed in Section 3.6.3 Impacts of 

Proposed Action. Only two acclimation sites in the Wenatchee basin (one primary and one 

backup) would require new groundwater development as part of this project; four acclimation 

sites in the Methow would require new groundwater sources. Other facilities that could be used 

by the project use groundwater, but the impacts of their development and use have been or will 

be evaluated as part of other permitting processes. Only the sites requiring new development are 

discussed, except in the cumulative impacts section (Section 3.15). 

Washington State’s Administrative Code establishes stream management units, maximum future 

allocations, basins that are closed to further water right appropriation, and in-stream flow 

regulations for the two basins. In the Wenatchee River basin, the Chumstick Creek subbasin is 

closed to future appropriations. Several stream basins and lakes within the Methow River basin 

also are closed to future appropriations (WAC 173-545 [Wenatchee] and WAC 173-548 

[Methow]). 

3.6.2 Types of Impact

New water supplies to acclimation sites and the proposed hatchery that are based on new 

groundwater wells could have the following impacts: 

 Reduction in the production capacity of nearby wells 

 Reduction or increase in surface water flows 

 Reduction in surface water quality 

Reduction in the production capacity of nearby wells. Such impacts are considered to be an 

adverse effect on the existing well-owner’s water rights. The criteria used to evaluate the 

potential impacts of proposed groundwater withdrawals on existing groundwater users are based 

on the amount of drawdown interference the withdrawal would cause in the existing wells. 

Drawdown interference of less than one foot likely would not affect the production capacity of 

existing wells. Drawdown interference of greater than one foot would require case-specific 

analysis to evaluate whether the drawdown would impact production capacity. 

The Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) is charged with administering state water 

rights laws. The term ―impairment‖ is used by WDOE as the criterion for assessing impacts to 

groundwater rights. Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-150-060 describes how to 

determine whether a groundwater right has been impaired. Specifically: ―A ground water right 

which pertains to qualifying withdrawal facilities, shall be deemed to be impaired whenever: 

1) there is an interruption or an interference in the availability of water to said facilities, or a 

contamination of such water, caused by the withdrawal of ground water by a junior water 

right holder or holders; and 

2) significant modification is required to be made to said facilities in order to allow the senior 

ground water right to be exercised.‖
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-40 Chapter 3 – Surface and Groundwater and Water Rights 

Reduction in surface water flows. The criterion for surface water flow impacts (local, 

downstream, in-stream, and low-flow) used in this analysis is any measurable or theoretical 

reduction in surface water flow rates. 

Reduction in surface water quality. Water quality criteria are established in Washington State 

by WAC 173-200 for groundwater and WAC 173-201A for surface water. The criterion for 

assessing potential impacts to surface water quality is any measurable or theoretical change to 

surface water quality resulting from groundwater usage. 

Groundwater withdrawals can affect surface water levels depending on the degree to which the 

groundwater source is in hydraulic continuity with surface water. Hydraulic continuity is a 

scientific term that describes how easily water flows between groundwater and surface water 

(streams, rivers, lakes, and wetlands). When hydraulic continuity is high, water flows easily 

between groundwater and surface water. This impacts how water should be managed because 

anything done to the groundwater (such as, pumping from wells or pollution seeping into the 

groundwater) will affect the surface water, and vice versa (Chehalis Basin Watershed Planning 

Issue Paper, accessed at www.crcwater.org/cbp). 

New water supplies to acclimation sites and the proposed hatchery that are based on new surface 

water withdrawals could reduce surface water flows. 

3.6.3 Impacts of the Proposed Action 

Four primary sites and one backup site in the Wenatchee basin (Tall Timber, Chikamin, Dryden 

[primary] and George [backup]); and one primary and one backup site in the Methow basin 

(Twisp Weir [primary] and Newby [backup]) require new surface water intakes. The stream 

reaches between the intakes and outlets would have slightly lower total flow when water is 

diverted, but these distances are generally 1,500 feet or less. Because the water used would be 

returned close to the intakes, the withdrawals are essentially water neutral and would have no 

regional impact on flows. In-stream flows required by WDOE would be maintained. For these 

reasons, surface water withdrawals will not be discussed further. 

Table 3-12 summarizes potential impacts from new groundwater withdrawals at primary sites. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Surface and Groundwater and Water Rights 3-41

Table 3-12. Summary of potential impacts in the Wenatchee and Methow basins from new 

groundwater withdrawals at primary acclimation and hatchery sites 

Site

Proposed 

Groundwater 

Withdrawal (gpm)a

Potential Groundwater 

Level Impacts

Potential Surface 

Water Flow 

Impacts

Potential 

Groundwater Right 

Impacts

Wenatchee River Basin Primary Sites

Dryden 

Hatchery 1,485

Local: depends on amount 

and type of withdrawal; no 

regional impacts

Slight reduction 

within drawdown 

cone; no impacts 

downstream

Potential impacts to 

nearby groundwater 

rights

Butcher 225 Potential local: no regional 

impacts

Slight reduction 

within drawdown 

cone; no impacts 

downstream

Impacts to existing 

off-site wells unlikely

Basin Total 1,710

Methow River Basin Primary Sites

MSWA 

Eightmile 800 Potential local: no regional impacts

Slight reduction 

within drawdown 

cone; no impacts 

downstream

Potential impact to

existing on-site well

Mason 225 Potential local: no regional 

impacts

Slight reduction 

within drawdown 

cone; no impacts 

downstream

Minimal potential 

impact to nearby well

Twisp Weir 225 Potential local: no regional 

impacts

Slight reduction 

within drawdown 

cone; no impacts 

downstream

Low potential for 

impact to existing onsite well and off-site 

well

Lower 

Twisp 225 Potential local: no regional impacts

Slight reduction 

within drawdown 

cone; no impacts 

downstream

Low potential for 

impact to existing onsite well and off-site 

well

Basin Total 1,475

a. gpm = gallons per minute 

3.6.3.1 Wenatchee Basin Acclimation Sites 

This and subsequent sections discuss only sites where the project proposes new groundwater 

wells. 

Butcher (Primary Site) 

The Butcher site is in an east-west trending basin occupied by Nason Creek and underlain by 

Quaternary alluvium, terrace deposits or alpine glacial drift. No site-specific studies are 

available; however, reports by Anchor QEA, LLC (2009) and GeoEngineers (2009) summarize 

the results of a geophysical investigation and the drilling of two test wells located approximately 

500 and 1,000 feet to the southeast of the Butcher site. The Quaternary deposits cover a 

northeast-southwest trending normal fault that appears to run beneath the site. The underlying 

bedrock is banded gneiss to the west of the fault and sedimentary rocks to the east of the fault. 

The groundwater source for the Butcher site would be the unconsolidated deposits overlying the 

bedrock. The unconsolidated alluvium is composed of sand, gravel, silt and clay layers. Several 

water-bearing layers of sand and gravel appear to have the potential to be moderately productive 

based on nearby well log descriptions and pumping tests. Though the thickness, lateral extent 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-42 Chapter 3 – Surface and Groundwater and Water Rights 

and other characteristics of the aquifer at the site are not known, the aquifer is likely to be in 

hydraulic continuity with Nason Creek. 

The proposed groundwater supply well at the Butcher site probably would be less than 250 feet 

deep. The proposed pumping rate is approximately 225 gallons per minute (gpm). 

Groundwater Levels. Groundwater withdrawals at the Butcher site could cause localized 

impacts to groundwater levels. The extent of the potential impacts depends on aquifer 

characteristics, which are not known at this time. Based on limited information that indicates a 

potential for a moderately productive aquifer and the assumed hydraulic continuity with Nason 

Creek, the area of groundwater level change (area of greater than 1 foot of drawdown) would 

likely extend laterally approximately 300 to 1,500 feet within the source aquifer. 

Surface Water Flows. Groundwater withdrawals could affect stream flow locally due to the 

potential that the source aquifer is in hydraulic continuity with surface water (Nason Creek). The 

potential change in groundwater levels discussed above may result in a localized reduction in 

stream flow. The percentage of the proposed 225 gpm withdrawn from the well that comes 

indirectly from the stream depends on the degree of hydraulic continuity between aquifer and 

surface water. This potential reduction in stream flow would be completely offset and balanced 

by return flows from the acclimation site. As a result, there would be no regional impacts to 

stream flow within the Wenatchee River basin. 

Water Rights. The proposed activities at the Butcher site are not likely to impact groundwater 

rights. Based on state well records, there are five existing water-supply wells within 1⁄2 mile that 

are in the unconsolidated deposits. There are no known groundwater rights within 1,500 feet of 

the Butcher site. The expected drawdown at the nearest wells is not enough to impair the wells, 

or even have measurable impact on the production capacity of the wells. 

The proposed activities at the Butcher site would not impact surface water rights. Because of the 

water-balance neutrality of the proposed withdrawal of groundwater from an aquifer in hydraulic 

continuity with the stream and discharge of the groundwater into the stream, there would be no 

regional impacts to stream flow upstream or downstream of the Butcher site. 

Squadroni (Backup Site) 

The site is within the northwest-southeast trending basin occupied by Nason Creek and underlain 

by Quaternary alluvium or alpine glacial drift. The underlying bedrock is tonalite of the Mount 

Stuart batholith of Cretaceous age. The proposed groundwater source at the Squadroni site, 

located near the confluence of Nason and Gill Creeks, is the unconsolidated alluvium or glacial 

deposits overlying the bedrock. The lateral extent of the aquifer is generally restricted to the 

valley floor adjacent to Nason Creek. 

There is an existing domestic well and residence at the site. If the site is used, a new well or 

wells would terminate in the unconsolidated alluvium composed of sand, gravel, silt and clay 

layers. It is likely that multiple wells would be needed to meet the proposed demand of 720 gpm 

(1.6 cfs). Several water-bearing layers of sand and gravel appear to have the potential to be 

moderately productive based on nearby well log descriptions. Although the thickness, lateral 

extent and other characteristics of the aquifer at the site are not known, the aquifer is likely to be 

in hydraulic continuity with Nason Creek. 

Groundwater Levels. Groundwater withdrawals could cause localized impacts to groundwater 

levels, with specific water level reductions in the existing domestic well at the site. Based on 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Surface and Groundwater and Water Rights 3-43

existing information on the source aquifer, the drawdown cone, defined by drawdown greater 

than 1 foot, would reach approximately 500 to 1,500 feet depending on aquifer characteristics 

and the degree of confinement of the source aquifer.13 

Surface Water Flows. Groundwater withdrawals could cause localized impacts to stream flows 

due to the potential that the source aquifer is in hydraulic continuity with surface water (Nason 

and Gill Creeks). A change in groundwater levels would reduce stream flow, the magnitude of 

which depends on the degree of hydraulic continuity between aquifer and surface water. 

However, any reduction in stream flow would be completely offset and balanced by return flows 

from the acclimation pond and would result in no regional impact to stream flow in the 

Wenatchee River basin. 

Water Rights. The proposed activities at the Squadroni site could impact groundwater water 

rights. Logs of eight wells were located within the radius of influence of the proposed Squadroni 

point of withdrawal (500 – 1,500 feet), plus the Squadroni domestic well; these wells could be 

impaired by the proposed well. There are two known groundwater rights within the potential 

groundwater source area of the Squadroni site. 

The proposed activities at the Squadroni site would not impact surface water rights. Because of 

the water-balance neutrality of the proposed withdrawal of groundwater from an aquifer in 

hydraulic continuity with the stream and discharge of the groundwater back into the stream, there 

would be no regional impacts to stream flow upstream or downstream of the Squadroni site. 

3.6.3.2 Methow Basin Acclimation Sites 

MSWA Eightmile (Primary Site) 

In order to supply the site’s proposed water need of 800 gpm (1.8 cfs), multiple new wells could 

be required. 

The surface geology of the MSWA Eightmile site is recent Chewuch River alluvium and older 

Quaternary alluvium underlain by orthogneiss bedrock of Cretaceous-Jurassic age. The 

unconsolidated alluvium is composed of sand, gravel, silt and clay layers. Water-bearing layers 

of sand and gravel may have the potential for groundwater supply based on well log descriptions. 

An existing 6-inch-diameter well is located approximately 300 feet west of the proposed 

acclimation pond on the alluvial terrace with an elevation of approximately 2,120 feet mean sea 

level (MSL). The well, referred to as Mason Well 1, was drilled in August 1999 to 60 feet below 

the ground surface (bgs). Unconsolidated materials interpreted to be the Quaternary alluvium 

deposits were encountered to 60 feet bgs. No bedrock was encountered. An existing 6-inch 

well, referred to as Mason Well 2 (see analysis for the Mason site below), is located near the 

residence approximately 1,400 feet south of the Mason Well 1. 

The depth to bedrock and the thickness of the unconsolidated deposits are unknown at this time. 

Bedrock is exposed locally along Eightmile Creek and in the hills surrounding the MSWA 

Eightmile site. The aquifer in which the existing Mason Well 1 is completed is assumed to be 

unconfined and at least 30 feet thick based on the well log information. Most likely the local 

alluvial aquifer is in direct continuity with the Chewuch River. Groundwater levels are expected 

to fluctuate in elevation, magnitude and timing similar to the nearby surface water elevations. 

 

13 A confined aquifer has limited continuity with other aquifers and surface waters. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-44 Chapter 3 – Surface and Groundwater and Water Rights 

Groundwater Levels. Groundwater withdrawals at the site could cause localized impacts to 

groundwater levels. Based on existing information on the source aquifer, the drawdown cone, 

defined by drawdown greater than 1 foot, would reach approximately 500 to 1,500 feet 

depending on aquifer characteristics, the degree of confinement of the source aquifer and the 

degree of hydraulic continuity with the Chewuch River. The production capacity of the existing 

Mason Well 1 could be affected by drawdown interference. The amount of the effect is 

unknown until the well is drilled and tested, although it might be on the order of 1 to 5 feet. 

Surface Water Flows. Due to the potential that the source aquifer is in hydraulic continuity 

with the Chewuch River, groundwater withdrawals at the site could cause localized impacts to 

stream flows. A preliminary analysis of the theoretical drawdown within the aquifer at 300 feet 

from the pumping well indicates that the drawdown would be between 1 and 5 feet, depending 

on the amount of confinement of the aquifer. This change in groundwater levels would result in 

minimal reduction in stream flow (perhaps hundreds of gallons per day), which depends on the 

degree of hydraulic continuity between aquifer and surface water. This minor reduction in 

stream flow (the Chewuch has a daily flow on the order of tens of millions of gallons per day) 

would be completely offset and balanced by return flows from the facility; there would be no 

regional impacts to stream flow in the Methow River basin. 

Water Rights. The Mason Wells 1 and 2 are the only known groundwater supply wells close 

enough to be affected by a new well near the proposed MSWA Eightmile acclimation pond. 

There is less potential for impacting the Mason Well 2 because a new well or wells would be 

located more than 1,500 feet from Mason Well 2 (outside the zone of influence). Also, the 

proposed wells would be close to the Chewuch River, a recharge boundary14 that would reduce 

drawdown interference at distances of greater than 100 feet from the proposed wells. Drawdown 

interference at Mason Well 1 could be on the order of 1 to 5 feet assuming a distance of 300 feet 

and a conservative transmissivity15of 40,000 gallons per day per foot (gpd/ft). However, Mason 

Well 1 currently is not used. Discussions with the landowner would determine whether 

mitigation is needed, and if so, what would be done. The drawdown at Mason Well 2 would be 

effectively unmeasurable under the same assumptions.

The proposed activities at the MSWA Eightmile site would not impact surface water rights. 

Because of the water-balance neutrality of the proposed withdrawal of groundwater from an 

aquifer in hydraulic continuity with the stream and discharge of the groundwater back into the 

stream, there would be no regional impacts to stream flow upstream or downstream of the 

MSWA Eightmile site. 

Mason (Primary Site) 

The proposed demand on groundwater for the existing well at this site is a maximum of 225 gpm 

(0.5 cfs). The geology is the same as for the MSWA Eightmile site described above. 

The existing 6-inch-diameter well, Mason Well 2, is located at the site adjacent to Eightmile 

Creek. The well was drilled in 1990 to 100 feet bgs. Unconsolidated materials interpreted to be 

the Quaternary alluvium deposits were encountered to 100 feet bgs. No bedrock was 

 

14 The recharge boundary is where the drawdown cone intersects a stream. The drawdown cone cannot spread 

beyond the recharge boundary. 

15 Transmissivity is a measure of the ability of groundwater to flow in a horizontal direction. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Surface and Groundwater and Water Rights 3-45

encountered. Mason Well 2 is completed with an open bottom within a coarse sand and gravel 

deposit encountered from 96 to 100 feet. 

The aquifer in which Mason Well 2 is completed is assumed to be unconfined and at least 42 feet 

thick based on the well log information. Most likely the local aquifer is in direct continuity with 

the Chewuch River and the mouth of Eightmile Creek. Groundwater levels are expected to 

fluctuate in elevation, magnitude, and timing similar to the nearby surface water. 

Groundwater Levels. Groundwater withdrawals could affect groundwater levels locally. 

Based on existing information on the source aquifer, the drawdown cone, defined by drawdown 

greater than 1 foot, would reach approximately 300 to 1,000 feet depending on aquifer 

characteristics and the degree of confinement of the source aquifer. 

Surface Water Flows. Stream flows from groundwater withdrawals could be locally affected 

due to the potential that the source aquifer is in hydraulic continuity with surface water 

(Chewuch River and Eightmile Creek). Based on the water level and screened elevation, the 

aquifer would intersect Eightmile Creek near the confluence with the Chewuch River to the east. 

A preliminary analysis of the theoretical drawdown within the aquifer at 300 feet from the 

pumping well indicates that the drawdown would be between 0.1 to 1 foot, depending on aquifer 

characteristics and the amount of confinement of the aquifer. This change in groundwater levels 

would minimally reduce stream flow (by perhaps a few hundred gallons per day); the amount 

depends on the degree of hydraulic continuity between aquifer and surface water. This minor 

reduction in stream flow of the Chewuch River would be completely offset and balanced by 

return flows from the facility, with no regional impacts to stream flow in the Methow River 

basin. 

Water Rights. Mason Well 1 is the only groundwater supply well close enough to be affected 

by increased groundwater withdrawals for the proposed Mason acclimation pond. There is 

minimal potential for impacting Mason Well 1 because of its distance from the site (more than 

1,500 feet) and the proximity of the proposed well to Eightmile Creek and the Chewuch River 

(recharge boundaries that would reduce drawdown interference at distances of greater than 300 

feet from the proposed well). Assuming a conservative transmissivity of 40,000 gpd/ft, the 

drawdown at Mason Well 1 would be unmeasurable if it were in use, which it currently is not. 

There are no known groundwater rights in the vicinity of the Mason site.

The proposed activities at the Mason site would not affect surface water rights because of the 

water-balance neutrality of the proposed withdrawal. 

Twisp Weir (Primary Site) 

The proposed groundwater source at the Twisp Weir site would be one new 8-inch diameter 

well. The well would be adjacent to the Twisp River in order to use a shallow aquifer in

hydraulic continuity with the Twisp River. 

The acclimation site is located within an east-west trending basin occupied by the Twisp River 

and underlain by Quaternary alluvium or alpine glacial drift. The underlying bedrock is volcanic 

and sedimentary rocks. The groundwater source at the Twisp Weir site is the unconsolidated 

alluvium or glacial deposits overlying the bedrock. The lateral extent of the aquifer is generally 

restricted to the valley floor adjacent to the Twisp River. 

Groundwater Levels. Groundwater withdrawals could affect groundwater levels locally. 

Based on available information on the source aquifer, the drawdown cone, defined by drawdown 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-46 Chapter 3 – Surface and Groundwater and Water Rights 

greater than 1 foot, would reach approximately 300 to 1,000 feet, depending on the degree of 

confinement of the source aquifer. There is an existing domestic supply well adjacent to the 

existing residence.

Surface Water Flows. Groundwater withdrawals could locally affect stream flows due to the 

potential that the source aquifer is in hydraulic continuity with the Twisp River. This change in 

groundwater levels would minimally reduce stream flow (by perhaps hundreds of gallons per 

day), depending on aquifer characteristics and the degree of hydraulic continuity between aquifer 

and surface water. This minor reduction in stream flow (the Twisp River has a daily flow on the 

order of tens of millions of gallons per day) would be completely offset and balanced by return 

flows from the facility, with no regional impacts to stream flow in the Twisp River or the 

Methow River basin. 

Water Rights. At least two known wells, including the on-site well, near or within the 

groundwater source area of the Twisp Weir site could be affected by the proposed well 

development. Although well logs are incomplete or unrecorded, the expected drawdown at the 

existing wells is not expected to be great enough to impair them, or even measurably impact their

production capacity. 

The proposed activities at the Twisp Weir site would not impact surface water rights because of 

the water-balance neutrality of the proposed withdrawal. 

Lower Twisp (Primary Site) 

The proposed groundwater source at the Lower Twisp site is an existing 12-inch-diameter well 

drilled to a depth of 51 feet. It is adjacent to the existing side-channel ponds and approximately 

300 feet south of the main channel of the Twisp River. On August 25, 2010, the well was tested 

at rates up to 600 gpm; results indicate that it is capable of producing the desired flow of 1 cfs. 

The geology of the site is the same as that for the Twisp Weir site. 

Effects. Effects on groundwater levels , surface water flows, and water rights would be the same 

as for the Twisp Weir site.

MSRF Chewuch (Backup Site) 

The surface geology of the MSRF site is recent Chewuch River alluvium and older Quaternary 

alluvium deposits underlain by sedimentary rocks. A north-south trending fault occurs along the 

Chewuch River at the site; the fault is concealed under the alluvial deposits. 

No groundwater quality information is available for the MSRF site. However, water quality 

information for two nearby water systems indicates high water quality, with no violations of state 

drinking water quality standards. 

A number of well logs for wells in the vicinity of the site were examined. Some wells were 

completed in unconsolidated alluvium and some in bedrock. The logs indicate that water levels 

in the wells that were completed in the unconsolidated alluvium aquifer range from 8 to 39 feet 

below the top of the well casings. This alluvial aquifer is likely in hydraulic continuity with the 

Chewuch River. 

The bedrock aquifer is not likely to be a potential source for groundwater for this project due to 

low production capacity and presumed lower water quality. It is possible that multiple wells 

would be needed to meet the proposed demand of 850 gpm (1.9 cfs). 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Surface and Groundwater and Water Rights 3-47

Groundwater Levels. There is potential for localized impacts to groundwater levels due to 

groundwater withdrawals at the MSRF site. Based on existing information on the source aquifer, 

the drawdown cone, defined by drawdown greater than 1 foot, would reach approximately 500 to 

1,500 feet depending on aquifer characteristics, the degree of confinement of the source aquifer 

and the degree of hydraulic continuity with the Chewuch River. It is unlikely that the production 

capacity of the existing wells could be impacted by drawdown interference.

Surface Water Flows. Groundwater withdrawals could affect stream flows locally due to the 

potential that the source aquifer is in hydraulic continuity with the Chewuch River. A 

preliminary analysis of the theoretical drawdown within the aquifer at 300 feet from the pumping 

well indicates that the drawdown would be between 1 and 5 feet, depending on the amount of 

confinement of the aquifer. This change in groundwater levels would minimally reduce stream 

flow (by perhaps hundreds of gallons per day); the magnitude depends on the degree of hydraulic 

continuity between aquifer and surface water. This minor reduction in stream flow given the 

daily flows in the Chewuch would be completely offset and balanced by return flows from the 

facility. 

Because of the water-balance neutrality of the proposed withdrawal of groundwater from an 

aquifer in hydraulic continuity with the stream and discharge of the groundwater back into the 

stream, there would be no regional impacts to stream flow within the Methow River basin. 

Water Rights. The proposed activities at the MSRF site are not likely to impact groundwater 

rights. The nearby wells are not close enough to be impaired by a new well near the proposed 

MSRF acclimation pond. Groundwater drawdown from pumping would largely be mitigated by 

proximity to the Chewuch River (a recharge boundary that would reduce drawdown interference 

at distances of greater than 100 feet from the proposed wells). Drawdown interference at the 

other wells would be on the order of less than 0.1 foot (effectively unmeasurable) assuming a 

distance of 1,000 feet and a conservative transmissivity of 40,000 gpd/ft. 

The proposed activities at the MSRF site would not impact surface water rights. Because of the 

water-balance neutrality of the proposed withdrawal of groundwater from an aquifer in hydraulic 

continuity with the stream and discharge of the groundwater back into the stream, there would be 

no regional impacts to stream flow upstream or downstream of the MSRF site. 

3.6.3.3 Hatchery Sites 

Dryden (Primary Site) 

A water supply of up to 2,775 gpm (7.4 cfs) is proposed for the Dryden Hatchery facility from a 

combination of surface water and groundwater sources. Groundwater sources originally 

considered were either an infiltration gallery adjacent to Peshastin Creek or production well(s). 

A preliminary investigation indicated that the shallow soils would not support an infiltration 

gallery along the Wenatchee River in the area explored. Two test pits showed low permeability 

and a relatively deep groundwater table (GeoEngineers 2010). Therefore, only wells are 

proposed as the groundwater source for this site. 

The Dryden site is located at the confluence of Peshastin Creek and the Wenatchee River and is 

underlain by Quaternary alluvium and terrace deposits. The underlying bedrock is a sandstone 

that is exposed on the valley wall immediately opposite of the Dryden site and in the hills to the 

east and west. The groundwater source at the Dryden site is the unconsolidated alluvium or 

terrace deposits overlying the bedrock. The lateral extent of the aquifer is generally restricted to 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-48 Chapter 3 – Surface and Groundwater and Water Rights 

the valley floor adjacent to the Wenatchee River and Peshastin Creek. A preliminary depth-tobedrock analysis indicates that the unconsolidated deposits are 45 to 130 feet thick based on 

information from logs of wells located on the terraces to the west of the Dryden site. Only a few 

wells in the immediate vicinity were drilled to bedrock. Wells in the area penetrate the alluvium 

and terrace deposits, described by drillers as sand, sand and gravel, ―rocks,‖ and cemented sand 

and gravel with cobbles. The bedrock is described in the logs as sandstone. In addition to the 

alluvial deposits of the Wenatchee River, Peshastin Creek deltaic deposits of coarse gravel, 

cobbles and boulders occur along the banks of Peshastin Creek and along the west bank of the 

Wenatchee River downstream of the mouth of the creek. 

Water levels in the wells near the Dryden site are at elevations that generally correspond to the 

stage heights of the nearby Wenatchee River. This implies that the shallow unconsolidated 

aquifer is in hydraulic continuity with the Wenatchee River and/or Peshastin Creek. 

Groundwater levels are expected to fluctuate with the same timing as the changes in stage 

heights of the Wenatchee River and Peshastin Creek. Groundwater levels are expected to occur 

at 5 to 15 feet below ground surface (bgs) beneath the Dryden site, depending on the adjacent 

surface water levels. 

Groundwater Levels. Groundwater withdrawals at the Dryden site could cause local impacts to 

groundwater levels. Well logs from 27 nearby wells with depths ranging from 50 to 150 feet 

indicate there are several water bearing zones within the alluvial deposits. The bottoms of three 

of the 27 wells in the vicinity are completed within the sandstone bedrock. Only one well has 

limited pumping test data available. This well was pumped at 60 gpm with 1.7 feet of drawdown 

after 4 hours. Other wells in the area produce from 7 to 12 gpm from the bedrock wells and 15 

to 60 gpm from wells completed in the unconsolidated deposits based on the well logs. Specific 

capacities (pumping rate divided by drawdown) of the wells completed in unconsolidated 

deposits range from 6 to 35 gpm/foot of drawdown. Specific capacities of bedrock wells range 

from 0.2 to 0.6 gpm/foot of drawdown. 

The bedrock is not a potential source for groundwater for this project because of its low yield 

and presumed relatively lower quality water. 

The impacts to groundwater levels in the vicinity of the site would depend on the amount of 

production. 

Surface Water Flows. Groundwater withdrawals could affect stream flows near the site due to 

the likelihood that the alluvial source aquifer is in hydraulic continuity with surface water 

(Wenatchee River and Peshastin Creek). Depending on the percentage of the proposed 7.4 cfs 

demand that is derived from groundwater sources, drawdown within the source aquifer might be 

significant. This change in groundwater levels would result in a local reduction in stream flow, 

the amount of which depends on the degree of hydraulic continuity between aquifer and surface 

water. This very localized reduction in stream flow would be completely offset and balanced by 

return flows from the facility; thus, there would be no regional impacts to stream flow within the 

Wenatchee River basin. 

Water Rights. The proposed activities at the Dryden site could affect groundwater water rights. 

Active irrigation wells are known to exist in the area. If high-capacity production wells are 

constructed, the expected drawdown from pumping at the Dryden site could impair production at 

existing wells near the property boundaries. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Surface and Groundwater and Water Rights 3-49

The proposed activities at the Dryden site would not impact surface water rights. Because of the 

water-balance neutrality of the proposed withdrawal of groundwater from an aquifer in hydraulic 

continuity with the stream and discharge of the groundwater back into the stream, there would be 

no regional impacts to stream flow upstream or downstream of the Dryden site. 

George (Backup Site) 

The George site is located within the east-west trending basin occupied by the Wenatchee River 

and underlain by Quaternary alluvium, terrace deposits or alpine glacial drift. The underlying 

bedrock is sedimentary rocks of the Chumstick Formation of Eocene age. The proposed 

groundwater source at the George site, located adjacent to the Wenatchee River, is the shallow 

unconsolidated alluvium overlying the bedrock. The lateral extent of the aquifer is generally 

restricted to the valley floor adjacent to the Wenatchee River. 

There are no existing wells or structures at the George site. A new well or wells are proposed for 

the groundwater source; it is likely that multiple wells would be needed to meet the proposed 

demand of 1,500 gpm (3.3 cfs). The wells would be completed in the shallow unconsolidated 

alluvium in hydraulic continuity with the river. Several water-bearing layers of sand and gravel 

appear to have the potential to be moderately productive based on nearby well log descriptions. 

Although the thickness, lateral extent and other characteristics of the shallow aquifer at the site 

are not known, the aquifer is likely to be in hydraulic continuity with Nason Creek. 

Groundwater Levels. Groundwater withdrawals could cause local impacts to groundwater 

levels. Based on existing information on the source aquifer, the drawdown cone, defined by 

drawdown greater than 1 foot, would reach approximately 500 to 1,500 feet depending on 

aquifer characteristics and the degree of confinement of the source aquifer. There are no known 

wells within 1,500 feet of the likely well sites.

Surface Water Flows. Groundwater withdrawals could affect stream flows locally due to the 

potential that the source aquifer is in hydraulic continuity with surface water (Wenatchee River). 

A change in groundwater levels would reduce stream flow; the magnitude depends on the degree 

of hydraulic continuity between aquifer and surface water. Reduction in stream flow is likely to 

be minor and would be completely offset and balanced by return flows from the hatchery.

Because of the water-balance neutrality of the proposed withdrawal of groundwater from an 

aquifer in hydraulic continuity with the stream and discharge of the groundwater back into the 

stream, there would be no regional impacts to stream flow within the Wenatchee River basin. 

Water Rights. Groundwater development at the George site would not affect groundwater 

rights. No wells are known to be within the radius of influence (1,500 feet) of the likely points 

of withdrawal for the facility. There are no known groundwater rights within 1,500 feet of the 

likely withdrawal source area. 

Groundwater development at the George site would not affect surface water rights because of the 

water-balance neutrality of the proposed withdrawal.

3.6.3.4 Combined Impacts 

A combined total increase of 1,710 gpm in groundwater production is proposed for two sites 

(Dryden Hatchery and Butcher) in the Wenatchee River basin; and a combined total increase of 

1,475 gpm in groundwater production proposed for four acclimation pond sites (MSWA, Mason, 

Twisp Weir, and Lower Twisp) in the Methow River basin. The backup sites of Squadroni, 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-50 Chapter 3 – Surface and Groundwater and Water Rights 

George, and McComas in the Wenatchee and the backup site at MSRF Chewuch in the Methow 

also would increase groundwater withdrawals if the sites are used, but they are not included in 

this evaluation of combined impacts. If one or more of the backup sites replaces one or more 

primary sites, the combined effects could be locally different but would not noticeably change 

the basin-wide effects. 

Surface water use for the acclimation ponds is balanced by return flows except for short reaches 

between the intakes and outfalls, and groundwater use for the proposed acclimation ponds would 

be water-budget neutral for the Wenatchee and Methow basins. 

The discharge of groundwater into the surface waters of the Wenatchee and Methow river basins 

may increase or decrease the water temperature on a local basis depending on the season. The 

groundwater temperature would be relatively constant and stable compared to the surface water 

temperature, which fluctuates on a daily and seasonal basis. The amount of temperature impact 

would depend upon the stream-flow rate at the point of discharge and relative temperature 

difference; the larger the stream-flow rate and the smaller the temperature difference, the smaller 

the impact. 

Surface water quality may be impacted by a discharge of groundwater into the stream. The 

shallow groundwater is expected to be of similar quality to the nearby surface water because the 

aquifer is in hydraulic continuity. Deeper groundwater typically contains higher levels of 

dissolved solids and lower dissolved oxygen levels than shallow groundwater. However, 

groundwater quality is expected to be more stable in parameters such as temperature, turbidity 

and total suspended solids as compared to surface water. 

Impacts to other users of the unconsolidated aquifers are not likely to occur at distances more 

than 2,000 feet from new points of groundwater withdrawal. 

Due to the continuity of the shallow aquifers with local surface streams and relatively high 

transmissivity of the subsurface alluvial aquifers, withdrawal impacts to the aquifers are limited 

to areas near the proposed sites. Impacts are not expected to extend between sites; therefore, the 

combined impact of all the withdrawals is equal to the sum of the individual impacts. 

3.6.4 Impacts of the No Action Alternative 

Because the No Action Alternative includes operation of fewer sites than the current program 

and no development of new groundwater supplies, the alternative would not directly or indirectly 

have adverse effects on groundwater, surface water, or water rights in the basins. 

3.6.5 Mitigation for the Proposed Action 

The following actions have been incorporated into the project design where feasible. 

 For sites with enough room or access, the groundwater source would be placed downstream 

of the discharge into the acclimation pond to offset local impacts to surface water caused by 

groundwater level changes in aquifers in hydraulic continuity with surface water. 

 Groundwater withdrawals would be located as close as possible to the surface water body 

and as far away from existing senior groundwater users as feasible to reduce the size and 

magnitude of the drawdown cone at distance from the site. 

 As little as possible of the stream or side channel bottom would be disturbed to reduce the 

potential impacts to the hydraulic continuity between the surface water and shallow 

groundwater.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Fish 3-51

3.7 Fish 

This section discusses impacts to fish species in the basin, focusing on effects to fish listed under 

the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s 

(WDFW’s) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Program. 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 and its amendments (16 USC 1531 et seq.) require federal 

agencies to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize endangered or threatened species or 

adversely modify or destroy designated critical habitat. NOAA Fisheries identifies marine 

wildlife, including anadromous fish, determined to be at risk; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) is responsible for the listing status of non-marine fish and wildlife and of plants. 

Under the PHS Program, WDFW catalogs habitats and species as priorities for conservation, 

preservation, and management. Priority species require protective measures for their survival 

due to their population status, sensitivity to habitat alteration, and/or recreational, commercial, or 

tribal importance. 

3.7.1 Affected Environment 

Table 3-13 lists all species of fish found in waters of the Wenatchee and Methow basins, 

including those on ESA and PHS lists. 

ESA-listed fish that are likely to be present at some hatchery and acclimation sites in both basins 

include spring Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) (Endangered), summer steelhead (O. 

mykiss) (Threatened), and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) (Threatened). 

Under ESA, an Endangered Species is any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range; a Threatened Species is any species which is likely to 

become an endangered species in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. 

 National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS]) (now called NOAA Fisheries) listed the Upper 

Columbia River spring-run Chinook salmon Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) as 

endangered on March 24, 1999 (64 FR 14308), and its status was reaffirmed on June 28, 

2005 (70 FR 37160). The ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of spring-run 

Chinook salmon (spring Chinook) in Columbia River tributaries upstream of the Rock Island 

Dam as well as six artificial propagation programs. 

 NMFS originally listed the Upper Columbia River steelhead distinct population segment 

(DPS) as endangered on August 18, 1997 (62 FR 43937) and subsequently upgraded it to 

―threatened‖ status in 2009 (74 FR 42605). The DPS includes all naturally spawned 

anadromous O. mykiss (steelhead) populations below natural and man-made impassable 

barriers in streams in the Columbia River Basin upstream from the Yakima River, 

Washington, to the U.S.-Canada border, as well six artificial propagation programs. 

 USFWS listed Columbia River bull trout as threatened on June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31647). 

 Critical Habitat was designated in the Wenatchee and Methow basins for both Chinook and 

steelhead in 2005 (70 FR 52630). The Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow Rivers have been 

identified as core bull trout habitats for the Upper Columbia Recovery Unit, and designated 

as Critical Habitat October 18, 2010 (75 FR 63898).
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-52 Chapter 3 – Fish 

Table 3-13. Fish species documented in the Wenatchee and Methow basins 

Family & Species Scientific Name 

WenatcheeaMethowb

Habitat Origin

Lamprey Family Petromyzontidae 

Pacific Lamprey Entosphenus tridentatus X X Larvae found in backwater silt Native

Salmon Family Salmonidae 

Mountain Whitefish Prosopium williamsoni X X Riffles in summer, pools in winter Native

Pygmy Whitefish Prosopium coulteri X X Deep water, primarily lakes Native

Brown Trout Salmo trutta X Streams up to 75 degrees F. Introduced

Cutthroat Trout Oncorhyncus clarki X X Cold water lakes and streams Native

Rainbow/Steelhead O. mykiss X X Cold water lakes and streams Native

Chinook Salmon O. tshawytscha X X Larger rivers and streams Native

Sockeye/kokanee O. nerka X X Primarily lake rearing Native

Coho Salmon O. kisutch X X Recently re-introduced Native

Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis X X Cold water lakes and streams Introduced

Bull Trout S. confluentus X X Cold water streams and pools Native

Minnow Family Cyprinidae 

European Carp Cyprinus carpio X X Shallow quiet water with dense vegetation Introduced

Peamouth Mylocheilus cauinus X

c Lakes and slow stretches of rivers Native

Chiselmouth Acrocheilus alutaceus X Faster, warmer streams and rivers, and lakes Native

Longnose Dace Rhinichthys cataractae X X Among stones at the bottom of swift streams Native

Speckled Dace R. osculus X Small clear well oxygenated streams Native

Northern Pikeminnow Ptychocheilus oregonensis X X Lakes and slow streams Native

Redside Shiner Richardsonius balteatus X X Warmer ponds, lakes, streams Native

Sucker Family Catostomidae 

Bridgelip Sucker Catostomus columbianus X X Bottom feeder in river backwaters and pools Native

Largescale Sucker C. macrocheilus X X Bottom feeder in lakes, and pools in rivers Native

Mountain Sucker C. platyrhynchus X Bottom feeder in cool mountain streams Native

Longnose Sucker C. catostomus X Bottom feeder in lakes and streams Native

Sunfish Family Centrarchidae 

Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieui X Warm streams and lakes Introduced

Largemouth Bass M. salmoides X Shallow, warm weedy lakes and backwaters Introduced

White Crappie Pomoxis annularis X X Lakes and streams with dense vegetation Introduced

Catfish Family Ctaluridae 

Brown Bullhead Ctalurus nebulosus X Warm-water ponds, lakes, sloughs Introduced

Sculpin Family Cottidae 

Mottled Sculpin Cottus bairdi X

c X Cold rivers Native

Shorthead Sculpin C. confusus X

c X Cold rivers Native

Torrent Sculpin C. rhotheus X

c X Cold rivers and lakes Native

Perch Family Percidae 

Stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus X

c Lakes, sloughs, and slow moving streams Native

Walleye Stizostedion vitreum X Large lakes and streams Introduced

Yellow Perch Perca flavescens X Warm to cool clear lakes; slow weedy streams Introduced

a

 Source: Wenatchee Subbasin Plan (NPCC 2004a) except where noted otherwise. 

b

 Source: Methow Subbasin Plan (NPCC 2004b). 

c

 Source: ISEMP database. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Fish 3-53

Table 3-14 shows fish species listed under PHS that might be found in the project area. Their 

status is defined under the following criteria: 

Criterion 1. State-Listed and Candidate Species: 

State-listed species are native fish and wildlife species legally designated as Endangered, 

Threatened, or Sensitive. State Candidate species are fish and wildlife species that will be 

reviewed by WDFW for possible listing as Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive. 

Criterion 2. Vulnerable Aggregations: 

Vulnerable aggregations include species or groups of animals susceptible to significant 

population declines, within a specific area or statewide, by virtue of their inclination to 

aggregate. Examples include heron rookeries, seabird concentrations, marine mammal haulouts, 

shellfish beds, and fish spawning and rearing areas. 

Criterion 3. Species of Recreational, Commercial, and/or Tribal Importance: 

Native and non-native fish and wildlife species of recreational or commercial importance, and 

recognized species used for tribal ceremonial and subsistence purposes, whose biological or 

ecological characteristics make them vulnerable to decline in Washington or that are dependent 

on habitats that are highly vulnerable or are in limited availability. 

Table 3-14. PHS Fish Species 

Species State Status Wenatchee 

Basin

Methow 

Basin

Pacific Lamprey

Lampetra tridentata PHS 3 X

Mountain Sucker

Catostomus 

platyrhynchus

PHS 1

Candidate X

Pygmy Whitefish

Prosopium coulteri

PHS 1 and 2

Sensitive X X

Sockeye salmon

Oncorhynchus nerka

PHS 1, 2, and 3

Candidate

X X

Westslope Cutthroat

Oncorhynchus clarki 

lewisi

PHS 3 X X
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-54 Chapter 3 – Fish 

3.7.2 Types of Impact

Potential impacts to fish from construction and operation of hatchery and acclimation facilities 

fall into two categories: effects from construction or use of project facilities and effects of 

increased coho numbers in the basins. 

Facility effects: 

 Sedimentation from construction. Construction activities can increase sediment in 

waterways, causing fish to avoid the area or temporarily stop feeding, or causing 

mortality of eggs and alevins in spawning gravel. 

 Reduced access to habitat. Barrier nets or seines used to enclose juvenile coho during 

rearing and acclimation could temporarily exclude fish from existing habitat or could 

prevent some adults from migrating upstream. Weirs placed across streams at two sites 

proposed for planting adult coho could prevent larger adults of other species from 

migrating upstream during October and November. 

 Surface water withdrawals. Withdrawing water during low flow periods could slow or 

prevent fish migration and could reduce the availability and quantity of habitat. 

Withdrawing water during high flow periods can improve habitat by reducing depth and 

velocities that are greater than optimal for fish. 

 Fish entrainment in water intake facilities. If allowed to pass through the intake 

screens, juvenile fish of a small enough size could be subject to predation by coho in the 

acclimation ponds, and all entrained fish could have free migration delayed by the pond 

discharge fish screens. NOAA Fisheries guidelines (NMFS 2008b) would be used for all 

intakes; therefore, entrainment of listed and other species is not expected and will not be 

discussed further. 

 Trapping of fish in juvenile and adult traps. Traps to collect adult coho for broodstock 

or to monitor numbers and condition of migrating juveniles can also trap individuals of 

other species. 

Effects of increased numbers of coho: 

 Predation. Coho juveniles could prey on smaller fish during rearing and acclimation in 

the ponds or during their downstream migration. 

 Competition. Naturally produced coho smolts could compete with other fish species for 

habitat and food. 

 Redd disturbance. Coho could disturb or destroy other species’ redds when spawning in 

the natural environment. 

 Ecological balance. Reintroducing coho in these basins could help restore the ecological 

balance of the system: carcasses from spawned coho could add ocean-derived nutrients to 

the system at a critical period—the onset of winter. Carcasses could provide an 

important winter food resource, and coho in freshwater residence could be prey for 

several wildlife species. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Fish 3-55

3.7.3 Impacts of the Proposed Action 

The analysis is divided into two major subsections: the effects of the development and use of 

facilities (Section 3.7.3.1) and the effects of increased numbers of coho in the basins (Section 

3.7.3.2). 

The impact analysis focuses on effects to ESA-listed fish; they are considered the most 

vulnerable due to their low numbers. The analysis assumes that project effects on ESA-listed 

fish represent the worst-case potential for effects on all fish species. Therefore, effects on other 

fish species are addressed only if impacts have come into question in the past as being different 

from those to ESA-listed fish. Effects to PHS-listed fish are summarized in Section 3.7.3.3.

3.7.3.1 Impacts of Facilities 

Increased sedimentation from construction 

Various construction or excavation activities are planned for 9 of the 24 primary juvenile 

acclimation sites in both basins and 6 of the 12 backup sites. Both the primary and backup 

hatchery sites would require construction. See details in Chapter 2.

Construction required for primary acclimation sites: 

 New ponds at 3 sites (Minnow, Chikamin, Twisp Weir) 

 Expansion of existing ponds at 2 sites (Scheibler, Gold) 

 New wells at 3 sites (Butcher, MSWA Eightmile, Twisp Weir) 

 New water delivery systems at 5 sites (Butcher, Tall Timber, Chikamin, MSWA 

Eightmile, Twisp Weir) 

 New buried power lines at 2 sites (Butcher, MSWA Eightmile) 

 New road at 2 sites (Minnow, Twisp Weir) 

Construction required for backup acclimation sites: 

 New ponds at 5 sites (Dryden, Squadroni, Chewuch AF, MSRF Chewuch, Newby) 

 New water delivery systems at 6 sites (Dryden, Squadroni, Chewuch AF, MSRF 

Chewuch, Newby, Utley) 

 New wells at 4 sites (Dryden, Squadroni, Chewuch AF, MSRF Chewuch) 

 New buried power lines at 4 sites (Dryden, Squadroni, Chewuch AF, MSRF Chewuch) 

Construction required for hatchery sites: 

Proposed Dryden Hatchery: New facility occupying 1.5 acres: hatchery building, 4 

raceways, 2 rearing ponds, water pipelines, wells, waste treatment tank and wetland; 4 acres 

total construction disturbance. 

Backup George Hatchery: New facility occupying 1.5 acres: similar facilities to proposed 

Dryden Hatchery except no waste treatment wetland; 2.5 acres total construction disturbance. 

Acclimation and hatchery facilities would be constructed during the summer months of one year, 

probably 2012. Excavation and construction of acclimation ponds, water supply and discharge 

lines or channels, and electrical lines would have the most potential to increase sedimentation, 

with somewhat less potential from road reconstruction and maintenance, where physical impacts 

would be limited to road crossings or where fish bearing streams are close to the road. 

Construction at each acclimation site would take from one to 60 days (Tall Timber would take 

the longest, at 2 months). Hatchery construction would take approximately 5 months. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-56 Chapter 3 – Fish 

Table 3-15 lists life stages of ESA-listed fish that could be present during construction activities. 

Table 3-15. ESA-listed fish by life stage presenta during construction of project facilities 

Spr Chinook Steelhead Bull trout

Wenatchee Basin

adults

eggs/alevin

parr

adults

eggs/alevin

fry

parr

smolts

adults

eggs/alevin

sub-adults

Primary Acc. Sites Affected stream

Butcher Butcher Cr. A A

Chikamin Chikamin Cr. P P P P P P P A P

Minnow Minnow Cr. P P P A P

Scheibler Chumstick A A

Tall Timber Napeequa P P P U U U U U A A

Backup Acc. Sites Affected stream

Squadroni unnamed

Hatchery Sites Affected stream

Dryden (primary)b

Peshastin/

Wenatchee A A P P P P P A A

George (backup) Wenatchee R. P P P P P P P P A U A

Methow Basin

Primary Acc. Sites Affected stream

Gold S. Fork Gold Cr. P A A P P A P

Mason Eightmile P P

MSWA Eight Mile

Chewuch side 

channel P P

Twisp Weir Twisp R. P P P P P P P P P P

Backup Acc. Sites Affected stream

Chewuch AF Chewuch R. A A A A A A A A A A

MSRF Chewuch Chewuch R. A A A A A A A A A A

Newby Newby Cr. U U U U

Utley unnamed U U

a

Presence denoted by ―P‖ indicates presence well documented, ―A‖ presence is assumed, ―U‖ presence possible but 

unlikely, and blanks indicate presence not expected. 

b

 Dryden is both a primary site for a small hatchery, and a backup overwinter acclimation site. 

The physical impacts from construction would be minimal for all fish species. The acclimation 

sites generally have been modified by humans and are regularly subject to human activity. The 

potential for impacts to listed fish is expected to be greatest when flow is provided to the site and 

discharged into the nearest stream. A light plume of suspended fine sediments could be 

discharged into the stream and dispersed downstream. These events are rarely lethal to fish, but 

their response can range from avoidance to temporary cessation of feeding activities (Hicks et al. 

1991). Large amounts of fine sediment deposited on spawning gravels can reduce interstitial 

flow and dissolved oxygen levels causing mortality of eggs and alevins (Koski 1966, Meehan 

and Swanston 1977, Everest et al. 1987). 

Construction of new surface water intake and discharge structures at facility sites would remove 

small amounts of streamside (riparian) vegetation. Vegetation along waterways provides a 

number of benefits to fish habitat, including shade (temperature control), bank stability (erosion 

control), woody debris (flow control and refuge), nutrients that provide a basis for the aquatic 

food chain (e.g., from decaying leaves and grasses), and sources of prey (e.g., insects and benthic 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Fish 3-57

invertebrates). The area affected by these activities would be very small (10 linear feet per site),

and the number of individual fish adversely affected would be few, if any. 

As listed in Section 3.7.5, best management practices for erosion and sedimentation control 

would be followed during construction to prevent discharging suspended sediments into the 

stream. For these reasons, construction impacts to any fish, including ESA-listed fish, are 

expected to be minimal. 

Reduced access to habitat 

An impact to fish that would result from project facilities is related to access to habitat during 

rearing and acclimation periods. Acclimation facilities in the natural environment would use 

nets to enclose coho for a 2- to 6-month period in the winter and/or spring. Some of this existing 

natural habitat might currently be used by other fish, which could be temporarily excluded from 

that habitat during coho acclimation. The amount of area that would be unavailable during 

rearing/acclimation would be limited to the area enclosed by seine or barrier nets at each 

acclimation site. The relative impact on other species from being excluded from this habitat 

would depend to some extent on the local availability of similar habitat. Section 3.7.5 lists 

measures that would be used to minimize impacts of reduced access to habitat. 

The analysis of impacts focuses on juveniles of listed species. Adults spawn in the channels, 

streams, and rivers near acclimation sites but generally not in the ponds used for acclimation; 

however, adult access would not be affected because even the proposed in-channel ponds would 

retain passage. 

In the Combined Effects section, numbers of ESA-listed juveniles potentially displaced from 

each site is calculated. Site-specific habitat access effects are discussed in Appendix 9 and 

summarized in Tables 3-16 to 3-21.

The analysis assumes that impacts to ESA-listed fish represent the worst-case scenario for effects 

on all fish due to the low numbers and vulnerability of listed species. 

Wenatchee Basin Primary Sites 

Table 3-16 lists life stages and size ranges of ESA-listed fish that could be present at proposed 

overwinter rearing sites (November through early May) and at spring-only acclimation sites 

(mid-March through early May). Leavenworth NFH is not included in the list because effects of 

its construction and use have been evaluated in other processes and would not change as a result 

of the Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program.

Table 3-17 lists proposed overwinter sites in the Wenatchee basin where access to existing 

habitat could be blocked for 5 - 6 months of each year (November-May), and Table 3-18 shows 

the same information for spring-only acclimation sites (mid-March through early May). Both 

tables show the species potentially affected and the amount of area currently accessible that 

could be blocked. The tables present the worst-case scenario for potentially affected species. In 

some cases, data on presence of ESA-listed fish were limited to one or two records, with the 

possibility that some species were misidentified (e.g., rainbow trout juveniles could have been 

mistaken for steelhead, or summer Chinook for spring Chinook). However, consultants assumed 

presence of listed fish even if only one record was found or if they were found elsewhere in the 

watershed, unless other factors obviously excluded them. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-58 Chapter 3 – Fish 

Table 3-16. ESA-listed fish by life stage presenta during overwinter rearing and spring acclimation 

in the Wenatchee basin 

Spring Chinook Steelhead Bull trout

Site name

Affected 

stream

eggs/alevin

fry

parr

smolts

adults

eggs/alevin

parr

smolts

adults

eggs/alevin

young-of-year

sub-adults

Primary Sites

Beaver

Beaver 

Creek U U P P P P U U

Brender

Brender 

Creek U U P P

Butcher

Butcher 

Creek A A A A

Chikamin

Chikamin 

Creek P P P P P P P A P P

Clear Clear Creek P P P P

Coulter

Coulter 

Creek A A A A

White River 

Springs unnamed A A A A A A

Minnow

Minnow 

Creek P P P P A P

Rohlfing unnamed U U

Scheibler Chumstick A A

Tall Timber Napeequa P P P P U U U U A A

Two Rivers none

Backup Sites

Allen Allen Creek

Coulter/

Roaring

Coulter/

Roaring P A P P

Drydenb

Peshastin/ 

Wenatchee A P P P P P A A

McComas White River P P P P U U U P A P

Squadroni unnamed

a

Presence denoted by ―P‖ indicates presence well documented, ―A‖ presence is assumed, ―U‖ presence possible but 

unlikely, and blanks indicate presence not expected. 

b

 Dryden is both a primary site for a small hatchery facility, and a backup overwinter rearing site. 

Table 3-17. ESA-listed juveniles potentially displaced from existing Wenatchee basin habitat 

November - May 

Accessible area Juveniles potentially displaced

Site name excluded (acres) Chinook Steelhead Bull trout

Butcher1 0.56 no yes no

Clear 0.24 no yes no

White River 

Springs 0.07 yes yes yes

Rohlfing 0.17 no yes no

Two Rivers no no no

Total 1.04

1. Butcher would alternate annually as an overwinter site or a spring-only site. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Fish 3-59

Table 3-18. ESA-listed juveniles potentially displaced from existing Wenatchee basin habitat 

March - May 

Site name

Accessible area Juveniles potentially displaced

excluded (acres) Chinook Steelhead Bull trout

Beaver 0.24 yes yes yes

Brender 0.08 yes yes no

Chikamin no no no

Coulter1 0.37 no yes no

Minnow no no no

Scheibler 0.03 no yes no

Tall Timber no no no

Total 0.72

1. Coulter would alternate annually as an overwinter site or a spring-only site; habitat excluded 

for this site represents the worst case, as steelhead presence is uncertain. 

Methow Basin Primary Sites 

Table 3-19 lists life stages of ESA-listed fish that could be present at proposed overwinter 

rearing sites and at spring-only acclimation sites. Tables 3-20 and 3-21 show the amount of 

habitat excluded from use by listed species for overwinter and for spring-only acclimation sites. 

Winthrop NFH is not included in the list because effects of its construction and use have been 

evaluated in other processes and would not change as a result of the Proposed Action. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-60 Chapter 3 – Fish 

Table 3-19. ESA-listed fish by life stage presenta during overwinter rearing and spring acclimation 

activities in the Methow basin 

Spring Chinook Steelhead Bull trout

Site name Affected stream

eggs/alevin

fry

parr

smolts

adults

eggs/alevin

parr

smolts

adults

eggs/alevin

young-of-yr

sub-adults

Primary Sites

Goat Wall unnamed U U A P A P

Gold S Fork Gold P A P P A P

Heath Heath ponds (spring) P P P P P P

Lincoln Twisp River P P P P P P P P P P

Lower Twisp Twisp River P P P P P P P P P P

Mason Eightmile A A P A P P A P

MSWA Eightmile Chewuch side chan. A A P P A A

Parmley Beaver Creek P P P P P P

Pete Cr. Pond Chewuch River A A P P P P P P A P

Twisp Weir Twisp River P P P P P P P P P P

Backup Sites

Balky Hill unnamed U U U U

Biddle Wolf Creek A A P P P P P P P P

Chewuch AF Chewuch River A A A A A A A A P P

MSRF Chewuch Chewuch River A A A A A A A A P P

Newby Newby Creek

Poorman unnamed U U U U U U

Utley unnamed U U

a

Presence denoted by ―P‖ indicates presence well documented, ―A‖ presence is assumed, ―U‖ presence possible but 

unlikely, and blanks indicate presence not expected. 

Table 3-20. ESA-listed juveniles potentially displaced from existing habitat at primary Methow 

basin sites November - May 

Site name

Accessible area Juveniles potentially displaced

excluded (acres) Chinook steelhead bull trout

Heath 0.32 yes yes yes

Lincoln 0.20 yes yes yes

Lower Twisp 0.14 yes yes yes

Mason 0.00 no no no

Twisp Weir 0.00 no no no

Total 0.66

Table 3-21. ESA-listed juveniles potentially displaced from existing habitat at proposed primary 

Methow basin sites March - May 

Site name

Accessible area Juveniles potentially displaced

excluded (acres) Chinook steelhead bull trout

Goat Wall 0.08 yes yes yes

Gold 0.08 no yes yes

MSWA Eightmile 0.14 yes yes yes

Parmley 0.08 no yes yes

Pete Cr. Pond 0.20 yes yes yes

Total 0.58
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Fish 3-61

Backup Acclimation Sites 

In the Wenatchee basin, only one backup acclimation site is likely to exclude other fish from 

existing habitat. Coulter/Roaring could exclude steelhead from 0.17 acre of an existing 5.8-

acre pond for six weeks in the spring. Likewise, in the Methow basin, only one backup 

acclimation site, Biddle, is likely to exclude other fish from existing habitat. Based on available 

data, Chinook fry, parr, and smolts; steelhead parr and smolts; and bull trout sub-adult and adult 

migrants may be present in the ponds during the acclimation period. If this site is used, these 

fish would be excluded from the enclosed area (0.08 acre of the 0.17-acre existing pond) for six 

weeks during the spring. 

Adult Plant Sites 

Two streams, one in each basin, are proposed as sites to plant adult coho. The Dirty Face site 

(Figure 10k) is on an unnamed stream in the Wenatchee basin and the Hancock site (Figure 10t) 

is on Hancock Creek in the Methow basin. Temporary weirs would be installed in these streams 

from early October through November. Adult coho salmon would be planted upstream of the 

weir to allow them to spawn in available habitat. Larger adults of other species would be 

blocked from migrating in and out of these streams when the weirs are in place; smaller fish 

would be able to pass the weirs. Adults of listed species would not be affected, however, 

because fall spawning species such as Chinook and bull trout are not known to spawn in these 

tributaries. Steelhead are known to spawn in Hancock Creek, and 23 spawning redds were 

counted in the lower 0.7 miles of Hancock in 2007 (Snow et al. 2008). However, adult steelhead 

are not expected to be present when the weir is in use and any steelhead fry will have emerged 

from the gravel well before coho spawn. 

Combined Effects of Excluding Listed Fish from Incubation/Rearing and Acclimation Sites 

Reduced access to existing habitat is a likely impact to ESA-listed fish that would result from 

coho rearing and acclimation activities. Habitat affected would be limited to the amount of area 

enclosed by seine or barrier nets at each coho acclimation site to which listed fish currently have 

access. Impacts would be balanced to some degree by newly constructed habitat. Table 3-22 

shows the number of acres of existing pond or side channel habitat at primary sites that is 

currently accessible to ESA-listed fish or proposed to be added for new sites, compared to the 

amount that they would be prevented from using during coho overwinter rearing and spring 

acclimation periods. Listed fish and other species would be blocked during part of the year from 

1.22 of the 1.69 acres of habitat currently accessible to them at primary coho acclimation sites in 

the Wenatchee basin, and from 1.24 of the 2.88 acres of habitat at primary coho acclimation sites 

in the Methow basin. About 0.26 acres of new habitat in the Wenatchee basin would be 

available to listed and other fish for at least a portion of the year (Table 3-22). 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-62 Chapter 3 – Fish 

Table 3-22. Currently accessible habitat, habitat added by proposed new sites, and habitat 

excluded during coho overwinter rearing and spring acclimation 

Habitat excluded (acres) Accessible

Habitat (acres) Overwinter Spring Total off-season a

Wenatchee basin

Existing habitat 2.23 0.48c 1.28c 1.76 2.06

Currently accessible b 1.69 0.31 0.91 1.22 1.69

Area added 1.03 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.26

Methow basin

Existing habitat 2.88 0.66 0.58 1.24 2.88

Currently accessible b 2.88 0.66 0.58 1.24 2.88

Area added None

a

 Rohlfing is dry during summer and early fall so is not considered accessible to fish during most of the off-season. 

b

 Accessible to ESA-listed fish. 

c Number would vary in alternate years depending on whether Coulter or Butcher is used for overwintering coho. 

The relative impact on listed species from being excluded from this habitat depends to some 

extent on the availability of similar habitats within each basin. Because a comprehensive habitat 

database was not available for these basins, an alternate method was needed to evaluate the 

relative magnitude of these impacts to ESA-listed populations. 

Cramer and Ackerman (2009) demonstrated that the carrying capacity of habitat for various 

salmonids can be predicted based on channel units (e.g., pool, riffle, glide) and maximum fish 

densities based on a species’ life-stage and habitat preference. The proposed rearing and 

acclimation sites are similar to beaver pond and backwater habitats. In the natural environment, 

coho prefer these slower velocity habitats above other habitats with stronger current (Solazzi et 

al. 1998). While other salmonid parr use these habitats, many prefer pools in streams or other 

channel habitats with more velocity (Cramer and Ackerman 2009). For this analysis, average 

fish (parr) densities for each species were based on literature values for similar habitats, or 

average values observed in the Chiwawa watershed (Hillman et al. 2008). The assumptions are 

made with the knowledge that fish densities vary seasonally and annually depending on 

environmental conditions and population numbers. Further, excluding ESA-listed fish from 

these habitats would presumably affect the populations only if the available habitat is fully 

seeded. If habitats are not at carrying capacity, displaced fish could occupy other underutilized 

habitat. However, this analysis provides a context to assess the relative magnitude of impacts 

due to acclimation and rearing. 

The analysis suggests that the number of juvenile ESA-listed fish excluded during acclimation 

and rearing would be relatively small compared to overall basin populations. 

Estimates indicate that a total of 350 juveniles of two species, spring Chinook and steelhead, 

might be excluded annually from sites in the Wenatchee basin, with the majority being steelhead 

(237) (Table 3-23). Between the years 2002 and 2007, the range of wild production was 

estimated to be 55,619 – 311,669 Chinook smolts and 17,499 – 85,443 steelhead smolts annually 

in the entire Wenatchee basin (Hillman et al. 2008). Using an average smolt-to-adult survival 

rate of 0.00465 for hatchery spring Chinook and 0.0105 for summer steelhead from the 

Wenatchee basin (Hillman et al. 2009), the number of juveniles excluded would represent 0.5 

Chinook and 2.5 steelhead adult equivalents. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Fish 3-63

Table 3-23. Juvenile Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout potentially displaced from currently 

accessible habitat at proposed primary rearing and acclimation sites in the Wenatchee basin a 

Site name

Accessible area Potential juveniles displaced

Overwinter excluded (acres) Chinook Steelhead Bull trout

Beaver 0.24 70 39 2

Brender 0.08 23 13 0

Butcher 0.56 0 91 0

Chikamin 0 0 0

Clear Y 0.24 0 39 0

Coulter 0.37 0 0 0

White River 

Springs Y 0.07 20 11 1

Minnow 0 0 0

Rohlfing Y 0.17 0 28 0

Scheibler 0.03 0 16 0

Tall Timber 0 0 0

Two Rivers Y 0 0 0

Total displaced 113 237 3

Wenatchee annual smolt production range (2002-2007)b 55,619 - 311,669 17,499 - 85,443 not applicable

a

 Based on assumed fish densities. 

b

 Data source: Hillman et al. (2008). 

In the Methow basin, approximately 515 juveniles of the two species are projected to be 

excluded annually from acclimation and rearing sites, with the majority being spring Chinook 

(314) (Table 3-24). Between the years 2000 and 2008, the range of wild production was 

estimated at 15,306 – 33,710 Chinook smolts and 8,809 – 15,003 steelhead smolts annually in 

the entire Methow basin (data provided by Alex Repp, WDFW, personal communication). 

Using the same smolt-to-adult survival rates used above, the number of juveniles potentially 

excluded from acclimation sites in the Methow basin would represent 1.5 spring Chinook and 2.1 

summer steelhead adult equivalents.

Table 3-24. Juvenile Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout potentially displaced from currently 

accessible habitat at proposed primary rearing and acclimation sites in the Methow basin a

Site name Overwinter

Accessible area Potential juveniles displaced

excluded (acres) Chinook steelhead bull trout

Goat Wall 0.08 23 13 1

Gold 0.08 0 13 0

Heath Y 0.32 93 52 2

Lincoln Y 0.20 58 32 2

Lower Twisp Y 0.14 41 23 1

Mason Y 0 0 0

MSWA Eightmile 0.14 41 23 1

Parmley 0.08 0 13 1

Pete Cr. Pond 0.20 58 32 2

Total displaced 314 201 10

Methow annual smolt production range (2004-2008)b 15,306 - 33,710 8,809 - 15,003 not applicable

a

 Based on assumed fish densities. 

b

 Data source: Alex Repp, WDFW, personal communication. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-64 Chapter 3 – Fish 

No estimates of juvenile bull trout abundance are available, but the number of juveniles 

projected to be excluded from sites in each basin was very small (3 in the Wenatchee and 10 in 

the Methow).

Excluding juveniles from rearing and acclimation sites does not necessarily mean these fish 

would not survive. As previously noted, most acclimation and rearing sites are not ideal habitat 

for listed species. Juveniles excluded from these habitats would seek out other suitable habitat in 

the area. Assuming that other habitats are not fully occupied by other fish, these excluded 

juveniles likely would continue to rear in the other habitat.

Surface water withdrawals 

Acclimation Sites 

Three primary sites in the Wenatchee basin (Dryden, Chikamin, and Tall Timber) and one in the 

Methow basin (Twisp Weir) would require new surface water withdrawals; two backup sites 

(George hatchery site in the Wenatchee and Newby acclimation site in the Methow) would also 

require new surface water withdrawals. These withdrawals would have local impacts to surface 

water from the point of withdrawal to the point of discharge—a distance of 1,500 feet or less. 

The impacts to listed fish would be limited to the affected portion of the stream and would vary 

depending on stream flow, species and life-stage. In-stream flows established by WDOE would 

be maintained. 

Two different models were used to predict impacts to listed fish. The models and methods used 

are described in Appendix 10. 

The maximum amount of water proposed for withdrawal at the Chikamin site would result in a 

very small reduction in habitat for all species. The reduction due to the withdrawal would be less 

than one square foot of habitat for all species and life-stages. 

The effect of the proposed withdrawal at the Tall Timber site on ESA-listed fish varies with the 

flow and species. The maximum proposed withdrawal at this site generally results in small 

decreases in habitat for most species at extreme low flows, and slight increases in habitat at 

higher flows. However, the modeled withdrawal generally increases habitat for Chinook salmon 

rearing. 

The proposed surface water withdrawal at the Twisp Weir site is projected to decrease habitat for 

most species during low flows by a small amount. 

Newby Creek is a non-fish-bearing, high-gradient, small tributary to the Twisp River 

(Appendix 9). The Newby backup acclimation site, including the water intake and discharge 

sites, would be adjacent to Newby Creek above a series of cascades, which makes the site 

inaccessible to migratory fish. A habitat survey found natural fish passage barriers throughout 

the stream and that the substrate was comprised mostly of fines. Therefore, a diversion of flow 

from Newby Creek into an acclimation pond and return of water to the creek would have no 

adverse effects on ESA-listed spring Chinook salmon, steelhead or bull trout. 

Hatchery Sites 

Dryden: The proposed Dryden Hatchery would be on the Wenatchee River near Dryden Dam. 

A combination of surface and groundwater sources is being explored to supply up to 7.4 cfs 

(4.5 cfs surface water) to the site. The amount needed changes over the year. The impact of 

groundwater withdrawals on surface water is expected to be small as discussed in Section 3.6. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Fish 3-65

Surface water could be diverted either from the Wenatchee River or Peshastin Creek. An intake 

located on the Dryden fishway is currently the preferred source for surface water. Two options 

are being considered for the return flow. One is to discharge return water into Peshastin Creek 

upstream of the fishway, and another is in a pipeline on the river bottom in the vicinity of the 

fishway near the proposed intake. The Peshastin discharge could help adult salmon navigate the 

mouth during low flow and would increase flow from the discharge site to the intake site 

downstream. Discharge near the fishway could help flush rock away from the fishway but would 

essentially result in minimal change in flow because water would be discharged near the intake. 

The Physical Habitat Simulation System (PHABSIM) analysis developed by EES Consulting 

(EES Consulting 2005) was used to assess the potential impacts of the Dryden hatchery water 

use on ESA-listed fish in Peshastin Creek and Wenatchee River (see Appendix 10 for a 

description of the model). The Peshastin discharge option was analyzed because it has the 

largest possible impact on stream flow, and therefore represents the greatest potential to affect 

fish and fish habitat. The affected environment would include Peshastin Creek from the point of 

discharge downstream to the proposed intake at the fishway in the Wenatchee River. This 

includes about 200 lineal feet of Peshastin Creek, and 650 feet of the Wenatchee River. The 

daily mean flow in Peshastin Creek ranges from a low of around 10 cfs in mid-August to over 

500 cfs in May. The daily mean flow in the Wenatchee River ranges from a low of around 750 

cfs in September to nearly 10,000 cfs by late May. 

EES Consulting (2005) estimated that spawning habitat was maximized at Peshastin Creek flows 

of 80 cfs for non-ESA-listed summer Chinook salmon (spring Chinook do not spawn in the 

affected portions of the Wenatchee River and Peshastin Creek) and 120 cfs for ESA-listed 

summer steelhead. Estimated rearing habitat was maximized at flows of 55 cfs for Chinook, 130 

cfs for steelhead, and 19 cfs for bull trout. 

The increased flow had very little effect on the modeled percent of habitat in the Wenatchee 

River. Although there were both positive and negative effects on the percent of habitat, the 

difference was always less than 1%. 

The increased flow typically resulted in a modeled increase in the percent of habitat in Peshastin 

Creek but varied with species and life stage. The increased flow had a greater effect on habitat at 

low flows than during high flow periods. Optimal flow for summer Chinook salmon spawning 

(80 cfs) is typically not reached during the spawning season, so any increase in flow had a 

positive effect on amount of habitat. The increased flow during the mean low flow increased the 

percent of summer Chinook spawning habitat from 15.9 to 34.8%. In a few scenarios, the 

increased flow resulted in slight reductions (less than 1%) in the percent of habitat.

The results of the analysis indicated that withdrawing water from the Dryden fishway and 

discharging it into Peshastin Creek would generally have a positive effect on ESA-listed fish in 

Peshastin Creek and little to no effect on those in the Wenatchee River. The effects would be 

limited to the impact reach, and the magnitude would depend on the amount of water involved. 

Fish passage at the mouth of Peshastin Creek has been identified as being limited by low flow 

conditions in the late summer and early fall (Andonaegui 2001, NPCC 2004a). Discharge of 

hatchery water into the creek during these periods could improve hydraulic conditions for 

returning adults. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-66 Chapter 3 – Fish 

Depending on the final design of the proposed Dryden facility, water withdrawals could have no 

measureable impact, or could increase available habitat in a 200-foot section of Peshastin Creek 

during low flows. 

George: An alternative to the proposed Dryden hatchery site is located on the Wenatchee River 

1.25 miles downstream of Lake Wenatchee. Both surface and groundwater sources might be 

developed. Potential impacts of hatchery surface water withdrawals on microhabitat availability 

for ESA-listed fish were evaluated using the PHABSIM methodology. This approach was 

chosen to enable direct comparison to flow effects quantified for the Dryden hatchery site. 

Wenatchee River mean discharge below Lake Wenatchee ranges between 200 cfs and 8,000 cfs 

annually. A total of 8 cfs of water would be supplied to the George hatchery via ground and 

surface water sources. Approximately 4.7 cfs of surface water would be withdrawn from the 

Wenatchee River and piped to the hatchery. Hatchery discharge would be returned to the river 

3,800 feet downstream of the withdrawal via an historic side channel that maintains subsurface 

connectivity to the mainstem. Discharged hatchery water would travel 5,600 feet before 

reaching the mainstem, and some water would likely be lost to the ground depending on the 

river’s flow stage. For simplicity, analysts assumed that returned flows would be equivalent to 

the amount of surface flow withdrawn; thus, the study reach was defined by the upstream 

withdrawal and downstream discharge locations. Analysis showed that the relative change in 

weighted useable area (WUA, i.e., habitat) was extremely small (less than 1.5%) for all species 

and life-stages. Therefore, a 4.7 cfs flow change during low and extreme low flows in the 

Wenatchee River had negligible effects on habitat simulated for spring Chinook, steelhead, and 

bull trout (for details, see Appendix 10, Effects of Surface Water Withdrawals on Listed Fish). 

A secondary discharge location just downstream of the withdrawal site is being considered for 

the George hatchery (see Appendix 1). The proximity of ―Discharge 2‖ to the intake indicates 

that this discharge site would not measurably affect fish habitat in the Wenatchee River. 

Trapping of Fish at Juvenile and Adult Traps 

With one exception, all juvenile traps the project proposes to use are currently operating under 

existing permits. For the Natural Production Implementation Phase, the project proposes a new 

juvenile trap on the Little Wenatchee River to generate population estimates of spring Chinook 

and coho. It would operate from early March to late November. The specific location of the 

proposed new trap is unknown at this time, but given what is known about listed fish in this 

river, it probably would impact spring Chinook or bull trout (steelhead are not known to 

regularly spawn in the Little Wenatchee River) (K. Murdoch, YN, pers. comm., 2010). Before it 

could be installed or used, its location in relation to habitat for listed species and its potential to 

trap juveniles of those species would need to be assessed and reviewed by NOAA Fisheries and 

USFWS. 

No new adult traps are proposed for this project, and only one facility, Chiwawa Weir, would 

need to extend its period of operation to allow coho trapping. Extending operations of Chiwawa 

Weir into the fall could affect bull trout. Steelhead are not expected to be present, but 

monitoring with PIT tags would be done to confirm their presence or absence. Consultation with 

USFWS would be required to determine effects on bull trout; consultation with NOAA Fisheries 

would be required if steelhead are shown to occupy the area during the coho trapping period. All 

other adult traps proposed for use by the project (see Chapter 2, Table 2-6) operate under 

existing permits. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Fish 3-67

3.7.3.2 Impacts of Increased Numbers of Coho in the Basins 

The ecological risk associated with coho reintroduction efforts may be greatest for endangered 

species or those of critically low abundance. Many types of ecological interactions are 

theoretically possible between coho and other native fish species. Potential interactions could 

include predation, competition, or behavioral changes. Priorities can be assigned to different 

ecological interactions based on their effect on the productivity and viability of impacted 

populations. Although the impact of predation on an individual prey animal is unambiguous, the 

impact on a population of prey animals is not. Depending on the abundance and productivity of 

the prey population, the impact of predation on the persistence and productivity of the prey 

population may range from negligible to serious. The ecological interactions that influence the 

survival, growth, or broad-scale distribution of the impacted population would potentially be the 

most serious. Other potential interactions could include competition for space or food in the 

natal streams, or competition for spawning space and associated redd superimposition by 

returning adults. At the same time, there might be benefits to reintroducing coho to basins they 

historically occupied. The potential impacts, both beneficial and adverse, from increased 

numbers of coho in the two basins are discussed below. 

Coho predation on other species 

Coho juveniles have been shown to prey on sockeye salmon (Ricker 1941; Foerster and Ricker 

1953; Ruggerone and Rogers 1992), and fall Chinook salmon fry (Thompson 1966; Pearsons and 

Fritts 1999). Assuming that coho consume prey a third of their body length (or a ninth of their 

weight), fish less than 1.8 inches would be vulnerable to predation using the target coho smolt 

size of 5.5 inches (YN 2010). Only spring Chinook and bull trout fry would be small enough to 

be potential prey for juvenile coho during rearing and acclimation. Because Chinook fry 

typically remain near spawning areas or disperse downstream after emergence, they would be 

expected to be present at, or within 0.6 miles downstream of, spawning areas. In contrast, 

juvenile bull trout tend to remain in their natal streams for one or more years (McPhail and 

Baxter 1996, USFWS 2002). Fry would be expected to be present only at sites near spawning 

locations, except in the White River where bull trout fry have been documented moving 

downstream. In the White River drainage, bull trout fry would be assumed to be present in the 

mainstem down to Lake Wenatchee. 

Predation studies conducted during the feasibility phase of this project found that hatchery coho 

juveniles feed primarily on insects and rarely prey on fish. Less than 0.28% of the 2,159 

hatchery coho salmon sampled in Nason Creek over two years were found to have preyed on 

spring Chinook fry or other fish (Murdoch and LaRue 2002, Murdoch et al. 2005). The 

estimated number of spring Chinook fry consumed was 1,009 or 0.14% of the total spring 

Chinook fry population in Nason Creek (Murdoch et al. 2005). The Yakama Nation conducted 

similar studies in the Yakima River basin on fall and spring Chinook salmon (Dunnigan 1999), 

and in the Wenatchee River on summer Chinook fry (Murdoch and Dunnigan 2002). All coho 

predation evaluations in the Wenatchee and Yakima River basins showed very low rates of 

predation by hatchery coho smolts on Chinook fry (less than 1% of the fry population) 

(Dunnigan 1999; Murdoch and Dunnigan 2002; Murdoch and LaRue 2002). 

In Nason Creek, the incidence of predation (percentage of samples that had consumed fish) on 

spring Chinook fry by naturally reared coho was 2.7% (Murdoch et al. 2005). Studies also 

investigated predation on sockeye fry by hatchery coho smolts emigrating through Lake 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-68 Chapter 3 – Fish 

Wenatchee and found no predation on sockeye fry. Sample sizes for both naturally reared coho 

in Nason Creek and hatchery coho migrating through Lake Wenatchee were small, potentially 

increasing error in the estimates (Murdoch et al. 2005). Therefore, because populations of 

naturally produced coho were too small to make reasonable estimates of predation rates, 

populations of sensitive fish species would be monitored to determine if naturally produced coho 

prey on listed species with adverse effects (see Section 3.7.5.3 and Appendix 5). 

Competition between naturally produced coho and other fish species 

During the feasibility phase of this project, the Yakama Nation investigated the competition for 

space and food between sub-yearling coho salmon, sub-yearling Chinook salmon and yearling 

steelhead in Nason Creek. The studies, undertaken in 2002 and 2003, found that juvenile coho, 

Chinook, and steelhead select different microhabitats; at densities tested, juvenile coho did not 

appear to displace juvenile Chinook from preferred microhabitats (Murdoch et al. 2005). 

However, because populations of naturally produced coho were too small to make reasonable 

estimates of the amount of competition between coho and listed fish, populations of sensitive 

fish species would be monitored to determine if naturally produced coho compete with listed 

species with adverse effects (see mitigation described in Section 3.7.5.3 and in Appendix 5).

Disturbance of other species’ redds by spawning adult coho

At the two sites where the project proposes to plant adult coho, spawning coho could disturb 

eggs deposited in spawning redds established earlier in the year. These impacts would be limited 

to species that spawn in late summer or early fall. Spring spawners such as steelhead and other 

trout would be able to access these areas and spawn well before the weirs are installed. Further, 

steelhead and trout fry emerge during the summer, so eggs and alevins would not be disturbed by 

coho spawning activities in October. Spring Chinook would spawn prior to weirs being 

installed, so they would not be prevented from accessing these sites, but spawning coho salmon 

could potentially disturb their eggs. However, fall spawning fish such as Chinook salmon and 

bull trout have not been documented spawning in either tributary proposed for adult plants. 

Feasibility studies for this project examined the potential for coho to superimpose their redds on 

other species’ redds, specifically on spring Chinook redds. In 2001, three coho redds were 

counted in Nason Creek and none had superimposed on spring Chinook redds. Since 2001, to 

determine Chinook redd locations, YN researchers relied on Chelan County PUD or WDFW to 

flag Chinook redds with a location description on the flagging; YN then followed an established 

procedure to identify coho superimposition. No redd superimposition in Nason Creek was 

observed. While it is possible that superimposition could occur with increased spawner densities 

of both Chinook and coho, in general, coho appear to select smaller gravels and different habitat 

types for spawning (coho select edges, while spring Chinook select pool tail outs) (YN 2010). 

Benefits of nutrient additions from coho carcasses and coho as prey 

Coho historically occupied the Wenatchee and Methow basins in significant numbers (Mullan 

1984). Reintroducing coho in these basins could help restore the ecological balance of the 

system that changed as a result of human activities (see Chapter 1, Section 1.3.1). Carcasses 

from spawned coho could add nutrients to the system at a critical period—the onset of winter. 

Coho salmon may be a particularly important link in nutrient cycling processes. Coho spawn 

high in the watershed in late fall, delivering nutrients to the uppermost reaches where all species 

downstream would benefit (Vannote et al. 1980). The addition of coho carcasses during this 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Fish 3-69

period could provide an increased food base (Pearsons and Hopley 1999) and improve overwinter survival for all species, including those listed under the ESA. They could also provide a 

food source for wildlife such as bald eagles, bears, and other fish-eating species.

3.7.3.3 Summary of Effects on PHS Fish 

Based on the types of habitat and the analysis to ESA-listed fish, Table 3-25 summarizes the 

potential effects on fish listed on WDFW’s Priority Habitat and Species (PHS) list. 

Table 3-25. Impacts on PHS Fish from the Proposed Action 

Species Habitat Impact

Pacific Lamprey

Lampetra tridentata

Wenatchee: 

Spawn in freshwater runs and 

riffles. Juveniles generally 

limited to soft-bottom slow 

water areas. Distribution in the 

Wenatchee basin is poorly 

understood.

Most project activities are unlikely to result in 

measurable impacts to Pacific lamprey. Construction 

would not occur in breeding habitat, although it is 

possible that deepening/expansion of existing ponds 

accessible to lamprey could result in some mortality. 

Increased naturally spawning coho could result in 

some redd superimposition. Population level effects 

are not expected. Small area disturbed and highly 

localized effects would impact only a few individuals 

at most.

Mountain Sucker

Catostomus 

platyrhynchus

Wenatchee:

Clear, cold creeks and small to 

medium rivers with clear rubble, 

gravel or sand substrate.

Most project activities are unlikely to result in 

measureable impacts to mountain sucker. Impacts 

would be similar to those described for ESA-listed 

fish, although displacement from rearing habitat is 

not expected. Population-level effects are not 

expected. Small area disturbed and highly localized 

effects would impact only a few individuals at most.

Pygmy Whitefish

Prosopium coulteri

Wenatchee and Methow:

Poorly sampled, believed 

associated with deep water 

habitat, primarily lakes.

No alteration of lake habitat is expected. If pygmy 

whitefish occur in the cold water streams near 

proposed construction sites, effects would be similar 

to those described for steelhead/rainbow trout. 

Population-level effects are not expected. Species 

probably are not present in areas of disturbance.

Sockeye salmon

Oncorhynchus nerka

Wenatchee and Methow: 

Primarily lake rearing; spawn 

and rear in and above Lake 

Wenatchee (known in the White 

River up to the Napeequa 

confluence and Little Wenatchee 

below RM 5.a No reported 

spawning in the Methow, 

although reported in the lower 

systemb.

Similar potential effects as described for Chinook, 

although most rearing is likely in Lake Wenatchee, 

so displacement effects are expected to be less. 

Predation by coho on sockeye juveniles in the lake is 

not expected, based on feasibility studies. 

Population-level effects are not expected due to 

limited interactions and habitat disruption. 

Westslope Cutthroat

Oncorhynchus clarki 

lewisi

Wenatchee and Methow: 

Generally cold, clear streams 

with overhead cover and gravel/

cobble/boulder substrate.

Streamnet does not indicate 

presence but PHS maps show 

westslope cutthroat in both 

watersheds.

Potential effects similar to those described for 

steelhead/rainbow trout. Population-level effects not 

expected due to small area impacted.

a. C. Kamphaus, YN Fisheries Biologist, Pers. comm. 2010 

b. http://map.streamnet.org/website/bluesnetmapper/viewer.htm 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-70 Chapter 3 – Fish 

3.7.4 Impacts of the No Action Alternative 

Table 3-26 lists spring acclimation sites under the No Action Alternative where access to 

existing habitat could be blocked for 6 weeks of the year (mid-March through early May). 

Overwintering of coho is not expected under No Action due to lack of funding. A total of 2 

acres of habitat could be excluded from use by listed fish; however, all but the Heath and Lincoln 

sites in the Methow are used for coho acclimation in the current program. Thus, under No 

Action, a total of half an acre of currently accessible habitat would be excluded from use by 

other fish species over what is inaccessible in the current program. 

Table 3-26. ESA-listed juveniles potentially displaced from existing habitat in spring: No Action 

Accessible area Potential juveniles displaced

Wenatchee excluded (acres) Chinook Steelhead Bull trout

Beaver 0.24 yes yes yes

Butcher 0.56 no yes no

Coulter 0.37 no no no

Leavenworth NFH 0 no no no

Rohlfing 0.17 no yes no

Methow

Heath 0.32 yes yes yes

Lincoln 0.20 yes yes yes

Lower Twisp 0.14 yes yes yes

Winthrop NFH 0 no no no

Total 2 acres

The No Action Alternative would operate fewer of the same sites described for the Proposed 

Action. Because fewer sites would be operated and no new construction is involved, the 

combined effects of operation would be less than those of the Proposed Action; consequently, 

the adverse impacts would be less than significant. 

Under the No Action Alternative, the potential impacts and benefits of increasing numbers of 

coho are unlikely to be realized. The program’s broodstock currently is essentially a 

domesticated hatchery stock, not adapted to conditions in the wild. Without the deliberate 

selection for increased percentages of natural-origin fish in the broodstock, with increased 

numbers of those fish originating from high-quality habitat in upstream tributaries, the likelihood 

that viable natural populations of coho would be established throughout the basins is low. 

Experience with previous harvest augmentation programs suggests that naturally reproducing 

populations probably would not establish themselves in significant numbers, if at all (see 

Section 1.3.1). 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Fish 3-71

3.7.5 Mitigation for the Proposed Action 

The following measures would be undertaken to avoid or minimize impacts to fish. 

3.7.5.1 Measures to avoid or mitigate impacts from construction activities 

 Timing and methods of construction would be coordinated with resource agencies to 

minimize disturbance to listed species and life-stages. 

 Discharge of sediment would be limited or prevented by implementing these measures: 

o A temporary barrier would be used to prevent backwater from entering the work area. 

o Prior to release of water flow to the project area, any sediment-laden water would be 

pumped out of the project area and through a filter medium. 

o When flow is returned to the active channel, the sediment plume would not be visible 

above background turbidity 150 feet downstream of the project. 

o New water channels would be lined with gravel and rock. 

o New ponds would be filled slowly to avoid suspending and mobilizing sediments. 

o Banks would be restored and replanted, trees would be avoided, and any habitat 

structures that must be moved (large rocks or large woody debris) would be reinstalled immediately up- or downstream of the disturbance as feasible. 

Permitting agencies such as WDOE or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers could require additional 

measures, which would be implemented. 

3.7.5.2 Measures to avoid or mitigate habitat access impacts 

 Barrier nets (see Chapter 2, Figure 2-11 for a description) would be used at acclimation 

sites where ESA-listed fish do not reside or use to migrate to existing habitat. This would 

minimize premature escape of coho salmon. 

 Seine nets (see Chapter 2, Figure 2-12) would be used at acclimation sites to partition off 

a portion of a water body while allowing free upstream and downstream passage of ESAlisted fish to available habitat. In areas where emergent spring Chinook or bull trout fry 

could be present, predation would be minimized by using fine seine mesh to exclude fry 

from enclosed areas. Seines would be installed in a manner that excludes fry from the 

coho acclimation area by moving out from the bank to encapsulate the rearing area. The 

enclosed area would be snorkeled to verify no ESA-listed fish are present before hatchery 

coho are added. 

3.7.5.3 Measures to avoid or mitigate predation and competition impacts 

 Seine or barrier nets would be removed when coho reach a size that ensures most are 

ready to migrate. Feasibility studies showed that smolts migrate from the acclimation 

area quickly, reducing potential interactions with other species (Murdoch et al. 2005).

 Populations of listed fish would be monitored to establish baseline levels. As the coho 

project moves into the natural production phases, listed fish populations would continue 

to be monitored to determine if their numbers are decreasing. If so, evaluations would be 

made to determine if the decreasing numbers are due to predation or competition by 

naturally produced coho. For details of the monitoring plan, see Appendix 5. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-72 Chapter 3 – Priority Habitat, Plants, Wildlife 

3.8 Priority Habitat, Plants, and Wildlife 

For this EIS, priority habitats, plants, and wildlife include habitats, plants, and terrestrial animals 

(amphibians, birds, insects, mammals, and reptiles) with federal or state protected status; and/or 

species and habitats identified under the WDFW Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) Program. 

This section discusses potential project impacts to the following categories of habitat, plants, and 

wildlife: 

 Wildlife species (non-fish) federally listed under the ESA 

 Plant species federally listed under the ESA and state-listed under the Washington 

Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Natural Heritage Program’s (WNHP) Rare 

Plant list 

 Wildlife (non-fish) and habitats state-listed under the WDFW PHS Program. 

Section 3.7 discusses project impacts to ESA-listed fish and fish on the WDFW Priority Habitat 

and Species list. Section 3.9 discusses impacts to wetlands. 

The WDFW oversees the state listing and recovery of fish and wildlife species in danger of 

extinction due to loss and/or fragmentation of critical habitat, disturbance, or introduction of 

non-native species. The WDFW Species of Concern list includes all state endangered, 

threatened, sensitive, and candidate fish and wildlife species, and also includes all federally listed 

endangered, threatened, and candidate species. All Species of Concern are automatically 

included as priority species in the PHS list. 

The PHS list identifies habitats and species that are priorities for conservation, preservation, and 

management. 16 Priority species include all federal and state listed species, as well as animal 

aggregations (e.g., heron colonies, bat colonies) that are sensitive to habitat alteration, and 

species of recreational, commercial, or tribal importance that are vulnerable. Criteria are defined 

in Section 3.7.1. 

The WNHP manages site-specific and species/ecosystem-specific information on priority plant 

species and ecosystems that are rare or have very limited distribution. The WNHP identifies 

which species and ecosystems are priorities for conservation efforts, and designates the state 

status for each species (e.g., endangered, threatened, sensitive) on the Rare Plant list. All 

federally listed plant species are included in the WNHP Rare Plant list.

3.8.1 Affected Environment 

In both basins, vegetation types vary due to elevation and precipitation, with precipitation 

decreasing in each basin from west to east, as elevations decrease from mountains to the 

Columbia River. With the exception of areas at the highest elevations where the landscape is 

characterized by permanent ice and snow or alpine meadows, the western portions of each basin 

are forested, while the non-agricultural eastern portions contain primarily shrub-steppe species. 

To a certain degree, wildlife varies with the habitat. (See Section 3.3 for a more detailed 

overview.) 

Tables 3-27 through 3-29 show plants, wildlife, and habitat found in each basin that are on either 

federal or state lists. 

 

16 http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/phslist.htm 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Priority Habitat, Plants, Wildlife 3-73

Table 3-27. Federal and state listed species: plants 

Species State Status Federal Status Methow Basin Wenatchee Basin

Showy Stickseed

Hackelia venusta Endangered Endangered X

Ute Ladies’-Tresses

Spiranthes diluvialis Endangered Threatened X X

Wenatchee Mountains Checkermallow

Sidalcea oregano var. calva

Endangered Endangered X

Whited’s Milk-vetch

Astragalus sinuatus Endangered Species of Concerna X

Triangular-lobed Moonwort

Botrychium ascendens Sensitive Species of Concern X

Crenulate Moonwort

Botrychium crenulatum Sensitive Species of Concern X

Two-spiked Moonwort

Botrychium paradoxum Threatened Species of Concern X X

Stalked Moonwort

Botrichium pendunculosum Sensitive Species of Concern X

Clustered Lady’s Slipper

Cypripedium fasciculatum Sensitive Species of Concern X

Wenatchee Larkspur

Delphinium viridescens Threatened Species of Concern X

Chelan Rockmat

Petrophyton cinerascens Endangered Species of Concern X

Whitebark Pine

Pinus albicaulis N/A Species of Concern X X

Seely’s Silene

Silene seelyi Sensitive Species of Concern X

Thompson’s Clover

Trifolium thompsonii Threatened Species of Concern X

a. Species of Concern: ―An informal term referring to a species that might be in need of conservation action. This 

may range from a need for periodic monitoring of populations and threats to the species and its habitat, to the 

necessity for listing as threatened or endangered. Such species receive no legal protection and use of the term does 

not necessarily imply that a species will eventually be proposed for listing.‖ (USFWS Endangered Species Glossary. 

http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/glossary.pdf) 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-74 Chapter 3 – Priority Habitat, Plants, Wildlife 

Table 3-28. Federal and state listed species: wildlife a

Species State Status Federal Status Methow Basin Wenatchee Basin

Canada Lynx

Lynx canadensis Threatened Threatened X X

Gray Wolf

Canis lupus Endangered Endangered X X

Grizzly Bear

Ursos arctos horribilis Endangered Threatened X X

Marbled Murrelet

Brachyramphus marmoratus Threatened Threatened X

Northern Spotted Owl

Strix occidentalis caurina Endangered Threatened X X

Fisher

Martes pennanti Endangered Candidate X X

Greater Sage Grouse

Centrocercus urophasianus Threatened Candidate X

Yellow-Billed Cuckoo

Coccyzus americanus Candidate Candidate X X

Bald Eagle

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Sensitive Species of Concern* X X

Black Swift

Cypseloides niger N/A Species of Concern X X

Burrowing Owl

Athene cunicularia Candidate Species of Concern X

California Floater

Anodonta californiensis Candidate Species of Concern X X

California Wolverine

Gulo gulo luteus Candidate Species of Concern X X

Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse

Tympanuchus phasianellus 

columbianus

Threatened Species of Concern X X

Ferruginous Hawk

Buteo regalis Threatened Species of Concern X

Giant Columbia Spire Snail

Fluminicola columbiana Candidate Species of Concern X X

Kincaid Meadow Vole

Microtus pennsylvanicus kincaidi N/A Species of Concern X

Loggerhead Shrike

Lanius ludovicianus Candidate Species of Concern X X

Long-eared Myotis

Myotis evotis N/A Species of Concern X X

Northern Goshawk

Accipiter gentilis Candidate Species of Concern X X

Olive-sided Flycatcher

Contopus cooperi N/A Species of Concern X X

Pallid Townsend’s Big-eared Bat

Corynorhinus townsendii 

pallescens

Candidate Species of Concern X X

Peregrine Falcon

Falco peregrines Sensitive Species of Concern X X

Sagebrush Lizard

Sceloperorus graciosus Candidate Species of Concern X X

Sharptail Snake

Contia tenuis Candidate Species of Concern X

Western Gray Squirrel

Sciurus griseus griseus Threatened Species of Concern X X

a. See Section 3.7 for listed fish species. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Priority Habitat, Plants, Wildlife 3-75

Table 3-29. Critical Habitats 

Type Methow Basin Wenatchee Basin 

Critical Habitat for Canada Lynx X X

Critical Habitat for Northern Spotted Owl X X

Critical Habitat for Wenatchee Mountains Checker-mallow X X

Source: USFWS 2010a,b 

X = Species/habitat is identified by USFWS as occurring in either Okanogan County (Methow basin) or Chelan County (Wenatchee basin). 

3.8.2 Types of Impact 

Construction Impacts 

Potential impacts to priority habitats or species from project construction activities include the 

following: 

 Clearing and grading of vegetation and soil could result in removal, loss, and 

fragmentation of potential plant and wildlife habitat. 

 Construction of new ponds could create open water habitat, riparian habitat and a food 

source, with the potential to attract wildlife. Consequences include potential alterations 

to species migration, feeding, and foraging behaviors and the potential for increased 

wildlife-human interactions. 

 Noise from the use of construction equipment and the presence of workers could 

temporarily disrupt existing wildlife migration, feeding, and foraging behavior. 

The effects described below are common to all the sites with proposed construction activity, 

although the extent and duration may vary between sites (from one to sixty days for acclimation 

sites and up to five months for the hatchery site). 

Priority habitat and species could be affected by removal, loss, and fragmentation of habitat at 

new and modified sites. This impact would vary in severity depending on the type and quantity 

of vegetation that would be affected. With the exception of the hatchery construction at the 

Dryden site (or the backup George site), no buildings or paved surfaces are proposed. Project 

features such as new ponds and side channels would be designed to conform to the natural 

environment of the site as much as possible and would be in areas where forested habitat would 

not need to be cleared or removed. Vegetation cleared would be primarily shrubs or grass. 

The physical impacts from construction are expected to be minimal for all species. The 

acclimation sites are generally altered from natural conditions and regularly subject to human 

activity. Vegetation communities at the sites are commonly found throughout the region, 

although each site’s location near streams, rivers, tributary channels, and ponds likely results in a 

more diverse assemblage of wildlife and plants than would be found elsewhere (Kauffman et al. 

2001). 

A minimal amount of vegetation at the sites would be removed or crushed. Small mammals and 

reptiles that are present at the sites during construction could be injured or killed due to 

construction activities. However, since the area impacted likely would be small, and animals 

probably would avoid or move out of the area in response to the disturbance, the numbers of 

individuals injured or killed would be few if any. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-76 Chapter 3 – Priority Habitat, Plants, Wildlife 

Habitat for ground and shrub-nesting birds would be affected, but the relative amount would be 

small; there are no special or unique vegetation communities in the areas proposed for 

construction that could provide habitat for such species. Few if any large trees would be 

removed, thus avoiding or minimizing direct effects to tree-nesting bat species or birds such as 

diurnal raptors, owls, woodpeckers, and passerines. 17

The most likely impact to wildlife that would result is construction-related disturbance (noise 

and visual). Potential construction noise would be limited to construction machinery such as 

backhoes and bulldozers for excavation. No blasting, pile driving, or paved road construction is 

proposed. 

Potential wildlife disturbance from the proposed construction activities would depend on several 

factors, including sound levels, duration and surrounding topography and vegetation. The sound 

produced by conventional construction equipment typically ranges from about 75 to 90 decibels 

(dB): 78 dB for a dump truck, 80 dB for an excavator, 85 dB for a back hoe, and 87 dB for a 

bulldozer (LHSFNA 2009). Generally, disturbance activities would be limited to the immediate 

acclimation site, although noise from heavy machinery could extend approximately 600 to 1,000 

feet outward from the site before diminishing to ambient levels. Adjacent hills and topographic 

changes in the landscape would reduce this distance by blocking or absorbing the sound. At all 

acclimation sites, construction would take place during summer months (May through 

September) for a period of from 1 to 60 days. 

Noise and visual disturbance from pedestrians has been shown to elicit responses from nesting 

and foraging raptors at greater than 600 feet (Anthony et al. 1995, Richardson and Miller 1997), 

although these and other studies also suggest that noise without activity visible to the bird results 

in a much lower disturbance distance. There are no known bald eagle nests within two miles of 

any of the sites, but several regular concentrations are within one mile of several of the sites. No 

sites contain cliffs suitable for use by cliff-nesting raptors, but there is cliff habitat near the 

Rohlfing site and within a few thousand feet of the Tall Timber site. None of the sites contains 

trees of appropriate size for other raptor nests (e.g., red-tailed hawks), but some sites do have 

mature stands of trees in the vicinity that could provide nesting habitat. No raptors were 

observed during site visits; however, a comprehensive survey was not conducted, so existing 

nests might be unaccounted for. 

Passerine birds and small mammals also would likely avoid the sites where construction is 

ongoing, but the area of effect would be small and the numbers affected would likely be very low 

compared to the numbers in the region. 

Ungulates (deer and elk primarily) probably would avoid the sites while construction is actively 

occurring. Both species are known to avoid roads with vehicle traffic and pedestrian travel 

(Millspaugh et al. 2001, Wisdom et al. 2004). Construction is not likely to have a substantial 

effect on ungulates because: 1) human activity, including vehicle traffic to and from the sites, is 

already fairly common; 2) habitat is not known to be limiting; and 3) the amount of habitat 

excluded due to construction activities would be very small compared to what is available in 

surrounding areas. 

 

17 Passerine birds are perching birds or songbirds. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Priority Habitat, Plants, Wildlife 3-77

Operations Impacts 

Disturbance from site operations would include vehicle noise associated with accessing the sites 

and crew presence. Each of the sites would require regular, daily human presence during the 

acclimation period. Crews of two people would be responsible for several sites and would drive 

between them during the course of the day. These activities would be consistent with average 

ambient noise levels. 

All sites could require non-lethal bird hazing. Feeding and hazing activities average 3 hours per 

day per site and occur during daylight hours. For spring-only acclimation this is 1.4 percent of 

the year and for winter acclimation, 4.8 percent of the year. Hazing involves discouraging 

wildlife such as mergansers, kingfishers, herons, and otters from preying on coho by having 

humans on the site and moving around the ponds at key times (mornings and evenings). 

Noise from generators could disturb wildlife. Two acclimation sites, Two Rivers and MSWA 

Chewuch, would have generators running continuously for six weeks from mid-March through 

early April; impacts of the Two Rivers site, previously used by the coho program, were 

evaluated in previous NEPA documents. Six other primary sites and three backup sites would 

have generators used as needed during power outages. Enclosing pumps and generators in noisemuffling structures would effectively eliminate disturbance to wildlife. 

3.8.3 Impacts of the Proposed Action 

Table 3-30 lists project sites with documented occurrences of ESA-listed wildlife species and 

designated critical habitat. Table 3-31 lists sites with documented occurrences of state-listed 

priority species and habitats. Site-specific discussions follow the tables. Wetlands are an 

important habitat for many PHS species; impacts to wetlands are evaluated in Section 3.9. 

Because operations impacts are expected to be consistent with ambient noise levels, the sitespecific discussions following the tables focus on sites with proposed construction.

Table 3-30. Project sites with documented occurrences of USFWS ESA-listed species and habitat 

ESA-listed wildlife 

species

Sites with ESA-listed wildlife species in the 

project area

Sites with ESA-designated Critical 

Habitat in the project area

Northern spotted owl

Wenatchee – primary w/ construction: Chikamin, 

Minnow, Tall Timber

Wenatchee – primary no construction: Beaver, 

Clear

Wenatchee – backup no construction: Allen

Methow – primary no construction: Goat Wall

Wenatchee – primary w/ construction:

Tall Timber
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-78 Chapter 3 – Priority Habitat, Plants, Wildlife 

Table 3-31. Sites with documented occurrences of state-listed Priority Habitat and Species a 

State-listed wildlife 

species / habitats

Sites with documented occurrences in the project 

area

Sites where habitat exists in 

the project area

Wildlife

Bald eagle

Sites w/in regular concentration areas: Chewuch AF, 

Hancock, Heath, Lower Twisp, MSWA Eightmile, MSRF 

Chewuch, Poorman, Pete Cr. Pond, Winthrop NFH

All sites, except Dryden

Bat species None

Tall Timber for breeding 

habitat, all sites for foraging 

habitat

Frog species None All sites, except Dryden

Great blue heron None All sites, except Dryden

Harlequin duck

Sites w/in regular concentration areas: Chewuch AF, 

Gold, Hancock, Heath, Lower Twisp, MSRF Chewuch, 

Poorman, Pete Cr. Pond, Winthrop NFH 

Tall Timber

Mountain goat Site w/in regular concentration area: Rohlfing

Site w/in migration area: Tall Timber Rohlfing, Tall Timber

Mule deer

Sites w/in breeding occurrence range: Beaver, Butcher, 

Clear, Coulter, Coulter/Roaring, Dirty Face, Gray, 

Rohlfing, Squadroni, Tall Timber

Sites w/in parturition (birthing) area: Chikamin, Minnow

Sites w/in regular concentration area: Balky Hill, 

Chewuch AF, Dryden, Goat Wall, Gold, Hancock, 

Heath, Lincoln, Mason, MSRF Chewuch, McComas, 

Parmley, Poorman, Pete Cr. Pond

All sites

Northwest white-tailed 

deer

Sites w/in parturition (birthing) area: Goat Wall, Pete Cr. 

Pond, Winthrop NFH 

Sites w/in regular concentration area: Pete Cr. Pond, 

Winthrop NFH

All sites

White-tailed deer Site w/in regular concentration area: Heath All sites

Waterfowl 

concentrations None All sites, except Dryden

Western gray squirrel None Tall Timber

Woodpecker species None Tall Timber

Habitat

Meadows Dirty Face, Squadroni, Tall Timber Not Applicable

Riparian

Balky Hill, Beaver, Biddle, Chewuch AF, Dryden, Gold, 

Hancock, Heath, Leavenworth NFH, Lincoln, MSRF 

Chewuch, Lower Twisp, MSWA Eightmile, Parmley, 

Poorman, Scheibler, Pete Cr. Pond, Winthrop NFH

Not Applicable

Aspen George Not Applicable

a. The WDFW PHS list also includes all federal ESA-listed species (Table 3-30). 

3.8.3.1 Wenatchee Basin Acclimation Sites (Primary) 

Butcher 

A well is proposed for the Butcher site. The exact location has not yet been determined but it 

would be close to existing roads to minimize access disturbances. A 50-foot-long by 5-foot-wide 

rock-lined, open channel would deliver water from the well to Butcher Creek upstream of the 

pond. Approximately 250 square feet of disturbance would occur in riparian habitat that is 

dominated by a mixture of shrub habitat with some young trees and areas of grass and 

herbaceous plants. Construction would take place for a few days in late summer or early fall. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Priority Habitat, Plants, Wildlife 3-79

Priority species potentially disturbed by construction at the site include bald eagles, frogs, great 

blue heron, deer, and waterfowl. The loss of a small area of habitat and temporary disruption 

caused by construction noise would not significantly affect native wildlife species. 

Chikamin 

A new pond and river intake are proposed for the Chikamin site, which is adjacent to the 

Minnow site. The pond would be approximately 120 feet long by 80 feet wide for a total area of 

about 9,600 square feet (0.2 acre). The pond would be excavated in a field dominated by grass 

and herbaceous vegetation. The intake structure would be placed in the Chikamin stream bank. 

A 120-foot-long water supply pipeline from the intake to the pond would be buried; 

approximately 0.03 acre of field and riparian (alder and willow) habitat would be disturbed. A 

rock-lined, open channel, about 70 feet long and 5 feet wide, would be constructed from the 

pond to the creek in the riparian zone of Chikamin Creek dominated by willow and alder with 

young pine trees. Pine or other conifer trees in this area would be avoided if possible. 

Approximately 0.29 acre of surface area would be disturbed by all construction activities. 

WDFW maps (WDFW 2009) identify the Chikamin site as within an established territory 

management circle for spotted owl. Timber harvesting has occurred at and near the site; existing 

trees are young and relatively young second-growth stands, so northern spotted owls are not 

expected to occupy the site. No other federally protected species are documented within 2 miles 

of the site. 

WDFW priority species documented within 1,000 feet of the site include concentrations of 

marten, breeding mule deer, and a northern goshawk nest. Additional priority species that could 

be disturbed by construction are bald eagles, frogs, great blue heron, deer, and waterfowl. Added 

pond and riparian habitat would provide additional aquatic habitat that could benefit these and 

other native wildlife species. The temporary disruption (less than two months) caused by 

construction noise would not significantly impact native wildlife species. 

Minnow 

A new pond and 600 feet of new road is proposed for the Minnow site adjacent to an existing 

creek channel. The site is under the same ownership as the Chikamin site. The Minnow site 

would require excavation in the existing channel of Minnow Creek, a tributary to Chikamin 

Creek. The pond would be approximately the same size as the Chikamin pond and would be 

excavated in the riparian zone of Minnow Creek. The exact location of the temporary access 

road has not yet been determined; however, all of the potential locations between the proposed 

pond and the existing road are in an open area dominated by grass and herbaceous species. 

Habitat cleared during construction would include a combination of grass field and alder, willow, 

and young pine trees; however, pines and other conifers would be avoided to the greatest extent 

possible. Approximately 0.2 acre of surface area would be disturbed. 

The pond banks would be replanted with native vegetation, with no net loss of riparian habitat. 

Approximately 0.2 acre of pond habitat would be created that would provide additional aquatic 

habitat for wildlife species in the Minnow Creek watershed. 

Priority species and impacts are the same as for the Chikamin site. Maps of PHS (WDFW 2009) 

identify the Minnow site as within an established territory management circle for spotted owl and 

adjacent to a second management circle. As with the Chikamin site, timber harvesting has 

occurred on and near the project site and existing trees are young second-growth stands, so it is 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-80 Chapter 3 – Priority Habitat, Plants, Wildlife 

unlikely that spotted owls use the area. No other federally protected species are documented 

within two miles of the Minnow site. WDFW priority species documented within 1,000 feet of 

the site that could be disturbed by construction include American marten, breeding mule deer, 

and a northern goshawk nest. Construction would occur from June to October, during the 

nesting season for waterfowl and songbirds. 

Scheibler 

An existing pond, about 100 feet long and 15 feet wide, would be expanded and deepened at this 

site. Approximately 350 cubic yards of material from the pond would be excavated to increase 

the pond capacity by 14,000 cubic feet. Construction would occur in late summer to early fall, 

within the nesting period for waterfowl and songbirds but avoiding the critical spring period. 

Riparian priority habitat associated with Chumstick Creek adjacent to the site would not be 

disturbed. Priority species potentially disturbed are the same as for Chikamin and Minnow. The 

loss of a small area of agricultural and deciduous riparian habitat and temporary disruption 

caused by construction noise would not significantly impact native wildlife species. 

Tall Timber 

The Tall Timber site would require ground disturbance for an intake from the river and for a 

pipeline to deliver water to an existing, disconnected side channel. The intake structure would 

be in the riparian zone of the Napeequa River, where up to 400 square feet of forested and shrub 

habitat with cedar, pine, Douglas fir, willow, snowberry, and reed canarygrass would be 

disturbed. Conifer trees would be avoided, if possible. Rock and gravel would be placed around 

the intake to prevent erosion. An 800-foot-long water supply pipeline from the intake to the 

pond would be buried. Part of the pipeline would be dug through similar forest and shrub 

habitat. The disturbed areas would be replanted with native vegetation. 

Impacts to the existing side channel (approximately 1,000 feet long and 60 feet wide) would be 

limited to filling the channel with water during the acclimation period. 

The site is located within a spotted owl management circle (1.8 mile radius); vegetation within 

and adjacent to the area of proposed construction includes mature forest that could provide 

habitat for spotted owl. The nest associated with the management circle is located more than one 

mile from the site. The pipeline would be constructed near mature cedar, pine, and Douglas-fir 

trees, and it is possible that some trees may need to be removed. If so, a qualified biologist 

would confirm the presence or absence of nest activity in the trees. No significant impacts to 

spotted owls are anticipated because: 1) the absence of an owl nest would be confirmed prior to 

removing any trees; 2) the removal of a few trees within a densely forested area would not 

significantly modify habitat conditions; 3) the site includes a ranch and a church camp with 

regular, consistent human activity; 4) construction disturbances would be intermittent and 

temporary (normal weekday hours for up to four months); and 5) avoidance behavior by owls 

during construction would not likely result in a significant disturbance to the species. 

Meadow priority habitat documented adjacent to the site appears to be outside the area of 

proposed construction. 

Priority species potentially disturbed by construction at the site are bald eagles, bats, frogs, great 

blue heron, harlequin duck, mountain goat, deer, waterfowl, western gray squirrel, and 

woodpeckers. The presence of mountain goats near the project area would be associated with 

transient or migration behavior. The loss of mature trees would disturb potential breeding 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Priority Habitat, Plants, Wildlife 3-81

habitat for bald eagles, bats, harlequin duck, western gray squirrel, and woodpeckers. Given the 

relatively small area and number of trees that would be removed relative to the surrounding 

available forested habitat, significant impacts to these species are not anticipated. Construction 

noise might cause these species to temporarily avoid the area, but such behavior is not likely to 

result in significant impacts to these or other native wildlife species. 

3.8.3.2 Wenatchee Acclimation Sites (Backup) 

Allen 

The site, if used, would not require construction. WDFW PHS maps (WDFW 2009) identify the 

Allen site as within an established territory management circle for spotted owl; however, the site 

does not provide spotted owl habitat and mature forest associated with spotted owl habitat is not 

located nearby. No other federally protected species and no other state-designated priority 

habitat and species are documented within one mile of the Allen site. 

Squadroni 

A new well, pond, 50-foot-long rock-lined open channel, and 20-foot-long discharge channel are 

proposed for the Squadroni site. Disturbances would occur in grass fields. A generator would be 

required to provide backup power in the event of a power outage during the acclimation period. 

The species potentially disturbed by construction at the site are bald eagles, frogs, great blue 

heron, deer, and waterfowl. The loss of a small area of grass field habitat and temporary 

disruption caused by construction noise would not significantly impact native wildlife species. 

3.8.3.3 Hatchery Sites 

Dryden (Primary) 

The Dryden site is proposed as a primary site for hatchery construction. Chapter 2, Section 

2.2.2.3 and Appendix 1 provide more detailed descriptions of hatchery design and construction 

requirements. The Dryden site is also identified as a backup site for acclimation. 

The Proposed Action would require excavations for rearing ponds, raceways, a hatchery 

building, water and power supply, and an effluent treatment system. These excavations would 

be in an area that is a combination of disturbed bare ground and patches of grass and weedy 

species and occasional shrubs. No trees would be cleared. A surface water intake would be built 

in the fishway, which would involve no excavation. Construction would occur from May to 

October 2012; four acres would be disturbed. Excavated material would be disposed in locations 

that meet permit conditions and minimize environmental impacts. 

WDFW PHS maps (WDFW 2009) do not document any occurrences of federally listed wildlife 

or plant species within at least one mile of the Dryden site. The boundary of an established 

territory management circle for spotted owl is located between 1 and 2 miles from the site, south 

of Highway 2. Other WDFW priority species found within 1,000 feet of the site include 

concentrations of mule deer. Riparian priority habitat associated with the Wenatchee River is 

documented adjacent to the site but would not be disturbed. The loss of a small area of habitat 

that is mostly disturbed would not significantly impact native wildlife species. Noise from 

construction and operation of the facilities is unlikely to affect wildlife any more than current 

activities at and near the site. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-82 Chapter 3 – Priority Habitat, Plants, Wildlife 

George (Backup) 

If used, the George backup hatchery site would require construction similar to the Dryden site 

(see Chapter 2 and Appendix 1 for more details). A fence would be constructed around the 

facility and predator-control nets would be installed over rearing units. 

A number of priority species may use habitat at the George site during part of their life cycle, 

including bald eagles, northern goshawks, harlequin ducks, great blue herons, pileated 

woodpeckers, olive-sided flycatcher, mule deer, long-eared myotis, sharp-tailed snakes, and 

western toads. Priority habitat on-site includes quaking aspen stands and riparian habitat. 

Construction of the surface water intake structure at the Wenatchee River and installation of the 

intake pipeline could affect riparian shrub-scrub and forested habitat. A large tract of priority 

aspen habitat exists near the area of the proposed intake and discharge pipelines. These pipelines 

would be located along the eastern boundary of this priority habitat to minimize the potential for 

impacts. Construction of the hatchery facility and rearing ponds as currently planned would not 

impact any priority aspen habitat. Some upland forested habitat is likely to be removed to 

construct the hatchery facility and rearing ponds. Impacts to forested habitat would be 

minimized to the extent possible; shrub/scrub and emergent vegetation removed along the intake 

or discharge pipeline corridors would be restored with native plants when the project is 

completed. Removal of forested habitat would be mitigated by replanting native vegetation 

around the construction site and in disturbed and cleared areas (approximately 2.5 acres). 

Construction of the hatchery facility, discharge/intake pipelines and water supply wells would

not alter a substantial portion of riparian and forested habitat for wildlife species that have more 

extensive home ranges. Impacts to habitat and some individual amphibians that have 

comparatively limited home ranges (e.g., the western toad) could be possible at the local 

population level. 

Noise generated during construction may cause priority species to avoid the site during 

construction; however, this impact would be temporary and noise would not be significantly 

elevated above existing ambient noise from surrounding highway traffic and landowner 

activities. The existing network of roads would be used to access the site and for moving 

construction equipment and crews. Existing cleared areas would also be used for staging of 

construction equipment and supplies. Based on these measures to avoid or minimize potential 

impacts during the construction of the hatchery, there would be no significant impacts to priority 

species or habitat at the George site. 

3.8.3.4 Methow Acclimation Sites (Primary) 

Goat Wall 

The site would not require construction but could have operational impacts. Maps of PHS 

distribution (WDFW 2009) indicate spotted owls are present in parts of Okanogan County. 

However, the location of the proposed Goat Wall acclimation site does not provide spotted owl 

habitat, and mature forest associated with spotted owl habitat is not located near the site. The 

USFWS has designated the Okanogan Unit of spotted owl critical habitat, a portion of which is

approximately five miles from the Goat Wall site. Operation of the Goat Wall site would have 

minimal or no impact on any individual spotted owls that may be found in the vicinity. No other 

federally protected species and no other WDFW priority species are documented near the Goat 

Wall site that could be affected by site operations. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Priority Habitat, Plants, Wildlife 3-83

Gold 

Approximately 260 cubic feet of silt, sand, and gravel deposits from an existing pond would be 

excavated. Vegetation adjacent to the pond includes mowed lawn that would be disturbed to 

access the ponds for excavation. 

The reach of the South Fork Gold Creek adjacent to the Gold site is identified as riparian priority 

habitat but would not be disturbed. Bald eagles, frogs, great blue heron, deer, and waterfowl 

could be temporarily disturbed by construction noise but the impact would not be significant. No 

habitat would be lost. 

MSWA Eightmile 

A well and water supply channel from the well to the existing side channel are proposed. A 

generator would be installed near the well to provide the primary power source, and would run 

continuously during the acclimation period. It would be installed in a structure that would 

significantly attenuate the generator noise and limit the noise effects to the area within a few feet 

of the enclosure. Construction would be in an agricultural field in September. The reach of the 

Chewuch River adjacent to the site identified as riparian priority habitat would not be disturbed. 

Priority species and impacts are the same as Gold. 

Twisp Weir 

Proposed construction at Twisp Weir includes the excavation of a new pond, construction of 

intake and discharge structures from the Twisp River to the new pond, burial of water lines, 

construction of one well, and construction of a temporary access road to the pond. The location 

for the proposed pond is upland open space consisting of mowed grass. The exact location of the 

temporary access road has not yet been determined; however, all the potential locations between 

the proposed pond and the existing gravel road are managed and maintained as mowed grass. 

The intake structure would be located at the existing diversion in the Twisp River, which is 

adjacent to the edge of a wetland identified by the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) (USFWS 

2008) (see Section 3.9.3.3). The proposed intake pipeline would extend across an upland 

meadow to the proposed acclimation pond site. The proposed location for the discharge pipeline 

from the acclimation pond crosses maintained upland areas and then would pass under the 

existing irrigation canal into forested riparian habitat adjacent to the Twisp River. The proposed 

locations for the well and associated pipelines are also within this forested riparian habitat. 

It is unlikely that priority species occupy the maintained portion of the Twisp Weir site because 

of the ongoing maintenance and operation of the site as a fish hatchery and the lack of native 

habitat observed. Priority species that may use the forested riparian and stream habitat at the site 

include western gray squirrel, western toad, northern goshawk, bald eagle, long-eared bat, olivesided flycatcher, Columbia spotted frog, great blue heron, harlequin duck, and mule deer. 

Removal of forested riparian habitat for the discharge pipeline and water supply wells would not 

alter a substantial portion of the habitat for mammals and birds with more extensive home 

ranges; mature trees would be avoided to the extent possible. Impacts to riparian habitat and 

some individual amphibians with more limited home ranges, such as the spotted frog or western 

toad, are possible at the local population level. 

Overall impacts at the site would be minimized by: 1) locating the acclimation pond in a fenced, 

mowed grass field; 2) placement of the intake structure at an existing diversion structure; and 

3) selecting pipeline corridors and well locations that do not contain mature trees to the extent 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-84 Chapter 3 – Priority Habitat, Plants, Wildlife 

possible. Impacts to shrub/scrub vegetation would be temporary and restored after completion. 

Construction noise would be temporary and not significantly higher than existing noise from 

adjacent highway traffic and landowner activities. Significant permanent impacts to priority 

species and habitat at the Twisp Weir site are not likely. 

3.8.3.5 Methow Acclimation Sites (Backup) 

Chewuch AF

If this site is used, a new pond would be constructed downstream of the existing facility. It

would be approximately 150 feet long by 50 feet wide and 3.5 feet deep, occupying 

approximately 7,500 square feet (0.2 acre). The existing campground, with a combination of 

bare ground and patches of native trees and landscaping shrubs, would be disturbed.

The reach of the Chewuch River identified as riparian priority habitat adjacent to the site would 

not be disturbed. Construction activity could disturb bald eagles, frogs, great blue heron, deer, 

and waterfowl. The loss of a small area of an existing campground and temporary disruption 

caused by construction noise would not significantly impact native wildlife species. 

MSRF Chewuch 

A new pond would be constructed at this site, if used, occupying approximately 7,500 square feet 

(0.2 acres). Approximately 890 cubic yards of material would be excavated from tree, shrub, 

and grass habitat dominated by deciduous species such as black cottonwood, aspen, alder, and 

reed canarygrass. Large trees would be avoided. Rock-lined, open channels would be 

constructed from the well to the pond and from the pond to the Chewuch River. 

The rock lined channel would be within a reach of the Chewuch River identified as riparian 

priority habitat. Priority species potentially disturbed by construction are the same as for the 

Chewuch AF site. The creation of additional pond and riparian habitat would benefit many of 

these and other native wildlife species. The temporary disruption caused by construction noise 

would not significantly impact native wildlife species. 

Newby 

Construction at the Newby site, if used, includes excavation of a new pond and construction of 

an intake structure at Newby Creek with intake and discharge pipelines. The pond would be in 

an upland meadow with vegetation consisting of upland grasses, mullein and goldenrod. The 

exact location of the temporary access road has not been determined; however, all the potential 

locations between the planned pond and the existing driveway are upland habitat with vegetation 

similar to the planned pond area. The locations for the intake structure and discharge are along a 

reach of Newby Creek that has a relatively high gradient (greater than 5 percent) and a defined 

steep-sided channel that lacks riverine wetlands. 

Vegetation that would be disturbed to construct the pond and temporary access road includes 

upland grasses, mullein and goldenrod. Vegetation that would be disturbed to construct the 

intake and discharge structures and pipelines includes riparian forest habitat dominated by 

quaking aspen, Douglas-fir, red osier dogwood, snowberry, serviceberry, and Nootka rose. 

Disturbance of mature and large trees would be avoided if possible. Most impacts would be to 

habitat along the riparian edge of Newby Creek. Priority species that might use the forested 

riparian and stream habitat at the Newby site are the same as those at Lower Twisp, and impacts 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Priority Habitat, Plants, Wildlife 3-85

would be similar. Impacts to individual amphibians that have a comparatively limited home 

range (e.g., spotted frog or western toad) are possible at the local population level. 

Utley 

If the site is used, construction would include installation of a discharge pipeline between the 

drainage channel from the pond and the Twisp River. Access to the pond would be from the 

existing driveway southwest of the pond, across an upland maintained lawn. Existing trails and 

roads would allow access to the discharge site without damaging native wetland vegetation with 

construction equipment. 

A culvert that would provide an outlet from the acclimation pond would also be constructed. 

Priority habitats that would be disturbed include some upland meadow habitat with vegetation 

consisting of upland grasses (approximately 150 square feet of temporary impact); and some 

areas of forested riparian habitat with vegetation consisting of spruce (approximately 5 to 18 inch 

diameter at breast height [DBH]), aspen (approximately 2-3 inch DBH saplings), mountain alder, 

snowberry, and tall Oregon grape (approximately 950 square feet of temporary disturbance). 

Priority species that might use the forested riparian and stream habitat at the Utley site are the 

same as for the Lower Twisp and Newby sites, and impacts are also similar and minor. 

Avoiding the removal of mature trees while placing the pipeline in an area with shrub/scrub or 

emergent vegetation would avoid or minimize impacts to the species and habitat at the site. 

3.8.3.6 Combined Impacts 

Clearing and grading of vegetation communities during construction would be limited to areas 

that are small relative to the total native habitat in the region. Impacts to forested habitat and 

wetlands would be avoided, disturbed areas would be replanted with native vegetation, and 

construction noise would be temporary. Construction would create new ponds and/or side 

channel habitats. 

Humans would be present at all sites. However, disturbances would be limited to vehicles 

accessing the site and crews of two people walking the site for a small part of the day for six 

weeks to six months each year. Impacts to wildlife would be limited to avoidance behavior 

associated with human presence. Operations disturbances are unlikely to significantly affect 

priority species or other native wildlife and would have no impact on priority habitats or plants. 

Overall, based on existing natural resource information, the type and scale of proposed 

construction and operation activities, and the habitats and vegetation communities that would be 

disturbed at the project sites, no significant adverse impacts to federally listed species are likely. 

In addition, while potential habitat for many of the state-listed species exists at or near many of 

the sites, impacts likely would be minor or insignificant and would be avoided to the greatest 

extent possible. No significant adverse impacts to state-listed species or habitats or other native 

wildlife are anticipated. 

3.8.4 Impacts of the No Action Alternative 

Because no new sites would be constructed, either for incubation and rearing or for acclimation, 

there would be no construction impacts to federally listed or state priority habitats and species. 

Two sites in the Methow basin not used in the current coho program might be used for coho 

acclimation if the No Action Alternative is implemented. As a result, impacts of operations 

under the No Action Alternative would be slightly greater than those already occurring under the 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-86 Chapter 3 – Priority Habitat, Plants, Wildlife 

existing program at existing sites. Those impacts are the same as for the Proposed Action 

(primarily wildlife avoidance behavior associated with limited and intermittent human presence) 

and are considered negligible. 

3.8.5 Mitigation for the Proposed Action 

The following measures are proposed to avoid or minimize impacts to priority habitat, plants, 

and wildlife. Site-specific measures to mitigate impacts are described under the individual site 

analyses in Section 3.8.3. 

 Project features such as new ponds and side channels would be designed to be as natural 

as possible and in most cases would be in areas where forested habitat would not be 

cleared or removed. 

 Few if any large trees would be removed, thus avoiding or minimizing direct effects to 

tree-nesting bat species or birds such as diurnal raptors, owls, woodpeckers, and 

passerines. 

 Enclosing pumps and generators in noise-muffling structures would effectively eliminate 

disturbance to wildlife. 

3.9 Wetlands 

3.9.1 Affected Environment 

Wetlands are classified in this EIS according to the USFWS classification developed by 

Cowardin et al. (1979). In this system wetlands are classified based on their physical 

characteristics, such as the general type of vegetation in the wetland (trees, shrubs, grass, etc.) 

and how much, and where, water is present. The wetland types found in the project area are: 

 Palustrine forested (PFO) – These wetlands have at least 30 percent cover of woody 

vegetation that is more than 20 feet high. 

 Palustrine scrub-shrub (PSS) – These wetlands have at least 30 percent cover of woody 

vegetation that is less than 20 feet high. 

 Palustrine emergent (PEM) – These wetlands have erect, rooted, herbaceous vegetation 

present for most of the growing season in most years. 

 Palustrine unconsolidated bottom (PUB) – These wetlands are characterized by open 

water, such as ponds, with less than 30 percent vegetation cover and substrate of cobbles, 

gravel, sand, mud, or organic material. 

 Palustrine aquatic bed (PAB) – Areas of open freshwater that have rooted plants such as 

water lilies or cattails that project above the surface. 

Due to the nature of the project, all the sites include or are adjacent to rivers, streams, or ponds; 

wetland habitat is typically limited to narrow patches along the shoreline of existing ponds or 

side channels. Although wetland habitat was anticipated at project sites, only a few require 

construction activities in wetlands. They are: 

Wenatchee basin 

 Wetlands present and construction is proposed: Scheibler, Tall Timber, George (backup 

hatchery site) 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Wetlands 3-87

 Proposed construction but no wetlands present in construction area: Dryden, Butcher, 

Chikamin, Minnow, Squadroni (backup) 

Methow basin 

 Wetlands present and construction is proposed: Twisp Weir, MSRF Chewuch (backup), 

Utley (backup) 

 Proposed construction but no wetlands present in construction area: Gold, MSWA 

Eightmile, Chewuch AF (backup), Newby (backup) 

Maps of documented wetlands at all sites are included in Appendix 4. 

3.9.2 Types of Impact

The primary potential impact to wetlands from project construction would be removal, loss, and 

fragmentation of wetland habitat. This impact would vary in severity depending on the type and 

quantity of vegetation that would be affected. 

Disturbances associated with operation at the sites would include trucks accessing the sites and 

crews of two people walking the sites. Even if wetlands exist at a project site, these activities 

would not affect them. 

3.9.3 Impacts of the Proposed Action 

Table 3-32 summarizes wetland conditions identified near sites with proposed construction 

activity and sites with potential wetland impacts. 

3.9.3.1 Wenatchee Acclimation Sites (Primary) 

Butcher 

A well is proposed for the Butcher site. The exact location has not yet been determined but it 

would be close to existing roads to minimize access disturbances. No wetland impacts are 

identified at this site. The riparian habitat in the construction area does not include wetlands. 

Potential wetland habitat along the pond shoreline is outside the area of proposed construction. 

Chikamin 

A new pond and river intake is proposed for the Chikamin site, which is adjacent to the Minnow 

site. Wetland habitat was not identified in the grass field or riparian habitat in the area of 

proposed construction. All disturbed areas would be replanted with native vegetation. 

Minnow 

A new pond is proposed for the Minnow site adjacent to an existing creek channel. Wetland 

habitat was not identified in the grass field or riparian habitat in the area of proposed 

construction. The pond banks would be replanted with native vegetation, with no net loss of 

riparian habitat. 

Scheibler 

Expanding and deepening an existing pond are proposed for the Scheibler site. Expanding the 

existing pond could disturb wetland habitat associated with the pond and Chumstick Creek. 

Following expansion of the pond, native vegetation would be planted along the pond shoreline to 

create and/or enhance wetland habitat to compensate for wetland impacts. Wetland delineations 

in spring of 2011 will quantify wetland impacts. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-88 Chapter 3 – Wetlands 

Tall Timber 

The Tall Timber site would require ground disturbance for an intake from the river and for a 

pipeline to deliver water to an existing, disconnected side channel. No wetland impacts are 

identified within the proposed construction activity at this site. The buried pipeline would 

deliver water to an existing side channel that contains wetland habitat along the edges. Impacts 

to the existing side channel would be limited to filling the channel with water during acclimation. 

Wetland delineations in spring of 2011 will verify the presence and extent of impacts. 

Table 3-32. Wetland conditions at or near project sites with construction activity 

Site Name

Wetlands Observed During 

Site Visits

Wetlands Identified With 

Existing Information

Potential Wetland 

Impacts

Wenatchee Primary

Butcher Potential patches of PSS and 

PEM wetland along pond 

shoreline

None within 1,000 feet of site No wetland impacts 

identified in proposed 

construction area.

Chikamin None observed PFO, PSS, and PEM wetland 

habitat mapped along 

riparian habitat a few 

hundred feet from the site

No wetland impacts 

identified in proposed 

construction area.

Dryden None observed PSS wetland habitat mapped 

along riparian habitat a few 

hundred feet from the site

No wetland impacts 

identified in proposed 

construction area.

- New wetland 

potentially created: 

52,272 sq ft.

Minnow None observed PFO, PSS, and PEM wetland 

habitat mapped along 

riparian habitat a few 

hundred feet from the site

No wetland impacts 

identified in proposed 

construction area.

Scheibler PFO, PSS, and PEM wetland 

habitat associated with riparian 

habitat

PSS and PEM wetland 

habitat mapped along 

riparian habitat at the site

Permanent: 3,049 sq 

ft.

Tall Timber PSS and PEM wetland habitat 

associated with side channels

PSS and PEM wetland 

habitat mapped along 

riparian habitat more than 

1,000 feet from site

No wetland impacts 

identified in proposed 

construction area.

Wenatchee Backup

Squadroni Site visit not performed PSS and PEM wetland 

habitat mapped along 

riparian habitat of Nason 

Creek a few hundred feet 

from the site

No wetland impacts 

identified in proposed 

construction area.

George (backup

hatchery site)

Wetlands observed associated 

with the side channel (highquality PSS and PAB wetland) 

and the Wenatchee River (PFO 

and PSS wetlands).

NWI PFO, PSS, and PAB 

identified associated with the 

Wenatchee River and the 

side-channel at the site.

Temporary: 45,000 sq 

ft (1 acre)

Permanent: 1,075 sq 

ft (0.03 acres)

NWI – National Wetlands Inventory 

PAB – Palustrine aquatic bed (wetland) 

PEM – Palustrine emergent (wetland) 

PFO – Palustrine forested (wetland) 

PSS – Palustrine scrub-shrub (wetland) 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Wetlands 3-89

Table 3-32 (continued) 

Site Name

Wetlands Observed During 

Site Visits

Wetlands Identified With 

Existing Information

Potential Wetland 

Impacts

Methow Primary

Gold Potential small patches of PSS 

and PEM wetland along pond 

shoreline

None within 1,000 feet of site No wetland impacts 

identified in proposed 

construction area.

MSWA Eightmile PSS and PEM wetland habitat 

associated with riparian habitat

PSS and PEM wetland 

habitat mapped along 

riparian habitat at the site

No wetland impacts 

identified in proposed 

construction area.

Twisp Weir None observed NWI PFO and PEM wetland 

habitat identified along the 

Twisp River at the site.

Temporary: 1,350 sq ft 

(0.03 acres)

Permanent: 130 sq ft 

(0.003 acres)

Methow Backup

Chewuch AF None observed None within 1,000 feet of site No wetland impacts 

identified in proposed 

construction area.

MSRF Chewuch PFO, PSS, and PEM wetland 

habitat associated with riparian 

habitat

PFO, PSS, and PEM wetland 

habitat mapped along 

riparian habitat at the site

Proposed construction 

could impact wetlands 

along riparian habitat.

Newby None observed None identified No wetland impacts 

identified in currently 

proposed construction 

area

Utley Potential patches of riverine 

wetlands along the Twisp River 

east and northeast of existing

pond.

A large PSS NWI wetland north 

of the pond may be connected to 

the ditch that drains the pond.

PSS NWI wetland 

approximately 250 feet north 

of the existing pond.

PFO NWI wetland 

approximately 400 feet 

southwest of the pond but 

outside of any proposed 

construction areas.

Temporary:150 sq ft 

(0.003 acres)

NWI – National Wetlands Inventory 

PAB – Palustrine aquatic bed (wetland) 

PEM – Palustrine emergent (wetland) 

PFO – Palustrine forested (wetland) 

PSS – Palustrine scrub-shrub (wetland) 

3.9.3.2 Wenatchee Acclimation Sites (Backup) 

Squadroni 

A new well, pond, surface water supply and discharge channels are proposed for the Squadroni 

site. All construction would be in grass fields, with no wetland habitat in the construction area; 

wetlands would not be affected, and no new wetland habitat would be created.

3.9.3.3 Methow Acclimation Sites (Primary) 

Gold 

Excavation of approximately 260 cubic feet of silt, sand, and gravel deposits from the existing 

ponds would be required. No additional construction activity is proposed. Vegetation adjacent 

to the ponds and the riparian habitat of the creek includes young trees of cedar, alder, and 

willow, shrubs such as red-osier dogwood, twinberry, vine maple, and snowberry, and mowed 

lawn. Potential PSS and PEM wetland habitat observed at the site was limited to some small 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-90 Chapter 3 – Wetlands 

patches of grass along the shoreline of the pond. While small patches of shrub and emergent 

species along the pond shorelines might meet the criteria of wetland habitat, it is unlikely; 

therefore, excavation of the pond is not expected to affect wetlands. A wetland delineation 

conducted in spring of 2011 will determine if wetlands exist at this site. 

MSWA Eightmile 

No wetlands were identified in the area of proposed construction. 

Twisp Weir 

Twisp Weir development includes the excavation of a new pond; construction of an intake 

structure, a well, and a temporary access road; and burial of pipelines. 

The proposed pond is located within a mowed meadow upland habitat. The exact location of the 

temporary access road has not yet been determined; however, all the potential locations between 

the proposed pond and the existing gravel road are upland habitat with vegetation consisting of 

upland grasses. Thus, wetlands would not be disturbed to construct the pond and temporary 

access road. The proposed location for the intake structure is at an irrigation channel at the edge 

of an NWI wetland habitat (PFO wetland area associated with the Twisp River) (USFWS 2008). 

The proposed location for the discharge pipeline traverses the NWI wetland habitat associated 

with the Twisp River (USFWS 2008). The proposed locations for the well is within the NWI 

wetland habitat associated with the Twisp River (USFWS 2008). 

If the NWI wetland areas identified at the site are an accurate characterization of actual wetlands, 

then wetland impacts would be anticipated here. The portion of the NWI wetland on the site is 

approximately 2 acres or 84,500 square feet. Placement of the intake and discharge pipelines 

and groundwater well water lines crossing the NWI wetland would result in temporary wetland 

impacts (approximately 1,350 square feet). Construction of the intake structure and groundwater 

well would result in permanent wetland impacts (approximately 130 square feet). Wetland 

habitat that would be impacted would include the riverine wetlands associated with the Twisp 

River containing quaking aspen, black cottonwood, red osier dogwood and serviceberry. 

Impacts to mature and large trees could be avoided. 

A wetland delineation performed in spring 2011 will determine if wetland habitats exist within 

proposed areas of construction. 

3.9.3.4 Methow Acclimation Sites (Backup) 

Chewuch AF

A new pond would be constructed at the Chewuch AF site, occupying approximately 7,500 

square feet (0.2 acre). The pond would be dug in an existing recreational vehicle campground in 

an area of disturbed, bare ground and patches of native trees and shrubs used for landscaping the 

campground. Wetland habitat was not identified in the area of proposed construction, so no 

impacts to wetlands would occur. 

MSRF Chewuch 

A new pond would be constructed at this site. The majority of the proposed construction activity 

does not appear to be located within wetland habitat. The open channels could encroach into 

PFO, PSS, and PEM wetland habitat in the area near the Chewuch River. A wetland delineation 

performed in spring 2011 will quantify wetland impacts at this site. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Wetlands 3-91

Newby 

Construction activities at the Newby site, if used, include excavation of a new pond and 

construction of an intake structure at Newby Creek with intake and discharge pipelines. No 

potential wetland impacts were identified at this site. If the locations of the intake and discharge 

structures changes, a wetland delineation would be performed to confirm the presence or absence 

of wetland habitat in the construction area. 

Utley 

Construction at the Utley site, if used, would include installation of a culvert between the 

existing pond (or the ditch draining the pond) and the Twisp River. Access to the pond would be 

from the existing driveway southwest of the pond, across an upland grassy area. 

Approximately 150 square feet of riverine wetland within the normal channel of the Twisp River 

would be temporarily disturbed by installation of the culvert. If the ditch that drains the pond is 

identified as a wetland, any filling or excavation in the ditch would be considered wetland 

impacts. If the site is used, a wetland survey would be conducted to confirm the presence of 

wetlands and identify mitigation. 

3.9.3.5 Hatchery Sites 

Dryden (Primary) 

The proposed hatchery site is currently used for gravel storage by Washington Department of 

Transportation. The majority of the site is disturbed bare ground with small patches of grass and 

weedy species. No evidence of wetland conditions were observed at the site. The riparian 

habitat of Peshastin Creek and the Wenatchee River includes patches of alder and black 

cottonwood trees. The USFWS Wetlands Mapper for NWI Map Information identifies a PSS 

wetland system associated with the Wenatchee River several hundred feet upstream of the 

Dryden site (USFWS 2009b). WDFW PHS maps do not document wetland priority habitat 

within 1 mile of the Dryden site (WDFW 2009). WDNR does not document any state rare/high 

quality wetland communities within 3 miles of the site (WDNR 2009). 

George (Backup) 

The hatchery would be located at the center of the site, south of the large meander bend on the 

side channel. Access roads for the hatchery site already exist. The intake, discharge and 

groundwater well pipelines traverse portions of the NWI wetland habitat associated with the 

Wenatchee River (USFWS 2008). In addition, the pump station and one of the wells would be 

located within the PFO NWI wetland (USFWS 2008). The intake structure could impact 

wetland, riparian vegetation and/or part of the Wenatchee River channel. Impacts to mature trees 

in all situations would be avoided during construction, and impacts to shrub/scrub and emergent 

vegetation from the pipelines, pump station, well, and intake structure would be restored with 

native plants after project completion. 

If the NWI wetland areas identified at the site are an accurate characterization of actual wetlands 

present, then wetland impacts would be anticipated. The portion of the NWI wetland on the site 

is approximately 89 acres. Placement of the intake, discharge and groundwater well pipelines 

within the NWI wetland would result in temporary wetland impacts (approximately 45,000 

square feet [sq ft] [1.0 acres]). Construction of the pump station, well, and intake structure 

would result in permanent wetland impacts (approximately 1,075 sq ft [0.03 acres]). Wetland 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-92 Chapter 3 – Wetlands 

habitat that would be impacted would include the riverine wetlands associated with the 

Wenatchee River containing quaking aspen, western redcedar, mountain alder, red osier 

dogwood, willows, Douglas spirea, and clover (Trifolium sp.). 

Wetlands would be delineated to determine the exact extent of wetland habitat in construction 

areas. 

3.9.3.6 Combined Impacts 

Table 3-33 shows temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands at sites in the two basins. 

Table 3-33. Total estimated square feet of temporary and permanent wetland impacts 

Temporary

Impacts

Permanent

Impacts

Construction of 

New Wetland 

Habitat

Wenatchee sites

 Primary acclimation

 Scheibler 3,049

 Primary hatchery

 Dryden 52,272

 Backup hatchery

 George 45,000 1,075

Methow sites

 Primary acclimation

 Twisp Weir 1,350 130

 Backup acclimation

 Utley 150

 MSRF Chewuch undetermined undetermined

Total wetland impacts primary sites 1,350 3,179 52,272

Total wetland impacts backup sites 45,150 1,075

The kinds of facilities that cause the impacts are summarized below. 

Intakes. New surface water intakes are proposed at several sites. The intakes would be built 

into stream banks and have the potential to permanently impact wetlands. At most of the sites, 

consultants did not identify wetland plants at proposed intake locations. Twisp Weir (primary 

acclimation site) and George (backup hatchery site) are exceptions; at those sites, intakes could 

impact wetlands. 

Water channels. Several sites include water channels that connect new wells to existing 

streams. Near the steams, riparian vegetation may be impacted during the construction of these 

channels. These impacts could be mitigated to a certain degree if appropriate native wetland and 

riparian vegetation can be established in disturbed areas after construction is completed.

Groundwater wells. New groundwater wells are proposed for several sites. Wells at Twisp 

Weir and a well and pump station at George could permanently remove wetland vegetation.

Ponds. An existing pond at Scheibler would be expanded into wetlands. The deeper pond water 

would not qualify as wetland habitat so there would be a net loss of wetland area. Non-native 

reed canarygrass that currently borders the pond and is the dominant species in the wetland 

would be removed and replaced with native wetland plants along the new pond margins.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Wetlands 3-93

A new pond would be constructed in Minnow Creek. Consultants did not identify wetland plants 

in the area where the pond would be built. Pond construction would include the planting of 

wetland plants along the new pond margins. 

New wetlands. The discharge treatment system proposed for the Dryden hatchery includes 

creation of a new wetland of about 1.2 acres for the purpose of removing nutrients from hatchery 

effluent. 

3.9.4 Impacts of the No Action Alternative 

There would be no adverse construction impacts to wetlands under the No Action Alternative 

because no new facilities would be constructed. No new wetland habitat would be created. 

Impacts of facility operations would be the same as under the current program, or less, 

depending on whether all current acclimation facilities are be used or if the number is reduced. 

3.9.5 Mitigation for the Proposed Action 

This section identifies measures designed to avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential impacts on 

wetlands and wetland buffers as a result of project implementation. Mitigation measures would 

be the same for all project sites. 

 No development features such as buildings or paved surfaces are proposed in wetlands.

 Clearing and grading would be designed to avoid wetland areas to the greatest extent 

possible. 

 Disturbed areas would be re-vegetated with native vegetation. 

 Staging areas for construction would be located outside wetland buffers and re-vegetated 

with native vegetation as necessary. 

 Construction permits issued to the project would include detailed measures for protecting 

wetland habitats. The conditions included in the permits would be met during 

construction. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-94 Chapter 3 – Floodplains 

3.10 Floodplains 

3.10.1 Affected Environment 

The climate of the Wenatchee and Methow basins is characterized by warm, dry summers and 

relatively cold winters. The average annual precipitation in the lower elevations is slightly more 

than 11 inches, increasing with elevation to about 35 inches. The bulk of this precipitation falls 

as snow, which reaches 100 inches or more in the upper watersheds. The Wenatchee and 

Methow rivers and other perennial streams follow an annual cycle, with peak stream flow in 

April and May and low stream flow in August and September. Normally, stream flow in many 

of the smaller drainages is seasonally intermittent, while drainages in lower elevations are often 

dry (Chelan County Department of Emergency Management 2006, Okanogan County 

Department of Emergency Management 2009). 

Two types of flooding common in the basin are stage and flash flooding. Stage flooding is 

usually seen during periods of heavy rains, especially upon existing snow packs during early 

winter and late spring. Stage flooding problem areas occur along the Wenatchee River near its 

confluence with Icicle Creek, the headwaters of the Wenatchee River, and the confluence area of 

the Wenatchee River (Chelan County Department of Emergency Management 2006). Stage 

flooding problem areas occur along the Methow River, especially where the Twisp River and 

Chewuch River join (Okanogan County Department of Emergency Management 2009). 

Flash floods are more likely during the summer months, in thunderstorm season. The primary 

cause of flash flooding, which can occur in any drainage in the project area, is high-intensity 

rainfall. Although infrequent, and usually of short duration, high-intensity rainfall has been seen 

in all seasons in the past. Depending upon the characteristics of a particular watershed, peak 

flows may be reached from less than one hour to several hours after rain begins. The debris 

flows and mudslides accompanying rapid runoff conditions make narrow canyons and alluvial 

fans at the mouths of the canyons extremely hazardous areas (Chelan County Department of 

Emergency Management 2006, Okanogan County Department of Emergency Management 

2009). Currently in the Methow basin, flash flooding problem areas include drainages in the 

Methow/Twisp area that have experienced forest fires in the recent past (Okanogan County 

Department of Emergency Management 2009). 

3.10.2 Types of Impact 

Potential impacts to floodplains from construction and operation activities include: 

 Obstruction of flood flows and alteration of local drainage patterns. 

 Disposal of spoil materials, filling the floodplain. 

 Pond creation or expansion, adding floodplain storage. 

 Potential increase in flows due to discharge of groundwater. 

The primary goal of floodplain management is to restrict non-compatible development in the 

floodplain to avoid repetitive losses. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 

delegates the responsibility of project review to the local regulatory agency through the National 

Flood Insurance Program. Both Chelan and Okanogan Counties prohibit development within the 

floodway, but do allow development in the floodplain outside the floodway, as long the proposed 

development does not increase water surface elevation of the base flood by more than 1 foot. 

Therefore, a project that would encroach into the floodway and increase the base flood elevation 

(BFE) or that would encroach upon the floodplain and increase the BFE by more than 1 foot 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Floodplains 3-95

would be determined to have a significant impact on flooding. A project that reduced the BFE 

would have a beneficial effect on flooding. 

3.10.3 Impacts of the Proposed Action 

Implementation of the Proposed Action would probably have little or no effect on flood 

elevations. Where there is an effect, it is likely to be beneficial, as the new or expanded 

acclimation ponds would provide some small amount of additional floodplain storage (difference 

between the existing land surface elevation and the working water surface elevation). The spoil 

materials created by construction activities such as excavation of ponds and ditches, grading of 

roads to improve winter access, or installation of buried water supply pipes would be disposed of 

outside the 100-year floodplain in accordance with the local grading and floodplain management 

ordinances. Consequently, there are not likely to be changes in grades that could direct or divert 

flood flows affecting properties either upstream or downstream of the individual project sites. 

Site-specific impacts are discussed only for the primary and backup sites with substantial 

construction activities. Sites that require only minor improvements to existing ponds, access 

roads, or conveyance facilities are not expected to alter the potential for flooding at those sites 

and are therefore not discussed further. New wells, although providing additional flow through 

the acclimation sites, would withdraw water from shallow aquifers that are typically 

hydraulically connected to the adjacent creek or river. Therefore, there is no real gain or loss of 

water (see Section 3.6). Additionally, the well discharge would be very minor compared to flood 

flows (Section 3.6). Consequently, sites that require only flow augmentation from wells are not 

discussed further. 

3.10.3.1 Wenatchee Acclimation and Hatchery Sites 

Table 3-34 lists all the Wenatchee basin hatchery and acclimation sites, the floodplain 

development activities associated with each project, and the likely need for a floodplain 

development permit. Where the floodplain development permit process is required, a 

professional civil engineer would need to perform substantially more detailed analyses of 

floodplain impacts. These detailed floodplain analyses are not part of this impact evaluation and 

are beyond the scope of the EIS. 

Surface water intakes proposed at the Tall Timber, Chikamin, and Dryden sites would be below 

grade and would match the existing contours of the river banks. They would be designed so they 

do not decrease flood storage volume and would not impede flow. Pipelines delivering water 

from these intakes would be buried and would have no impact on flood elevations. Site-specific 

discussions of sites requiring construction follow the table. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-96 Chapter 3 – Floodplains 

Table 3-34. Wenatchee acclimation and hatchery sites with development activities in floodplains 

Wenatchee River Basin, in Chelan County, Washington

Primary Site Activities in Floodplain

Floodplain 

Development 

Permit Required

Butcher Excavation of an open channel Yes

Tall Timber Excavation of Napeequa River bank and pipeline corridor Yes

Chikamin Excavation of a pond, Chikamin Creek bank, open channel, 

and pipeline corridor Yes

Minnow Excavation of bed and banks of Minnow Creek Yes

Scheibler Excavation of bed and bank of Chumstick Creek Yes

Coulter None No

Rohlfing None No

White River Springs None No

Dirty Face None No

Two Rivers None No

Clear None No

Beaver None No

Brender None No

Leavenworth NFH None No

Dryden Hatchery Possible development of water quality treatment wetlands Maybe

Backup Site Activities in Floodplain

Floodplain 

Development 

Permit Required

Allen None No

Coulter/Roaring None No

McComas None No

Squadroni Excavation of pond and open channels Yes

George Hatchery Excavation and construction of fish hatchery facilities Yes

Primary Acclimation Sites 

Butcher 

A new well and rock-lined channel are proposed for the site. Although the site is within the 100-

year floodplain (Zone AH), it appears that the source of flooding is backwater from Nason Creek 

rather than Butcher Creek. Construction or operation of the well and associated facilities would 

have no effect on flooding. 

Tall Timber 

The Tall Timber site is located on the unmapped section of the Napeequa River near its 

confluence with the White River. Although FEMA has designated a special flood hazard area 

along the White River (Zone A), the project site is located outside the special flood hazard area. 

The Tall Timber acclimation site would require a river intake and pipeline delivering water to an 

existing disconnected side channel. An 800-foot-long water supply pipeline from the intake to 

the side channel would be buried. An existing culvert would convey water from the side channel 

back to the river. Because the pipeline would be buried, it is expected that there would be no 

effect on flooding. Floodwater elevations in the stream reach between the intake and the outlet 

of the acclimation diversion may be slightly reduced due to the withdrawal of water from the 

main channel. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Floodplains 3-97

Chikamin 

Construction of an acclimation pond at the Chikamin site would require excavation of 

approximately 1,370 cubic yards of material. An intake would be constructed on the bank of 

Chikamin Creek and a 200-foot-long water supply pipeline from the intake to the pond would be 

buried. A rock-lined open channel, 100 feet long and 5 feet wide, would be constructed to 

convey water from the pond back to the creek. The Chikamin site is not located in a FEMA 

mapped flood hazard area, but is likely in the 100-year floodplain of Chikamin Creek. The 

construction of a pond would likely lower flood elevations a small amount due the removal of 

excavated soils from the floodplain. Overall, the project would have little effect on flooding. 

Minnow 

Construction of an acclimation pond at the Minnow site would require excavation of 

approximately 1,370 cubic yards of material from the bed and banks of Minnow Creek, 

essentially widening and deepening the channel. The Minnow site is not located in a FEMA 

mapped flood hazard area but is in the 100-year floodplain and floodway of Minnow Creek. 

During a flood, the flows would be essentially the same because there is not a substantial amount 

of active storage in the pond. Consequently, there may be very small reduction in flooding and 

no change to the floodway. 

Scheibler 

An impoundment was built in the Chumstick Creek channel forming a pond. Project 

construction would include excavating 350 cubic yards of material and enlarging the existing 

pond. Material excavated from the pond would be spread at approved areas, outside the 

floodplain. The site is located on Chumstick Creek floodplain in an area that has not been 

studied by FEMA. Furthermore, FEMA has not produced a flood hazard map of this reach. 

Because the construction is limited to excavation and the spoils would be disposed of outside the 

floodplain, the project may reduce flooding slightly along Chumstick Creek. 

Backup Acclimation Sites 

Squadroni 

To construct the Squadroni acclimation pond, 1,200 cubic yards of material would be excavated. 

The seasonal flow from an existing ditch would contribute surface water, and a well would be 

constructed to supply additional water. Water from the well would be delivered through a 50-

foot-long, rock-lined, open channel. A 20-foot-long discharge channel would return water from 

the pond to the ditch prior to discharge to Nason Creek. Spoil materials would be removed from 

the site for disposal outside the floodplain. Although the pond would provide some additional 

floodplain storage, the volume is very small compared to the flood flows. Consequently, the 

project may slightly reduce flooding on Nason Creek. 

Hatchery Sites 

Dryden 

The Dryden hatchery would require excavations to create rearing ponds, raceways, a hatchery 

building, wells, and an effluent treatment system. These excavations would occur outside the 

flood hazard area. A flood study of the site was completed (Anchor QEA, 2009) and 100-year 

flood boundaries were mapped. They are shown in Figure 2-9 in Chapter 2. Some construction 

could occur in the floodplain if wetlands are built to treat hatchery discharges. Treatment 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-98 Chapter 3 – Floodplains 

systems have not yet been designed but if constructed wetlands are used, they would be built at 

existing grade and would not impact flood elevations. 

Approximately 2,050 cubic yards of material is proposed to be removed from areas outside the 

floodplain. Material disposal areas have not yet been located but they would be in approved 

locations that meet grading permit conditions and minimize potential for floodplain fill. 

Consequently, there would be no effect on flooding. 

George 

The George hatchery would require grading to create rearing ponds, raceways, a hatchery 

building, parking areas, backup generator station, and an effluent treatment system. The 

hatchery facilities would require a permanent footprint of 1.5 acres. Including pipelines, water 

supply construction, and hatchery facilities, a total of 2.5 acres of land would be disturbed during 

construction. 

Permanent hatchery facilities would be located outside the limits of the 100-year floodplain 

boundary. As this is a backup site, detailed engineering studies have not been completed. 

Because the project is near the edge of the floodplain, at an elevation similar to the BFE, it is not 

expected that the project would measurably obstruct flood flows or reduce floodplain storage. 

Development of the site would have not have a substantial adverse effect on flooding. 

3.10.3.2 Methow Acclimation Sites 

Table 3-35 lists all the Methow basin acclimation sites, the floodplain development activities 

associated with each site, and the likely need for a floodplain development permit. Where the 

permit process is required, a more detailed analysis of floodplain impacts would need to be 

performed by a professional civil engineer. These detailed floodplain analyses are not part of 

this impact evaluation and are beyond the scope of the EIS. 

Primary Sites 

MSWA Eightmile 

The MSWA Eightmile site is located in an abandoned side channel of the Chewuch River, just 

upstream of the mouth of Eightmile Creek. Construction would include a well and a 100-foot 

long, 5-foot wide, rock-lined, open channel that would deliver water from the well to the side 

channel. FEMA has not mapped a special flood hazard zone near the site. There would be no 

effect on flooding. 

Twisp Weir 

Proposed construction at the Twisp Weir site would include a 140-foot long, 50-foot wide, 3.5-

foot deep, constructed earthen pond occupying approximately 0.2 acres. Because the pond 

would be below existing grade and material would be removed and disposed of outside the 

floodplain, there would be no effect on flooding. 

Gold

The Gold site consists of several existing ponds located adjacent to Gold Creek. Construction 

activities would involve removing some accumulated sediment from the ponds to restore water 

depths adequate for acclimation. Excavated materials would be disposed of outside the 

floodplain in accordance with grading permits. The project site is not within a FEMA-mapped 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Floodplains 3-99

special flood hazard area. The proposed construction would not alter the diversions from Gold 

Creek. Consequently, there would be no effect on flooding. 

Table 3-35. Methow acclimation sites with development activities in floodplains 

Methow River Basin, in Okanogan County, Washington

Primary Site Activities in Floodplain

Floodplain Development Permit 

Required

MSWA Eightmile None No

Mason None No

Twisp Weir Excavation of pond and pipeline corridor Yes

Gold None No

Goat Wall None No

Pete Creek Pond None No

Heath None No

Parmley None No

Lower Twisp None No

Hancock None No

Winthrop NFH None No

Backup Site Activities in Floodplain

Floodplain Development Permit 

Required

MSRF Chewuch Excavation of a pond and open channels Yes

Chewuch AF Excavation of the Chewuch River bank, pond 

and pipeline corridors Yes

Utley Excavation of outlet channel to the Twisp River Yes

Newby Excavation of pond and pipeline corridors Yes

Poorman None No

Biddle None No

Balky Hill None No

Backup Sites 

MSRF Chewuch 

Acclimation pond construction would include the excavation of approximately 890 cubic yards 

of material. A well would also be constructed. Rock-lined, open channels, a total of 320 feet 

long and 5 feet wide, would be constructed from the well to the pond and from the pond to the 

Chewuch River. FEMA designated a special flood hazard area (Zone A5) along the Chewuch 

River in the vicinity of the project, but the project is outside the flood hazard area. There would 

be a minor increase in floodplain storage capacity and potentially a slight reduction in flood 

elevations due to pond construction. 

Chewuch AF 

Acclimation pond construction would include the excavation of approximately 975 cubic yards 

of material. Water would be diverted from the Chewuch River. Water delivery pipelines with 

fish screens would also be constructed. The Chewuch AF site is located in the FEMA mapped 

flood hazard area (A3). Excavated materials would be removed from the site and disposed of in 

an upland location outside of the floodplain in accordance with local floodplain management 

ordinance requirements. Consequently, there would a minor increase in floodplain storage 

capacity and potentially a slight reduction in flood elevations due to pond construction. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-100 Chapter 3 – Floodplains 

Utley 

An 80-foot long, 3-foot wide channel from an existing pond to the Twisp River is proposed to 

allow acclimated smolts a route to the river. The pond and the proposed channel are within the 

special flood hazard area. Because excavated materials would be disposed of outside the 

floodplain, there would be no effect on flooding. 

Newby 

A 140-foot long, 50-foot wide, 3.5-foot deep earthen bottom pond and an intake on Newby 

Creek are proposed for the site. Buried water delivery pipelines from the intake to the pond and 

from the pond back to the Twisp River would also be constructed. The construction activities 

would be within the special flood hazard area along the Twisp River. Because excavated 

materials would be disposed of outside the floodplain there would be no effect on flooding. 

3.10.3.3 Combined Impacts 

The total amount of ground disturbed in floodplains during construction of all the primary sites is 

proposed to be less than 5 acres for new and expanded ponds, water delivery channels, and other 

facilities as described in Appendices 1, 2, and 3. The pond excavations would remove material 

from floodplains, slightly increasing floodplain storage capacity and potentially decreasing flood 

elevations. 

Proposed clearing and grading during construction is limited to small areas relative to total 

floodplain areas. At each site, impacts to flooding would be avoided or compensatory floodplain 

storage would be created to offset facilities located above ground in the floodplain. 

Overall, the combined effects to flooding due to proposed construction and operation of 

acclimation and hatchery sites are not considered to be a significant impact because the sites 

individually have negligible or no effect. 

3.10.4 Impacts of the No Action Alternative 

No Action would cause no impacts to floodplains because no new sites would be constructed.

3.10.5 Mitigation for the Proposed Action 

Measures that would be implemented to minimize potential impacts to flooding include: 

 Compensatory storage incorporated in the project design where aboveground facilities are 

located within the floodplain. 

 Spoil materials removed and disposed in uplands or at offsite locations outside of the 

floodplain. 

 Infrastructure buried below grade, not in elevated road prisms, preventing diversion or 

rerouting of floodwaters. 

 Using as many existing ponds as possible for fish acclimation and release. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Visual Quality 3-101

3.11 Visual Quality and Recreation 

3.11.1 Visual Quality 

The construction of a new small hatchery in the Wenatchee basin has the potential to alter the 

visual environment of the surrounding area. Both the primary and backup facility locations are 

included in this assessment. Proposed acclimation sites (including existing, expansion of 

existing, and construction of new) are small-scale ponds without significant structures such as 

buildings. Development or modification of these sites would not constitute a significant or 

noticeable change in the visual character of the area. Therefore, proposed acclimation sites 

would not have an impact on aesthetic quality and are not included in this analysis. 

3.11.1.1 Affected Environment 

The visual impact analysis included two areas in the Wenatchee basin. The Dryden site is the 

preferred (primary) location for a small, new incubation and rearing facility on the Wenatchee 

River (RM 18.6) at the mouth of Peshastin Creek. In the event construction at Dryden is 

infeasible, the George site is proposed as an alternative (backup) location on the Wenatchee 

River (RM 51.6) just downstream of Lake Wenatchee. Both sites are located in primarily rural 

areas in the Wenatchee watershed (see Chapter 2 and Appendix 1 for details). 

3.11.1.2 Types of Impact 

The level of impact to scenic or visual quality is determined by the number of viewer groups 

affected, the presence of scenic resources, the magnitude of change from the existing condition, 

and sensitivity of viewers to changes. 

For purposes of this EIS, the intensity of impacts to visual resources is categorized as follows: 

Minor: Impacts to visual quality would attract attention, but would not dominate the view or 

detract from current user experience. 

Moderate: Impacts to visual quality would attract attention and be noticeable in the 

viewscape. User experience would be negatively affected locally and for a brief period. 

Major: Impacts would result in changes to the characteristic landscape that would dominate 

the viewscape. The majority of the user’s experience in the area would be negatively 

affected by the change in the viewscape. 

3.11.1.3 Impacts of Proposed Action 

Dryden Study Area (Primary) 

The Dryden study area encompasses lands and waterways within view of a new small hatchery 

on the right (west) bank of the Wenatchee River, just upstream of the Dryden Dam (Figure 3-6). 

The 24-acre parcel currently is owned by the Washington State Department of Transportation 

(WSDOT) and was used as a gravel pit and stockpile site from 1961 to 2008 when it was 

declared surplus property. The parcel has no buildings or structures and has been significantly 

modified from its natural state by over 40 years of WSDOT activities. Most of the parcel that 

would be affected by construction of the facility is currently covered in varying amounts of 

gravel and sand, and there is little or no vegetation. The topography of the parcel is relatively 

flat and sits at an elevation of 984 feet. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-102 Chapter 3 – Visual Quality 

Figure 3-6. Visual Impact Analysis Study Area for the Dryden Incubation and 

Rearing Facility, Wenatchee River 

The proposed new hatchery would modify up to four acres of the parcel. The facility would 

consist of a one-story building of about 3,000 square feet, parking for up to ten vehicles, four 

concrete raceways, two ponds, a two-acre constructed wetland for water treatment, and water 

supply pipelines (both above-ground and buried). Viewer groups that might be affected by the 

change to the site include boaters, fishers and other visitors who use these reaches of the 

Wenatchee River and Peshastin Creek; surrounding landowners and orchard workers; gun club 

visitors; and train riders. 

View 1 – East of Dryden: 

The parcel is bordered to the east by the Wenatchee River and steep terrain that quickly ascends 

from the river banks to an elevation of 1,400 feet. Boaters and recreationists on the Wenatchee 

River would potentially have a view of the proposed facility. Existing evergreen trees and other 

vegetation along the shoreline would block or significantly limit most lines of sight between the 

river and the facility, particularly during the busy summer season when deciduous vegetation is

fully leafed. Along the east bank of the Wenatchee River, railroad tracks run along the base of 

the ridge and are used by a variety of railway companies, including Amtrak’s Empire Builder 

route that currently passes the parcel twice a day—once between 5:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m., and 

again between 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. Views of the facility from the trains would be partially 

limited by shoreline vegetation, daylight, and train speed, but brief unobstructed glimpses of the 

facility during the summer months would be possible. East of the railroad tracks, land that 

would be within view of the facility is largely undeveloped, with some orchards near the top of 

the ridge and to the southeast. There is one house in an orchard to the southeast at an elevation 

of approximately 1,100 feet that would have a year-round view of the facility. There are no 

public roads or trails on this side of the river that are within view of the study area. 

Dryden Gun Club

Boater pull-out 

and access road

House w/ view 

from SE

House w/ view 

from NW

Peshastin Creek

Dryden Dam 

NORTH 100 feet 

Railroad tracks
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Visual Quality 3-103

View 2 – South of Dryden: 

Areas in the southern portion of the Dryden study area include an unimproved pull-out site for 

rafters and kayakers for portaging around Dryden Dam, a gravel access road to the pull-out, and 

orchards. The boater pull-out is located adjacent to the southeast boundary of the parcel; users 

would have a partial view of the facility. Existing evergreen trees and other vegetation along the 

shoreline would block or significantly limit most lines of sight between the pull-out and the 

facility, particularly during the busy summer season when deciduous vegetation is fully leafed. 

Users of the gravel access road would travel along the southern perimeter of the parcel and 

would have unobstructed views of the entire facility. To the immediate south of the access road, 

elevation gradually increases to a bluff (approximately 1,050 feet) that is lined with evergreen 

trees and other vegetation. Beyond the vegetation is an orchard, portions of which would have a 

view of the Dryden facility. Views from these vantage points within the orchard would be 

limited or blocked by vegetation during much of the year. 

View 3 – West of Dryden: 

Areas in the western portion of the Dryden study area include orchards, houses and outbuildings, 

the Dryden Gun Club, and a section of Peshastin Creek. Views of the facility from the southwest 

would potentially be possible from parts of an orchard near the bluff edge and from the far edge 

of the gun club target range. These vantage points are privately owned and are not expected to 

be visited frequently, and views would be blocked or limited by vegetation much of the year. 

The house and outbuilding in the orchard, as well as the Dryden Gun Club clubhouse, parking 

lot, and shooting area, would not have a view of the facility at any time. Boaters and 

recreationists in and along the section of Peshastin Creek to the west of the parcel may have 

partial views of the one-story building. However, the vast majority of people who visit Peshastin 

Creek do so in the summer months when the potential for views of the facility would be blocked 

or significantly limited due to seasonal vegetation. Views of the facility from the northwest 

would be possible from one house and outbuilding in an orchard, primarily during the winter 

months when the trees are not leafed out. 

View 4 – North of Dryden: 

The study area to the north of the Dryden facility included the lower section and mouth of 

Peshastin Creek where it flows into the Wenatchee River and orchards on the opposite side of the 

creek. Boaters and other visitors to this section of Peshastin Creek may have views of the 

facility, though many lines of sight would be blocked or limited by vegetation. Some areas along 

the shoreline, particularly near the mouth of the creek, may have year-round views of parts of the 

facility. The orchards on the opposite side of the creek would have partial views of the facility 

from a few vantage points, primarily during the winter months when the trees are not leafed out. 

Construction Impacts 

Construction-related activities, including heavy equipment operation, clearing and grading, 

material stockpiles, and worker presence, would be visible from all identified viewpoints at 

Dryden throughout construction of the facility. Construction at Dryden would attract attention of 

sensitive viewers and alter the existing viewscape from those viewpoints. Sensitive viewers 

would experience a negative effect locally from construction activities; however, this effect 

would occur for a relatively brief period of 5 months until construction is completed. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-104 Chapter 3 – Visual Quality 

Many of the viewpoints of the Dryden facility are blocked or limited by existing vegetation 

surrounding the site (see descriptions above). This vegetation would not be removed and would 

restrict the view of the site during construction. Therefore, construction of a new hatchery at the 

Dryden location would constitute a short-term moderate adverse impact to visual quality. 

Operations Impacts 

The Dryden facility would replace an existing gravel pit and stockpile site, and would be visible 

from the viewpoints identified above. The facility would be operated year-round. The new onestory building would be the most prominent feature of the facility and would be designed to 

reduce the contrast with the surrounding landscape (natural materials, neutral colors, etc.). The 

raceways, ponds and water supply system would be relatively low-profile and would have much 

less potential to be seen from the viewpoints, particularly during months when vegetation and 

trees are fully leafed. The constructed two-acre wetland would be designed to closely resemble a 

natural wetland environment and would likely be viewed as a significant improvement over 

existing conditions. Furthermore, the established wetland would eventually support vegetation 

that would contribute to the screening of the building and facilities from most viewpoints. 

Considering that the existing condition of the Dryden site is significantly modified from its 

natural state, it is reasonably likely that construction of the new facility would reduce the contrast 

of the site with the surrounding area and add to the aesthetic appeal for viewers. Therefore, 

changes to the viewscape due to operation of the Dryden facility would represent a long-term 

minor beneficial impact to visual quality. 

George Study Area (Backup) 

The George study area encompasses lands and waterways within view of a new incubation and 

rearing facility that would be constructed if the primary location at Dryden is infeasible. The 

150-acre parcel is approximately two miles downstream from Lake Wenatchee (the source of the 

Wenatchee River) and is at an elevation of 1,870 feet. The parcel was logged in the past and is 

currently privately owned and undeveloped. A few primitive, unimproved old logging roads 

provide limited access to the site. There are no public roads, trails, or sites near the area, and 

there are no homes within view of the proposed construction site. 

The new incubation and rearing facility would modify up to 2.5 acres of the parcel. The facility 

would consist of a one-story building, parking for up to ten vehicles, four concrete raceways, two 

ponds, and water supply pipelines (both above-ground and buried). The facility would be 

constructed in the forest approximately 1⁄4 mile from the river and out of view of anyone on or 

along the river. A concrete water intake structure installed in the river would be visible below 

the water surface. The water delivery pipeline would be buried and not visible between the 

intake and the hatchery. A small pump station would be located in the forest approximately 50 

feet from the intake and may be visible through the trees from the river or the shoreline. 

The only viewers who might be affected by the change to the site are boaters who use this reach 

of the Wenatchee River. Much of the upper Wenatchee River corridor is part of the Wenatchee 

National Forest; there are launch sites for rafts, kayaks and canoes approximately two miles 

upstream of the George site. The next access point for boaters is an unimproved site 

approximately ten miles downstream of the site. Considering the long stretch of river between 

launch and pull-out points, and that the reach adjacent to the proposed facility is inaccessible by 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Visual Quality 3-105

any other means, there would be few potential viewers and they would be in the area for only a 

brief time as they move downstream. 

Construction and Operation Impacts 

The duration of construction within view of river users would be extremely short (days) and 

would require little to no disturbance to the surrounding areas. Due to the very low magnitude of 

change in visibility of the site and the infrequent and very low number of viewers, it is 

reasonably certain that construction and operation of the George facility would have an 

insignificant effect on the aesthetic quality of the area. 

3.11.1.4 Impacts of the No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative would require no new facilities, ground-disturbing activities, or 

alteration of the Dryden or George sites. The sites would remain in their current state, and views 

at each site would be unaffected by this alternative. No direct or indirect effects to aesthetic 

quality would result from the No Action Alternative.

3.11.1.5 Mitigation for the Proposed Action 

To avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential impacts to visual quality, areas of disturbance would be 

minimized to the greatest extent possible. Upon completion of facility construction, all disturbed 

areas would be seeded with native grasses or planted with native vegetation, where appropriate. 

3.11.2 Recreation

Recreational resources in the Wenatchee and Methow basins could potentially be impacted by 

project construction and operation activities. Proposed project sites where construction would 

occur and/or where there would be a change in operations from the current conditions were 

evaluated for proximity to recreational areas (e.g., campgrounds, trails, rivers, resorts). Sites 

were not included in the analysis if there were no nearby recreational resources that could be 

affected by project activities or if there was no potential for impact (i.e., no construction and no 

change from existing operating conditions). 

3.11.2.1 Affected Environment 

Of the 39 primary and backup sites proposed as part of the project, a total of 11 would be located 

in areas that are near or adjacent to existing recreational resources. Two of those sites would 

have no potential for impact (no construction and no change in operations from the current 

conditions) and are not included in the analysis. Therefore, the recreational impact analysis 

focuses on the construction and operation of one proposed new incubation and rearing facility at 

Dryden and eight new or expanded acclimation sites. 

The Dryden study area is the same as described in the visual impacts analysis. Recreation in the 

Dryden study area largely centers on the Wenatchee River and Peshastin Creek. The Dryden 

Gun Club to the south of the facility is also included in the analysis. 

The study areas for the eight acclimation sites included three sites in the Wenatchee basin and 

five in the Methow basin. Three of the sites would not require construction, and potential 

impacts would solely be the result of a change in operations activities from current conditions. 

Figures 2-7 and 2-8 in Chapter 2 show the locations of project sites in each basin. Large-scale 

maps of each proposed and backup site can be found in Appendix 4. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-106 Chapter 3 – Recreation 

3.11.2.2 Types of Impact 

The impacts to recreation are determined by the presence of recreational resources, the number 

of affected recreational groups, the magnitude of change from the existing condition, and the 

sensitivity of area recreationists. Each level of impact is defined as follows: 

Minor: Impact would be detectable and/or would only affect some recreational users. 

Changes in access would be slight but detectable; however, use would not be affected. 

Moderate: Impact would be readily apparent and would affect many recreational users. 

Users would be aware of the effects associated with proposed changes and access and user 

experience would noticeably change. 

Major: Impact would affect a majority of recreational users. Users would be highly aware of 

the effects associated with proposed changes. Recreational user experience would noticeably 

change. 

3.11.2.3 Impacts of the Proposed Action 

Dryden (Primary Hatchery Site) 

A variety of users visit the Dryden study area year-round for boating, fishing, and other river 

related types of recreation. The 17-mile reach of the Wenatchee River from Leavenworth to 

Cashmere (river mile 27 to 10) has an overall gradient of 0.4% with multiple class-2 and class-3 

rapids, making it ideal for commercial and recreational rafting and kayaking. As a result, this 

reach has the most access points on the river, including improved pull-out and launch sites at 

Leavenworth and Cashmere and several unimproved sites throughout the reach. There are also 

several parking and walk-in easements for sport fishing access. 

All boaters traveling downstream must pull out above Dryden Dam (adjacent to the southern 

boundary of the new facility location) and re-launch just downstream of the dam. The pull-out 

area is also accessible by a gravel road that leads west to Highway 2 (via Saunders Road). A 

section of the gravel access road would be within the boundaries of the southern portion of the 

facility property. 

The Dryden Gun Club is located on Saunders Road off of Highway 2 and provides a recreational 

shooting range and target practice area for hunters, marksmen and other gun enthusiasts. The 

clubhouse and lot are also often used for a variety of public and private functions, including 

weddings, picnics, family reunions and conventions. 

Construction 

Recreational resources near the Dryden site could be temporarily affected during construction of 

the facility. Construction would have no direct impacts to users of the boaters’ pull-out or other 

recreationists in the area; neither the pull-out nor the access road would be modified as part of 

the proposed project, and full access to the sites would be maintained for all users. Boaters, 

fishers, gun club visitors, and other recreationists who use Saunders Road and the gravel access 

road could be temporarily affected by the intermittent presence of construction vehicles and 

equipment. This temporary increase in traffic congestion may on occasion briefly delay travel 

along the roads due to slow-moving construction vehicles and equipment, and might also 

increase noise and dust in the immediate areas along the roads. Intermittent noise associated 

with the construction of the facility might also be heard by visitors to the area, but would be 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Recreation 3-107

limited primarily to the immediate area surrounding the facility (e.g., the gravel access road) and 

would not be expected to significantly affect the experience of recreationists. 

All traffic, noise and other construction-related impacts to recreationists in the area would be 

temporary in duration (up to five months), intermittent, low in magnitude and limited to normal 

workday hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday). Though daily use of the area 

by recreationists could occur, it is expected that recreational activity peaks on the weekends 

when there would be no construction at the facility and no potential for impact. Therefore, it is 

reasonably certain that construction of the Dryden facility would have a short-term, minor 

adverse effect on recreational resources. 

Operation 

Operation of the Dryden facility would minimally affect recreational users in the area, if at all. 

Facility operations would have no direct impacts to users of the boat pull-out or other river 

recreationists in the area. Gun club members’ use of the shooting range would not be affected by 

the presence of the hatchery facility and staff. The proposed new facility is accessible only from 

Saunders Road, so visitors to the area might notice occasional traffic of project vehicles. 

Hatchery vehicles would primarily be standard-sized pick-ups and, infrequently, larger fishtransport trucks. Traffic would occur daily, year-round, and would be noticeable but would not 

affect other users of local roads or the experience of visitors to the area. 

Noise associated with facility operations would be maintained within state-approved 

environmental noise regulations (WAC Chapter 173-60 of the Noise Control Act of 1974) by 

installing all pumps and generators in sound-enclosures. It is reasonably certain that noise due to 

operations activities would not be detectable beyond the facility property and would not impact 

recreational visitors. 

Potential impacts due to operations activities would likely be low in magnitude and would not 

affect access to recreation or the experience of recreational visitors; therefore, operations 

activities at the Dryden facility would have, at most, a minor adverse effect on area recreation. 

Acclimation Sites 

Table 3-36 lists the eight acclimation sites (four primary and four backup) where proposed 

construction and/or new use of the site as an acclimation facility could affect nearby recreational 

resources. All eight sites would have operations activities that are different from current 

conditions. A few existing, currently operating acclimation sites are on recreational property, but 

because no new construction is required, the proposed project would not affect them differently. 

In addition to the 8 sites, several others are on property with homes used for vacation homes. 

Construction 

Construction at five acclimation sites with nearby recreational resources could temporarily affect 

residents and visitors. The level of construction would vary between sites, and could include the 

construction of a new pond, the expansion of an existing pond, the installation of a new well, 

and/or the installation of a new or expanded water delivery system. The duration of construction 

activity would be from 1 to 60 days at each site, and would be limited to normal weekday work 

hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00. p.m., Monday through Friday. Recreational visitors to the area during 

the construction periods could notice intermittent increases in noise due to construction activity, 

but the magnitude of impact is likely to be low, temporary and brief, and is not expected to affect 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-108 Chapter 3 – Recreation 

users’ experience of the area. Therefore, it is reasonably certain that construction activities at the 

acclimation sites would have a short-term, minor adverse effect on recreation. 

Table 3-36. Recreational resources near proposed acclimation sites 

Basin

Primary 

or 

Backup

Site Name Nearby Recreational 

Resources Construction / Operationa Generator

Wen P Tall Timber Tall Timber Ranch church 

camp

new H2O delivery system / 

new acclimation None

Wen B Allen Valley Hi community 

recreation pond

no construction / new 

acclimation None

Wen B

Coulter / 

Roaring

habitat preservation; 

adjacent recreation 

property

no construction / new 

acclimation None

Met P Gold walking trails and benches expand existing pond / new 

acclimation None

Met P

MSWA 

Eightmile

wildlife conservation and 

public recreation

new well and H2O delivery 

system / new acclimation

Primary power 

March-April

Met P

Pete Creek 

Pond adjacent 9-hole golf course no construction / new acclimation None

Met B

Chewuch 

AF RV campground

new pond, well and H2O 

delivery system / additional 

acclimation

None

Met B Newby recreation property new pond and H2O delivery 

system / new acclimation None

a. Operations activities at all eight sites would change from existing conditions. 

Operation 

Ongoing project activities during operation of eight acclimation sites could infrequently affect 

nearby recreational properties. Project staff would access the sites daily during the spring 

acclimation period of March through April; none of the sites with recreational facilities nearby is 

an overwinter site. Traffic associated with site operations would typically consist of one or two 

standard-size pick-ups. A large fish transport truck would visit each site once per year to transfer 

juvenile coho from the hatchery to the acclimation ponds. A generator is proposed to provide 

primary power at one site (MSWA Eightmile) during the entire six-week acclimation period, and 

would be contained within a sound-enclosure to minimize noise; all sound levels would be 

maintained within state guidelines for environmental noise and would not be detectable beyond 

the immediate area surrounding the enclosure. 

Operations activities at eight acclimation sites could be detectable by recreationists in the area, 

but would likely be very low in magnitude and are not expected to affect access to recreation or 

the experience of recreational visitors. Therefore, operations activities at the sites would have a 

minor or negligible adverse effect on recreational resources in the area. 

3.11.2.4 Impacts of the No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative would require no new facilities, no ground-disturbing activities, and

no modifications at any of the proposed sites. Recreational resources and users would be 

unaffected by this alternative.

3.11.2.5 Mitigation for the Proposed Action 

To avoid or minimize impacts to recreational resources and users, all construction activity would 

be limited to normal workday hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Noise 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Recreation 3-109

associated with facility operations would be maintained within state-approved environmental 

noise regulations by installing all pumps and generators in sound-enclosures. 

3.12 Socioeconomics 

3.12.1 Affected Environment 

The general area for socioeconomic effects includes Chelan and Okanogan counties. The 

acclimation sites in both basins are primarily rural and widely distributed in the upper portions of 

the Wenatchee and Methow watersheds. Cashmere, Peshastin and Leavenworth are the nearest 

towns to the Wenatchee acclimation sites. Twisp and Winthrop are the nearest towns to the 

acclimation sites in the Methow basin. Wenatchee is largest municipality in the area. 

The per capita income of the area is low compared to Washington in general (Table 3-37).

Although county unemployment rates are stable and comparable to the statewide average, they 

may be higher within the small communities (Washington State Data Book 2008) primarily due 

to changes in the viability of the tree fruit industry and agriculture in the area (B. Brammer, 

Crane & Crane, and E. Parisel, Brewster Heights Packing, personal communications, October 

2005 as reported in Chief Joseph Hatchery Program EIS, BPA 2010). Employment opportunities 

are better in Wenatchee and East Wenatchee, which have more diversified economies. 

Table 3-37. County income and employment 

Sector Chelan Co. Okanogan Co. Washington

Per Capita Income (2006) $29,657 $25,850 $38,067 

Employment (2008) 36,230 16,930 3,200,000 

Unemployment Rate 

(2010) 7.7% 9.1% 9.1% 

Source: Washington State Data Book 2008: Unemployment data from US Bureau of Labor 

(http://www.bls.gov/lau/home.htm ) for August 2009-September 2010, not seasonally adjusted 

3.12.2 Impacts of the Proposed Action 

3.12.2.1 Construction Effects 

Costs 

Capital costs include land purchase, facility construction, and equipment that is considered an 

integral part of the program. The total future estimated project capital cost is $6,730,000. Of 

this total, $4.5 million is programmed for the construction of the proposed Dryden hatchery, and 

$2.2 million for construction at the acclimation sites. Included in these amounts are $1.2 million 

for land purchase. All the capital costs are expected to be incurred in 2012, one year before 

facilities for the Natural Production Implementation Phase need to be operational. 

Existing hatcheries that have no associated capital cost would provide the bulk of pre-smolt 

production. The new incubation and rearing facility proposed at the Dryden site (or George, the 

backup site) would require land purchase, water supply development, and facility construction. 

Like other aspects of the proposed program, acclimation also relies on existing sites with little 

capital cost. Land purchase is not expected at acclimation sites; they are on private land where 

lease agreements would be developed. Acclimation site capital costs include construction 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-110 Chapter 3 – Socioeconomics 

activities for pond development, site facilities and water supply development at the proposed 

primary acclimation sites. 

Population Size 

Permanent human population changes are not expected from project construction. The local 

population may increase temporarily by a small number if a few construction workers from 

outside the area seek temporary accommodations rather than returning to their own homes. 

Employment 

Construction would provide short-term employment opportunities for local and non-local labor, 

based on the location of the prime and sub-contractors and the need for skilled and general 

laborers. Expenditures for labor, materials, and services would likely occur within the local area 

and throughout the State of Washington primarily at the contractor’s discretion, with 

corresponding employment and income impacts. The number of local residents who may be 

employed during construction is not predictable, but the construction work force would likely 

range from about 3 to up to 15 full- and part-time positions at one time depending on the 

construction phase. 

Infrastructure 

The Proposed Action would place minimal demands on local utility and municipal services for 

transportation, power, and telephone/computer connections. Population impacts resulting from 

project construction and operation would not require an investment in new local services beyond 

those already planned for general development. The project would require no new services. 

Temporary increase in local demand for retail goods and services (e.g., fuel, groceries, personal 

supplies, and restaurants) is likely during construction but would not exceed current capacity. 

3.12.2.2 Operations Effects 

Costs 

Operating costs for the Proposed Action (all program components), including labor, supplies, 

leases, travel, hardware, etc., would taper from about $4.2 million during the first year of 

operation to about $2.2 million in 2027 at the end of the program. Project costs are a tiny 

fraction of BPA’s total budget and would not directly or indirectly increase electricity rates. 

Employment and Income 

Operation of the proposed rearing and incubation facility and the acclimation ponds would 

require a workforce of about 10 to 12 full-time and part-time positions. Most of these positions 

would be filled by Yakama Nation staff already involved in the current program. Approximately 

6 new hires (3 full-time and 3 part-time) would be required. Even assuming each employee has 

additional family members, the effect of the increase in local population on area infrastructure is 

expected to be negligible. Potential population growth related to any improved salmon-related 

recreational opportunities is also expected to be negligible. 

The Proposed Action, although not a commercial operation, could help establish tribal 

commercial fisheries and non-tribal commercial and recreational fisheries that would have 

economic value. There would be in-basin tribal and non-tribal recreational fisheries; tribal 

commercial fisheries in the mainstem Columbia River Zone 6 (Bonneville Dam to McNary 

Dam); non-tribal commercial and recreational fisheries below Bonneville Dam in the mainstem 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Socioeconomics 3-111

Columbia; and non-tribal commercial and recreational ocean fisheries. Although the amount is 

not known and harvest seasons/quotas would be determined in federally recognized harvest 

forums, the fisheries would generate recreational expenditures and income throughout the region. 

Cultural Benefits 

Restoration of coho has been a long standing goal of the Columbia River Tribes, as expressed in 

Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit (CRITFC 1995). This plan was developed by the four Columbia 

River Treaty Tribes (Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm Springs, and Yakama). It is a comprehensive 

plan put forward by the Tribes to restore anadromous fishes to rivers and streams that support the 

historical cultural and economic practices of the tribes. The Proposed Action has the potential to 

enhance the culturally significant tribal ceremonial and subsistence fishery for coho salmon in 

the Wenatchee and Methow rivers and in the Columbia River below McNary Dam. 

3.12.3 Impacts of the No Action Alternative 

Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur, and the program would decrease 

from its current size. If the program were to be converted to a segregated hatchery program, its 

sole purpose would be for harvest, so that benefit could occur under this alternative. However, 

no other social or economic benefits would accrue; and Yakama Nation employment likely 

would be reduced by at least 11 full-time positions and up to 10 seasonal positions (3 months 

each spring and fall), half of which are filled by tribal members. 

3.12.4 Mitigation for the Proposed Action 

Because the impacts of the Proposed Action have primarily beneficial socioeconomic impacts, 

no mitigation measures are proposed. 

3.13 Cultural Resources 

3.13.1 Affected Environment 

Cultural resources include prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, historic structures, and 

traditional cultural properties (places that may or may not have human alterations, but are 

important to the cultural identity of a community or Indian tribe). Laws and regulations 

protecting cultural resources are described in Chapter 4, Section 4.4). 

Staff from BPA’s cultural resources consultant, Historical Research Associates (HRA), reviewed 

the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation's (DAHP) online database 

for archaeological site records, cultural resource survey reports, cemetery records, Historic 

Property Inventory (HPI) forms, and nominations to the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP) and Washington Heritage Register (WHR). DAHP's statewide predictive model was 

analyzed for probability estimates for prehistoric cultural resources, and to aid in developing the 

field strategy. Relevant environmental, archaeological, ethno-historic, and historical reports at 

the Spokane Public Library's Northwest Room were also reviewed. In addition, HRA research 

staff examined General Land Office (GLO) plats available online through the U.S. Department 

of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management website to locate nearby historical features that 

might have left archaeological remains. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-112 Chapter 3 – Cultural Resources 

3.13.1.1 Pre-contact Overview 

The Columbia Plateau region, with its large, north-south trending river systems, has seen 

prehistoric settlement and subsistence throughout the Holocene18. The culture of the Plateau 

peoples focused on the mass harvesting and long-term preservation and storage of three key 

resource groups: fish (particularly salmon), roots, and large ungulates. Settlement patterns 

focused on lower elevations in the winter, with forays into higher elevations and places with key 

fish runs along rivers during warmer weather (Walker 1998). 

Although it is uncertain when people first arrived in the area, it is thought that it was somewhere 

between 12,000 and 11,000 B.P. It is likely that the structure of settlement consisted of small, 

highly mobile bands of hunter-gatherers. 

By the beginning of the Windust Phase (11,000-8,000 Before Present [B.P.]), small, highly 

mobile bands sparsely populated the developing grasslands and gallery forests. Sites adjacent to 

rapids, particularly along the Columbia and Snake Rivers, contain an abundance of fish remains 

and associated artifacts, such as grooved net sinkers and gorges (Ames et al. 1998; Cressman et 

al. 1960), which indicates increasing use of anadromous fish populations in the Columbia and its 

tributaries. In drier, upland sites there is often a predominance of milling stones, suggesting that 

seed gathering was also an important aspect of subsistence. 

During the Vantage Phase (8,000-4,500 B.P.), inhabitants of the region restricted their range to 

river and some upland mountain environments. Inhabitants were probably organized as highly 

mobile, opportunistic foragers (Chatters 1989; Galm et al. 1985). 

At the beginning of the Frenchman Springs Phase (4,500-2,500 B.P.) increased precipitation 

significantly altered the nature and distribution of land use. Non-riverine environments 

gradually became more productive. In addition to open sites and rock shelters, pit houses are 

found in riverine and some non-riverine environments. 

Toward the end of the period, at least on the mid- and upper Columbia River, it is believed that 

habitations became more functionally distinct (Chatters 1986), and included hunting camps, 

shellfish processing camps, fishing camps, and plant-processing camps (Chatters 1989). It was 

toward the end of the Frenchman Springs Phase that local inhabitants intensively exploited 

seasonally available resources, such as salmon, bulbs and roots, and they increased their food 

storage activity (Ames et al. 1998). 

The beginning of the Cayuse Phase (2,500-250 B.P.) is marked by a return to drier conditions. 

Resources became concentrated into fewer productive patches as resource productivity and 

diversity decreased. Along the Columbia River, a decrease in the number of sites was associated 

with an increase in the density of pit houses and longhouses after 1,500 B.P. Large villages were 

situated on islands or on the downstream portion of sandbars. Later, the more-portable mat 

house became important at upland camps, and it appears that upland hunting, plant gathering, 

and quarrying of rock or stone increased during this phase (Ames et al. 1998). 

3.13.1.2 Ethnographic Overview 

This period is generally regarded as the transition from late prehistory to the time when Native 

Americans were moved to reservations. The groups traditionally inhabiting the project area were 

part of a regional grouping known as the Middle Columbia River Salishans, and included the 

 

18 The Holocene is a geological epoch which began approximately 11,700 years ago and continues to the present.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Cultural Resources 3-113

Wenatchee, Entiat, Chelan, Methow, and Sinkaiuse, also called the Columbia, Moses Columbia, 

and Middle Columbia (Bruce et al. 2001; Miller 1998; Ray 1974; Relander 1956; Spier 1936; 

Teit 1928). 

Estimates of populations for the Columbia group, prior to the outbreak of epidemics, range from 

10,000 to as low as 2,200 (Creighton 2001; Teit 1928; Mooney 1928). Population counts of 

Ethnographic Period groups are estimates at best. Early epidemics, such as the 1801 smallpox 

epidemic, may have eradicated entire groups of people, and are estimated to have generally cut 

population counts in half (Boyd 1985; Walker, Jr. and Sprague 1998). 

During ethnographic times, Columbia Plateau groups continued the traditional seasonal round 

that developed in the previous millennia. The yearly cycle centered on the Columbia River, 

though upland locations were also well-used. A staple of subsistence, and some would argue 

society along the Columbia River, was the salmon. The major fishing season for anadromous 

and freshwater fish lasted from early spring until late fall. One of the prime fishing areas for the 

Wenatchee was at the junction of the Wenatchee River and Icicle Creek (Miller 1998). 

Fall was the prime season for deer and elk. In addition to hunting and fishing, the Columbia 

Plateau groups relied on gathering roots and vegetables to eat, as well as medicinal plants for a 

variety of ailments. Root digging was undertaken in the spring in the uplands, away from the 

permanent river villages. 

3.13.1.3 Historic Overview 

With the onset of the fur trade industry and such expeditions as that of Lewis and Clark in 1805-

1806, the increase in Euro-American settlers expanded in the nineteenth century. In 1811, 

representatives of the North West Company explored down the Columbia River and established 

depots among the Colville and Lakes groups, while the Astor Company established Fort 

Okanogan (Kennedy and Bouchard 1998; Miller 1998). Fort Colvile was established in 1825 

after a verbal agreement between the Hudson's Bay Company and the Kettle Falls chief 

(Kennedy and Bouchard 1998). Religious missionaries soon followed, expanding from missions 

built in the Plains. A mission was built near Cashmere in 1872 to serve the Wenatchee, and by 

1898 a Jesuit boarding school was established at St. Mary's Mission in Omak (Raufer 1966). 

Pressure from the United States government was exerted in the mid-1850s, when Territorial 

Governor Isaac Stevens was ordered to conduct treaty negotiations with Native American tribes 

and to place these groups onto reservations, in order to free up land for settlers heading west. In

May of 1855, the Walla Walla Council was held. Native Americans from several areas on the 

Interior Plateau convened. Three reservations were established as a result, including the Yakama 

Reservation. 

Tensions ran high between the indigenous populations and the Euro-American settlers (Kennedy 

and Bouchard 1998). War between the Native populations and Euro-Americans erupted in the 

late 1850s. Miners and other settlers actively opposed the vast Colville reservation, and in 1886 

it was reduced to its present-day size. 

By the end of the nineteenth century, hostilities had died down and gold was found on the 

Colville Reservation, and in other areas like Peshastin Creek and the Methow Valley. The 

Homestead Act of 1862 encouraged Euro-American settlement in the region. Soon after, logging 

and mining became large scale industries. By the late 1860s, there was an estimated 300-400 

Chinese immigrants mining along the Columbia River and its tributaries (Ficken and LeWarn 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-114 Chapter 3 – Cultural Resources 

1988). Mines previously abandoned by Euro-Americans on the bars of the Columbia, Okanogan, 

and lower Similkameen Rivers were taken over by Chinese immigrants in the 1870s (Schlegel 

and Mauser 2008). Placer operations could be found along the Columbia and Methow River, 

and gold strikes occurred in the Methow Valley in the 1880s. 

Farming pursuits increased in the 1880s; farmers and stockmen began to settle in the Methow 

and Okanogan valleys as soon as 1886 (Roe 1980). The agricultural industry grew in the mid to 

late twentieth centuries (McKenney and Stevens 2005). By 1893, the Great Northern Railroad 

built a line across Stevens Pass and the area increased in population and industry as a result. 

3.13.2 Impacts of the Proposed Action 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (U.S.C. 470 et seq., as amended) 

requires federal agencies to consider the effect of any proposed undertakings on properties listed 

in, or eligible for listing in, the NRHP. BPA’s cultural resources consultant, HRA, determined 

the Proposed Action to have a moderate probability of affecting archaeological resources that 

may be eligible for listing in the NRHP. This assessment is primarily due to the project's 

proximity to several water sources, such as the Twisp River, Methow River, and Wenatchee 

River, as well as to smaller tributaries. Anticipated cultural resources that could be identified in 

the project area of potential effect could consist of materials associated with prehistoric, 

ethnographic, or historic-period Native American groups. Historic period-Euro-American 

resources could include remnants of homesteads, railroad grades, wagon roads, and refuse 

dumps. Sites, features, and artifacts such as springboard notches, skid roads, and metal 

implements or machinery associated with logging may also be in the area. 

The following proposed or backup acclimation and hatchery sites that require some form of 

ground disturbance or alteration of the site have previously recorded cultural resources within a 

half mile: 

 Wenatchee basin: Butcher, Chickamin/Minnow, Tall Timber, and Dryden (primary sites); 

Squadroni (backup site) 

 Methow basin: Gold and Twisp Weir (primary sites); Newby, Chewuch AF, and MSRF 

Chewuch (backup sites). 

Features include cabins, a homestead and school site; wagon roads and trails; irrigation, mining, 

transportation and communication features; a prehistoric campsite and burial; a pithouse 

depression; and lithic scatters. 

In spring of 2011, an on-site survey by HRA would be completed at each primary and backup 

acclimation and hatchery site where ground disturbance is proposed in order to determine the 

existence of cultural resources that could be affected and their potential eligibility for listing on 

the National Register of Historic Places. Several of the proposed project areas do not have any 

proposed ground disturbance. Therefore, implementation of the project in these areas would

have very little chance of affecting any previously unrecorded cultural resources. BPA would

consult on the results of these findings following the requirements of the regulations 

implementing section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800). If cultural 

resources are identified by these studies, BPA would comply with the requirements of the 

National Historic Preservation Act in determining their eligibility, modifying the proposed action 

to minimize effects, and mitigating for any unavoidable adverse effects if necessary. Additional 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Cultural Resources 3-115

laws, regulations, and executive orders could affect how any potential cultural resources are 

addressed. (See Chapter 4, Section 4.4).

3.13.3 Impacts of the No Action Alternative 

If the No Action Alternative is selected, no new facilities would be constructed, nor would 

existing facilities be modified; therefore, there would be no potential to affect cultural resources.

3.13.4 Mitigation for the Proposed Action 

The following measures are proposed to mitigate potential impacts of the Proposed Action to 

cultural resources: 

 Areas where ground would be disturbed during construction would be inventoried for 

cultural resources prior to publication of the Final EIS. 

 To the greatest degree possible, facilities would be designed to avoid impacting any 

cultural resources identified in project areas. 

 In consultation with the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic 

Preservation, the Yakama Nation, and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville 

Reservation, a mitigation plan would be developed for any significant cultural resources 

identified in any of the project areas where impacts cannot be avoided. The mitigation 

plan would be developed before facilities are constructed. 

 BPA would prepare a plan of action to be taken in the event of an unanticipated discovery 

of cultural resources during construction.

3.14 Public Health and Safety 

3.14.1 Noise 

3.14.1.1 Affected Environment 

Washington State Administrative Code defines categories of properties based on their sensitivity 

to noise. "EDNA" means the environmental designation for noise abatement: an area or zone 

(environment) within which maximum permissible noise levels are established. The project area 

contains many sites that could fall into Class A or Class B EDNAs. Classes of property 

potentially affected by the Proposed Action are defined below (not all examples from the code 

are listed) (WAC 173-60-040). 

Class A EDNAs are lands where human beings reside and sleep. Typically, Class A properties 

include single- and multiple-family residences, and recreational and entertainment properties 

where people sleep, such as camps, parks, camping facilities, and resorts. Many of the proposed 

acclimation sites would fall into this category. 

Class B EDNAs have uses requiring protection against noise interference with speech—

generally commercial establishments such as office buildings, restaurants, and entertainment 

facilities not designed for human habitation, such as fairgrounds and amusement parks. 

Class C EDNAs are lands involving economic activities for which higher noise levels than 

experienced in other areas would normally to be expected, including warehouses and distribution 

centers, agricultural lands raising crops or livestock, and manufacturing facilities. A few sites 

could fall into this category, e.g., the Two Rivers acclimation site. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-116 Chapter 3 – Noise 

Table 3-38. Maximum permissible noise levels (dBA) at three classes of property 19

EDNA of Noise Source EDNA of Receiving Property

Class A Class B Class C

Class A 55 dBA 57 dBA 60 dBA

Class B 57 dBA 60 dBA 65 dBA

Class C 60 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA

These noise limits have a few modifications or exceptions that are relevant to this project: 

 In general, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the noise limitations shown in 

the table must be reduced by 10 dBA for receiving properties within Class A EDNAs. 

 Noise limits may be exceeded at any time during the day or night for brief periods of 

from 1.5 to 15 minutes, depending on the decibel level. 

 Construction noise from temporary construction sites may exceed noise limits except 

between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 am. at Class A EDNAs. 

3.14.1.2 Impacts of the Proposed Action 

The decibel (dB) is a measure of sound intensity; that is, the magnitude of the fluctuations in air 

pressure caused by sound waves. The decibel scale is logarithmic, not arithmetic. This means 

that a doubling of sound intensity is not represented as a doubling of the decibel level. Rather, 

an increase of 3 dB means twice as much sound, and an increase of 10 dB means ten times as 

much sound. 

A sound pressure level of 0 dB represents the threshold of hearing for a young, healthy ear, while 

painful sensations in the ear occur at about 120 to 130 dB. The perception of loudness by the 

human ear is not directly proportional to the decibel level. For example, a sound 10 dB greater 

than another is not perceived as being ten times as loud but only about three times as loud. 

Construction Impacts 

The sound produced by conventional construction equipment typically ranges from about 75 to 

90 decibels (dB), 78 dB for a dump truck, 80 dB for an excavator, 85 dB for a backhoe, and 87 

dB for a bulldozer (LHSFNA 2009). 

The intensity of sound attenuates, or diminishes, by about 7.5 dB as distance doubles, where 

vegetation is present to absorb noise. Atmospheric conditions and topography also strongly 

influence attenuation. The zone of effect is considered to extend from the source of the noise to 

the point at which the noise attenuates to ambient levels. Ambient noise levels at the project 

sites are unknown; however, rural areas typically have an ambient noise level of 35 to 40 dB 

(WSDOT 2007). A variety of site conditions would contribute to noisier than typical 

background noise for rural areas, such as the presence of roads or highways and streams and 

rivers located near or adjacent to all of the sites. In addition, adjacent land use activities such as 

farming, ranching, and recreational activity (e.g., snowmobiling) would include machinery that 

would influence ambient noise levels. 

 

19 "dBA" means the sound pressure level in decibels measured using the "A" weighting network on a sound level 

meter. Decibels are usually measured with a filter that emphasizes sounds in certain frequencies. The "A" filter 

(dBA) is the one most frequently used. The "C" filter (dBC) puts more weight on low-frequency sounds such as the 

bass in amplified music. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Noise 3-117

Based on the WSDOT spreading noise model for attenuation over distance, assuming an ambient 

noise level of 40 dB, a bulldozer operating at a site (87 dB) could be heard above ambient noise 

ranging from about 600 to 1,000 feet away. However, the actual extent of disturbance around 

the sites would likely be much smaller, because most of the sites have hillsides or topographic 

changes near the sites that would contain noise. 

Construction would take place for a few days to 5 months, depending on the site, from May 

through September in 2012. At all sites, construction activity would be limited to the hours 

between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. Therefore, while some sites with residences 

or campgrounds might experience noise above ambient levels during the day for the construction 

period, noise levels during evenings, nights, and early mornings would return to normal. 

Operations Impacts 

Disturbance associated with operation at the sites would include vehicle noise associated with 

accessing the sites and crews walking the sites. Each of the sites would require regular, daily 

human presence during the acclimation period (6 weeks to 6 months, depending on the site). 

Crews of two people would be responsible for several sites and would drive between them 

during the course of the day. These types of operation activities would likely be consistent with 

average ambient noise levels. 

Operational noise also would include generators at 3 primary Wenatchee sites and 4 primary 

Methow sites; and at 2 backup sites in the Wenatchee and one backup site in the Methow. The 

size of the generators depends on the size of well pumps which depends on depth to water which 

would not be known until test wells have been drilled. The generators would either operate 

continuously during acclimation or only during power outages, depending on the capacity and 

presence of existing line power. Noise muffling enclosures would be used to ensure that 

generator noise does not exceed decibel limits at noise-sensitive properties. 

3.14.1.3 Impacts of the No Action Alternative 

Because no new facilities would be constructed, there would be no construction noise. In the 

Wenatchee basin, operational noise would continue or be reduced from current conditions, 

depending on how many currently used sites would be operated. In the Methow basin, the 

potential use of two sites not now used by the current program could minimally increase 

operational noise; or operational noise levels would remain the same or be reduced, depending 

on the number of sites used. 

3.14.1.4 Mitigation for the Proposed Action 

To avoid or minimize impacts, all construction activity would be limited to normal workday 

hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Noise associated with facility 

operations would be within state-approved environmental noise regulations (WAC Chapter 173-

60 of the Noise Control Act of 1974) by installing all pumps and generators in sound-enclosures. 

3.14.2 Air Quality 

3.14.2.1 Affected Environment 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Washington Department of Ecology 

(WDOE) both have responsibility for air quality in the State of Washington. The EPA has 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-118 Chapter 3 – Air Quality 

established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to protect the public from air 

pollution. The NAAQS focus on ―criteria pollutants,‖ which are pollutants of particular concern 

for human health. The NAAQS are shown in Table 3-39. In addition to the NAAQS, the 

WDOE has established State Ambient Air Quality Standards (SAAQS) that are at least as 

stringent as the NAAQS. These are also listed in Table 3-39. 

The project areas under evaluation in this EIS are all in areas that are in attainment with the 

NAAQS (EPA 2010c). This means that the concentrations of criteria pollutants in the area are 

historically below (in attainment with) the thresholds described in the NAAQS. Attainment 

status is a federal designation determined by the EPA based on the NAAQS. Washington does 

not determine or define attainment for areas based on the SAAQS. Sources of criteria pollutants 

in the vicinity of the project sites include vehicles on state and local highways, residential home 

heating (particularly wood burning), agricultural practices (particularly outdoor burning and resuspension of dust and fine particles), and re-suspension of road dust from traffic on 

unmaintained roadways. 

Table 3-39. National and state ambient air quality standards 

Pollutant Measurement Period

Maximum Concentration

NAAQS SAAQS

Carbon Monoxide 8 hour averagea9 ppm 9 ppm

1 hour averagea35 ppm 35 ppm

Lead Calendar quarter 1.5 μg/m31.5 μg/m3

Ozone 1 hour average — 0.12 ppm

8 hour averageb0.075 ppm —

Nitrogen Dioxide Annual arithmetic mean 0.053 ppm 0.05 ppm

Sulfur Dioxide Annual arithmetic mean 0.03 ppm 0.02 ppm

24 hour average 0.14 ppm 0.10 ppm

3 hour average 0.5 ppm 0.50 ppm

Particulate Matter 

(PM10)

Annual arithmetic mean — 50 μg/m3

24 hour average 150 μg/m3150 μg/m3

PM2.5 Annual arithmetic meanc

24 hour averaged

15 μg/m3

35 μg/m3

—

—

Sources: EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) (EPA, 2010a) and the Washington Administrative Code (WAC 

173, Sections 470, 474, 475)

Note: ppm = parts per million; μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; PM10 = particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 

or equal to 10 micrometers; PM2.5 = particulate with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers.

a Not to be exceeded more than once per year

b To attain this standard, the 3 year average of the fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations measured at 

each monitor within an area over each year must not exceed 0.075 ppm (effective May 27, 2008) to meet the federal standard.

c To attain this standard, the 3 year average of the weighted annual mean PM2.5 concentrations from single or multiple communityoriented monitors must not exceed 15.0 μg/m3

.

d To attain this standard, the 3 year average of the 98th percentile of 24 hour concentrations at each population-oriented monitor 

within an area must not exceed 35 μg/m3. This standard replaces the 24 hour PM2.5 standard of 65 μg/m3 as of December 17, 

2006.

3.14.2.2 Types of Impact 

Construction projects are established as sources of air pollution and are subject to the provisions of 

WAC 173-400-040, General Regulations for Air Pollution Sources. Typical air pollutants from 

construction sites include fugitive dust, vehicle emissions, and particulate emissions from activities 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Air Quality 3-119

such as burning of cleared vegetation. In significant amounts, these pollutants can be a public health 

hazard, especially for people with respiratory ailments; and can reduce visibility on roads, highways, 

and in scenic areas, to the detriment of public safety or enjoyment. 

In addition, vehicle emissions and combustion of fossil fuels during project operations as well as 

during construction can contribute to climate change. Potential climate change impacts are discussed 

separately in Section 3.14.3. 

3.14.2.3 Impacts of the Proposed Action 

Construction 

Other than vehicle emissions (see Section 3.14.3), the primary potential air quality impact from 

construction of project facilities would be fugitive dust. Cleared vegetation would not be 

burned; it would be disposed at approved landfills, so smoke and particulate pollution would not 

be created by the proposed project. Impacts of fugitive dust would be limited to those sites 

requiring substantial excavation—a total of 8 primary acclimation sites, 6 backup sites, and the 

proposed and backup hatchery sites. 

Construction activity at the proposed hatchery at Dryden is the most likely to create noticeable 

amounts of fugitive dust, because it is located in a drier part of the Wenatchee basin than other 

sites requiring construction, and because it also requires the most significant amount of 

construction (a total disturbance of approximately 4 acres) during the driest part of the year. At 

Dryden, dust could affect visibility on Highway 2 or Highway 97 or other nearby roads, 

depending on the amount of dust and wind direction and speed. It could also be a nuisance to 

nearby residences and the gun club. 

Pond excavation at other sites in both basins could also cause fugitive dust problems, most 

noticeably those with nearby recreation or vacation property or that are otherwise currently in 

use, such as Tall Timber, Gold, and Twisp Weir. 

Use of the proposed mitigation measures would keep impacts of dust from construction activities 

to a minimum. 

Operations 

A number of existing and new sites are accessed via unpaved roads. Project vehicles would

travel to and from each site once a day during the acclimation period, which could be for periods 

of 6 weeks in March through early May or 6 months from November through early May. Roads 

at some sites could be snow-covered during some of this period, so dust would not be an issue. 

Later in the spring, after roads dry out, dust from vehicle travel could be noticeable to nearby 

residences but, with only one round-trip a day at each site, is not expected to impact air quality or 

be a nuisance to neighbors. 

3.14.2.4 Impacts of the No Action Alternative 

No new facilities would be constructed, so the No Action Alternative would not affect air quality 

with additional dust beyond what is created by current activities, primarily vehicles travelling on 

unpaved roads. 

3.14.2.5 Mitigation for the Proposed Action 

 Burning of cleared vegetation or other debris would not be done. All such material 

would be transported to an approved landfill.
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-120 Chapter 3 – Air Quality 

 Water supplies and dust suppression equipment would be employed at the Dryden 

hatchery site and at all acclimation sites requiring excavation or road improvement to 

ensure that dust does not create visibility problems on nearby roads and highways and 

does not become a nuisance to neighbors. 

3.14.3 Climate Change 

3.14.3.1 Affected Environment 

Greenhouse gases (GHG) are chemical compounds in the earth’s atmosphere that absorb and trap 

infrared radiation (heat) that is reflected or emitted from the surface of the earth. The trapping 

and subsequent build-up of heat in the atmosphere creates a greenhouse-like effect that maintains 

a global temperature warm enough to sustain life (EIA 2009). Some forms of GHG can be 

produced either by natural processes or as a result of human activities. However, the current 

scientific consensus is that anthropogenic (human-made) sources are increasing atmospheric 

GHG concentrations to levels that could raise the earth’s average temperature by up to 7.2

degrees Fahrenheit within the 21st century (EPA 2010a). 

The United States Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP) has found that since the 1970s, 

average U.S. temperatures and sea levels have risen and precipitation patterns have changed 

(USGCRP 2009). These conclusions are further supported by the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC) that found similar patterns on a global climate scale (IPCC 2007). 

Climate models indicate that atmospheric concentrations of all GHG would continue to increase 

over the next century, but the extent and rates of change are difficult to predict, particularly on a 

global scale. 

Human activities result in the emission of four main forms of GHG that are implicated in climate 

change (EPA 2010b): 

 Carbon dioxide (CO2) constitutes 81% of all anthropogenic GHG emissions in the U.S., 

primarily due to the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, oil, gasoline, natural gas, and other 

fuels) and wood products (EPA 2010a, 2010b; Houghton 2010). Changes in land use and 

management can also increase CO2 emissions into the atmosphere (e.g., conversion of 

forests into croplands, application of synthetic fertilizers, and development of grasslands 

into residential settlements). Some industrial activities (e.g., cement manufacturing) have 

also been identified as contributing significantly to U.S. CO2 emissions. 

 Methane (CH4) is emitted during the production and transport of fossil fuels, through 

intensive animal farming, and by the decay of organic waste in landfills. 

 Nitrous oxide (N20) is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities, and during the 

combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste. 

 Fluorinated gases, such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and 

sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), are synthetic compounds emitted from industrial processes. 

These gases are created and emitted solely through human activities (not naturally 

produced). Although emission levels of these compounds are relatively small, these 

gases have a much higher capacity for trapping heat than other GHG and are considered 

to have a high potential for contributing to climate change. Activities that emit 

fluorinated gases are not proposed as any part of this project, and thus are not included in 

the analysis of impacts. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Climate Change 3-121

To assess the potential impacts of the Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program on climate 

change, BPA considered the potential GHG emissions associated with construction and operation 

activities at all proposed project locations in the Wenatchee and Methow basins. Many sites 

proposed for use by the project already exist and/or are already operating. Sites that would not 

change due to project implementation would not be expected to have any impact on GHG 

emissions or climate change, and are not included in the analysis. 

In the event any of the primary sites are determined infeasible, a backup site would be used; 

however, the total number of project sites would remain constant and activities at backup sites 

would be similar in scope and duration. Therefore, it is reasonably certain that GHG emissions 

from project activities would be relatively similar regardless of which (if any) backup sites 

would need to be used. 

3.14.3.2 Types of Impact 

In a general sense, all combustion of fossil fuels contributes to CO2 concentrations in the 

atmosphere that may contribute to significant long-term effects on the climate. In response, the 

EPA established the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule in 2008 (74 FR 5620), 

which requires reporting of GHG emissions data for sources that emit 25,000 metric tons or more 

per year, roughly equivalent to the CO2 emitted by 4,545 passenger vehicles per year (EPA 

2005). The rule requires federal reporting of GHG emissions, but does not require any other 

action (40 CFR Parts 86, 87, 89 et al.). 

Although the proposed project is reasonably certain to fall well below the federal reporting 

threshold, BPA evaluated the most significant sources of GHG emissions that would result from 

project implementation. Direct GHG emissions from hatchery projects are primarily due to 

vehicle and equipment activity (both during construction and operation activities). The proposed 

project would involve the operation of vehicles and generators at many locations, which would 

emit CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels and contribute to atmospheric GHG levels. 

GHG emissions were calculated based on methodology provided by the EPA, IPCC and the 

Energy Information Administration (EIA) using estimates of multiple variables including, but 

not limited to, the number of project vehicles, number of trips per day, distance traveled, other 

sources of fossil fuel combustion (e.g., generators), and duration of activities. 

Changes in land cover (e.g., tree removal) due to the construction of facilities may also increase 

GHG emissions; however, the effects of land use change are not well understood and there are 

currently no accepted methodologies for quantifying impacts of land use changes on GHG 

emissions. Furthermore, the total acreage of land that would be impacted by project construction 

would be less than 5 acres, and the majority of impact would either result in an insignificant 

change in land cover (e.g., installation of wells, expansion of acclimation ponds) or potentially 

an improvement to existing conditions (e.g., conversion of an existing gravel pit to a 2.5 acre 

wetland). Therefore, due to the inability to quantify the impacts of land use changes, and the 

likely insignificant level of project-related land use changes that may elicit such impacts, this 

variable was not included in the analysis. 

Soil disturbance may also result in GHG emissions, but research has shown that effects are 

temporary and return to background levels within several hours (Kessavalou et al. 1998, IPCC 

2006). Therefore, soil disturbance was not included in the analysis. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-122 Chapter 3 – Climate Change 

In an effort to compensate for any potential GHG emissions due to soil disturbance, land use 

changes, or other unidentified mechanisms not included in the analysis, BPA conservatively 

estimated vehicle and equipment emissions. The calculated GHG estimate is therefore likely 

higher than actual vehicle and equipment emissions, and therefore may capture residual 

emissions from other sources. 

The thresholds used to describe the intensity of climate change impacts are as follows: 

 Minor: Impacts would result in the release of GHG well below the annual level required 

for reporting. Contributions to regional GHG amounts may be extremely difficult to 

determine. The contribution to national GHG emissions would be impossible to quantify. 

 Moderate: Impacts would result in the emission of 25,000 metric tons or more per year 

of GHG and require annual reporting to the EPA. Contributions to regional GHG 

amounts would be quantifiable. Contributions to the national GHG emissions would be 

substantial. 

 Major: Impacts would require annual reporting and be of an amount and nature that they 

would be a key component of national GHG emissions. 

3.14.3.3 Impact of the Proposed Action 

According to BPA’s calculations (Table 3-40), the project could emit up to 502 metric tons of 

GHG as a result of five months of construction activities (roughly equivalent to the annual 

emissions from 89 passenger vehicles), and up to 1,050 metric tons of GHG per year as a result 

of operations activities (roughly equivalent to the annual emissions from 187 passenger 

vehicles). 

Table 3-40. Estimated annual greenhouse gas emissions from the Mid-Columbia Coho 

Restoration Program a

Activity

CO2 

Emissions 

(metric tons)

CH4 Emissions 

(CO2-e metric 

tons)

N2O Emissions 

(CO2-e metric 

tons)

Total CO2-e 

Emissions in Metric 

Tons

Construction (total for 

5-month period) 241.0 37.3 223.2 502

Operations and 

maintenance (annual 

emissions)

920 7.5 123.1 1,050

a

CH4 and N2O emissions have been converted into units of CO2 (CO2equivalent = CO2-e) using the IPCC global 

warming potential factors of 21 for CH4 and 310 for N20.

Construction Impacts 

Proposed construction activities associated with one new incubation and rearing facility and nine 

new or expanded acclimation ponds would result in direct GHG emissions from the operation of 

project vehicles and construction equipment (e.g., bulldozers, augers, backhoes). Emissions 

from construction vehicles and equipment would impact atmospheric GHG concentrations 

incrementally because construction equipment and vehicles would be fueled by gasoline and 

diesel combustion motors. 

Considering the low level of GHG emissions (502 metric tons of CO2-e) and the brief duration 

of the impact (5 months), project-related construction activities would have a minor short-term 

adverse impact on atmospheric GHG concentrations and an unquantifiable, likely insignificant, 

impact on climate change. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Climate Change 3-123

Operations Impacts 

The proposed project would involve the year-round operation of the hatchery, and seasonal 

operation of the acclimation sites and traps. Many of the acclimation sites and all but one each 

of the adult and juvenile traps are already in operation and would not change due to project 

implementation. The primary sources of GHG emissions would be from the operation of project 

vehicles between sites (46% of all operations-related GHG emissions) and the use of diesel 

generators as primary power at two acclimation sites for six weeks of the year (35% of all 

operations-related GHG emissions). It is likely that diesel generators would be switched to 

propane in the near future, potentially reducing annual GHG emissions by approximately 380 

metric tons per year. 

The calculated estimate of operations-related annual GHG emissions is relatively low (1,050 

metric tons of CO2-e), and is likely very conservative considering the calculations were based on 

estimates of the maximum number of vehicles, miles, trips, etc., that would be involved in 

operational activities. Therefore, the operation of facilities and sites would constitute a minor 

adverse impact on atmospheric GHG concentrations and an unquantifiable impact on climate 

change. 

Location of a small hatchery in the Wenatchee basin might reduce the number of trips necessary 

to transport fish to and from the Bonneville Dam area beginning in 2013; it is unclear if that 

reduction would be offset by more trips to in-basin acclimation sites. 

3.14.3.4 Impacts of the No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative would require no new construction or operation activities that would 

involve combustion of fossil fuels, and therefore no GHG would be emitted. The sites would 

remain in their current state, and the current hatchery programs would continue unchanged. 

With no new in-basin hatchery, any potential reduction in emissions resulting from reducing the 

number of long trips to lower Columbia hatcheries would not be achieved, because they would 

continue as they are under the current program. No direct or indirect effects to atmospheric 

GHG concentrations or climate change would result from the No Action Alternative. 

3.14.3.5 Mitigation for the Proposed Action 

The following measures could be implemented to reduce or eliminate project-related GHG 

emissions and potential impacts on climate change: 

 Use gravity-flow water supplies and existing ponds wherever possible. 

 Use measures that minimize vehicle and equipment emissions (e.g., reduce vehicle and 

equipment idling, use driving techniques that increase fuel economy, perform regular 

maintenance and upkeep of vehicles and equipment, use the most efficient vehicle or 

equipment available, etc.). 

 Encourage carpooling and the use of shuttle vans among construction workers and 

operations staff to minimize vehicle trips and associated emissions. 

 Locate construction staging areas in previously-disturbed or graveled areas to minimize 

soil and vegetation disturbance where practicable. 

 Use propane generators at all sites as soon as feasible. 

 Submit a plan for approval to recycle or salvage non-hazardous construction and 

demolition debris. 

 Use locally sourced supplies as much as possible. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-124 Chapter 3 – Cumulative Effects 

3.15 Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative impacts are the environmental effects that result from the incremental impact of the 

proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

regardless of which agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. 

3.15.1 Surface Water Quality 

Proposed Action 

The timing of acclimation nutrient discharges, in relation to annual flow patterns, is important to 

the evaluation of cumulative project impacts on water quality. The Wenatchee and Methow 

rivers have peak average flows in early June. Acclimation ends in early May just as spring 

runoff begins. Data collected from the basins (see Appendix 6, Water Quality Data) demonstrate 

that river phosphorous concentrations and loads peak along with river flows, as accumulated 

nutrients and attached algae that have been suspended are flushed from the basins. The majority 

of the phosphorous introduced by acclimation is included in this mechanical removal process, 

thereby limiting the impact of project nutrients on water quality in the critical late summer 

through winter period. 

For the Wenatchee basin, the model simulations suggest that potential impacts of the proposed 

project, as defined by the criteria for DO and pH, would be negligible under foreseeable future 

conditions. When viewed in light of the conservative assumptions employed in establishing the 

translation of loads and flow conditions within the model framework, the actual impacts under 

average flow conditions would be much smaller than what was determined by the QUAL-2K 

modeling exercise. The fact that the model results indicated that much of the project load is 

likely to be assimilated upstream of Leavenworth suggests that existing public treatment works 

are not likely to be further burdened by requirements to buffer activity from the proposed project 

in the upper reaches. 

For the Methow basin, the contribution of the project related loads relative to the cumulative 

basin load (Methow River at Pateros in Table 3-9) was estimated to be about 0.8%. The 

equivalent calculation for the Wenatchee sites resulted in a relative project contribution of 1.1% 

of the basin TP loading (Table 15 in Appendix 7). As described previously, modeling indicated 

that acclimation-related loads in the Wenatchee basin caused a negligible change in DO and pH 

even in the presence of sources such as public water treatment works. Given the lower estimate 

of nutrient loading from acclimation activity in the Methow basin and the similarity in the basin 

characteristics, the TP loads from acclimation activity are unlikely to cause a measurable change 

in DO and pH in the Methow River; thus cumulative effects of the project would be negligible. 

No Action Alternative 

As with the Proposed Action, the impacts of discharges from the sites in the No Action 

Alternative were assessed for the case when public treatment works discharge at their design 

capacity, contributing a phosphorus load as allocated in the WDOE TMDL (corresponding to 90 

g/L). The spatial trends in water quality parameters were similar to those predicted for the 

Proposed Action. As expected, the changes in minimum DO and pH range over the background 

conditions were predicted to be milder than for the Proposed Action, and thus cumulative effects 

of the project would be negligible. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Cumulative Effects 3-125

3.15.2 Groundwater and Water Rights 

Proposed Action 

Other proposed groundwater withdrawals or surface water diversions, if not non-consumptive or 

water-balance neutral, could impact the stream flows in the two basins. New water supplies for 

residential, commercial and industrial uses and allocations for groundwater rights by WDOE are 

likely during the time period of the proposed project. 

The proposed groundwater uses for the project would have impacts only within the drawdown 

cone created by groundwater withdrawals because the groundwater uses are water budget 

neutral. In addition, the aquifers likely to be used at the proposed sites are in hydraulic 

continuity with the streams, which would reduce the size of the drawdown cones. Thus, the 

impacts would be localized. Other future groundwater uses would also create drawdown cones 

and, unless these future drawdown cones intersect the drawdown cones created by the project, 

the project would not impact these uses. Other future surface water uses may be positively 

impacted immediately downstream and not impacted further downstream by the proposed 

discharge of groundwater into the streams. 

The Proposed Action includes facilities with very minor groundwater withdrawal rates compared 

to the total groundwater storage capacity in the shallow aquifers in the Wenatchee River and 

Methow River basins. The proposed groundwater withdrawals are also small when compared to 

the flows in the two rivers. Operation of the proposed projects individually or collectively is not 

expected to have measurable impacts to stream flows or water quality in areas outside the 

immediate facility locations. 

No Action Alternative 

If existing project facilities cease using currently used groundwater, cumulative impacts to 

groundwater could be reduced. 

3.15.3 Fish 

Past and present activities that may have affected fish habitat in the Wenatchee and Methow 

basins include diversions and dams, agricultural activities, stream channelization and diking, 

roads and railways, timber harvest, and urban and rural development (Mullan et al. 1992; 

Chapman et al. 1994, 1995; NPCC 2004a & b). A hydropower dam constructed on the lower 

Methow River near Pateros in 1915 blocked upstream anadromous fish passage until it was 

removed in 1929 (Mullan et al. 1992; Peven 1992; Andonaegui 2000). Humans have altered 

habitat primarily in the lower gradient, lower reaches of the basins (Andonaegui 2000, 2001); 

these alterations have blocked access to habitat and reduced habitat complexity, off-channel 

habitats, and large, deep pools. Extensive use of rip rap to stabilize stream banks has decreased 

the channel sinuosity and recruitment of large woody debris (LWD). Chronic sedimentation 

from land and water management activities has degraded habitat in some areas. In contrast, 

upper reaches of these basins are in relatively good condition (Andonaegui 2000, 2001; NMFS et 

al. 1998). 

Habitat conditions have improved in recent years and further improvements are expected in the 

future. Some of the factors that have affected habitat of ESA-listed fish have been partially 

addressed through changes in land use practices (UCSRB 2007). These include improving fish 

passage at dams, installing irrigation diversion screens, culvert replacement, riparian buffer 

strips, and improved livestock management. Two major habitat restoration efforts are being 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-126 Chapter 3 – Cumulative Effects 

been funded by BPA in the Wenatchee and Methow basins. The Yakama Nation will be 

receiving 6-7 million dollars annually over ten years for habitat restoration in these basins. In 

addition, the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board will be receiving about 3.5 million 

dollars for habitat restoration projects beginning in 2011. These efforts should result in 

substantial habitat improvements over the next decade. 

Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action could add to the cumulative benefits that all these actions are providing to 

the ecological balance in the two basins; and with the improvements and increases in habitat, any 

potential adverse interactions between coho and other species are not likely to measurably add to 

the other stressors on ESA-listed fish.

The Proposed Action would result in reduced seasonal access to a very small amount of existing 

off-channel habitats used for acclimation and rearing of hatchery coho salmon, and potential 

short-term acute delivery of additional sediment from bank disturbance and pond construction. 

Because these off-channel habitats are not preferred by spring Chinook, steelhead and bull trout, 

the impacts from the proposed seasonal use of small areas for acclimation and rearing purposes 

would not be additive to cumulative effects of past, present, and anticipated future human-caused 

impacts to habitat. The amount of habitat excluded during acclimation and rearing activities or 

added through additional sites under the proposed alternative is not likely to have a measureable 

impact compared to past and current impacts and those likely to occur. 

Permit conditions would require that sediment be strictly controlled during construction; and in 

the small areas affected, any unforeseen increased sediment delivery is likely to be minimal and 

highly localized. Construction is not expected to result in conditions that cause chronic increases 

in sediment loads. Therefore, although the project could add to the cumulative effects of basinwide sources of sediment in streams, the contribution would be small, localized, and would not 

persist more than 1-2 weeks past construction. 

No Action Alternative 

The cumulative impacts of the No Action Alternative on fish would be mixed. Fish would not be 

excluded from habitat they currently use because no new facilities would be constructed, and 

there would be no temporary small increase in sediment in streams due to construction; thus the 

alternative would not add to such impacts that are otherwise occurring in the basins. On the 

other hand, given that a naturally reproducing population of coho would not be established, any 

additional benefit to ongoing and future ecological improvements from such populations in the 

basins would not occur. 

3.15.4 Priority Habitat, Plants, and Wildlife 

Proposed Action 

Residential development is anticipated in the Wenatchee and Methow basins over the next 

several years, and would likely contribute to cumulative impacts to native vegetation 

communities, which could disturb priority habitats and species. Clearing and construction at the 

project sites contributes in very minor ways to cumulative regional fragmentation and net loss of 

native vegetation and habitats. Impacts from continued growth in the region will occur 

regardless of whether the proposed project is implemented, and is likely to contribute to loss of 

habitat in significant ways, unlike the proposed project. However, some project activities would
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Cumulative Effects 3-127

create additional aquatic habitat for native species in the region, adding a small area (about 1 

acre) to other habitat protection and enhancement being undertaken in the basins. 

Operation of the project would result in an increase in human activity at the sites. While the sites 

are primarily located in rural areas, most of the sites are associated with residential property and 

with associated existing human activity and vehicle traffic. Also, the program is proposed to end 

in 2027. The human disturbance impacts associated with the Proposed Action would also then 

end. No significant cumulative impacts associated with operation of the project are anticipated. 

No Action Alternative 

The cumulative effects of No Action on priority habitat, plants, and wildlife, when added to other 

development effects undertaken in the two basins, would be undetectable. 

3.15.5 Wetlands 

Proposed Action 

Development projects are anticipated to occur in the Wenatchee and Methow basins in the 

vicinity of the project sites over the next several years, and would likely contribute to cumulative 

impacts to wetland habitats. Clearing and construction at the project sites contributes to 

cumulative regional fragmentation and net loss of wetland habitat. However, construction 

activities associated with the project are anticipated to result in low permanent impacts to 

wetland habitats (approximately 3200 square feet of permanent impact), with the potential to add 

about 52,000 square feet of new wetland. Due to the relatively small area of potential wetland 

impacts relative to the amount of wetland area present in the Wenatchee and Methow basins 

associated with the multiple project sites, project impacts to wetlands would not significantly 

contribute to cumulative impacts to wetlands. 

No Action Alternative 

With no construction of new acclimation sites or a hatchery, the project would add nothing to the 

cumulative loss of wetlands in the basins. 

3.15.6 Floodplains 

Proposed Action 

Activities in the two basins other than this project that could exacerbate flooding include diking, 

road development, and residential/urban development. 

Because construction activities associated with the project are anticipated to result in very minor 

conversion of forested lands compared to the watershed as a whole, because the some 

acclimation sites would provide additional floodplain storage, and because new construction 

would be in accordance with floodplain development codes, the cumulative effects of these 

actions are not considered a significant impact. Additionally, many proposed county and statefunded road improvement projects include culvert replacements on existing roads having the 

potential to mitigate or reduce the effects of existing flooding. The known road improvement 

projects are identified in the following sections. 

Habitat improvement projects are also proposed throughout the project area. These projects are 

funded by federal and state dollars under multiple programs and implemented by local 

stakeholder groups, counties, and conservation districts. Habitat improvement projects that reestablish floodplain access to undeveloped floodplain habitat have the potential to further 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-128 Chapter 3 – Cumulative Effects 

mitigate or reduce the effects of existing flooding. Habitat improvement projects funded and 

proposed for implementation in the Wenatchee and Methow basins using Washington State 

Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) grants can be tracked at the Upper Columbia Salmon 

Recovery Board’s salmon habitat implementation website (http://uc.ekosystem.us//). Habitat 

improvement projects funded in the Wenatchee and Methow basins using Chelan County PUD 

and Douglas County PUD Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Tributary Fund dollars can be found 

at the Chelan County PUD HCP website (http://www.midcolumbiahcp.org/). Other projects 

could be implemented by other public agencies or private parties that are not known at this time. 

Wenatchee Basin Road Projects 

Planned projects in the basin include road improvement projects throughout the watershed that 

could have localized effects on nearby creeks. These projects are Chelan County projects: 

CRP636-North Road and CRP612-Eagle Creek Road that could impact Chumstick Creek, 

CRP597-Old Blewett Highway that could impact Peshastin Creek; and Washington State 

Department of Transportation (WSDOT) projects: US 2 bridge over Chiwaukum Creek, US 2 

Wenatchee River bridge at Tumwater, and road improvements along US 97 that could impact 

Peshastin Creek. It is anticipated that Chelan County and WSDOT would implement mitigation 

measures and best management practices (BMPs) according to the Highway Runoff Manual 

(WSDOT 2008) to minimize floodplain impacts from any of these projects. Consequently, the 

cumulative effects of the Proposed Action and other known projects in the Wenatchee basin are 

not considered to be a significant cumulative impact. 

Methow Basin Road Projects 

In the Methow basin, other known planned projects include road improvement projects 

throughout the watershed that could have localized effects on nearby creeks. These projects are 

Okanogan County and WSDOT road improvement projects such as Twisp River Road (affecting 

Twisp River), and Twin Lakes Road (affecting Methow River). It is anticipated that Okanogan 

County and WSDOT would implement mitigation measures and BMPs according to the 

Highway Runoff Manual (WSDOT 2008) to minimize floodplain impacts from any of these 

projects. Consequently, the effects of the Proposed Action combined with the effects of other 

known projects in the Methow basin are not considered to create a significant cumulative impact. 

No Action Alternative 

Because no new development would take place in floodplains as part of this alternative, there 

would be no impacts to floodplains and thus no cumulative effects with other floodplain 

development projects in the basins. 

3.15.7 Visual Quality and Recreation 

Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action would not noticeably change visual quality or affect recreational uses, so 

would not contribute to other visual quality and recreational impacts occurring in the basins. 

No Action Alternative 

There would be no change to current conditions, so there would be no cumulative effects. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 3 – Cumulative Effects 3-129

3.15.8 Socioeconomics 

Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action would add relatively few permanent jobs to the region, so the incremental 

effects on area population and income, and the need to change infrastructure and services, would 

be negligible. Expenditures and income associated with the terminal fishery are minor and not 

expected to measurably affect local or regional economies. The numerous federal, state, local, 

and tribal efforts to improve fish populations, river flow, and aquatic habitat in the region, of 

which this program is a small part, should result in salmon population increases which, together, 

should provide economic and cultural benefits. 

No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative would not add noticeably to adverse economic and social effects in a 

regional sense. Any loss of employment due to lack of funding of the project would be 

significant to individuals but would be an incrementally minor impact on current unemployment 

levels in the region. The incremental lost opportunity impacts on the economic, social, and 

cultural benefits of future coho harvests could be noticeable, although unquantifiable, if other 

regional efforts to improve fish populations and habitat are similarly curtailed and if the current 

Mid-Columbia coho program is not converted to a harvest augmentation program. 

3.15.9 Cultural Resources 

Proposed Action 

The cumulative effect of the Proposed Action on cultural resources is unknown until site-specific 

surveys are done; it is expected to be minor, however, when considered in the context of past, 

current, and future development that has taken place and continues to occur in the basins. 

No Action Alternative 

Because no new site development would take place, there would be no potential for the project to 

add to the past, current, or future development impacts on cultural resources in the basins. 

3.15.10 Public Health and Safety 

Proposed Action 

The largely minor and short-term and increases in fugitive dust and construction noise would not 

add to the cumulative long-term impacts to air quality and noise from increased development and 

population levels in the two basins. Contributions of the project to climate change, while adding 

theoretically measurable amounts to greenhouse gas concentrations in the basins, would be 

unquantifiable. 

No Action Alternative 

The No Action Alternative would have no cumulative effects on noise, air quality, or climate 

change.
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

3-130 Chapter 3 – Cumulative Effects 

3.16 Unavoidable Adverse Effects and Irreversible and Irretrievable 

Commitment of Resources 

 Short-term minor increases in sediment in water bodies near some acclimation sites, due 

to the need to develop water supply and discharge channels and lines. 

 Short-term avoidance by wildlife of some project sites due to construction activity. 

 Short-term disturbance during construction at residential and recreational sites. 

 Potential loss of small numbers of listed fish to predation or competition with coho, or to 

trapping for juvenile or adult coho. 

 Annual temporary exclusion of listed fish from a small amount of habitat. 

 Potential permanent removal of less than an acre of wetland. 

 Irreversible uses of fuel, office supplies, petroleum products, chemicals, and other 

operational supplies. Some building materials and equipment might be re-usable, but 

much of it would not. 

3.17 Short-Term Use of the Environment and Effects on Long-Term 

Productivity 

The proposed Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program is expected to greatly enhance 

productivity of the aquatic environment through salmon population increases, from which other 

aquatic and terrestrial species including humans may derive benefits. The lands developed for a 

small hatchery complex and for acclimation ponds would be permanently taken out of vegetative 

productivity. Construction activities would temporarily affect more land than would be 

permanently developed, but long-term productivity would not likely be adversely affected 

because of the measures that would be taken to restore disturbed, undeveloped areas to preexisting condition or better (replanting with native species, weed control, standard construction 

BMPs, etc.). The stream reaches between the intakes and outlets of the ponds would have 

slightly lower total flow when water is diverted for fish acclimation, but these distances are 

generally 1,500 feet or less. Groundwater production in wells near some acclimation sites might 

be reduced. Some incremental amount of greenhouse gases would be emitted during 

construction and hatchery operation, which would add to global climate change, but energy 

efficiency considerations in project design would make this contribution insignificant at local 

and global scales. 

The No Action Alternative would not change the aquatic environment, either positively or 

negatively, or alter any terrestrial sites. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4 - Consultation and Coordination 4-1 

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Numerous federal, state, and local environmental laws and administrative requirements must be 

satisfied prior to initiation of the proposed program. This chapter reviews the program’s 

compliance with these regulatory requirements. 

4.1 Environmental Policy 

4.1.1 National Environmental Policy Act 

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended (42 USC 4321 et seq.) requires 

federal agencies to assess and disclose the effects of proposed actions on the environment before 

making a decision to proceed. This EIS has been compiled to meet NEPA requirements. 

BPA and Yakama Nation conducted scoping meetings and informal outreach efforts with 

interested and potentially affected parties, who identified issues to be considered in the 

environmental analysis. This draft EIS is being sent to regulatory agencies and other interested 

organizations and individuals for review and comment (Chapter 8). After a formal public 

comment period on the draft EIS, BPA will consider all comments and make additions, 

corrections, or clarifications to the analysis for the final EIS. The final EIS will be used by BPA 

to determine if the agency will proceed with approval and funding of the Mid-Columbia Coho 

Restoration Program. BPA will document its final decision in a record of decision after the Final 

EIS has been issued. 

4.1.2 State Environmental Policy Act 

The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), Washington State’s most fundamental 

environmental decision-making law, was enacted in 1971 as chapter 43.21C Revised Code of 

Washington. Much like the federal National Environmental Policy Act, SEPA is designed to 

provide decision-makers and the public with impartial information about a project and analyze 

alternatives to the proposal, including ways to avoid or minimize adverse impacts or to enhance 

environmental quality. The purpose of SEPA is to encourage harmony between the citizenry and 

the environment, to promote efforts that will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment, to 

stimulate human health and welfare, and to enrich understanding of the ecological systems and 

natural resources that are important to Washington State. Information provided during the SEPA 

review process helps decision makers understand how a proposal would affect the environment 

and identify measures to reduce likely effects, or deny a proposal when adverse effects are 

identified. This EIS may be adopted by Okanogan County as the lead state agency to fulfill the 

SEPA requirement. 

4.2 Northwest Power Act 

Provisions of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 

(6 USC 839 et seq.) are intended to protect, mitigate, and enhance fish and wildlife of the 

Columbia River and its tributaries. This project is proposed in part to meet BPA’s need to return 

naturally spawning, locally adapted populations of coho salmon to the Wenatchee and Methow 

basins as a way to help fulfill its obligations under the Act (16 U.S.C. § 839 et seq., Section 

4(h)(10)(A)). 

In April 1996, the project was one of the 15 high-priority supplementation projects 

recommended for funding by the Northwest Power Planning Council (NPPC) [now Northwest 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

4-2 Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination 

Power and Conservation Council] and was incorporated into the Fish and Wildlife Program 

(program measures 7.1H, 7.4A, 7.4F, and 7.4O). 

In the FY 1998 Annual Implementation Work Plan, the Council recommended funding for 

completion of the environmental review of the first phase (feasibility studies). Because this 

phase of the project was initiated prior to the Council’s Three-Step Review Process and was 

experimental in nature, no step review was necessary (M. Fritsch, NPPC, memorandum to 

Council, July 12, 2000). 

The Yakama Nation submitted a Master Plan for the proposed program in fulfillment of Step 1 of 

the Northwest Power and Conservation Council’s 3-step process to review projects proposed 

under its Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife program (see Chapter 1, Section 1.4). The 

Master Plan (YN 2010), developed with review and assistance by a number of scientists 

(including the ISRP) and fish and wildlife agencies, detailed the approach and biological 

rationale to realize the YN’s long term vision for coho in the region. The Council and its 

Independent Science Review Panel reviewed drafts of the Master Plan, and on March 9, 2010, 

the Council recommended that BPA implement the program as described in the plan. The 

program described in the Master Plan provided the basis for the Proposed Action evaluated in 

this EIS (see Chapter 2). The EIS would provide the basis for the Council’s review under Step 2 

of the process. Should the project proceed, final designs would be developed that would be 

reviewed by the Council under Step 3 of the process. 

4.3 Wildlife and Habitat 

4.3.1 Endangered Species Act 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 and its amendments (ESA, 16 USC 1531 et seq.) require 

federal agencies to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize endangered or threatened species 

or their critical habitats. The effects on species listed under ESA are discussed at length in 

Chapter 3 of this EIS: Section 3.7 (Fish) and Section 3.8 (Priority Habitat, Plants, and Wildlife). 

Based on the information in these sections, a Biological Assessment is being prepared and will 

be submitted to USFWS and NOAA Fisheries for formal consultation under Section 7 of the 

ESA. 

4.3.2 Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 (16 USC 2901 et seq.), encourages federal 

agencies to conserve and promote conservation of game and non-game species and their habitats. 

This project is designed to promote the restoration of coho salmon in areas from which it was 

extirpated, and to contribute to the ecological balance of the Methow and Wenatchee basins by 

providing a source of nutrients to other species at the onset of the critical winter period. See 

Chapter 3, Section 3.7. 

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 (16 USC 661 et seq.) also requires federal 

agencies to consult with the USFWS and state fish and wildlife agencies when ―waters of any 

stream or other body of water are proposed or authorized, permitted or licensed to be impounded, 

diverted...or otherwise controlled or modified‖ by permit or license. The USFWS and WDFW 

will be sent copies of this EIS, and their comments will be addressed in the final EIS. 

The proposed action would divert waters of rivers and streams in the Wenatchee and Methow 

basins to rear and acclimate coho salmon. This use would not consume the water, but would use 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4 - Consultation and Coordination 4-3 

it briefly and then discharge it back into the river. This use would enhance the potential to 

restore naturally reproducing populations of coho, increasing their abundance, productivity, 

distribution, and diversity. 

4.3.3 Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703-711) prohibits the taking, killing, or possession of 

migratory birds except as allowed by the Secretary of the Interior. The list of migratory birds is 

found in 50 CFR 10, and permit regulations are found in 50 CFR 21. This project would not 

take, kill, or possess migratory birds. See Chapter 3, Section 3.8.

4.3.4 Bald Eagle Protection Act 

The federal Bald Eagle Protection Act (16 CFR 668-668c) prohibits the taking, possession, 

purchase, sale, barter, transport, export, or import of any bald or golden eagle or any part, nest, or 

egg of a bald or golden eagle, except for certain scientific, exhibition, and religious purposes. 

Eagle permit regulations are found in 50 CFR 22. 

Washington state wildlife law is contained in Title 77, Revised Code of Washington (RCW). 

This title contains several sections generally applicable to the EIS process. Bald eagles and 

protection of their habitat are addressed in RCW 77.12.650 and 77.12.655. Taking protected 

wildlife and destroying eggs, including removal of raptor nest trees, are prohibited under RCW 

77.16.120. 

Bald eagles would not be taken or otherwise harmed by this project. The most likely effect 

would be beneficial, by increasing a source of food—coho salmon. See Chapter 3, Section 3.8. 

4.3.5 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 

NOAA Fisheries is responsible for ensuring compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act of 1976. Public Law 104-297, the Sustainable Fisheries Act 

of 1996, amended the Magnuson-Stevens Act to establish new requirements for evaluating and 

consulting on adverse effects to essential fish habitat (EFH). 

The facilities associated with the Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program are located within 

EFH Habitat for Pacific salmonids (coho and Chinook salmon). As discussed in Section 3.7, 

changes to Chinook salmon habitat would be unlikely, and juvenile Chinook would be excluded 

from at most approximately 3 acres of habitat they might currently use for a period of 6 weeks to 

6 months each year. The Biological Assessment would detail conservation measures intended to 

avoid and minimize impacts to essential fish habitat of federally managed fish species. 

4.4 Heritage Conservation and Cultural Resources Protection 

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (16 USC 470) requires federal 

agencies to take into account the potential effects of their undertakings on properties that are 

listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Consultation 

must occur with the State Historic Preservation Office, Indian tribes that attach religious and 

cultural significance to historic properties that may be affected by an undertaking, and additional 

consulting parties regarding the inventory and evaluation of properties potentially eligible for 

National Register nomination; and to determine whether the project would adversely affect them. 

Cultural resource surveys will be conducted at each proposed project site where ground 

disturbance may occur (Chapter 3, Section 3.13). Findings would be consulted upon with the 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

4-4 Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination 

Washington State Historic Preservation Office, the Yakama Nation, and the Confederated Tribes 

of the Colville Indian Reservation. If surveys identify the potential for adverse effects, 

additional consultation to determine how to avoid or mitigate the effects would take place if the 

Proposed Action is implemented. 

Facilities proposed on federal or Tribal land would follow the requirements of the 

Archaeological Resource Protection Act (16 USC 470 et seq.). Currently, the Proposed Action 

includes no alterations to sites on federal properties. Only one site is on Tribal land; it is 

currently being used by the Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program, and no new construction 

is proposed under the Proposed Action. 

The Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 469 et seq.) directs federal agencies 

to notify the Secretary of the Interior if they find that a federal action might cause the destruction 

of significant scientific, prehistoric or archaeological data. Chapter 3, Section 3.13.2, discusses 

the likelihood of encountering cultural materials at the proposed construction sites. 

Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, states that the U. S. 

government will continue to work with Indian Tribes on a government-to-government basis to 

address issues concerning tribal self-government, trust resources, and Indian tribal treaty and 

other rights. The Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program (sponsored by the Yakama Nation) 

would contribute to the spirit of intergovernmental cooperation, and if implemented, has the 

potential to enhance the culturally significant tribal ceremonial and subsistence fishery for coho 

salmon in the Wenatchee and Methow rivers and in the Columbia River below Wells Dam. 

4.5 Floodplain/Wetlands Assessment 

Executive Orders 11988, Floodplain Management and Executive Order 11990, Protection of 

Wetlands, require the protection of these areas. If either would be affected or altered by project 

facilities, the effects must be disclosed. Sections 3.9 and 3.10 of this EIS describe the effects of 

the proposed program on wetlands and FEMA-mapped floodplains. Section 4.5 is the 

Floodplain and Wetland Assessment required under the Executive Orders. 

4.5.1 Project Description and Impacts 

Floodplains 

Most, if not all, of the 26 proposed sites are in or near a floodplain. Appendix 8 provides details 

of the FEMA flood insurance rate maps (FIRMs) that apply to each site. However, not all sites 

require construction that would potentially affect the floodplains. Table 4-1 identifies all the 

proposed acclimation and hatchery sites, both primary and backup, and the kind of construction 

activity that would take place in floodplains. The total amount of ground disturbed during 

construction of all the primary sites is proposed to be less than 5 acres and would include four 

new water intake structures, seven new wells, and 650 feet of unpaved road. New ponds are 

proposed for the Dryden hatchery, three primary acclimation sites, and three backup sites. The 

construction details for each site are described in Appendices 1, 2, and 3. The new ponds would 

remove material from floodplains, slightly increasing floodplain storage capacity and potentially 

decreasing flood elevations. 

Proposed clearing and grading during construction is limited to small areas relative to total 

floodplain areas. At each site, impacts to flooding would be avoided or compensatory floodplain 

storage would be created to offset facilities located above ground in the floodplain. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4 - Consultation and Coordination 4-5 

Table 4-1. Acclimation and hatchery sites with development activities in floodplains 

Wenatchee River Basin, in Chelan County, Washington

Primary Site Activities in Floodplain

Floodplain 

Development 

Permit Required

Butcher Excavation of an open channel Yes

Tall Timber Excavation of Napeequa River bank intake and pipeline corridor Yes

Chikamin Excavation of a pond, Chikamin Creek bank intake, open channel, and 

pipeline corridor Yes

Minnow Excavation of bed and banks of Minnow Creek Yes

Scheibler Excavation of bed and bank of Chumstick Creek Yes

Coulter None No

Rohlfing None No

White River Springs None No

Dirty Face None No

Two Rivers None No

Clear None No

Beaver None No

Brender None No

Leavenworth NFH None No

Dryden Hatchery Possible development of water quality treatment wetlands Maybe

Backup Site Activities in Floodplain

Floodplain 

Development 

Permit Required

Allen None No

Coulter/Roaring None No

McComas None No

Squadroni Excavation of pond and open channels Yes

George Hatchery Excavation and construction of a fish hatchery and associated facilities Yes

Methow River Basin, in Okanogan County, Washington

Primary Site Activities in Floodplain

Floodplain 

Development 

Permit Required

MSWA Eightmile None No

Mason None No

Twisp Weir Excavation of pond and pipeline corridor, new water intake Yes

Gold None No

Goat Wall None No

Heath None No

Parmley None No

Pete Creek Pond None No

Lower Twisp None No

Hancock None No

Winthrop NFH None No

Backup Site Activities in Floodplain

Floodplain 

Development 

Permit Required

MSRF Chewuch Excavation of a pond and open channels Yes

Chewuch AF Excavation of the Chewuch River bank, pond and pipeline corridors Yes

Utley Excavation of outlet channel to the Twisp River Yes

Newby Excavation of pond and pipeline corridors Yes

Poorman None No

Biddle None No

Balky Hill None No
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

4-6 Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination 

Implementation of the Proposed Action would probably have little or no effect on flood 

elevations. Where there is an effect, it is likely to be beneficial, as the acclimation ponds would

provide some small amount of additional floodplain storage (difference between the existing land 

surface elevation and the working water surface elevation). The spoil materials from 

construction activities such as excavation of ponds and ditches, grading of roads to improve 

winter access, or installation of buried water supply pipes would be disposed of outside the 100-

year floodplain in accordance with the local grading and floodplain management ordinances. 

Consequently, there are not likely to be changes in grades that could direct or divert flood flows 

affecting properties either upstream or downstream of the individual project sites. 

New wells, although providing additional flow through the acclimation sites, would withdraw 

water from shallow aquifers that are typically hydraulically connected to the adjacent creek or 

river. Therefore, there is no real gain or loss of water (see Section 3.6). Additionally, the well 

discharge would be very minor compared to flood flows (Section 3.6), so there would be no 

impact on floodplains from construction or operation of wells. Site-specific discussions can be 

found in Chapter 3, Section 3.10.3. 

There would be little to no effect on lives or property from the proposed actions that are located 

in floodplains. As discussed above, the overall effects on flooding may be slightly beneficial due 

to the excavation of ponds and ditches. 

Wetlands 

Wetlands were identified primarily from existing information and some site visits for a number 

of project acclimation sites and for the backup hatchery site. The site-specific maps in Appendix 

4 show the types of wetlands identified at each project site. However, not all sites requiring 

construction would affect wetlands, and at the Dryden site, the project would create new 

wetlands where none now exist. Table 4-2 summarizes the types of wetlands identified at 

primary and backup sites in the two basins where construction is proposed, and the amount of 

disturbance, removal, or newly created wetland currently estimated. Wetland delineations would

be done in spring 2011 to determine more precisely the amount of wetland affected. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4 - Consultation and Coordination 4-7 

Table 4-2. Estimated wetlands effects at project sites: temporary, permanent, and new created 

Site Name

Wetlands Observed During 

Site Visits

Wetlands Identified With 

Existing Information

Potential Wetland 

Impacts

Wenatchee Primary

Dryden None observed PSS wetland habitat mapped 

along riparian habitat a few 

hundred feet from the site

- No wetland impacts 

identified in proposed 

construction area.

- New wetland potentially 

created: 52,272 sq ft

Minnow None observed PFO, PSS, and PEM wetland 

habitat mapped along 

riparian habitat a few 

hundred feet from the site

No wetland impacts 

identified in proposed 

construction area.

Scheibler PFO, PSS, and PEM wetland 

habitat associated with riparian 

habitat

PSS and PEM wetland 

habitat mapped along 

riparian habitat at the site

Permanent: 3,049 sq ft. 

Tall Timber PSS and PEM wetland habitat 

associated with side channels

PSS and PEM wetland 

habitat mapped along 

riparian habitat more than 

1,000 feet from site

Potential impact from 

filling of side channel with 

water seasonally during 

acclimation

Wenatchee Backup

George (backup

hatchery site)

Wetlands observed associated 

with the side channel (highquality PSS and PAB wetland) 

and the Wenatchee River (PFO 

and PSS wetlands).

NWI PFO, PSS, and PAB 

identified associated with the 

Wenatchee River and the 

side-channel at the site.

- Temporary: 11,500 sq ft 

(0.26 acres)

- Permanent: 1,075 sq ft 

(0.03 acres)

Methow Primary

Twisp Weir None observed NWI PFO and PEM wetland 

habitat identified along the 

Twisp River at the site.

- Temporary: 1,350 sq ft 

(0.03 acres)

- Permanent: 130 sq ft 

(0.003 acres)

Methow Backup

MSRF Chewuch PFO, PSS, and PEM wetland 

habitat associated with riparian 

habitat

PFO, PSS, and PEM wetland 

habitat mapped along 

riparian habitat at the site

New open channels could 

encroach into PFO, PSS, 

and PEM wetland habitat 

near the Chewuch River; 

amount to be determined.

Utley - Potential patches of riverine 

wetlands along the Twisp River 

east and northeast of existing

pond.

- A large PSS NWI wetland north 

of the pond may be connected to 

the ditch that drains the pond.

- PSS NWI wetland approx.

250 ft north of the existing 

pond.

- PFO NWI wetland approx.

400 ft southwest of the pond 

but outside of construction 

areas.

Temporary: 150 sq ft 

(0.003 acres)

NWI – National Wetlands Inventory 

PAB – Palustrine aquatic bed (wetland) 

PEM – Palustrine emergent (wetland) 

PFO – Palustrine forested (wetland) 

PSS – Palustrine scrub-shrub (wetland) 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

4-8 Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination 

Table 4-3 summarizes the amount of wetland area affected in both basins. 

Table 4-3. Total estimated square feet of temporary and permanent wetland impacts 

Temporary Impacts Permanent Impacts

Construction of 

New Wetland 

Habitat

Wenatchee sites

 Primary acclimation

 Scheibler 3,049

 Tall Timber undetermined undetermined

 Primary hatchery

 Dryden 52,272

 Backup hatchery

 George 45,000 1,075

Methow sites

 Primary acclimation

 Twisp Weir 1,350 130

 Backup acclimation

 Utley 150

 MSRF Chewuch undetermined undetermined

Total wetland impacts primary sites 1,350 3,179 52,272

Total wetland impacts backup sites 45,150 1,075

4.5.2 Alternatives and Mitigation 

Proposals for construction in floodplains have been limited by using existing natural and humanmade ponds for acclimation as much as possible; of the 25 primary sites proposed in both basins 

(including the proposed hatchery site), only 7 require construction in floodplains. Water supply 

intakes and hatchery/acclimation pond outlets are water dependent uses, and it is not feasible to 

locate these facilities outside of the floodplain and riparian areas. It is essential that the ponds be 

located to use the river waters for imprinting and acclimation of juvenile salmon and to allow 

smolts to eventually volitionally release into the rivers for out-migration. 

In the Wenatchee basin, 6 of the 15 proposed primary sites, including the proposed Dryden 

Hatchery, require some work in floodplains. Up to 3 sites might require excavation of ponds in 

floodplains, and the Dryden work would be to create a water treatment wetland. The other two 

sites would be water discharge channels or intakes and pipelines only. In the Methow basin, 

only one of eleven primary sites requires work in floodplains—Twisp Weir would construct a 

new pond and pipeline corridor in a floodplain. 

The project includes alternative or backup sites for acclimation and the hatchery, in the event that 

one or more primary sites are infeasible. In the Methow, 4 of the 7 backup sites require 

construction in floodplains. In the Wenatchee, only one of the four backup acclimation sites 

requires construction in floodplains. At the George backup hatchery site, permanent hatchery 

facilities would be near the edge of the floodplain but outside the 100-year floodplain boundary. 

As this is a backup site, detailed engineering studies have not been completed. Because the 

project is near the edge of the floodplain, at an elevation similar to the BFE, it is not expected 

that the project would measurably obstruct flood flows or reduce floodplain storage. 

Development of the site would have not have a substantial adverse effect on flooding. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4 - Consultation and Coordination 4-9 

Measures that would be implemented to minimize potential impacts to flooding include: 

 Compensatory storage is incorporated in the project design where aboveground facilities 

are located within the floodplain. 

 Spoil materials would be removed and disposed of in uplands or at offsite locations 

outside of the floodplain. 

 Infrastructure buried below grade would not be placed in elevated road prisms, 

preventing diversion or rerouting of floodwaters. 

Wetlands 

Where new construction is proposed, facilities would be sited to avoid wetlands, if possible. 

Specific locations would be defined once wetlands are delineated. At this point, only 3 of the 

proposed 24 primary acclimation sites would require construction in wetlands; the proposed 

hatchery site at Dryden would not affect wetlands, but its water treatment proposal could create 

over 52,000 square feet of new wetland. While only two of the backup sites require construction 

in wetlands, the backup hatchery site would require significant work in wetlands. Wetland 

delineations to be conducted before the Final EIS is prepared would help ensure facilities are 

sited to avoid wetlands as much as possible. 

Measures that would be implemented to avoid, minimize, and mitigate potential impacts to 

wetlands and wetland buffers include: 

 No development features such as buildings or paved surfaces are proposed in wetlands.

 Clearing and grading would be designed to avoid wetland areas to the greatest extent 

possible. 

 Disturbed areas would be re-vegetated with native vegetation. 

 Staging areas for construction would be located outside wetland buffers and re-vegetated 

with native vegetation as necessary. 

 Construction permits issued to the project would include detailed measures for protecting 

wetland habitats. The conditions included in the permits would be met during 

construction. 

4.6 State, Area-wide, and Local Plans and Permits 

4.6.1 Wenatchee and Methow Subbasin Plans 

The proposed Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program is consistent with and supports the 

vision and goals of both the Wenatchee and Methow subbasin plans. The vision for the 

Wenatchee subbasin includes restoring extirpated fish and wildlife and natural habitats that 

perpetuate native wildlife and fish populations into the foreseeable future. The vision for the 

Methow subbasin is to support self-sustaining, harvestable, and diverse populations of fish and 

wildlife. 

Restoring extirpated fish and wildlife is a specific goal and priority to advance the vision of the 

Wenatchee Subbasin Plan, and is also a specific goal of the Methow Subbasin Plan: ―The goal 

for coho salmon includes re-establishment of run sizes that provide for species recovery, 

mitigation of hydro-system losses, and harvestable surpluses.‖ (NPCC 2004b) 

In both the Wenatchee and Methow subbasin plans, coho salmon are listed as a focal species. 

Many of the prioritized habitat restoration actions in the subbasin plans are aimed at supporting 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

4-10 Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination 

continued restoration of coho populations. Coho salmon prefer and occupy different habitat 

types than the other focal species, selecting slower velocities and greater depths. Habitat 

complexity and off-channel habitats such as backwater pools, beaver ponds, and side channels 

are important for juvenile rearing, making coho salmon a good biological indicator for habitat 

recovery prioritized in the subbasin plans. 

The following excerpts from the two subbasin plans are a sample of how coho have been 

incorporated into the plans. Emphasis within the quotations was added to highlight issues. 

Methow Subbasin Plan excerpts: 

Page xxi, Section 1 Fisheries Management: This section provides the Methow Subbasin Plan 

goals for focal species. ―The goal for coho salmon includes re-establishment of run sizes 

that provide for species recovery, mitigation of hydro-system losses, and harvestable 

surpluses.” 

Page 33, Section 3.3.1 Fish Focal Species: Population Characterization and Status: ―A 

focal species has special ecological, cultural, or legal status and represents a management 

priority in the Methow subbasins and, by extension, in the Columbia Cascade Eco-province. 

Focal species are used to evaluate the health of the ecosystem and effectiveness of 

management actions.‖ The inclusion of coho salmon as a ―focal species‖ in the Methow 

Subbasin Plan indicates that continued coho restoration is consistent with the Plan, and that 

coho can be used as an indicator species for select habitat types. 

Page 79 Section 3.4.6 Fish Focal Species, Rationale for Selection – Coho: ―Historically the 

Methow River produced more coho than Chinook or steelhead (Craig and Suomela 1941). 

Mullan (1984) estimated that 23,000-31,000 coho annually returned to the Methow River. 

Upstream of the Yakima River, the Methow River and Spokane River historically produced 

the most coho, with lesser runs into the Wenatchee and Entiat (Mullan 1984)...‖

―Coho salmon prefer and occupy different habitat types, selecting slower velocities and 

greater depths than other focal species: Habitat complexity and off-channel habitats such as 

backwater pools, beaver ponds, and side channels are important for juvenile rearing making 

coho good biological indicators of these areas.‖

Page 79 Section 3.4.6 Fish Focal Species, Coho – Representative Habitat: ―Currently, coho 

salmon returning to the Methow Basin are spawning in the mainstem Methow River and 

small tributaries such as Gold Creek. As the recovery program continues, reintroduction 

of coho to tributaries within the Methow Basin will aid in species dispersal.” This 

statement indicates that continued coho reintroduction is expected in the Methow Subbasin 

Plan to ensure adequate species dispersal within the Methow subbasin. 

Page 81 Section 3.4.6 Fish Focal Species, Coho – Population Management Regimes and 

Activities: ―The ideal result would be to restore coho populations in these basins 

[Methow and Wenatchee] to their historic levels. Because of varying degrees of habitat 

degradation in each of these basins, historical numbers are unlikely ever to be achieved 

but remain a goal towards which to strive.”

Pages 301-353 Section 5.5 Assessment Unit Summaries: In section 5.5, coho salmon are 

specifically listed as a focal species for the following Assessment Units: Lower Methow, 

Middle Methow, Upper-Middle Methow, Upper Methow/Early Winters/Lost River, Black 

Canyon/Squaw Creek, Gold/Libby Creeks, Beaver/Bear Creeks, Lower Twisp River, Upper 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4 - Consultation and Coordination 4-11

Twisp River, Upper Chewuch River, Lower Chewuch River, Goat/Little Boulder Creeks. 

The proposed geographic distribution of coho under the Proposed Action is consistent with 

the identification of coho as a focal species for specific Assessment Units in the Subbasin 

Plan. 

Wenatchee Subbasin Plan excerpts: 

Page xxi, Section 2.5.2 Key Findings: Aquatic: ―Limiting factors are defined as a habitat 

element that limits the biological productivity and/or life history diversity of a focal species. 

The focal species selected for this assessment include spring chinook salmon, late-run 

chinook salmon, sockeye salmon, coho salmon, steelhead trout, bull trout, westslope 

cutthroat trout, and pacific lamprey.‖ As defined in the plan, ―focal species will be used to 

evaluate the health of the ecosystem and the effectiveness of management actions.‖ 

Page 27, Section 3.3.3 Guiding Principle 10: ―Restoration of individual populations may 

not be possible without restoration of other fish and wildlife populations with which 

they co-evolved.” This statement from the 10th guiding principle directly applies to the 

reintroduction of coho salmon (extirpated species) which co-evolved with all the other focal 

species in the basin. The plan acknowledges that restoration of ESA species may not be 

possible unless the ecosystem and co-evolved fish assemblage is restored. 

Page 29, Section 4.1 Focal Species – Aquatic/Fish: ―Fish focal species were defined that 

a) have special cultural significance, b) fulfill a critical ecological function, c) serve as an 

indicator of environmental health, d) are locally significant or rare as determined by 

applicable state or federal resource management agencies and/or are federally listed. Eight 

anadromous and resident fish species were chosen as focal species. Each of these species is 

considered to be culturally important, three of the species are listed under ESA and each 

species uniquely represent different and important habitat characteristics.‖ Coho salmon are 

a focal species in the Wenatchee Subbasin Plan. 

Page 29 Section 4.1 Focal Species – Table 12: In Table 12, coho are shown as a focal 

species with a representative habitat of ―lower mid-elevation mainstem and tributaries, side 

channel and backwater environments.‖ Lower and mid-elevation mainstem includes the 

Wenatchee River from the mouth to the Lake. Tributaries include Nason Creek, Chiwawa 

River, White River, and Little Wenatchee. 

Page 70 - Figure 11: The figure on page 70 shows the current distribution of coho in the 

Wenatchee subbasin. At the bottom of the figure the following note is found – ―Note: Coho 

presence and spawning information is dynamic and is expected to change significantly 

each year as reintroduction efforts continue.” The Wenatchee Subbasin Plan expects 

coho reintroduction to continue. 

Page 305 Section 7.8.16 Summary of Near-term Opportunities by Focal Species – Coho 

Salmon: ―Continued development of a locally adapted broodstock is essential to ensure 

future populations of naturally spawning coho salmon in the Wenatchee River.” 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

4-12 Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination 

4.6.2 County Comprehensive Plans 

Both counties have comprehensive plans in place. Sites in the Wenatchee basin are for the most 

part in areas designated as Rural in the Chelan County Comprehensive Plan, although a few 

might not be. In these areas, the rural character is to be preserved. Rural character is defined as 

follows:

1. In which open space, the natural landscape, and vegetation predominate over the built 

environment; 

2. That foster traditional rural lifestyles, rural-based economies, and opportunities to both 

live and work in rural areas; 

3. That provide visual landscapes that are traditionally found in rural areas and 

communities; 

4. That reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density 

development; 

5. That generally do not require the extension of urban governmental services; and 

6. That are consistent with the protection of natural surface water flows and ground water

and surface water recharge and discharge areas. 

Proposed project sites appear to be consistent with this definition, as well as with goals and 

policies in the plan. The EIS will be submitted to Chelan County for its review. 

The Okanogan County Comprehensive Plan is currently being amended, with adoption of 

amendments by the Okanogan County Planning Commission pending. Most (if not all) of the 

proposed project sites are in lands designated Rural. While fish acclimation sites are not a 

specifically permitted activity in either High or Low Density Rural Lands, they are not a 

prohibited use. The project would not affect the county’s transportation network by overburdening it with traffic or by requiring new infrastructure. The project is consistent with plan 

policies on private property rights and water rights. 

Most of the project sites in the Methow basin are in the Upper Methow Valley subarea of the 

Okanogan County Comprehensive Plan. The subarea developed its own subset of visions and 

policies, which are incorporated as Appendix B in the Comprehensive Plan (Upper Methow 

Valley Comprehensive Plan, an update of the Community Master Plan, Methow Valley Planning 

Area Sub Unit A. Adopted on March 6, 2000, by the Okanogan County Board of 

Commissioners). 

This EIS will be submitted to Okanogan County for review, consistent with the comprehensive 

plan’s Policy #4, which recognizes that federal agencies must coordinate their proposed actions 

with local governments, and in the county’s role as the lead agency for review under SEPA. 

4.6.3 Permitting Issues 

Various federal, state, tribal, and local permits and approvals would be required to implement the 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program.

Action on property owned by the Yakama Nation would require approval by the tribal 

government. Currently, only one backup site, Coulter/Roaring, is on Yakama Nation property 

(see Chapter 3, Section 3.3.1.2.); it would require no construction. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4 - Consultation and Coordination 4-13

The hatchery and acclimation ponds are water-dependent uses, so water rights and in-water work 

permits are required. Elements would be incorporated into project design to assure consistency 

with the appropriate authorizations once they are known. 

In-stream construction requires a Hydraulic Project Approval from Washington State, which 

would specify when in-water work can occur and what measures would be needed to protect 

channels, riparian zones and water quality. In addition, a Shoreline Substantial Development 

Permit may be required from Okanogan County and Chelan County (under authority delegated 

by WDOE) for working within 200 feet of a waterway. These permits would stipulate conditions 

for near-water construction activities. Both counties may also require an approval to allow 

construction within a designated floodplain to assure that appropriate design measures are 

included. On state-owned aquatic lands, Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) 

has review and approval authority for any new structures. 

4.7 Clean Water Act 

The Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) is the principal federal law governing 

water pollution control. It regulates discharges into waters of the United States. Two of the 

primary instruments for implementing this act are the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) and the state water quality certification program, both of which are delegated 

by the federal government to WDOE to administer. 

The NPDES would be required to operate hatchery facilities while the water quality certification 

program would define specific construction-related mitigation measures that contractors must 

follow. Applications would be made to WDOE for both permits when final facility design is 

developed, including firm construction schedules and quantities and quality of hatchery 

discharges. Effects of proposed facilities on surface water quality are discussed in Chapter 3, 

Section 3.5; and on groundwater quality in Chapter 3, Section 3.6. In addition, a Section 404 

permit would be sought from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for work in wetlands. 

The Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) is charged both with administering state water 

rights laws and the federal Clean Water Act. Chapters 90.54 and 90.22 RCW require WDOE to 

maintain in-stream flows sufficient to protect and preserve fish and wildlife habitat, scenic and 

aesthetic values, navigation and other environmental values (WDFW and WDOE 2004). The 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) recommends in-stream flows to be 

conditions of water rights or Clean Water Act Section 401 certification (issued by WDOE). 

When a major water project is planned, WDFW and WDEC request that the project proponent 

conduct an in-stream flow study to provide adequate information on which to base an in-stream 

flow recommendation or requirement. WDFW defines a major water project as a project that: 

a) diverts at least 1.0 cubic feet per second (cfs), and 

b) changes flow by at least 10% of the monthly 90% exceedence flow (the flow that is equaled 

or exceeded 90 percent of the time) at any point along the stream channel. 

The proposed surface water withdrawals for this project are greater than 1.0 cfs, but less than 

10% of the monthly 90% exceedance flows, and are therefore not considered major water 

projects. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

4-14 Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination 

4.8 Farmland Protection Policy Act 

The Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.) directs federal agencies to identify 

and quantify adverse effects of federal programs on farmlands. The purpose of the act is to 

minimize the number of programs that unnecessarily contribute to the conversion of agricultural 

land to non-agricultural purposes. 

All sites proposed for construction were evaluated for the presence of designated Farmland; 

results are listed in Table 4-4. The location and ratings of Prime Farmlands were obtained from 

the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey website application 

(NRCS 2011). Farmlands of statewide or unique importance were obtained from the 

Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE) farm soil maps for Chelan and Okanogan 

counties (WSDOE 2011). Farmland status was identified for a total of two primary sites and two 

backup sites in the Wenatchee basin (maximum of up to 4.2 acres), and two primary sites and 

two backup sites in the Methow basin (maximum of up to 0.4 acres). 

Table 4-4. Construction sites (primary and backup) designated as farmland a 

Basin

Site Type –

Primary or 

Backup

Site Name

Soil 

Classification 

(NRCS)

Farmland Designation 

(NRCS, WSDOE)

Affected area 

(acres)

WEN Hatchery – 

Primary Dryden Beverly gravelly fine sandy loam Prime Farmland if irrigated Up to 4

WEN Hatchery – 

Backup George Alluvial land Prime Farmland if irrigated Up to 2.5

WEN Acclimate –

Primary Scheibler Leavenworth fine sandy loam Prime Farmland if irrigated

Negligible 

(expand existing

pond)

WEN Acclimate –

Backup Squadroni Aeric Fluvaquents

Not Prime Farmland; 

Farmland of statewide/unique 

importance (WSDOE)

0.2

MET Acclimate –

Primary

MSWA 

Eightmile

Boesel fine sandy 

loam Prime Farmland Negligible (well only)

MET Acclimate – 

Primary Twisp Weir Boesel fine sandy loam

Prime Farmland if irrigated; 

Farmland of statewide/unique 

importance (WSDOE)

0.2

MET Acclimate – 

Backup Newby Boesel fine sandy loam Prime Farmland if irrigated 0.2

MET Acclimate – 

Backup Utley Boesel fine sandy loam

Prime Farmland if irrigated; 

Farmland of statewide/unique 

importance (WSDOE)

Negligible 

(expand existing

pond)

a Gray rows are backup sites that would be constructed only if a primary site is infeasible. 

Only one site where construction is proposed is designated as Prime Farmland. The MSWA 

Eightmile primary acclimation site on the Chewuch River in the Methow basin would require the 

installation of one new well and a water delivery system. The site is managed for wildlife 

conservation and public recreation, and the proposed well would be located in a privately-owned 

field just east of the existing side channel. The installation of the well and water delivery system 

would impact a very small area and would not convert any land to non-agricultural purposes; 

therefore, no Prime Farmland would be adversely affected. 

The primary and backup hatchery sites (Dryden and George, respectively) are both designated as 

Prime Farmland if irrigated; however, neither site has been irrigated, nor have they been 

developed for agricultural purposes. The Dryden site has been used in the past by the WSDOT 

as a gravel pit and storage site, and is currently used for access to Dryden Dam and for 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4 - Consultation and Coordination 4-15

recreational access to the Wenatchee River. The George site has been logged in the past and is 

currently undeveloped. Therefore, since neither site has been irrigated or developed for 

agriculture, construction of a new hatchery facility at either location would not convert 

agricultural land to non-agricultural purposes, and no Prime Farmland would be adversely 

impacted. 

The remaining sites with some level of designated farmland status are not irrigated and are not 

developed for agriculture in the areas that would be impacted by construction. Further, these 

sites would require only minimal construction that would impact an insignificant amount of land. 

Therefore, it is reasonably certain that program activities would not convert land from 

agricultural to non-agricultural purposes and thus would not adversely affect any protected 

farmlands. 

4.9 Noise Control Act 

The Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C.490 et seq.) promotes an environment free from noise 

that jeopardizes human health and welfare. Federal and state regulations establish guidelines that 

implement the intent of the act. No local noise standards exist for areas that would be affected 

by the proposed action, although county comprehensive plans have policies related to noise. No 

noise in excess of state or federal standards is expected from this project (Section 3.14.1). 

Temporary construction noise during daylight hours is exempt from state and federal standards. 

4.10 Clean Air Act 

Emissions produced by construction and operation of the proposed project facilities must meet 

standards of the Clean Air Act and the amendments of 1970 (42 USC 741 et seq.). In 

Washington, the authority for ensuring compliance with this act is delegated to WDOE. The 

Proposed Action would not violate current clean air standards, as described in Section 3.14.2.

4.11 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA) and Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) 

The federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 USC 692 et seq.) regulates the 

disposal of hazardous wastes. The Toxic Substances Control Act (15 USC 2601) gives authority 

to the EPA to regulate substances that present unreasonable risks to public health and the 

environment. The federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (7 USC 136 et seq.) 

authorizes the EPA to prescribe conditions for use of pesticides. 

Construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed facilities would meet the guidelines 

for use, handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. Necessary permits would be 

obtained if regulated pesticide products are used. 

Chemicals used at the proposed new hatchery may include chlorine, formalin, iodaphor, and 

sodium thiosulphate. Staff would be trained in their proper use, transport, handling and storage 

to minimize dangers of over-exposure or accidental release to the environment. Appropriate 

safety equipment would be provided, and chemicals would be stored in areas designed to contain 

the chemical in the event of a spill according to the Washington Industrial Safety and Health 

Administration regulations, the Uniform Fire Code, and other applicable regulations. Any used 

absorbent materials containing controlled chemicals would be disposed consistent with the 

Material Safety Data Sheet and applicable federal, state, and local regulations. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

4-16 Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination 

The types and amounts of chemicals used at a hatchery or rearing facility depend upon sitespecific conditions, fish culture practices, species of fish, and types of parasites or disease 

organisms being treated. The types and amounts of chemicals that would be used at the 

proposed hatchery facility and acclimation ponds is not currently known. However, all chemical 

handling, application, and disposal would adhere to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

state, and other federal regulations to protect human and environmental health. 

4.12 Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898 directs federal agencies to consider the effects of their programs, policies 

and activities on minority and low-income populations. Federal agencies are required to assess 

environmental justice concerns in the NEPA analysis. The potential for the Mid-Columbia Coho 

Restoration Program to affect low-income communities and minority populations is discussed 

below. 

 Population: no change to minority or low income populations is expected. 

 Income/employment: some additional jobs and income may be available to local 

minorities and low income families during project construction and operations, but no 

substantial long-term change to employment or income is expected. Most full or parttime positions for project operations likely would be filled by Yakama Nation staff 

already involved with the program. 

 Housing: no changes to housing availability, costs, or quality in the local communities 

would occur as a result of Mid-Columbia Coho project. 

 Local services: during construction (less than one year), an increase in demand for local 

services is likely, but demand would be temporary and would not exceed current 

capacity. 

 Power rates: BPA wholesale power rates would not change due to the proposed action, 

and it is expected that local PUD rates would similarly be unaffected. 

 Ceremonial and subsistence and recreational fisheries: the value (non-monetary) of an 

improved tribal ceremonial and subsistence fishery could increase the quality of life of 

tribal members in general. An improved recreational fishery for the general public could 

also benefit other local minorities and low income families. 

The Yakama Nation has enacted a Tribal Employment Rights Ordinance (TERO) requiring all 

employers subject to the Tribe’s jurisdiction to give preference in employment, training, and 

subcontracting to Indians. Yakama TERO Contacts provide contact lists for Indian-owned 

construction and construction-related companies, facilitating the employment of these companies 

for project work. Jobs created by construction of the project could benefit individual Native 

Americans, but the effect would be short-term and minor. 

4.13 Energy Conservation at Federal Facilities 

Executive Order 13514 states that federal agencies should ―[identify] and [analyze] impacts from 

energy usage and alternative energy sources in all Environmental Impact Statements and 

Environmental Assessments for proposals for new or expanded Federal facilities under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).” BPA is 

proposing to fund the construction, operation, and maintenance of one new small hatchery and a 

number of acclimation sites. The final designs have not been completed for these facilities; 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 4 - Consultation and Coordination 4-17

however we have made the following general assessment of energy usage and the potential for 

using alternative energy sources. 

Ground and surface water pumps would use the majority of the energy required for this project. 

Energy requirements have been minimized in the conceptual design of the project through the 

use of gravity flow water supplies at as many of the sites as possible. Where pumps would be 

needed, the primary power source would be nearby power lines, with generators to be used for 

emergency backup. Energy sources other than electrical power are not likely to be feasible due 

to the size of the requirement and the constant demand cycle. The use of propane rather than 

diesel fuel for the generators is being considered, as propane would emit fewer greenhouse gases 

that would contribute to climate change. Energy efficiency would also be considered in the 

sizing of the pumps and pipelines. BPA would encourage the Yakama Nation to use and 

promote energy-efficient designs and operations in the new hatchery buildings; to use incentives 

for energy conservation from local Public Utility Districts wherever feasible; and where 

practical, to supply their power needs from existing renewable sources or install on-site 

renewable power generation such as solar panels. 

The Yakama Nation would own and operate the facilities, so the Tribe would ultimately make 

final decisions for the facility designs and operations. However, BPA would use contractual 

mechanisms through the funding agreement to encourage design and operation practices in the 

manner described in EO 13514. 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 5 - References 5-1 

Chapter 5. References

Ames, K.M., D.E. Dumond, J.R. Galm, and R. Minor. 1998. Prehistory of the Southern Plateau. 

In Plateau, edited by Deward E. Walker, Jr., pp. 103-119. Handbook of North American 

Indians, vol. 12, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 

Anchor QEA, LLC. 2009. Nason Creek Draft Groundwater Report, prepared for Grant County 

Public Utility District No. 2. 

Andonaegui, C. 2000. Salmon, Steelhead and Bull Trout habitat limiting factors, Water 

Resource Inventory Area 48. Washington State Conservation Commission, Washington 

State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 

Andonaegui, C. 2001. Salmon, Steelhead and Bull Trout habitat limiting factors, Water 

Resource Inventory Area 43 and 40. Washington State Conservation Commission, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 

Anthony, R. G., R. J. Steidl, and K. McGarigal. 1995. Recreation and bald eagles in the Pacific 

Northwest. Pages 223-241 in R. L. Knight, and K. J. Gutzwiller, editors. Wildlife and 

recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Island Press, Washington, 

D.C. & Covelo. 

Battin, J., M.W. Wiley, M.H. Ruckelshaus, R.N. Palmer, E. Korb, K.K. Bartz, and H. Imaki. 

2007. Projected impacts of climate change on salmon habitat restoration. Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences. 104(16), 6720-6725. 

BirdWeb (Seattle Audubon Society). 2008. Seattle Audubon’s Guide to the Birds of 

Washington. Available at < http://www.birdweb.org/birdweb/index.aspx> (Accessed 

December 7 and 9, 2010). 

Boyd, Robert T. 1985. The Introduction of Infectious Diseases Among the Indians of the 

Pacific Northwest, 1774-1874. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of 

Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. 

Browman, David L. and David A. Munsell. 1969. Columbia Plateau Prehistory: Cultural 

Development and Impinging Influences. American Antiquity 34(3):249-264. 

Bruce, Robin, Jeff Creighton, Stephen Emerson, and Vera Morgan. 2001. A Cultural Resources 

Overview for the Priest Rapids Hydroelectric Generation Project (FERC Project No. 2114), 

Grant, Chelan, Douglas, Kittitas, and Yakima Counties, Washington. Public Utility District 

No. 2 of Grant County, Ephrata, WA. 

Campbell, Sarah K. 1989. Post Columbian Culture History in the Northern Columbia Plateau: 

A.D. 1500-1900. Ph.D. Dissertation in Anthropology, University of Washington, Seattle. 

Published: Garland Publishing Co., New York, 1990. 

Carroll, J., S. O’Neal, and S. Golding. 2006. Wenatchee River Basin Dissolved Oxygen, pH, 

and Phosphorus Total Maximum Daily Load Study. Publication No. 06-03-018, Watershed 

Ecology Section, Environmental Assessment Program, Washington State Department of 

Ecology, Olympia, Washington 98504-7710. 

Carroll, J. and R. Anderson. 2009. Wenatchee River Watershed Dissolved Oxygen and pH 

Total Maximum Daily Load, Water Quality Improvement Report. Publication No. 08-10-
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

5-2 Chapter 5 - References 

062, Water Quality Program, Central Regional Office, Washington Department of Ecology. 

Yakima, WA. 

Chalfant, Stuart A. 1974. Ethnological Field Investigation and Analysis of Historic Material 

Relative to Coeur d'Alene Indian Aboriginal Distribution. In The Interior Salish and Eastern 

Washington Indians Volume 1. Garland Publishing, Inc., New York, NY. 

Chapman, D.W., C. Peven, T. Hillman, A. Giorgi, and F. Utter. 1994. Status of summer 

steelhead in the mid-Columbia region. Report for the Mid-Columbia PUDs. 235 pp.+ app. 

Chapman, D.W., C. Peven, A. Giorgi, T. Hillman, and F. Utter. 1995. Status of spring Chinook 

salmon in the mid-Columbia region. Report for the Mid-Columbia PUDs. 270 pp.+ app. 

Chatters, James C. 1986. A Deductive Approach. In Archaeological Predictive Modeling: The 

Yakima Firing Center (Part III), edited by W.C. Smith and J.C. Chatters. Prepared for U.S. 

Army, Fort Lewis, Washington, by Central Washington University, Central Washington 

Archaeological Survey, Geographical Information Systems Laboratory, Ellensburg, WA. 

Chatters, James C. (editor). 1989. Hanford Cultural Resources Management Plan. Prepared for 

the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DF-AC06-76RLO 1830 by Pacific Northwest 

Laboratory. Richland, WA. 

Chelan County Department of Emergency Management. 2006. Chelan County Hazard 

Inventory and Vulnerability Assessment. Wenatchee, WA. 

Chelan PUD (Chelan County Public Utility District). 2009. Unpublished data - upon request 

this data was received by e-mail from Waikele Hampton on behalf of Chelan County PUD by 

Carmen Andonaegui of Anchor QEA on Dec 9, 2009. 

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and 

Deepwater Habitats of the United States. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington D.C. 

Cramer, S.P., and N.K. Ackerman. 2009. Linking stream carrying capacity for salmonids to 

habitat features. Pages 225-254 in E.E. Knudson and J.H. Michael Jr., editors. Pacific 

salmon environmental and life history models: advancing science for sustainable salmon in 

the future. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 71, Bethesda, MD. 

Creighton, Jeff. 2001. Chapter 6: Ethnography of the Project Area. In A Cultural Resources 

Overview for the Priest Rapids Hydroelectric Generation Project, (FERC Project No. 2114), 

Grant, Chelan, Douglas, Kittitas, and Yakima Counties, Washington. by Robin Bruce, Jeff 

Creighton, Stephen Emerson, and Vera Morgan. Prepared for Public Utility District No. 2 of 

Grant County, Ephrata, WA. 

Cressman, L.S., in collaboration with D.L. Cole, W.A. Davis, T.M. Newman, and D.J. Scheens. 

1960. Cultural Sequences at the Dalles, Oregon: A Contribution to Pacific Northwest 

Prehistory. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 50(10). Philadelphia, PA. 

CRITFC (Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission). 1995. Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi Wa-Kish-Wit, 

Spirit of the Salmon, The Columbia River Anadromous Fish Restoration Plan of the Nez 

Perce, Umatilla, Warm Springs, and Yakama Tribes. 

Diamond, J. and H.J. Pribble. 1978. Review of factors affecting seaward migration and survival 

of juvenile salmon in the Columbia River and ocean. Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife. Information Report Series, Fisheries. Number 78-7. Portland, OR. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 5 - References 5-3 

Dunnigan, J. and J. Hubble. August 1998. Results From YKFP and Mid-Columbia Coho 

Monitoring and Evaluation Studies. Prepared for the Mid-Columbia Technical Work Group. 

Dunnigan, J. 1999. Feasibility and risks of coho reintroduction in the mid-Columbia: 

Monitoring and evaluation. Prepared for Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. 

EES Consulting. 2005. Lower Wenatchee River PHABSIM studies. Final Technical Report. 

Prepared for Chelan County Natural Resources Department and WRIA 45 Watershed 

Planning Unit. EES Consulting, Inc., Bellingham, WA. 

EIA (Energy Information Administration). 2009. Energy and the Environment. Greenhouse 

Gases Basics. Accessed: July 19, 2010. Available: 

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=environment_about_ghg 

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2005. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle. February, 2005. EPA420-F05-004

EPA. 2010a. Climate Change – Science: Atmosphere Changes. Accessed July 19, 2010. 

Available: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac.html 

EPA. 2010b. AIRS Database. Accessed April 7, 2010. Available: 

http://www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html. 

EPA. 2010c. The Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. 

http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/greenbk/index.html . Accessed March 31, 2011. 

Everest, F.H., R.L. Beschta, J.C. Scrivener, K.V. Koski, J.R. Sedell, and C.J. Cederholm. 1987. 

Fine sediment and salmonid production: a paradox. Pages 98-142 in Salo and Cundy (1987). 

Ficken, Robert E. and Charles P. LeWarne. 1988. Washington: A Centennial History. 

University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. 

Flimlin, G., S. Sugiura, and P. Ferraris. 2003. Examining Phosphorus in Effluents from 

Rainbow Trout (Oncorhyncus mykiss). Aquaculture, Rutgers Cooperative Extension, 

Bulletin E287. 

Foerster, R. E., and W. E. Ricker. 1953. The coho salmon of Cultus Lake and Sweltzer Creek. 

Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 10:293-319. 

Galm, J.R., G.D. Hartmann, and R.A. Matsen. 1985. Resource Protection Planning Process, 

Mid-Columbia Study Unit. Prepared for the Washington State Department of Community 

Development, Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation, Olympia. (Revised and 

supplemented by M.L. Stillson in 1987). 

GeoEngineers. 2009. Hydrogeologic Consultation, Boyce and Youngsman Properties, Chelan 

County, Washington. Prepared for Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., December 22, 2009. 

GeoEngineers. 2010. Results of Preliminary Test Pit Exploration at the Dryden Site, 

memorandum prepared for Sea Springs Company. 

Haines, F. 1938. The Northward Spread of Horses Among the Plains Indians. American 

Anthropologist 3:429-437. 

Hicks, B.J., J.D. Hall, P.A. Bisson, and J.R. Sedell. 1991. Responses of salmonids to habitat 

changes. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:483-518.
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

5-4 Chapter 5 - References 

Hillman, T. W., J. S. Griffith, and W. S. Platts. 1987. Summer and winter habitat selection by 

juvenile chinook salmon in a highly sedimented Idaho stream. Transactions of the American 

Fisheries Society 116: 185-195.

Hillman, T., M. Miller, C. Peven, M. Tonseth, T. Miller, K. Truscott, and A. Murdoch. 2008. 

Monitoring and evaluation of the Chelan County PUD hatchery programs. 2007 Annual 

Report. Prepared for the HCP Hatchery Committee. Wenatchee, WA. 

Hillman, T., M. Miller, C. Peven, J. Miller, M. Tonseth, T. Miller, K. Truscott, and A. Murdoch. 

2009. Monitoring and evaluation of the Chelan County PUD hatchery programs. 2008 

Annual Report. Prepared for the HCP Hatchery Committee. Wenatchee, WA. 

Hollenbeck, Jan L. and Susan L. Carter. 1986. A Cultural Resource Overview: Prehistory and 

Ethnography, Wenatchee National Forest. Wenatchee National Forest Cultural Resource 

Management Program, Wenatchee, WA. 

Houghton, R. 2010. Carbon Researcher, The Woods Hole Research Center. Understanding the 

Carbon Cycle. Accessed January 29, 2010. Available: 

http://www.whrc.org/carbon/index.htm 

HSRG (Hatchery Scientific Review Group). 2008. Draft Columbia River Coho Salmon 

Hatchery Analysis, Vol. 2. May 2008. 

http://www.hatcheryreform.us/prod/Portals/_default/Documents/Vol%202%20Master%20Co

lumbia%20Coho%20Reports%205-30-08.pdf

Hunn, Eugene S. 1967. Mobility as a Factor Limiting Resource use in the Columbia Plateau of 

North America. Resource Manager: North American and Australian Hunter-Gatherers. 

Westview Press for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Boulder, CO. 

Huppert, D., G. Green, W. Beyers, A. Subkoviak, and A. Wenzl. 2004. Economics of Columbia 

River Initiative, final report to the Washington State Department of Ecology and CRI 

Economics Advisory Committee. Olympia, WA. 

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006. Guidelines for National Greenhouse 

Gas Inventories. Chapter 2: Generic Methodologies Applicable to Multiple Land-Use 

Categories. Accessed November 8, 2010. Available: http://www.ipccnggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/4_Volume4/V4_02_Ch2_Generic.pdf 

IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007, Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis. Chapter 2: 

Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and Radioactive Forcing: Atmospheric Carbon 

Dioxide. Accessed November 8, 2010. Available: 

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2.html 

Johnson, S. L., M. F. Solazzi, and J. D. Rodgers. 1993. Development and evaluation of 

techniques to rehabilitate Oregon’s wild salmonids. Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Fish Research Project F-125-R, Annual Progress Report. Portland, OR. 

Karl, Thomas R., Jerry M. Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson, (eds.). 2009. Global Climate 

Change Impacts in the United States. Cambridge University Press. 

Kauffman, J. B., M. Marht, L. A. Mahrt, and W. D. Edge. 2001. Wildlife of riparian habitats. 

Pages 361-388 in D. H. Johnson and T. A. O'Neil, editors: Wildlife-habitat relationships in 

Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 5 - References 5-5 

Kennedy, Dorothy I.D., and Randall T. Bouchard. 1998. Northern Okanogan, Lakes, and 

Colville. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 12. William C. Sturtevant, 

General Editor: Deward D. Walker, Jr., Volume Editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington. 

Kessavalou, A, J.W. Doran, A.R. Mosier, R.A. Drijber. 1998. Greenhouse Gas Fluxes 

Following Tillage and Wetting in a Wheat-fallow Cropping System. Journal of 

Environmental Quality 27:1105–1116.

Konrad, C.P., B.W. Drost, and R.J. Wagner. 2003. Hydrogeology of the unconsolidated 

sediments, water quality, and ground-water/surface-water exchanges of the Methow River 

Basin, Okanagon County, Washington. Water Resources Investigations Report 03-4322, 

United States Geological Survey. Tacoma, WA. 137 pp. 

Koski, K.V. 1966. The survival of coho salmon from egg deposition to emergence in three 

Oregon coastal streams. Master’s Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis.

Layton, D.F., G. Brown, and M. Plummer. 1999. Valuing multiple programs to improve fish 

populations. Prepared for Washington State Dept. of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 

Leonhardy, Frank C., and David G. Rice. 1970. A Proposed Cultural Typology for the Lower 

Snake River Region, Southeastern Washington. Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 

4:1-29, Moscow, ID. 

LHSFNA (Laborer’s Health and Safety Fund for North America). 2009. LHSFNA website. 

Accessed online at http://www.lhsfna.org/index.cfm on December 22, 2009. 

Loomis, J. and R.G. Walsh. 1997. Recreation Economic Decisions: Comparing Benefits and 

Costs. Venture Publishing, State College, PA. 

McKenney, Pamela M. and Rebecca A. Stevens. 2005. Cultural Resources Investigations for 

the Washington State Department of Transportation US 2/97: Peshastin East Interchange 

Project, Chelan County, Washington. Archaeological and Historical Services, Eastern 

Washington University, Cheney, Washington. Short Report DOT04-23. Submitted to 

Washington State Department of Transportation. 

McPhail, J.D. and J.S. Baxter. 1996. A review of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) life-history 

and habitat use in relation to compensation and improvement opportunities. Department of 

Zoology, University of British Columbia. Fisheries Management Report No. 104. 

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 

Meehan, W.R., and D.N. Swanston. 1977. Effects of gravel morphology on fine sediment 

accumulation and survival of incubating salmon eggs. U.S. Forest Service Research Paper 

PNW-220.

Meinig, D.W. 1995. The Great Columbia Plain: A Historical Geography, 1805-1910. 

University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. Reprint. 

Miller, Jay. 1998. Middle Columbia River Salishans. In Handbook of North American Indians, 

Volume 12. William C. Sturtevant, General Editor: Deward D. Walker, Jr., Volume Editor. 

Smithsonian Institution, Washington. 

Millspaugh, J. J., R. J. Woods, K. E. Hunt, K. J. Raedeke, G. C. Brundige, B. E. Washburn, and 

S. K. Wasser. 2001. Fecal glucocorticoid assays and the physiological stress response in elk. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:899-907.
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

5-6 Chapter 5 - References 

Mooney, James. 1928. The Aboriginal Population of America North of Mexico. Smithsonian 

Miscellaneous Collections 80:7. 

Mullan, J.W. 1984. Overview of artificial and natural propagation of coho salmon 

(Onchorhynchus kisutch) on the mid-Columbia River. Fisheries Assistance Office, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Leavenworth, WA. 37 pp. 

Mullan, J.W., K.R. Williams, G. Rhodus, T.W. Hillman, and J.D. McIntyre. 1992. Production 

and habitat of salmonids in mid-Columbia River tributary streams. Monograph I, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Leavenworth, WA. 

Murdoch, K. G. and J. L. Dunnigan. 2001. Feasibility and Risks of Coho Reintroduction in 

Mid-Columbia River Tributaries, 2000 Annual Report. Prepared for Bonneville Power 

Administration, Project #1996-040-00. Yakama Nation Fisheries Resource Management, 

Toppenish, WA. 

Murdoch, K.G., C.M. Kamphaus, S. A. Prevatte. 2004. Mid-Columbia coho reintroduction 

feasibility study: 2002 monitoring and evaluation report, project No. 1996-040-000. 

Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. 

Murdoch, K.G., C.M. Kamphaus, S. A. Prevatte. 2005. Mid-Columbia Coho Reintroduction 

Feasibility Study: 2003 Monitoring and Evaluation Report. Prepared by Yakama Nation 

Fisheries Resource Management for: Project #1996-040-00 Bonneville Power 

Administration, Portland, OR. 

Murdoch, K. G. and M. LaRue. 2002. Feasibility and Risks of Coho Reintroduction in MidColumbia River Tributaries, 2001 Annual Report. Prepared for Bonneville Power 

Administration, Project #1996-040-00. Yakama Nation Fisheries Resource Management, 

Toppenish, WA, September 2002. 

Murphy, M.L., J. Heifetz, J.F. Thedinga, and K.V. Koski. 1989. Habitat utilization by juvenile 

Pacific salmon (Onchorynchus) in the glacial Taku River, Southeast Alaska. CJFAS, 46: 

1677-85.

NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life. Available at 

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/. (Accessed via hyperlink at the USFWS Endangered 

Species Program Website [http://www.fws.gov/endangered/] on October 21, 2010). 

NMFS et al.: National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. Forest 

Service, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Confederated Tribes of the Yakama 

Indian Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation, Confederated Tribes 

of the Umatilla Indian Nation, Chelan County Public Utility District, Douglas County Public 

Utility District, and Grant County Public Utility District. 1998. Aquatic species and habitat 

assessment: Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow, and Okanogan watersheds. Report available at 

Chelan County Public Utility District, Wenatchee, WA. 

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 2008a. Biological Opinion on the effects of the 

Pacific Coast Salmon Plan and U.S. Fraser Panel Fisheries on the Lower Columbia River 

Coho and Lower Columbia River Chinook Evolutionarily Significant Units Listed Under the 

Endangered Species Act and Magnuson-Stevens Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation. 

NMFS, Sustainable Fisheries Division, Northwest Region. Consultation Number: 

F/NWR/2008/02438. Seattle, WA. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 5 - References 5-7 

NMFS. 2008b. Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility Design. NMFS, Northwest Region, 

Portland, OR. 

NPCC (Northwest Power and Conservation Council). 2004a. Wenatchee Subbasin Plan. 

Prepared for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. May 2004. 427 pgs. 

NPCC. 2004b. Methow Subbasin Plan. Prepared for the Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council. November 2004. 

NPCC. 2004c. Draft Methow Subbasin Wildlife Assessment and Inventory. Prepared by P.R. 

Ashley and S.H. Stovali. Available online at: (visited site October 11, 2010) 

http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/subbasinplanning/methow/plan/eAppendix%20L%20Wildlife%20Assessment/MethowSubbasinAssessment.pdf

NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2010. Web Soil Survey 

(http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app) 

NRCS. 2011. Web Soil Survey application. Accessed February 2011. 

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/

Okanogan County Department of Emergency Management. 2009. All Hazards Mitigation Plan. 

Okanogan, WA. 

Olsen, D., J. Richards, and R.D. Scott. 1991. Existence and sport values for doubling the size of 

Columbia River Basin salmon and steelhead runs. Rivers 2(1):45-56. 

Olsen, D. and T. White. 2004. Economic analysis methodology illustration and review: 

Estimating the value of water for key resource sectors from the mainstem Columbia River. 

Pac. NW Project Technical Memorandum (April 2004 Revision) to the Columbia River 

Initiative Economics Review Team, University of Washington, Kennewick. 

Oxendine, Joan, Tucker Orvald, Frank Stipe, and Jenna Farrell. 2006. Methow Transmission 

Project Cultural Resources Inventory. Tetra Tech EC, Incorporated, Bothell, Washington. 

Prepared for Public Utility District No. 1 of Okanogan County and the USDA Forest Service, 

Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. 

Pearsons, T. D., and A. L. Fritts. 1999. Maximum size of Chinook salmon consumed by 

juvenile coho salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 19:165-170.

Pearsons, T., and C. Hopley. 1999. A practical approach for assessing ecological risks 

associated with fish stocking programs. Fisheries 24(9):16-23. 

Petts, G.E. 1980. Long-term consequences of upstream impoundment. Environmental 

conservation. Volume 7. Pages 325-332. 

Peven, C.M. 1992. Population status of selected stocks of salmonids from the Mid-Columbia 

River Basin. Chelan County Public Utilities Division, Wenatchee, WA. 52 p. 

Portman, S. 1993. The Smiling Country: A History of the Methow Valley. Published by The 

Sun Mountain Resort, Inc., Winthrop, WA. 

Pratt, K.L. 1992. A review of bull trout life history. Pages 5-9 in P.J. Howell and D.V. 

Buchanan, eds. Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain bull trout workshop. Oregon Chapter 

of the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, OR. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

5-8 Chapter 5 - References 

RASP (Regional Assessment of Supplementation Project). 1992. Supplementation in the 

Columbia Basin: summary report series. Final Report DOE/BP-01830-14, Bonneville Power 

Administration, Portland, OR. 

Raufer, Sister Maria Ilma. 1966. Black Robes and Indians on the Last Frontier, a Story of 

Heroism. The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee, WI. 

Ray, Verne F. 1974. Ethnohistorical Notes on the Columbia, Chelan, Entiat, and Wenatchee 

Tribes. Petitioners Exhibit 471, pp. 377-435 in Interior Salish and Eastern Washington 

Indians IV: Ethnohistorical Report on Aboriginal Land Use and Occupancy. Commission 

Findings, Indian Claims Commission. Garland Publishing, Inc., New York, New York and 

London, England. 

Relander, Click. 1956. Drummers and Dreamers: The Story of Smowhala the Prophet and His 

Nephew Puck Hyah Toot, the Last Prophet of the Nearly Extinct River People, the Last 

Wanapams. The Caxton Printers, Ltd: Caldwell, ID. 

Richardson, C. T., and C. K. Miller. 1997. Recommendations for protecting raptors from 

human disturbance: A review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:634-638.

Ricker, W. E. 1941. The consumption of young sockeye salmon by predaceous fish. Journal of 

the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 5:104-105. 

Roe, J. 1980. The North Cascadians. Madrona Publishers, Seattle, WA. 

Ruggerone, G. T., and D. E. Rogers. 1992. Predation on sockeye salmon fry by juvenile coho 

salmon in the Chignik Lakes, Alaska: Implications for salmon management. North American 

Journal of Fisheries Management 12:87-102. 

Scheuerman, Richard D., editor. 1982. The Wenatchi Indians: Guardians of the Valley. Ye 

Galleon Press, Fairfield, WA. 

Schlegel, Trinity and Laurie Mauser. 2008. Class III Cultural Resource Inventory of Selected 

Tracts of BLM Public Lands for Grazing Lease Inventories in Okanogan and Grant Counties 

on Lands Administered by the Spokane District Office, Spokane County, Washington. 

Report prepared for the Bureau of Land Management by North Wind, Inc. 

Sexaur, H.M., and P.W. James. 1997. Microhabitat use by juvenile bull trout in four streams 

located in the eastern Cascades, Washington. Pages 316-370 in Mackay, W.C., M.K. Brewin 

and M. Monita. Friends of the bull trout conference proceedings. Calgary, Alberta. 

Snow, C., C. Frady, A. Fowler, and A. Murdoch. 2008. Monitoring and evaluation of Wells and 

Methow Hatchery Programs in 2007. Prepared for Douglas County Public Utility District 

and Wells Habitat Conservation Plan Hatchery Committee, Twisp, WA. 

Solazzi, M. F., T. E. Nickelson, S. L. Johnson, and J. D. Rodgers. 1998. Development and 

evaluation of techniques to rehabilitate Oregon’s wild salmonids. Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, Fish Research Project F-125-R-13, Final Report. Portland, OR. 

Spier, Leslie. 1936. Tribal Distribution in Washington. General Series in Anthropology, No. 3. 

George Banta Publishing Co. Agent, Menasha, WI. 

Swanson, Earl H., Jr. 1962. The Emergence of Plateau Culture. Occasional Papers of the Idaho 

State University Museum, Pocatello, ID. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 5 - References 5-9 

Tacha, T. C., S. A. Nesbitt and P. A. Vohs. 1992. Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis), The Birds 

of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Retrieved 

from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/031. 

Teit, James A. 1928. The Middle Columbia Salish. Franz Boas, ed. University of Washington 

Publications in Anthropology 2(4):83-128. Seattle, WA. 

Thompson, R. B. 1966. Effects of predator avoidance conditioning on the post-survival rate of 

artificially propagated salmon. Ph.D. dissertation submitted to University of Washington, 

Seattle. 

Tyus, H.M. 1990. Effects of altered stream flows on fishery resources. Fisheries. Volume 3. 

Pages 18-20. 

UCSRB (Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board). 2007. Upper Columbia spring Chinook 

salmon and steelhead recovery plan. 307 pp. 

USDOE/BPA (U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration). 1999. MidColumbia Coho Reintroduction Feasibility Project Final Environmental Assessment and 

Finding of No Significant Impact. (USDOE/EA-1282, Portland, OR. 

USDOE/BPA. 2001(a). Mid-Columbia Coho Reintroduction Feasibility Project Supplement 

Analysis. USDOE/EA-1282-SA-01, April 23, 2001, Portland, OR. 

USDOE/BPA. 2001(b). Mid-Columbia Coho Reintroduction Feasibility Project Supplement 

Analysis. USDOE/EA-1282-SA-02, October 5, 2001, Portland, OR. 

USDOE/BPA. 2002. Supplement Analysis for the Mid-Columbia Coho Reintroduction 

Feasibility Project EA (DOE/EA-1282/SA-03), November 18, 2002, Portland, OR. 

USDOE/BPA. 2003. Supplement Analysis for the Mid-Columbia Coho Reintroduction 

Feasibility Project EA (DOE/EA-1282/SA-04), August 5, 2003, Portland, OR. 

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). In prep. Methow Sub-basin bull trout redd survey report 2008. 

Draft report provided by Gene Shull, U.S. Forest Service. Winthrop, WA. 15 pp. 

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2002. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft 

Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 137 pp. 

USFWS. 2003a. Bull Trout monitoring results. Unpublished Wenatchee Basin annual redd 

survey report provided by Barbara Kelly Ringel, USFWS Mid Columbia River Fishery 

Resource Office. 15 pp. 

USFWS. 2003b. 2001 National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation, 

state overview, Washington. Washington, D.C. 

USFWS. 2004. Bull Trout monitoring results. Unpublished Wenatchee Basin annual redd 

survey report provided by Barbara Kelly Ringel, USFWS Mid Columbia River Fishery 

Resource Office. 17 pp. 

USFWS. 2008. National Wetlands Inventory: Wetlands Geodatabase. Available at: 

http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/NWI/download.html.

USFWS. 2009a. Eastern Washington endangered species status and listing information by 

county. URL: http://www.fws.gov/easternwashington/species/countySppLists.html 

Searched on April 5, 2009. 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

5-10 Chapter 5 - References 

USFWS. 2009b. USFWS Wetlands Mapper for National Wetlands Inventory Map Information. 

Accessed online at http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov on April 5, 2009. 

USFWS. 2010a. Listed and Proposed Endangered and Threatened Species and Critical Habitat; 

Candidate Species; and Species of Concern in Okanogan County. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Central Washington Field Office. Revised September 29, 2010. Available at 

http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/species_EW.html 

USFWS. 2010b. Listed and Proposed Endangered and Threatened Species and Critical Habitat; 

Candidate Species; and Species of Concern in Chelan County. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Central Washington Field Office. Revised September 29, 2010. Available at 

http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/species_EW.html.

USGCRP (United Stated Global Change Research Program). 2009. Global Climate Change 

Impacts in the United States. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Lead 

Agency), Washington, D.C., 2009. Available: http://www.globalchange.gov/usimpacts 

Van Dyke, E.S., D.L. Scarnecchia, B.C. Jonasson, and R.W. Carmichael. 2009. Relationship of 

winter concealment habitat quality on pool use by juvenile spring Chinook salmon 

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Grande Ronde River Basin, Oregon USA. 

Hydrobiologia 625:27-42. 

Vannote, R.L., G.W. Minshall, K.W. Cummins, J.R. Sedell, and C.E. Cushing. 1980. The river 

continuum concept. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. (37)130-137. 

Walker, Deward E. 1998. Introduction. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 12. 

William C. Sturtevant, General Editor: Deward D. Walker, Jr., Volume Editor. Smithsonian 

Institution, Washington, D.C. 

Walker, Deward E., Jr., and Roderick Sprague. 1998. History Until 1846. In Plateau, edited by 

D. Walker, pp. 120-138. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 12, William C. 

Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 

Warren, Claude N. 1968. The View From Wenas: A Study in Plateau Prehistory. Occasional 

Papers of the Idaho State University Museum, No. 24, Pocatello, ID. 

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2009. Priority Habitats and Species 

(PHS) Maps in Chelan and Okanogan Counties. Report Date March 18, 2009. 

WDFW/ODFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife/Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife). 1995. Status Report, Columbia River Fish Runs & Fisheries, 1938-94. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

August 1995. 

WDFW/ODFW. 1998. Status Report, Columbia River Fish Runs and Fisheries, 1938-97. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

June, 1998. 

WDFW and WDOE (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Washington Department 

of Ecology). 2004. Instream flow guidelines: Technical and habitat suitability issues 

including fish preference curves. Error correction update 2/12/2008. Olympia WA. 

WDNR (Washington Department of Natural Resources). 2009. Washington Natural Heritage 

Program (NHP) database. January 1, 2009. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 5 - References 5-11

WDOE (Washington Department of Ecology). 2011. Washington Farm Soil Maps. Accessed 

February 2011. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/services/gis/maps/county/soils/soils.htm

Wisdom, M. J., A. A. Ager, H. K. Preisler, N. J. Cimon, and B. K. Johnson. 2004. Effects of 

off-road recreation on mule deer and elk in Proceedings of Transactions of the 69th North 

American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 

WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation). 2007. Advanced Training Manual: 

Biological Assessment Preparation for Transportation Projects. 

www.wsdot.gov/Environment/Biology/BA/default.htm#BAManual. February 2007. 

YN (Yakama Nation Fisheries Resource Management). 2010. Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration 

Master Plan. Prepared for Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6 – Definitions and Acronyms 6-1 

Chapter 6. Definitions and Acronyms

6.1 Definitions 

Alevin: The third stage of the salmonid life cycle, between eyed eggs and fry. Alevin are larval 

salmonids, typically about one inch long, that have hatched from the egg but have not yet 

fully absorbed their yolk sac, and generally have not emerged from the spawning gravel 

(redd). Alevins remain in the redd for approximately one month until their yolk sac is 

completely digested, and then emerge from the gravel as fry to hunt for food on their 

own. 

Confined aquifer: A confined aquifer has limited continuity with other aquifers and surface 

waters. 

Domestication selection: In a hatchery, fish are selected for genetic traits (growth, behavior, 

physiology and survival) that increase their survival in the hatchery (domestic) 

environment. 

Drawdown cone: Area beyond a groundwater well that, when in use, could cause other wells in 

the vicinity to have more than one foot of reduction in water level; the area of influence 

of a groundwater well. 

Escapement: The proportion of an anadromous fish population that escapes the commercial and 

recreational fisheries and reaches the freshwater spawning grounds. 

Eutrophic/Eutrophication: Refers to water that has a high level of nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, 

phosphorous) that stimulate the excessive growth of plant life with a high demand for 

oxygen (e.g., algae), resulting in the depletion of dissolved oxygen content in the water 

and potentially lethal conditions for fish and other aquatic organisms. 

Excursion: The word used to indicate that a water quality limit has been exceeded. 

Extirpation: The loss of a local or regional population of a species (local extinction). 

Eyed eggs: The second stage of the salmonid life cycle, between embryos and alevin. Eyed 

eggs develop approximately one month after eggs have been fertilized when the embryo 

inside the egg develops an eye. This stage typically lasts for one month until the eyed 

eggs hatch and alevin emerge. 

Fry: The fourth stage of a salmonid life cycle, between alevin and parr. Fry move in schools 

and actively feed in the river on zooplankton until they grow large enough to eat aquatic 

insects and other larger food. Some species begin their downstream migration to the 

ocean as fry, while other species stay in the freshwater for up to three years. 

Green eggs: Eggs that have been harvested from an adult female salmon or steelhead in a 

hatchery but have not yet been fertilized. 

Hydraulic continuity: A scientific term that describes how easily water flows between 

groundwater and surface water (streams, rivers, lakes, and wetlands). 

Integrated Hatchery Program: A hatchery program that manages wild and hatchery fish as 

one gene pool (natural-origin fish are included in the broodstock and hatchery-origin fish 

are allowed to spawn in the wild). Integrated hatchery methods are most appropriate for 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

6-2 Chapter 6 – Definitions and Acronyms 

programs with conservation goals or when the risks of naturally spawning hatcheryorigin fish need to be minimized. 

Local adaptation: The process of naturalization that addresses the loss of fitness that occurs 

with hatchery stocks by emphasizing selection in the natural environment; the population 

becomes adapted to habitats within each basin. 

Mitchell Act: Enacted in 1938 and amended in 1946 (16 USC 755-757; 52 Stat. 345). 

Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to implement activities for the conservation of 

fishery resources in the Columbia River Basin, and specifically directs the establishment 

of salmon hatcheries, ongoing engineering and biological surveys and experiments, and 

installation of fish protective devices. It also authorizes agreements with State fishery 

agencies (Oregon, Washington, and Idaho) and the construction of facilities on Stateowned lands. Federal activities in the Columbia River Basin are carried out by the 

Department of Commerce (NOAA). 

Montane: A category of biogeographic zones for regions located in the highlands below the 

sub-alpine zone. Montane regions are typically forested and have cooler temperatures 

and higher rainfall than the adjacent lowland regions, and support distinct communities of 

plants and animals. 

Parr: The fifth stage of the salmonid life cycle, between fry and smolt. Parr have distinct 

markings (parr marks) to camouflage them from predators as they feed on aquatic insects 

and other larger prey in a stream environment. 

Passerine birds: Perching birds or songbirds. 

pH: The level of acidity/alkalinity of a solution, on a scale from 0 (most acidic) to 14 (most 

alkaline or basic), with 7 being neutral. Each point on the scale equals a 10-fold change 

in the magnitude of acidity or alkalinity. Source: http://en.wiktionary.org

Redd: The nest dug in the gravel substrate of streams for egg deposition during spawning by 

salmonids.

Recharge boundary: Where the drawdown cone (area of influence of a groundwater well) 

intersects a stream. The drawdown cone cannot spread beyond the recharge boundary. 

Recruits: Fish that have survived long enough to become part of (i.e., recruited into) a 

population at a defined age (e.g., a natural-origin fish that survives to spawn in the wild is 

a natural-origin recruit). The number of recruits per spawner is a method of analyzing 

population productivity. 

Riparian: Adjacent to or living on river banks. 

Salmonid: A fish belonging to the family Salmonidae, which includes salmon, trout and chars. 

Some species of salmonids are anadromous (e.g., coho salmon, Chinook salmon, 

steelhead trout), and some species remain in freshwater throughout their life cycle (e.g., 

rainbow trout, bull trout). 

Scale analysis: The process of counting annual growth bands on scales collected from fish in 

order to estimate the age of the fish. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6 – Definitions and Acronyms 6-3 

Segregated Hatchery Program: A hatchery program that manages hatchery-origin fish as a 

reproductively distinct population. Only hatchery-origin adults are used for broodstock 

and are not allowed to spawn in the wild. 

Smolt: The sixth stage of the salmonid life cycle, between parr and ocean-stage adult. Smolts 

undergo physiological and behavioral transformations as they migrate downstream that 

prepare them for the transition to the saltwater environment. 

Supplementation: The generally accepted definition of supplementation was developed by the 

Regional Assessment of Supplementation Project (RASP): “Supplementation is the use of 

artificial propagation in the attempt to maintain or increase natural production while 

maintaining the long-term fitness of the target population, and keeping the ecological 

and genetic impacts on non-target populations within specified biological limits” (RASP 

1992).

Transmissivity: A measure of the ability of groundwater to flow in a horizontal direction. 

U.S. v. Oregon: A 1969 federal court decision that legally upheld the reserved fishing rights of 

the Columbia River treaty tribes (Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm Springs and Yakama tribes) 

and ruled that the tribes had reserved rights to fish at ―all usual and accustomed‖ places 

whether on or off reservation. In 1975, the ruling was amended to quantify the ―fair and 

equitable share‖ of the resource as 50% of all harvestable fish destined for the tribes’ 

traditional fishing places. 

6.2 Acronyms and Abbreviations 

7Q10: lowest or highest stream flow for 7 consecutive days that occurs on average once every 

10 years 

AHA: All H Analyzer (analyzes impacts of hatcheries, habitat, harvest and hydroelectric 

systems on salmon and steelhead populations)

BPA: Bonneville Power Administration (under the Department of Energy) 

CCPUD: Chelan County Public Utility District - funds WDFW to operate the Rock Island 

Hatchery Complex among other facilities 

cfs: cubic feet per second (a measure of water flow) 

CRFMP: Columbia River Fish Management Plan 

CWT: Coded Wire Tag 

DAHP: Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (Washington State) 

DCPUD: Douglas County Public Utility District - funds WDFW to operate the Wells and 

Methow hatcheries, and the Methow, Twisp and Chewuch acclimation ponds (among 

other hatchery facilities) 

DO: Dissolved Oxygen (the amount of gaseous O2

in an aqueous solution) 

EDT: Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (system for rating the quality, quantity and diversity 

of habitat along a stream relative to the needs of a specific species) 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

6-4 Chapter 6 – Definitions and Acronyms 

EIS: Environmental Impact Statement (an analysis of the environmental effects of major federal 

actions as required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969) 

ESA: Endangered Species Act of 1973 

FH: Fish Hatchery (non-federal program) 

GCPUD: Grant County Public Utility District - funds WDFW to operate the Wells and Methow 

hatcheries, and the Nason and White acclimation ponds (among other hatchery facilities) 

gpd/ft: gallons per day per foot (a measure of the ability of groundwater to flow in a horizontal 

direction [transmissivity]). 

gpm: gallons per minute (generally a measure of the rate at which groundwater can be pumped, 

but also relates to water flow) 

HCP: Habitat Conservation Plan 

HSRG: Hatchery Scientific Review Group 

ISEMP: Integrated Status & Effectiveness Monitoring Program (BPA project #2003-017-00) 

ISRP: Independent Science Review Panel 

m

3

/s: cubic meters per second 

μg/m: micrograms/meter 

mg: milligrams 

mg/L: milligrams per liter 

M&E: Monitoring and Evaluation 

MSRF: Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation 

MSWA: Methow State Wildlife Area 

NFH: National Fish Hatchery (federal hatchery program). The 12 NFHs in the Columbia River 

Basin are Eagle Creek, Carson, Little White Salmon, Willard, Spring Creek, Warm 

Springs, Leavenworth, Entiat, Winthrop, Dworshak, Kooskia, and Hagerman NFHs. 

NHPA: National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 

NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (in the Department of Commerce) 

NOAA Fisheries/NMFS: NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service 

NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

NOR: Natural-Origin Recruits 

NPCC: Northwest Power and Conservation Council; formerly known as Northwest Power 

Planning Council (NPPC) 

NRHP: National Register of Historic Places 

NTTOC: Non-Target Taxa of Concern 

ODFW: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 6 – Definitions and Acronyms 6-5 

pHOS: Proportion of Hatchery-Origin fish on Spawning grounds 

PIT tag: Passive Integrated Transponder tag 

PNI: Proportion of Natural-origin Influence in the population 

pNOB: Proportion of Natural-Origin fish in Broodstock 

POTW: Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (i.e., municipal water and sewage treatment plants) 

PUD: Public Utility District 

SHPO: State Historic Preservation Office; State Historic Preservation Officer 

TMDL: Total Maximum Daily Load 

TP: Total Phosphorus 

TWG: Technical Work Group 

USFWS: United States Fish and Wildlife Service (under the Department of the Interior) 

USGS: United States Geological Survey (under the Department of the Interior) 

WAC: Washington Administrative Code 

WDFW: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

WDOE: Washington State Department of Ecology 

YN: Yakama Nation 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 7 – Preparers and Reviewers 7-1 

Chapter 7. List of Preparers and Reviewers

Preparers 

Name EIS Section or Appendix Experience and Education

Carmen Andonaegui,

Anchor QEA

Floodplains, wetlands, 

priority species and habitat, 

water quality

15 years in fish passage and habitat 

restoration

B.S. Wildlife Biology

Ian Courter,

Cramer Fish Sciences

Water discharge effects on 

steelhead, bull trout, and 

Chinook salmon

5 years in quantifying flow and temperature 

effects on salmonids

B.S. Environmental Science, M.S. Fisheries 

Science

Calvin Douglas,

Anchor QEA

Wetlands, endangered 

species, aquatic habitat

11 years in natural resources analysis

B.S. Wildlife Biology

Randolph Ericksen, Cramer 

Fish Sciences

Project impacts on ESAlisted fish30 years in salmonid research and 

management, technical reporting, 

evaluating impacts of land use activities on 

fish and fish habitat 

B.A. Biology, M.S. Fisheries Science

Greg Ferguson,

Sea Springs Company

Project engineer

Facilities location, analysis, 

design

38 years in engineering and design of fish 

production facilities

M.S. Engineering

Bruce Hollen, 

BPA

Project manager

PHS species, socioeconomic effects

19 years of Natural Resource Management 

and Analysis.

B.S. Biology

Marcelle Lynde, 

GeoEngineers

Wetlands, priority species & 

habitats

25 years’ experience in natural resource 

management 

B.S., Fisheries, M.M.A. Marine Resource 

Management

Fiona McNair,

GeoEngineers

Wetlands, priority species & 

habitats

14 years’ experience in environmental 

analysis

M.S. Resource and Environmental 

Management

James A. Miller,

GeoEngineers

Geologic and 

hydrogeologic review, 

groundwater impact 

evaluation

35 years’ experience in geotechnical and 

environmental projects

B.S. Geological Engineering; M.S. 

Environmental Geology

Pradeep Mugunthan,

Anchor QEA

Water quality impacts of 

discharges

10 years’ experience in water quality and 

contaminant fate and transport modeling 

and analysis; TMDL and nutrient issues 

Ph.D. Civil and Environmental Engineering

Simon Page,

Anchor QEA

Floodplain analysis 23 years environmental analysis and NEPA 

document preparation

B.S. Soil and Water Science

James Rhea

Anchor QEA

Water quality 20 years water quality analysis

Ph.D., Civil & Environmental Engineering

John Small, ASLA,

Anchor QEA

Wetlands, priority habitats 10 years ecological restoration, wetlands 

science

MLA Landscape Architecture

Judith Woodward,

Crossing Borders 

Communications

Writing, editing, critical 

review

33 years environmental writing and analysis 

B.A. Geography and Arts & Letters

Lisa Wright, Contract 

Environmental Protection 

Specialist, BPA

Project coordination

Visual quality, recreation, 

climate change, farmlands

10 years as Fishery Biologist for USGS, 

NOAA Fisheries, Corps of Engineers

B.S. Biology 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

7-2 Chapter 7 – Preparers and Reviewers 

Reviewers 

Bonneville Power Administration 

Kevin Cannell – Archaeologist 

Philip Key – Attorney 

Kathy Pierce – NEPA Compliance Officer 

Donald Rose – Supervisory Environmental Protection Specialist 

Anne Senters – Attorney 

Nancy Weintraub – Senior Environmental Protection Specialist 

Lisa Wright – Contract Environmental Protection Specialist, CIBER, Inc. 

Ben Zelinsky – Fish Biologist, Mid-Columbia Coho Project Manager (BPA) 

Yakama Nation 

Greg Ferguson – Contract Project Engineer, Sea Springs Co. 

Cory Kamphaus – Fisheries Biologist, Mid-Columbia Coho Program 

Keely Murdoch – Fisheries Biologist, Mid-Columbia Coho Program 

Tom Scribner – Manager, Mid-Columbia Coho Program 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Chapter 8 – List of Contacts 8-1 

Chapter 8. List of Agencies, Organization and Persons 

Contacted

Tribes or Tribal Groups 

 Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission 

 Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation 

 Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation 

Federal Agencies 

 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

 Environmental Protection Agency 

 US Department of Agriculture - Forest Service 

 US Department of Commerce – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Fisheries Service 

 US Department of Defense – Army Corps of Engineers 

 US Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service; Bureau of Indian Affairs; 

Bureau of Land Management; National Park Service 

Washington Public Officials 

 Office of Governor Gregoire 

 State Senator Cantwell 

 State Senator Murray 

 Washington State Representatives of Districts 12 and 14 

Washington State Agencies 

 Department of Ecology 

 Department of Fish & Wildlife 

 Department of Natural Resources 

Local Governments 

 Chelan County PUD No. 1 

 County of Chelan 

 County of Okanogan 

 Douglas County PUD 

 Grant County PUD 

 Cities of Cashmere, Chelan, Leavenworth, Okanogan, Wenatchee and Yakima 

Libraries 

 Cashmere Public Library 

 Chelan Public Library 

 Colville Tribe Library 

 County of Okanogan Public Library 

 Entiat Community Library 

 Leavenworth Public Library 
Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Program 

8-2 Chapter 8 – List of Contacts 

 North Central Regional Library, Wenatchee 

 Okanogan Community Library 

 Peshastin Community Library 

 Wenatchee Public Library 

 Wenatchee Valley College Library 

 Winthrop Community Library 

 Yakama Nation Library 

Business, Special Interests and Organizations 

 AAA Auto Club of Washington 

 Alpine Lakes Protection Society 

 American Fisheries Society 

 American Forestry Association 

 Apple Company Snowmobile Club 

 Apple Valley Kiwanis Club 

 Audubon Society 

 Back Country Bicycle Trail Club 

 Backcountry Horsemen Association 

 Backcountry Horsemen of Washington 

 Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railroad Company 

 Cascade Orchards Irrigation 

 Cashmere Valley Bank 

 Chelan County Conservation District 

 Ellensburg Cross Country Ski 

 Environmental Law Support Association 

 Ephrata Sportsmen’s Association

 Grays Electric Inc. 

 Kahler Glen Golf & Ski Resort 

 KOHO Radio 

 Methow Valley Sports Trail Association 

 Nature Conservancy 

 NCW Audubon 

 Northwest Power & Conservation Council 

 Pine River Ranch #2 

 Round Mountain Corporation 

 Strutzel's Sportsman LLC 

 Trout Unlimited

 Washington Trout 

 Wenatchee Outdoors 

 Wenatchee World 

 White River Lodging 

 WICO 


BONNEVILLE POW ER ADMINISTRATION

DOE/BP-4302 ▪ June 2011 
i

APPENDIX 1 

REARING AND BROOD CAPTURE SITE 

DESCRIPTIONS 

Prepared by: Greg Ferguson, Sea Springs Co. 

May 2011 

Table of Contents 

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... i

List of Figures................................................................................................................................ ii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ii

1. Summary....................................................................................................................................1

2. Site Descriptions – Brood Capture ..........................................................................................4

2.1. Wenatchee...........................................................................................................................4

2.1.1. Dryden Dam................................................................................................................5

2.1.2. Leavenworth NFH......................................................................................................6

2.1.3. Tumwater Dam...........................................................................................................7

2.1.4. Chiwawa Weir ............................................................................................................8

2.1.5. Nason Weir (proposed) ..............................................................................................9

2.1.6. White Trap (proposed) ..............................................................................................9

2.2. Methow................................................................................................................................9

2.2.1. Wells Dam .................................................................................................................10

2.2.2. Twisp Weir................................................................................................................11

2.2.3. Winthrop NFH..........................................................................................................11

2.2.4. Methow Fish Hatchery.............................................................................................12

2.2.5. Foghorn Dam ............................................................................................................12

2.2.6. Chewuch Weir (proposed).......................................................................................12

3. Site Descriptions – Primary Rearing Sites............................................................................13

3.1. Early Incubation ..............................................................................................................13

3.2. Cascade FH.......................................................................................................................15

3.3. Willard NFH.....................................................................................................................16

3.4. Dryden...............................................................................................................................17

3.5. Winthrop NFH .................................................................................................................27

4. Site Descriptions – Back-up Rearing Sites............................................................................28

4.1. George ...............................................................................................................................28

5. References ................................................................................................................................32
ii

List of Figures 

Figure 1-1. Brood Capture Site Map.............................................................................................. 2 

Figure 1-2. Rearing Site Map......................................................................................................... 3 

Figure 2-1. Dryden Dam Aerial..................................................................................................... 6 

Figure 2-2. Leavenworth NFH Adult Ladder ................................................................................ 6 

Figure 2-3. Tumwater Ladder........................................................................................................ 8 

Figure 2-4. Chiwawa Weir............................................................................................................. 9 

Figure 2-5. Wells Dam................................................................................................................. 11 

Figure 2-6. Twisp Weir Trap ....................................................................................................... 11 

Figure 2-7. Winthrop NFH Adult Ladder.................................................................................... 12 

Figure 3-1. Peshastin Incubation Facility .................................................................................... 14 

Figure 3-2. Cascade Hatchery...................................................................................................... 16 

Figure 3-3. Willard NFH.............................................................................................................. 17 

Figure 3-4. Dryden Surface Water Intake.................................................................................... 21 

Figure 3-5. Dryden Hatchery Model............................................................................................ 22 

Figure 3-6. Dryden Draft Site Plan with Aerial Photo................................................................. 25 

Figure 3-7. Dryden Draft Site Plan with Flood Boundaries ........................................................ 26 

Figure 3-8. Winthrop NFH .......................................................................................................... 28 

Figure 4-1. George Draft Site Plan .............................................................................................. 31 

 List of Tables 

Table 1-1. Brood Capture and Rearing Construction Impacts at Dryden...................................... 4 
1

1. Summary 

For the natural production phases of the project, the program plans to rely on 

existing adult traps as close to spawning habitat as possible. Several tributary traps 

have been discussed by other fishery agencies but do not yet exist. These are 

shown as “Proposed” on Figure 1-1. The Yakama Nation does not plan on 

constructing any additional, permanent trapping facilities for the coho program. 

The emphasis for hatchery rearing is proposed to be on existing facilities—

Winthrop National Fish Hatchery (NFH), Willard NFH, and Cascade Fish 

Hatchery (FH)—that have reared MCCRP coho in the past (Figure 1-2). A small 

hatchery is proposed for the Dryden site. If Dryden is not a feasible location for 

the proposed new hatchery, the George site would be used as an alternate location. 
2

Figure 1-1. Brood Capture Site Map 
3

Figure 1-2. Rearing Site Map 
4

Construction is proposed only at Dryden. A surface water intake at Dryden Dam, 

an infiltration gallery or wells, a hatchery building, rearing units, and an effluent 

treatment system are planned. 

Project construction impacts are summarized in Table 1-1 below. 

Table 1-1. Brood Capture and Rearing Construction Impacts at Dryden 

Rearing Dryden 

Snow plowing for fish delivery (ft) No 

New road construction (ft) No 

New intake construction Yes 

Surface water removal distance (ft) 0 

New groundwater supply Yes 

Existing well No 

Volume excavated (ft3/1000) - new hatchery construction 131 

Volume excavated (ft3/1000) - existing pond No 

Surface disturbance (acres) - new hatchery construction 1.5 

Surface disturbance (ft2) - water systems, intakes 0 

Surface disturbance (ft2) - water systems, open channel 0 

Buried water pipelines (ft) 1,500 

Buried power lines (ft) 500 

Surface disturbance (acre) - total 4 

Period of operation (mo.) 12 

Generator Yes 

2. Site Descriptions – Brood Capture 

The project proposes to use broodstock capture facilities that currently exist or are 

planned for future development by other agencies. Trap operation protocols for the 

existing facilities may need to change to meet broodstock collection goals for the 

coho program. 

Broodstock Development Phase 1 (BDP1) emphasized adult capture at locations 

low in the watersheds, such as at Dryden and Wells dams (Figure 1-1). As the 

program transitioned to Broodstock Development Phase 2 (BDP2) and the natural 

production phases, trapping locations closer to spawning habitat increased in 

importance. 

2.1. Wenatchee 

The primary locations for capture of adults during the BDP1 were Dryden Dam 
5

and Leavenworth NFH in the Wenatchee watershed. The primary BDP2 and 

natural production adult capture facilities are proposed to be Tumwater Dam and 

the Chiwawa Weir. Leavenworth NFH and Dryden Dam would continue to be 

used during both the broodstock development and natural production phases as 

needed, acting as back-up locations if collection goals are not met at the primary 

capture facilities. 

Other trapping facilities, such as tributary weirs, have been recommended for other 

species. These collection facilities have been proposed by fisheries agencies in the 

region but may not be built. If the facilities are constructed, the MCCRP project 

would likely use them, particularly those being considered for Nason Creek and 

White River. 

2.1.1. Dryden Dam 

The Dryden Dam collection facility is located at river mile (rm) 17.4 on the 

Wenatchee River. This facility is owned and maintained by Chelan County Public 

Utility District (CCPUD). YN and WDFW are co-operators collecting steelhead, 

summer Chinook and coho broodstock for various supplementation and 

reintroduction programs. Dryden has been a key site for coho broodstock 

collection since the program’s inception. 

There are two trapping facilities within the Dryden Dam structure: left bank and 

right bank. The left bank trap is located on the north shore of the river and 

operates passively. As fish enter the trap, a series of ladders provide upstream 

passage into the collection area. Once through the ladder system, an in-line, V-trap 

weir collects fish in the holding area. While in operation, the left bank trap is 

checked at least once a day to provide brood collection and/or upstream passage of 

adult fish. Past years have required multiple daily checks at this facility due to 

large numbers of summer Chinook and coho encountered. 

Dryden right bank is located across and upstream of the left bank facility and is 

also a passive trap. A small concrete apron spans approximately half the 

Wenatchee River. An expandable/retractable, water-filled bladder is positioned 

atop the apron to provide blockage for migrating fish. This bladder is monitored 

daily and adjusted to account for changing flow regimes encountered during the 

trapping seasons. Fish entering the right bank facility are shunted into a holding 

area via a V-trap weir. When it is operating, the trap is checked daily to either pass 

or collect fish. 

On non-operating days, holding areas are closed to provide unimpeded, upstream 

movement through the facilities. Collection efficiencies during operation depend 

on Wenatchee River flows. Higher flows result in reduced trapping efficiencies 
6

due to an accessible portion of river located between the right bank and left bank 

traps. 

Figure 2-1. Dryden Dam Aerial 

2.1.2. Leavenworth NFH 

The Leavenworth NFH volunteer ladder would be used for broodstock collection 

on Icicle Creek when trapping goals at other locations are not met. This collection 

facility is owned and operated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and 

is located at Icicle Creek km 2.8 on the left bank shore. Broodstock migrate 

through a series of ladders until they enter a V-trap weir downstream of the 

hatchery adult holding ponds. This trap allows coho to be collected while juvenile 

spring Chinook are being reared in the adult holding ponds. If needed, the 

Leavenworth NFH ladder trap could operate 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, 

October through the end of November. 

Figure 2-2. Leavenworth NFH Adult Ladder 
7

2.1.3. Tumwater Dam 

Tumwater Dam is located at rm 30.4 on the Wenatchee River. The facility is 

owned and maintained by CCPUD; YN and WDFW are co-operators. Tumwater 

Dam can be actively or passively operated, depending on fish numbers and 

available personnel. In 2004, YN entered into a cost-share with CCPUD to modify 

and update the trapping facility. These modifications improved functionality for 

multiple species. 

Passive trapping operations allow migrating fish to move through a series of 

ladders and enter a holding facility. Once in the holding facility, fish migrate up a 

steep pass Denil ladder where they are shunted into a holding chamber. Prior to 

working up the fish, the chamber is de-watered and a hopper hauls fish out of the 

holding area where they are sorted, identified, and either kept for broodstock or 

passed upstream. YN and/or WDFW check the trap at least once a day during 

passive operation. 

Active operation follows the same procedures except that once fish move up the 

steep pass Denil, staff are present to shunt fish to various holding tanks. During 

large salmon runs, it is necessary to actively trap at Tumwater Dam to prevent 

overloading the hopper/holding area. For non-trapping days, Tumwater Dam is 

opened for passage while a video monitoring system records all migrating fish 

species. 

In the Wenatchee subbasin, BDP1 is complete. During BDP2, fish could be 

trapped at Tumwater Dam up to 7 days a week, 16 hours a day from midSeptember through mid-December, which is an increase from current practice (3 

days a week, 16 hours a day) and with the understanding that appropriate 

permitting would be in-place. Tumwater Dam is currently operating under the 

extended trapping periods through WDFW’s steelhead/spring Chinook adult 

management programs. During trap operations, YN personnel would check the 

trap at least once a day. 
8

Figure 2-3. Tumwater Ladder 

2.1.4. Chiwawa Weir 

The Chiwawa weir is located adjacent to the Chiwawa Acclimation Facility on the 

Chiwawa River (rm 1.2). It is currently being operated by Washington Department 

of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) for multiple supplementation programs. This 

tributary trap would be important for collections during natural production phases 

because it selects adults that have traveled nearly the full distance back to the 

spawning grounds. 

The weir spans the entire width of the river. It is angled slightly to move migrating 

fish towards the right-bank shore where a holding facility is located. Operation is 

proposed for up to 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, with YN personnel checking the 

trap a minimum of once a day. Multiple checks per day would be warranted if 

large numbers of coho return and would be coordinated with on-station hatchery 

staff. Trapping would begin in September and run through the middle of 

December. 
9

Figure 2-4. Chiwawa Weir 

2.1.5. Nason Weir (proposed) 

The Nason Creek adult trap being proposed is a semi-permanent, floating weir near 

the mouth of Nason Creek. If constructed, this facility would be funded by Grant 

County Public Utility District (GCPUD) as a part of their spring Chinook 

mitigation obligations. Preferred operations, if used for coho, would be 7 days a 

week, 16 hours a day from September to the middle of December but would 

depend on permitting. 

2.1.6. White Trap (proposed) 

The White River adult trap is another proposed facility that may be located 

somewhere in the lower two kilometers of the river. The trapping method, 

location, and operation are undetermined at this time. This weir or trap would also 

be funded by GCPUD. 

2.2. Methow 

The primary facilities used for adult capture during BDP1 in the Methow subbasin 

were Wells Dam and the Winthrop NFH. The primary BDP2 and natural 

production adult capture facilities are proposed to be Winthrop NFH, the Twisp 

Weir, and Wells Dam. 

Additional Methow trapping facilities have been proposed by other fisheries 

agencies in the region but may not be built. If they are constructed, the MCCRP 

project would likely use them, particularly those being considered on the mainstem 

Methow at Foghorn Dam and on the Chewuch River. 
10

2.2.1. Wells Dam 

Wells Dam is located at rm 515.7 on the Columbia River. Unlike the Wenatchee 

subbasin, the Methow does not have a lower river trapping facility, so this 

Columbia River mainstem location is used to supplement collections at Winthrop 

NFH and to collect naturally produced adults. 

Initial dam trapping operations begin in late September for 3 days a week, up to 16 

hours a day, until mid-October. The reduced trapping effort prior to mid-October 

is intended to minimize impacts to steelhead adults migrating through the system. 

After mid-October, YN has the ability to trap 7 days a week, up to 16 hours a day, 

through November 30. Trapping duration would depend on the number of swimins encountered at Winthrop NFH. 

There are three trapping facilities at Wells Dam, the east and west fish ladders and 

the volunteer ladder. All facilities are owned and maintained by Douglas County 

Public Utility District (DCPUD) and are operated by WDFW and YN. 

For the west ladder, adults negotiate a chute where they are either shunted into a 

holding area at Wells FH or bypassed back to the ladder on the upstream side of 

the collection point. Coho are removed from the holding area daily and the 

WDFW removes and samples steelhead on a daily basis. Once sorted, adult coho 

are either placed directly into a transport truck and sent to Winthrop NFH or placed 

into net pens for temporary holding until a transport truck is available. 

Fish using the east ladder trap ascend a series of pools to the trap. Fish negotiate a 

steep-pass Denil, then swim down a chute where they are either passed to an 

anesthetic tank or returned to the ladder. Fish collected in the tank are identified, 

baseline biological information is collected, and then they are placed in a transport 

truck for delivery to Winthrop NFH. On non-trapping days, the trapping weirs are 

closed and gates that block the ladder passage are re-opened. 

Wells Fish Hatchery (FH) is situated adjacent the Wells Dam west ladder. This 

hatchery, funded by DCPUD and operated by WDFW, raises summer Chinook and 

steelhead for mitigation and restoration purposes. Wells FH has also been 

contracted by YN in the past to acclimate coho juveniles. This production has 

been viewed as a supplemental brood source if needed in low return years. The 

volunteer trap is located at the lower portion of the facility and is the primary 

brood collection source for Wells summer Chinook. This trapping facility has 

been discussed by WDFW and YN as a supplemental trapping location, if other 

trapping locations fail to produce sufficient collection numbers. This trap would 

be operated on an as-needed basis during the months of October and November. 
11

Figure 2-5. Wells Dam 

2.2.2. Twisp Weir 

The adult weir is located at rm 3.7 on the Twisp River. Beginning with BDP2, trap 

operations are proposed to be 7 days a week, 16 hours a day from September to 

mid-December; however, effects on steelhead and bull trout spawning migration 

would need to be evaluated. Bi-weekly quotas would be developed in annual 

broodstock protocol documents, written by June 30 each year, in cooperation with 

DCPUD and the members of the HCP Hatchery Committee. Shortfalls at this and 

other tributary trap locations would require increased collections at Wells Dam 

and/or Winthrop NFH. 

The Twisp River weir is funded by DCPUD and operated by WDFW. 

Improvements to the weir were made in 2007 to improve trapping efficiency at all 

flow conditions. 

Figure 2-6. Twisp Weir Trap 

2.2.3. Winthrop NFH 

Winthrop NFH is located at rm 49.7 on the Methow River and is operated by the 

USFWS. Fish volitionally enter the hatchery adult pond through Spring Creek, a 

tributary to the Methow River. A secondary collection source, a temporary weir 
12

trap, may also be used for broodstock collections. The weir trap is installed within 

the outlet infrastructure of the back-channel acclimation pond, adjacent to the 

entrance of the hatchery ladder. Adults collected in the weir are transported to the 

hatchery holding pond. Coho collected at both locations are held until spawning. 

Trap operations would be 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, mid-September through 

mid-December. 

Figure 2-7. Winthrop NFH Adult Ladder 

2.2.4. Methow Fish Hatchery 

Terms of the Wells hydropower Habitat Conservation Plan guide activities at the 

Methow Fish Hatchery and daily operation is conducted by WDFW. Some adult 

coho straying from the Winthrop NFH outfall attempt to enter the Methow 

Hatchery. A V-notch weir structure exists on the hatchery discharge that can be 

lowered into place in order to trap fish. Douglas PUD and WDFW have offered to 

provide the YN access to this collection weir. Trapped coho will be transported to 

the Winthrop NFH for ripening and spawning. 

2.2.5. Foghorn Dam 

Foghorn Dam is a rock structure dam just above the Methow Valley Fish Hatchery 

on the Methow mainstem at rm 50.3. It has been ineffective at collecting spring 

Chinook broodstock for other mitigation programs. Should improvements be made 

that allow more efficient trapping at the current right bank trap, this location may 

also be suitable for adult coho collection. 

2.2.6. Chewuch Weir (proposed) 

The Chewuch River Weir is a trap proposed for spring Chinook supplementation 

that may be funded by DCPUD. It is currently undergoing feasibility evaluations. 
13

3. Site Descriptions – Primary Rearing Sites 

The plan emphasizes the use of existing hatcheries due to cost considerations. 

Hatcheries that would continue to provide long-term rearing (eyed-egg to presmolt) through the natural production phases are Cascade FH and Willard NFH on 

the lower Columbia River, as well as Winthrop NFH in the Methow subbasin. A 

new facility with adult holding, incubation, and rearing capabilities is proposed for 

the Wenatchee subbasin at Dryden Dam. 

3.1. Early Incubation 

In addition to the rearing facilities described below, early incubation (from green to 

eyed) would continue to occur at the Peshastin Incubation Facility and the 

Leavenworth NFH. The Dryden hatchery would take over the majority of this 

function after it is built, although either or both facilities may be used into the 

future for back-up purposes. After eying at Peshastin and/or Leavenworth, eggs 

are transferred to Lower Columbia River (LCR) facilities for rearing. 

Peshastin Incubation Facility

This Wenatchee basin facility was set up as a temporary facility for the MidColumbia Coho Feasibility Studies on property owned by Peshastin Hi-Up, a fruit 

cooperative in the town of Peshastin. The water source is non-chlorinated city 

water from Peshastin Water District, one of the only cities in the region where 

water does not need chlorination. Supplemental groundwater is available through 

Peshastin Hi-Up and has been used in the past as a back-up water supply. 

Incoming water is run through charcoal and crushed coral filter beds for 

conditioning. Three deep-trough incubation systems can rear eggs to the eyed 

stage. 

Facility Production 

• Incubation: up to 800,000 to the eyed stage. 

Site Information 

• Location, elevation: Near the town of Peshastin at Wenatchee rm 20.5; in 

T24N, R18E, SE 1⁄4 of S17 in Chelan County; elevation 310 meters. 

• Ownership: Peshastin Hi-Up. 

• Flood designation: Above the 100 year flood elevation. 

• Land use: The incubation room is inside an existing fruit storage warehouse. 

• Access: Plowed, paved roads. 
14

Water Supply 

• Groundwater: Up to 20 gallons per minute (gpm) is available from the City 

of Peshastin and an existing well inside the warehouse is a back-up supply. 

Figure 3-1. Peshastin Incubation Facility 

Leavenworth NFH

An isolated incubation area in the existing hatchery building is dedicated to coho. 

Twelve vertical stack incubators with approximately 5 gpm running through each 

stack were available for incubation. To alleviate fish health concerns of spreading 

disease, splash curtains were installed in addition to a UV treatment system and 

regular formalin treatments. This system was renovated in 2010 to accommodate 

the transition of the coho program from Entiat NFH to Leavenworth NFH. 

Facility Production 

• Incubation: up to 750,000 to the eyed stage. 

Site Information 

• Location: Leavenworth NFH 

• Ownership: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, funded by Bureau of 

Reclamation. 

• Flood designation: Above the 100 year flood elevation. 

• Land use: The incubation room is inside the existing hatchery building 

designated for egg incubation/early juvenile rearing. 

• Access: Plowed, paved roads. 

Water Supply 
15

• Groundwater: Up to 70 gpm of chilled well water is available during egg 

incubation. 

3.2. Cascade FH 

The Cascade FH is used to rear coho destined for release in the Wenatchee 

subbasin. It is operated by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 

and is located on Eagle Creek, near Bonneville Dam. The number of coho 

proposed for rearing at Cascade changes throughout the life of the program. 

Cascade FH was authorized under the Mitchell Act and began operating in 1959 as 

part of the Columbia River Fisheries Development Program. The hatchery is 

supplied with surface water from Eagle Creek and has full rearing capability, with 

the following facilities (IHOT 1996): 

• Adult holding: 1 concrete adult holding pond - 22,500 cubic feet 

• Incubation: vertical stack incubators 

• Raceways: 30 concrete raceways at 16 feet by 78 feet by 2.5 feet deep; 3,120 

cubic feet each. 

In 2006, production goals for Cascade FH were 700,000 coho for the MCCRP, 

1,000,000 coho for the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Nation, and 600,000 

coho for the Clatsop Economic Development Commission. The MCCRP proposed 

future production from Cascade FH will remain consistent with current production 

levels (up to 700,000). 

Water is supplied through a gravity-fed system from Eagle Creek. The total water 

right is 20,200 gpm at 45 cubic feet per second (cfs) with an actual average water 

usage of about 7,000 gpm (16 cfs). Eagle Creek water temperatures typically 

fluctuate between 2° C in December/January to 17° C in July/August. High 

summer temperatures create some disease problems but the large natural 

fluctuations may help produce smolts that survive to adulthood in increased 

numbers. 

Predicted fish sizes for the February/March transport dates for the MCCRP are 23-

25 fish/lb, depending on release location and rearing strategy. Volume densities in 

the raceways will range from 0.6 - 0.7 pounds per cubic feet (ft3

). 

In 2005, a predator net system consisting of wires and netting enclosing the coho 

raceways allocated for the YN program was constructed. This structure has 

reduced avian predation significantly (pers. comm., Mark Traynor, ODFW, 2007). 
16

Figure 3-2. Cascade Hatchery 

3.3. Willard NFH 

Willard NFH would be used to rear coho destined for release in both Wenatchee 

and Methow subbasins. The proposed numbers of fish produced at Willard NFH 

would change throughout the life of the program. 

Willard NFH is located on the Little White Salmon River near Cook, Washington. 

It was authorized by the Mitchell Act in 1946 and constructed in 1952. The 

facility was originally planned as a fall Chinook hatchery but changed to spring 

Chinook and coho because of cold water temperatures, and then switched 

completely to coho in the mid-1960s. Currently, this facility has reverted back to 

rearing coho, spring and fall Chinook. It operates on surface water and has full 

rearing capability, with the following facilities (IHOT 1997): 

• 24 vertical stack incubation trays (16 trays per stack, 384 trays total) 

• Early rearing: 52 concrete starter tanks - 91 cubic feet each 

• Raceways: 50 concrete raceways – 8 feet by 73 feet by 2.4 feet; 1,408 cubic 

feet each 

The 1997 hatchery production goal was 2,500,000 coho smolts, or 166,600 pounds. 

Current production is much lower and is focused on supporting tribal programs. In 

2007, the hatchery reared approximately 500,000 coho for the MCCRP. In 2009 

and 2010, production was closer to 650,000 for the Wenatchee and Methow 

programs. This production is expected to rise to 1,000,000 during the NPIP phase, 

if space is available. 
17

The Willard NFH concrete raceways are narrow and shallow, which may have a 

negative impact on smolt quality. A-frame, overhead covers were installed in 2005 

in order to provide effective shade, predator control, and crew working space. The 

general condition of the hatchery is good. A recent intake rebuild has improved 

water supply reliability. 

The hatchery is exempt from a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) discharge permit because the effluent disappears into porous lava before 

reaching the Little White Salmon River. Cold water disease has been an issue in 

the past but has recently been controlled with improved fish culture techniques. As 

with Cascade FH, fish produced from Willard NFH need to be trucked long 

distances to acclimation sites on the Wenatchee and Methow rivers. 

Figure 3-3. Willard NFH 

3.4. Dryden 

A small, new hatchery is proposed on the Wenatchee River, to be operational by 

2013. This facility would provide a centrally located site for handling and 

spawning local broodstock, incubating eggs, and rearing some juveniles. 

The benefits of having an in-basin facility include reduced inter-watershed disease 

transmission, improved logistics, reduced transportation stress, additional program 

control, and added in-basin juvenile imprinting. 

The preferred location for this facility is near Dryden Dam at the mouth of 

Peshastin Creek. The potential availability of both ground and surface water 

supplies and low environmental impacts make this an attractive hatchery location. 

However, the land near the proposed hatchery has been determined to be 

contaminated with lead from a nearby gun club. Environmental surveys will 
18

evaluate the extent of contamination and will help guide clean-up efforts. The site 

is owned by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 

Design guidelines, basic site data, and the draft design are described below. 

Facility Production 

• Adult holding: 1,300. 

• Incubation: 1,400,000 to the eyed stage. 

• Fish production: 200,000 pre-smolts. 

Site Information 

• Location, elevation: Near the mouth of Peshastin Creek at Wenatchee rm 

18.6; in T24N, R18E, SW 1⁄4 of S22 in Chelan County; adjacent to Dryden 

Dam; elevation 300 meters. 

• Ownership: The 24-acre Washington State Department of Transportation 

(WSDOT) property is lot number 241822745006, zoned Commercial 

Agricultural Lands (AC). 

• Flood designation: Zone X500 (between 100- and 500-year floods). 

• Land use: Used in the past by WSDOT for storage of highway sand. The 

site currently provides access to Dryden Dam and Fishway, portage for river 

rafters, and fishermen’s access to the Wenatchee River. 

• Access: Plowed, paved roads. 

• Utilities: 3-phase power is available at the nearby Dryden right bank ladder 

facility. 

Water Supplies 

• Groundwater availability: Drill logs for nearby wells and the geology of the 

site suggest productive groundwater conditions. Historic gravel deposition 

at the Peshastin alluvial fan may have left layers of clean gravel. 

• Groundwater withdrawal: Shallow wells near the river are proposed, 

minimizing impacts to deeper wells in the vicinity and producing water with 

a temperature variation closer to that of the river than deep groundwater. The 

production goal is 3.3 cfs (including a 50% safety factor). 

• Surface water supply: Wenatchee River water is proposed to be pumped 

from the Dryden fishway. An intake would be built into the existing 

concrete structure, at location A on the drawing below. This location allows 

water to be pumped at all river flow conditions without impacting fishway 
19

operation and does not require excavation in the river bank for construction. 

Water would be delivered to the hatchery in an 850’ long buried pipeline. 

The hatchery model shown below estimates that a minimum flow of 3.1 

cubic feet per second (cfs) is needed. Applying a 50% safety factor results 

in a water requirement of 4.7 cfs. 

• Water Return. The option of returning water (and fish) upstream of the 

removal location in Peshastin Creek, at the dam, or just downstream of the 

dam would be possible by installing various return pipelines. 

Figure 3-4. Dryden Surface Water Intake 
Period Rearing Water Water Mort. Removed/ Number at Fish Fish Fish Flo

w Volume Total Min. Min. Min. 

Unit Source Temp. Released Hatchery Size Size Size Density Density Weight Flo

w Flo

w Volume 

( 0 F) #/mo. lbs #/lb inch lbs/gpm lbs/cft lbs gpm cfs cft

Sep Adult Ground 47 81 1,085 1,085 2.4 10,847 

Oct Adult Ground 42 76 1,009 1,009 2.2 10,090 

Nov Inc Ground 42 49,733 1,375,938 174 0.4 Dec Inc Ground 42 47,935 1,326,205 168 0.4 

Jan Inc Ground 42 20,955 1,278,270 162 0.4 

Feb Inc Ground 42 20,612 1,000,000 1,257,315 162 0.4 

Mar RW Ground 42 1,568 236,703 0.0010 1000 1.50 1.5 0.2 237 158 0.4 1,262 

Apr RW Ground 43 1,557 235,135 0.0018 556 1.83 1.8 0.2 423 232 0.5 1,855 

May RW Surface 45 1,547 233,578 0.0030 333 2.16 2.2 0.27 701 324 0.7 2,590 

Jun RW Surface 49 1,537 232,031 0.0049 204 2.55 2.5 0.32 1,137 446 1.0 3,569 

Jul RW Surface 57 1,526 230,495 0.0064 156 2.79 2.8 0.35 1,475 530 1.2 4,236 

Aug RW Surface 62 1,516 228,968 0.0088 114 3.10 3.1 0.39 2,015 650 1.4 5,203 Sep Pond Surface 61 1,506 227,452 0.0159 63 3.77 3.8 0.23 3,616 959 2.1 15,975 

Oct Pond Surface 51 1,496 225,946 0.0238 42 4.32 4.3 0.26 5,380 1,246 2.8 20,771 

Nov Pond Surface 45 1,486 110,000 224,449 0.0290 34 4.61 4.6 0.28 6,509 1,412 3.1 23,533 

Dec Pond Surface 40 748 112,963 0.0320 31 4.76 4.8 0.29 3,615 759 1.7 12,647 

Jan Pond Surface 38 743 112,215 0.0330 30 4.81 4.8 0.29 3,703 769 1.7 12,824 

Feb Pond Surface 37 738 111,472 0.0340 29 4.86 4.9 0.29 3,790 780 1.7 12,995 

Mar Pond Surface 40 733 110,000 110,733 0.0370 27 5.00 5.0 0.30 4,097 819 1.8 13,658 

Apr Pond Surface 43 0 0 0.0420 24 5.22 5.2 0.31 0 0 0.0 0 

May Pond Surface 45 0 0 0.0500 20 5.53 5.5 0.33 0 0 0.0 0 

Jun 0

1,220,000

SPREADSHEET INPUTS:ADULTS INCUBATION REARING Adult mortality: 15% Fert. to eyeing mort.: 15% Pond. to release mort.: 

Adult mortality/mo.: 7.5% Fert. to eyeing mort./mo: 3.8% Pond. to release mort./mo

Eggs per female: 3,000 Eyed to ponding mort.: 5% Raceway density index: 

Adult vol. density: 10 ft3/adult Eyed to ponding mort./mo.: 1.7% Pond density index: Adult flow density: 1 gpm/adult Eggs/Heath tray: 3,000 Flow density index: 

Adult pond volume: 3,500 cft Eggs/stack: 45,000 Raceway volume: 

Water flow/full stack 6 gpm Pond volume: 

Figure 3-5. Dryden Hatchery Model 
23

Proposed Hatchery Design 

Draft site plans are shown on the following figures. 

• Adult holding: Four concrete raceways (100 ft by 10 ft by 4 ft), with 

multiple divisions in the raceways to allow sorting. 

• Incubation: Vertical stack incubators and deep troughs inside a hatchery 

building would be fed with aerated, chilled ground water. 

• Rearing: The four concrete raceways would be used for fish production 

when adults are not present. Also, two ponds measuring 40 ft by 120 ft by 

3’ deep would add low density rearing space. 

• Predator control, cover: The site would be fenced and an overhead net 

system installed over the rearing units. 

• Waste treatment: Discharge water treatment would likely require a high 

degree of nutrient removal to meet conditions of the Total Maximum Daily 

Load restrictions in place for the Wenatchee River. Two treatment systems 

are being proposed. An off-line treatment tank measuring 10’ by 20’ by 4’ 

will hold and settle wastes vacuumed from the rearing units. Water from the 

hatchery will be directed to a 2 acre constructed wetland for additional 

nutrient removal. 

• Support systems: A 3,000 square-foot (ft2

) hatchery building will enclose the 

incubators, rearing troughs, offices, and a small shop. Generators will 

provide back-up power. Parking will be provided for up to 10 vehicles. 

• Site footprint: The hatchery site will require 1.5 acres of land. The full 

hatchery facility, including pipelines, water supply construction, the 

constructed wetland, and hatchery facilities, will require that a total of 4 

acres of land will be disturbed during construction. 

Figure 3-6. Dryden Draft Site Plan with Aerial Photo 
Figure 3-7. Dryden Draft Site Plan with Flood Boundaries 
27

3.5. Winthrop NFH 

The proposed plan calls for the continued production of 300,000 - 350,000 presmolts from the Winthrop NFH (approximately 250,000 on-station and 100,000 in 

the hatchery back-channel), starting with BDP2. Plans also call for Winthrop NFH 

to hold all captured Methow broodstock. With minor modifications planned by the 

USFWS to the water delivery system, adult holding area, and incubation system, 

this facility would hold a maximum of 1,300 adults and 1,300,000 eggs. A large 

proportion of the eggs would be transferred to lower river hatcheries at the eyed 

stage. 

Winthrop NFH was originally authorized as part of the Grand Coulee Fish 

Maintenance Project. It began operation in 1942 to compensate for fish losses in 

the upper Columbia River drainage caused by the construction of Grand Coulee 

Dam. The funding agency is the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the operating 

agency is the USFWS. 

The following information is from Integrated Hatchery Operations Team (IHOT 

1998) and the Hatchery and Genetics Management Plan (HGMP 2002) and 

represents current conditions at the hatchery. The hatchery has water rights 

totaling 29,930 gpm from the Methow River, Spring Branch Spring, and two 

infiltration galleries (6,000 gpm). Water use ranges from 8,500 to 27,700 gpm. 

Rearing systems include: 

• Adult Holding Ponds: 2 concrete ponds at 25,000 ft3

 each that currently are 

unused. 

• Incubation: 150 iso buckets, 150 vertical stack trays, and bulk incubators. 

• Early Rearing Tanks: 34 fiberglass, 16 feet x 2 feet x 2.8 feet. 

• Raceways: 30 at 80 feet x 8 feet x 2.3 feet — 1,470 ft3 each (design flow of 

300 gpm). 

• Raceways: 7 at 100 feet x 12 feet x 1.8 feet — 2,200 ft3 each (design flow of 

350 gpm). 

• Foster-Lucas Ponds: 7 at 2,750 ft3 each (design flow of 350 gpm), currently 

not used for fish production. 
28

Figure 3-8. Winthrop NFH 

4. Site Descriptions – Back-up Rearing Sites 

An alternative to the Dryden hatchery is being evaluated. It has the same facility 

production requirements and same water and space needs. 

4.1. George 

Site Information 

• Location, elevation: Downstream of Lake Wenatchee at Wenatchee rm 

51.6; T27N, R17E, NW 1⁄4 of S26 in Chelan County; elevation 570 meters. 

• Ownership: The 150 acre parcel is currently in private ownership. The 

Yakama Nation is considering buying the site for habitat restoration. 

• Flood designation: Most of the site is in Zone A3, in the 100 year flood 

hazard area. The Base Flood Elevation near the proposed hatchery site is 

1,875’. 

• Land use: The site is undeveloped and has been logged in the past. It is 

zoned RR20, rural residential with a minimum lot size of 20 acres. 

• Access: Unpaved, primitive roads provide limited access. 

• Utilities: 3-phase power is 4,000 ft away. 

• Soils: The Natural Resources Conservation Service classifies soils on the 

site as adfluvial (NRCS, 2010). 

Proposed Facilities 

• Rearing units: Four 100’ by 10’ by 4’ concrete raceways for adult holding 

and rearing, egg incubators with a capacity for 1,400,000 eggs, early rearing 

troughs, and two rearing ponds measuring 120’ by 40’ by 3’ are proposed. 
29

• Support systems: A 3,000 ft2

 hatchery building will enclose the incubators, 

rearing troughs, offices, and a small shop. Generators will provide back-up 

power. Parking will be provided for up to 10 vehicles. 

• Discharge treatment: An off-line treatment tank measuring 10’ by 20’ by 4’ 

will hold and settle wastes vacuumed from the rearing units. Water from the 

hatchery will be directed to a large, disconnected side channel for additional 

treatment and nutrient removal prior to reaching the Wenatchee. Water 

would be removed from the mainstem Wenatchee for a distance of 3,800 ft. 

• Site footprint: Hatchery facilities will require 1.5 acres of land. An 

additional 1.0 acres will be disturbed by power conduit and pipeline burial. 

Water Supply 

• Groundwater supply: A preliminary evaluation of the potential for 

developing groundwater on the site is planned. Two or more wells are 

proposed to produce the required 3.3 cfs. 

• Surface water supply: 4.7 cfs of surface water will be pumped from the 

Wenatchee River. A submerged intake screen will be built into an existing 

rock barb in the river. 

• Pipelines: Surface and ground water will be delivered to the hatchery in 

separate pipelines that will be approximately 1,500 ft long. 

Proposed Hatchery Design 

• Adult holding: Four concrete raceways (100 ft by 10 ft by 4 ft). 

• Incubation: Vertical stack incubators and deep troughs inside a hatchery 

building would be fed with aerated, chilled ground water. 

• Rearing: The four concrete raceways would be used for fish production 

when adults are not present. Also, two ponds measuring 40 ft by 120 ft by 

3’ deep would add low density rearing space. 

• Predator control, cover: The site would be fenced and an overhead net 

system installed over the rearing units. 

• Waste treatment: Discharge water treatment would likely require a high 

degree of nutrient removal to meet conditions of the Total Maximum Daily 

Load restrictions in place for the Wenatchee River. An off-line treatment 

tank measuring 10’ by 20’ by 4’ will hold and settle wastes vacuumed from 

the rearing units. Treated water from the hatchery will be directed to the 

existing, 5,600 ft long, side channel on the site for further nutrient removal 
30

prior to entering the Wenatchee River. 

• Support systems: A 3,000 ft2 hatchery building will enclose the incubators, 

rearing troughs, offices, and a small shop. Generators will provide back-up 

power. Parking will be provided for up to 10 vehicles. 

• Site footprint: Hatchery facilities will require 1.5 acres of land. Including 

pipelines, water supply construction, and hatchery facilities, a total of 2.5 

acres of land will be disturbed.
Figure 4-1. George Draft Site Plan 
32

5. References 

HGMP (Hatchery and Genetics Management Plan), Spring Chinook. 2002. 

Winthrop National Fish Hatchery, Leavenworth Hatchery Complex. 

IHOT (Integrated Hatchery Operations Team). 1996. Hatchery Evaluation 

Report, Cascade Hatchery – Coho. December 1996. 

IHOT. 1997. Hatchery Evaluation Report, Willard Hatchery – Coho. February 

1997. 

IHOT. 1998. Hatchery Evaluation Report Summary for Winthrop NFH – 

Spring Chinook, Summer Steelhead. February, 1998. 

NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2010. Web Soil Survey 

(http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/). 
1 

APPENDIX 2 

 WENATCHEE ACCLIMATION SITE 

DESCRIPTIONS 

Prepared by: Greg Ferguson, Sea Springs Co. 

May, 2011 

Table of Contents 

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... i

List of Figures................................................................................................................................ ii

1. Summary....................................................................................................................................3

2. Site Details .................................................................................................................................6

2.1. Information Tables ............................................................................................................6

2.2. Net Confinement Systems................................................................................................12

2.3. Other Site Design Features..............................................................................................14

3. Site Descriptions – Proposed, With Construction................................................................16

3.1. Butcher..............................................................................................................................16

3.2. Tall Timber.......................................................................................................................18

3.3. Chikamin...........................................................................................................................20

3.4. Minnow .............................................................................................................................23

3.5. Scheibler............................................................................................................................24

4. Site Descriptions – Proposed, No Construction....................................................................27

4.1. Coulter...............................................................................................................................27

4.2. Rohlfing.............................................................................................................................28

4.3. White River Springs.........................................................................................................30

4.4. Dirty Face..........................................................................................................................32

4.5. Two Rivers ........................................................................................................................34

4.6. Clear ..................................................................................................................................36

4.7. Beaver................................................................................................................................38

4.8. Brender .............................................................................................................................39

4.9. Leavenworth NFH............................................................................................................40

5. Site Descriptions – Back-up, With Construction .................................................................41

5.1. Squadroni..........................................................................................................................41

5.2. Dryden...............................................................................................................................42

6. Site Descriptions – Back-up, No Construction .....................................................................43

6.1. Allen...................................................................................................................................43

6.2. Coulter/Roaring ...............................................................................................................44

6.3. McComas ..........................................................................................................................44

7. Other Locations and Methods ...............................................................................................45

8. References................................................................................................................................46
ii 

List of Figures 

Figure 1-1. Wenatchee Subbasin Acclimation Site Map............................................................... 5 

Figure 2-1. General, Location, and Land Use Details ................................................................... 6 

Figure 2-2. Water and Space Detail............................................................................................... 8 

Figure 2-3. Construction and Operation Impacts......................................................................... 11 

Figure 2-4. Barrier Net Example ................................................................................................. 13 

Figure 2-5. Seine Net Example.................................................................................................... 13 

Figure 2-6. Example Net System Design..................................................................................... 14 

Figure 2-7. Pond Phosphorous Removal Efficiency.................................................................... 15 

Figure 3-1. Butcher Aerial ........................................................................................................... 17 

Figure 3-2. Butcher Pond............................................................................................................. 17 

Figure 3-3. Tall Timber Site Plan ................................................................................................ 19 

Figure 3-4. Tall Timber Pond ...................................................................................................... 20 

Figure 3-5. Chikamin and Minnow Site Plan .............................................................................. 22 

Figure 3-6. Chikamin Pond Location........................................................................................... 23 

Figure 3-7. Chikamin Pond Crossection...................................................................................... 23 

Figure 3-8. Minnow Pond Location............................................................................................. 24 

Figure 3-9. Scheibler Aerial......................................................................................................... 26 

Figure 3-10. Scheibler Photo ....................................................................................................... 26 

Figure 4-1. Coulter Aerial............................................................................................................ 28 

Figure 4-2. Coulter Photo ............................................................................................................ 28 

Figure 4-3. Rohlfing Site Plan ..................................................................................................... 29 

Figure 4-4. Rohlfing Photo .......................................................................................................... 30 

Figure 4-5. White River Springs Aerial....................................................................................... 31 

Figure 4-6. White River Springs Pond Photo .............................................................................. 31 

Figure 4-7. Dirty Face Aerial....................................................................................................... 32 

Figure 4-8. Dirty Face Photo ....................................................................................................... 33 

Figure 4-9. Sample Adult Barrier ................................................................................................ 33 

Figure 4-10. Two Rivers Aerial................................................................................................... 35 

Figure 4-11. Two Rivers Pond..................................................................................................... 35 

Figure 4-12. Clear Creek Aerial................................................................................................... 37 

Figure 4-13. Clear Creek Pond .................................................................................................... 37 

Figure 4-14. Beaver Aerial .......................................................................................................... 38 

Figure 4-15. Beaver Pond ............................................................................................................ 39 

Figure 4-16. Brender Aerial......................................................................................................... 40 

Figure 4-17. Brender Pond........................................................................................................... 40 

Figure 5-1. Squadroni Aerial ....................................................................................................... 42 

Figure 6-1. Allen Aerial............................................................................................................... 43 

Figure 6-2. McComas Aerial ....................................................................................................... 45 
 3

1. Summary 

The proposed alternative for the Wenatchee Natural Production Implementation 

Phase includes releases at up to 14 locations (see Fig 1-1). Ten of the locations 

have existing natural or semi-natural ponds, one has artificial ponds, one utilizes 

adult plants, and two require new pond construction. Back-up acclimation sites 

and methods have also been identified. Three back-up sites that do not require 

construction and two that do are described. 

Large releases relative to habitat capacity are planned for Icicle Creek from the 

Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery (NFH) during Broodstock Development 

Phase 1 and 2 (BDP1 and BDP2). These large releases are for continued 

development of the local broodstock. 

The proposed Chiwawa sites are important parts of the Wenatchee program, with 

approximately 30% of the proposed releases for the entire Wenatchee basin 

occurring in this one watershed. However, the majority of high quality habitat that 

lies within the upper watershed is inaccessible during winter months by wheeled 

vehicle. The uppermost acclimation locations, Chikamin and Minnow, would be 

managed by snowmobiles prior to snow being cleared. 

The Little Wenatchee River also has winter access problems. Acclimation is 

proposed in the more accessible lower part of the watershed. 

Winter access to some of the high quality habitat in the White River is feasible by 

a road that is plowed up to Tall Timber Ranch. An alternative reintroduction 

strategy, adult plants, has been proposed for one site on the White River. Coho 

would be trucked from adult collection and holding facilities to a small tributary, 

Dirty Face Creek, and confined there through the spawning season. 

Nason Creek has an existing site at the upper end of the low gradient section of the 

watershed that is capable of winter operation. The purpose of the Rohlfing site is 

to disperse adults into downstream areas. The Coulter site is further downstream 

and discharges into a large wetland complex that is expected to be productive 

rearing habitat. The Coulter and Butcher Creek sites are very close and are 

planned to be used in alternating years. This may reduce in-pond losses by 

disrupting predator feeding patterns. 

Small tributary sites and alternative acclimation strategies may be evaluated in the 

future for releases. Feedback from the Monitoring and Evaluation program would 

help determine the value of potential habitat. Techniques used to target other sites 

may include adult plants or in-river acclimation, along with pond acclimation. 

Site activities at acclimation ponds include fish delivery, feeding, predator hazing, 

sampling, and release monitoring. Sites would be visited one or more times per 
 4

day to conduct these activities. Large truck access is required once at the start of 

acclimation at each site for fish delivery. Daily access could occur by small 

vehicle, foot, or snowmobile. 

Proposed construction at the primary acclimation sites includes the creation of two 

new ponds, excavation of accumulated material in one existing pond and a new 

well at one site. The total area expected to be disturbed during construction is 0.7 

acres. 
 5

 

Figure 1-1. Wenatchee Subbasin Acclimation Site Map 
2. Site Details 2.1. Information Tables The tables below include specific details for each proposed Wenatchee acclimation site. 

Release (1,000s)

Overwinter

Adult Trap

Previously used

Distance to Wen. 

mouth (rkm)

Township

Range

Section

1/4 section

Elevation (m)

Latitude

Longitude

Zoning (Comp. 

Plan)

Shoreline MP 

designation

Landuse

Wenatchee Acc.

Rohlfing 105 Y T Y 109 26 16 5 NE 685 47'08" 52'42 RR5 Co Vacation home Coulter 105 T Y 103 26 16 11 SE 660 45'52" 48'10" RR5 Co Vacation home Butcher 105 Y T Y 102 26 16 11 NE 658 46'13" 48'05" RR5 Co Vacation home Tall Timber 110 T 112 28 16 18 SW 589 55'24" 53'37" RR20 Co Guest ranch White River Springs 50 Y T 108 28 16 32 SE 573 53'12" 52'21" RR10 N Rural residentiaTwo Rivers 120 Y T Y 96 27 16 15 SW 575 50'10" 50'30" RR20 N Gravel mine Chikamin 100 T 99 28 17 21 SW 740 54'33" 43'12" FC Co Private forestry Minnow 100 T 99 28 17 21 SW 740 54'40" 43'10" FC Co Private forestry Clear 150 Y T 80 27 18 31 NE 610 47'56" 37'48" RRR N Private campgrouBeaver 100 T Y 75 26 17 12 NE 586 46'04" 38'58" RR5 N Guest ranch Scheibler 65 D 51 26 18 31 SE 499 42'24" 38'15" RR5 N Farming Brender 50 N 18 23 19 5 NE 243 31'16" 28'58" UGA UGA Urban Leavenworth NFH 100 Y L Y 47 24 17 26 NE 344 33'31" 40'20" P Co Public hatchery 

Adult Plants 

Dirty Face T 107 28 16 32 SE 573 52'40" 52'12" RR10 Na Wildlife 

Acc. Back-ups

Coulter/Roaring 105 T 104 26 16 11 SE 659 45'59" 48'35" RR5 Co Vacation home Squadroni 105 T 106 26 16 3 SE 661 46'33" 49'27" RR5 Co Vacation home McComas 50 Y T 96 27 16 10 SW 578 50'55" 49'56" RR20 Na Acclimation pondAllen (Peshastin) 50 D 40 23 17 13 SE 501 28'57" 39'21" RRR N Rural residentiaDryden 100 Y D 29 24 18 22 NW 303 33'24" 34'25" AC Co Gravel storage Other

GENERAL LOCATION LAND USE,/ZONING

Figure 2-1. General, Location, and Land Use Details
 7

Key, Figure 2-1: 

• Release (thousands). The proposed peak number of coho smolts to be 

released during the Natural Production Implementation Phase 

• Overwinter. Does the site have a reasonable potential for over-winter 

acclimation? This requires a source of groundwater and reliable access. 

• Adult Trap. The nearest downstream collection facility. T = Tumwater, D = 

Dryden, L = Leavenworth NFH, N = none. 

• Previously used. Has the site been used by the coho reintroduction program 

in past years? 

• Distance to mouth (rkm). The distance from the mouth of the Wenatchee to 

the acclimation site in river kilometers. 

• Zoning. Zoning designations match the Chelan County Comprehensive 

Plan. RR5 = rural residential with a limit of one dwelling per 5 acres, RR10 

= rural residential with a limit of one dwelling per 10 acres, RR20 = rural 

residential with a limit of one dwelling per 20 acres, RRR = rural 

residential/resource, FC = commercial forest, UGA = urban growth area, AC 

= commercial agriculture, P = public. Data from Chelan County. 

• Shoreline Master Plan Designation. Co = Conservancy, Na = Natural, UGA 

= urban growth area N = None. Data from Chelan County, 2009. 

• Land use. The predominant use of land surrounding the acclimation site. 

• FEMA flood designation. 100 Yr. = 100 year floodplain None = not in an 

identified flood zone, NM = not mapped. Data from FEMA, 2009. 
Power

Road access

New water right

Water reqrt. (cfs)

Water available (cfs)

Surface stream name

WDNR stream type

Overwinter tempering

GW needed (cfs)

Required space 

(cft/1000)

Required pond area 

(acre)

Existing space (cft/1000)

Existing pond area (acre)

New pond area added 

(acre)

Acclimation area/Existing 

pond aarea

Pond type

Wenatchee Acc.

Rohlfing 1P Unsurf. G 1.6 4.0 Unnamed F Y 0.3 22 0.17 22 0.17 100% Existing manCoulter 1P Unsurf. 1.6 >1.6 Coulter F 22 0.17 48 0.37 100% Existing be

Butcher 3P Surf. G 1.6 2.0 Butcher F Y 0.5 22 0.17 73 0.56 100% Existing beTall Timber 1P Unsurf. S 1.7 >1.7 Napeequa S 23 0.18 31 0.28 0.61 0% Existing side White River Springs N Unsurf. 0.8 1.5 Unnamed F 10 0.08 9.6 0.07 100% Existing be

Tw o Rivers N Unsurf. 1.9 1.9 None 25 0.19 23 0.17 100% Existing manChikamin N Unsurf. S 1.5 >1.5 Chikamin F 21 0.16 0 0.00 0.16 0% New acclimMinnow N Unsurf. 1.5 >1.5 Minnow F 21 0.16 0 0.00 0.16 0% New acclim

Clear 3P Surf. 2.3 >2.3 Clear F 31 0.24 68 0.52 46% Existing man

Beaver N Unsurf. 1.5 >1.5 Beaver F 21 0.16 31 0.24 100% Existing manScheibler 3P Unsurf. 1.0 >1.0 Chumstick F 14 0.10 4.5 0.03 0.10 0% Existing manBrender 3P Unsurf. 0.8 >.08 Brender F 10 0.08 35 0.27 30% Existing man

Leavenw orth NFH 3P Surf. 1.5 >1.5 Icicle S 21 0.16 >21 >.16 100% Existing hat

Adult Plants 

Dirty Face N Surf. Dirty Face F None 

Acc. Back-ups

Coulter/Roaring 1P Unsurf. 1.6 >1.6 Coulter,Roaring F 22 0.17 637 5.8 3% Existing beSquadroni 3P Surf. G 1.6 0.0 Nason F Y 1.6 22 0.17 0 0.00 0.17 0% New acclimMcComas 1P Surf. 0.8 >0.8 White Y 10 0.08 0 0.00 0.08 0% New acclimAllen 3P Surf. 0.8 Allen F 10 0.08 94 0.72 11% Existing man

Dryden 3P Unsurf. G,S 1.5 >1.5 Wenatchee S Y 0.2 21 0.16 0 0.00 0.16 0% New hatcOther

ACCL

GROUND 

MISC WATER SURFACE WATER WATER SPACE

Figure 2-2. Water and Space Detail
 9

Key, Figure 2-2: 

• Power. N = None, 1P = single phase, 3P = three phase. 

• Road access. Asphalt surfaced or unsurfaced (gravel). 

• New water right. G = new ground water right needed, S = new surface 

water right needed. 

• Water required (cfs). Minimum water requirements for each site are based 

on a flow density of 9 pounds of fish per gallon/minute (flow density index 

of 1.5 lbs/gpm/inch). This is an average minimum value based on 

approximate spring-time water temperatures and fish sizes. Actual flow 

rates would be higher to provide a safety margin, with the amount of margin 

depending on the reliability of the water supply at each site. 

• Water available (cfs). The expected low flow during the acclimation period. 

• Surface stream name. The name of the stream supplying water to the 

acclimation site. 

• WDNR stream type. Washington Department of Natural Resources stream 

type designation, from http://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/app1/fpars/viewer.htm. 

o Type "S" = Shoreline. Streams and waterbodies that are designated 

“shorelines of the state”. 

o Type "F" = Fish. Streams and waterbodies that are known to be used 

by fish, or meet the physical criteria to be potentially used by fish. 

o Type "Np" = Non-Fish Perennial. 

o Type "Ns" = Non-Fish Seasonal. 

• Overwinter tempering. Is ground water needed to control ice formation on 

surface water intakes? 

• GW (ground water) needed (cfs). 

• Required space (cft/1000). Space requirements are calculated using 0.3 

pounds of fish per cubic foot of water (a volume index of 0.03 lbs/cft/inch). 

Sites that rely on pumped supplies without backup would require more 

space. 

• Required pond area (acre). The pond area is calculated from the space 

requirement by assuming an average water depth of 3 ft. 

• Existing space (cft/1000). Space is calculated by multiplying the existing 

pond surface area by a 3 ft assumed average depth. 

• Existing pond area (acre). The total existing pond area, actual area may be 

less if seine nets are used. 

• New pond area (acre). The amount of new area that is proposed to be added 

by expanding existing ponds or building new ones. 
 10

• Acclimation area/Existing pond area. The ratio of area that is proposed to be 

used by coho during the acclimation period to the existing pond area. The 

calculation is made only for existing pond area, if new pond area is built and 

blocked, the ratio is 0%. For barrier nets, 100% is blocked and for seine 

nets, some part of the existing area is blocked. 

• Pond type. 

• Free passage allowed. Does the presence of small ESA listed fish require 

that free up and downstream passage be allowed by the coho confinement 

net? 

• Pond confinement method. A barrier net (see section 2.2) confines coho and 

does not allow free passage of any fish past it during acclimation. A seine 

net encloses a portion of a pond and allows passage around it. The seine net 

separates coho and other fish species during acclimation. Screens are rigid 

devices placed in outlet structures and pickets prevent downstream adult 

movement. 
 11 Plowing for fish delivery (ft) New road construction (ft) New intake construction Removal distance (ft) New well Existing well Volume excavated (cft/1000) - new pond Volume excavated (cft/1000) - existing pond Surface disturbance (acre) - pond construction Surface disturbance (sft) - water systems, intakes Surface disturbance (sft) - water systems: wells, open channel Buried water pipe line (ft) Total area disturbed (acre) Period of operation (mo.) Generator

Wenatchee Acc.

Rohlfing Y 5 Y

Coulter 1.5

Butcher Y 900 0.02 5 Y

Tall Timber 250 Y 1,700 800 800 0.20 1.5

White River Springs 5

Two Rivers 5 Y

Chikamin Y 380 30 0.2 800 1300 200 0.29 1.5

Minnow 600 600 0.2 0.20 1.5 30

Clear 5

Beaver 1,000 1.5

Scheibler 8 1.5

Brender 1.5

LNFH Y 5

Adult Plants 

Dirty Face 2

Back-ups

Coulter/Roaring 1.5

Squadroni Y 30 0.2 900 0.22 1.5 Y

McComas 5

Allen 1.5

Dryden Y Y 30 0.2 3500 700 0.44 5 Y

TOTALS-PRIMARY 600 1,850 2 2,080 1 2 60 8 0.4 1,600 2,200 1,000 0.72 43 3 

TOTALS-BACK-UP 1 60 2 - 0.4 4,400 700 0.66 17 2 

Figure 2-3. Construction and Operation Impacts 

Key, Figure 2-3: 

• Plowing. Roads at some sites require snow removal at least once per season 

to allow fish transport trucks to access acclimation ponds. 

• Removal distance. The stream length impacted by new water withdrawals. 

• New well. Some sites would require that new wells be drilled and 

developed. 
 12

• Surface disturbance – pond construction. The area impacted by new pond 

construction. This does not include the surface area temporarily disturbed 

by fill deposition. 

• Surface disturbance – water systems, intakes. Excavation and installation of 

intake structures would involve disturbance of the work area. 

• Surface disturbance – water systems: wells, open channels. Water would be 

delivered to and discharged from some ponds in rock-lined channels. It is 

assumed that a 10’ wide strip of land would be disturbed during construction 

of the channels. Well construction would require truck access and staging 

areas. 

• Buried water pipe line. Underground piping would deliver water to some 

ponds. It is assumed that a 10’ wide strip of land will be disturbed during 

pipeline excavation. This is a temporary disturbance; the lines will be revegetated after work completion. 

• Total area disturbed. The sum of all the area impacted by construction. 

• Pond operation. The expected yearly duration of operation. 

• Generator. Main or back-up power would be provided by electrical 

generators with automatic transfer switches. At locations where generators 

are the main source of power, two generators are proposed. 

See Appendix 1, Brood Capture and Rearing Site Descriptions for a discussion of 

the Dryden Hatchery construction impacts. Impacts that would result if 

acclimation only were conducted on the site are listed above. 

Leavenworth NFH is an existing facility and no changes are proposed by the 

MCCRP. The environmental impacts of the facility operation have been reviewed 

through past permitting processes. 

The McComas site is proposed by Grant County Public Utility District and the 

impacts of constructing and operating the site will be analyzed during separate 

permitting processes. 

These details are approximate and are based on schematic designs. They are for 

the purpose of evaluating potential environmental impacts. 

2.2. Net Confinement Systems 

Net systems would be used to confine coho during the acclimation period at most 

sites. They can be configured in one of two ways. Where loss of habitat and/or 

coho interaction with listed fish species is not expected to have negative impacts; 
 13

nets which fully block fish passage in the ponds (barrier nets) could be installed. 

They are placed perpendicular to the flow (see the figure below). 

Figure 2-4. Barrier Net Example 

Where impacts may be significant and free passage of fish up and downstream is 

required; nets that form an enclosed impoundment (seine nets) of only a portion of 

the pond could be used. 

Figure 2-5. Seine Net Example 

In both cases the net systems are temporary and are in place only during 

acclimation. They will be designed to minimize premature escape and will include 

jump barriers and double lead lines (see below). 
 14

Figure 2-6. Example Net System Design 

2.3. Other Site Design Features 

Water effluent treatment systems outside of the acclimation ponds themselves are 

not planned for the small, natural sites. Relatively small numbers of fish would be 

held at low densities in large ponds at these locations. The minimum retention 

time for water flowing through the ponds be 2.5 hours and in most cases will be 

much longer than this. Fish waste will settle at low densities in the ponds. 

The ponds are relatively effective at limiting the amount of Total Phosphorous 

(TP) that is being introduced in the form of fish feed to be discharged through the 

water supply. Fish feed rates and the amount of TP in the feed are known, along 

with the amount of TP leaving the pond in the discharge water (see Appendix 6) 

and in the fish. This data was used to perform the calculation below that estimates 

that 80% of the TP fed was not discharged from two of the acclimation ponds in 

2009. 
 15

Figure 2-7. Pond Phosphorous Removal Efficiency 

Avian and mammalian predation is a major consideration for remote acclimation 

sites. At some locations, physical barriers may be installed if predation becomes 

severe. Temporary fencing and overhead bird netting may be necessary. 

Deterrence of predation through human presence has been used effectively at sites 

currently operated by the MCCRP as well as at federal and state hatcheries; this 

technique is planned to be employed at most locations. 

Many of the ponds at proposed sites could become inundated during major floods. 

Because spring is the natural migration period, the unplanned release of fish during 

snow-melt floods would be allowed and no special flood control measures will be 

taken. 
 16

3. Site Descriptions – Proposed, With Construction 

Construction would involve the creation of new ponds and excavation of 

accumulated material in some existing ponds. The ponds have natural bottoms and 

construction includes the removal of cut material and the spreading and 

revegetation of fill. Fill areas have not been located, but material would be spread 

where environmental impacts are minimized under the conditions of construction 

permits. 

Several wells are proposed be drilled to supply water to several sites. They would 

be located where high yields are most likely, near power sources, and where 

disturbance to existing vegetation is minimized. Water would be delivered from 

the wells to the ponds in buried pipelines and in rock-lined channels that will 

aerate the ground water. Generators provide both primary and back-up power to 

well pumps. They will be sized after well tests determine pump motor 

requirements. 

North is up in all the following aerial photos, drawings, and maps unless otherwise 

denoted. 

3.1. Butcher 

This site is currently being used by the MCCRP for coho acclimation. Plans call 

for up to 105,000 coho to be acclimated and released every other year (alternating 

with the Coulter site) during the NPIP phase. 

• Location: In an area of potential coho habitat on Nason Creek. 

• Surface water supply: Butcher Creek flows directly into the acclimation 

pond. 

• Ground water supply: A new well is proposed that would allow operation of 

the pond over the winter. 

• Acclimation space: An existing pond that measures approximately 270’ 

long by 90’ wide has been created by beaver activity in a historic Nason 

Creek channel. 

• Enclosure system: A temporary barrier net at the beaver dam is installed 

during acclimation to prevent premature downstream migration by coho presmolts. 

• Land use: A vacation home is located near the pond. 

• Access: A surfaced road from Highway 2 is plowed in the winter. 

• Construction: The well is proposed to be located near existing roads and 

near Butcher Creek or the pond. The exact location will be determined with 

the help of geotechnical experts and with input from landowners. Water 

from the well would be delivered through a 50 ft. long rock-lined open 
 17

channel. Pumps would be powered by line power and a back-up generator is 

proposed. 

Figure 3-1. Butcher Aerial 

Figure 3-2. Butcher Pond 
 18

3.2. Tall Timber 

Plans call for a disconnected side channel to be supplied with water from a new 

surface water intake. 

• Location: In high quality salmon spawning habitat on the Napeequa near the 

confluence with the White River. 

• Surface water supply: An intake on the Napeequa is proposed. A buried 

pipeline would deliver water by gravity-flow from the intake to an existing 

historic side channel. Soils encountered during excavation are expected to 

be Aquic cryumbrepts (NRCS, 2009). 

• Ground water supply: None. 

• Acclimation space: The existing, disconnected side channel is 1,000’ long 

and averages 60’ wide. Approximately 40,000 sft of the side channel would 

be covered by water when the intake is in operation. When not in operation, 

the water surface area in the channel varies depends on local conditions but 

will typically occupy about 8,000 sft. 

• Enclosure system: A seine net in the channel would be installed during 

acclimation to confine coho pre-smolts while allowing movement of other 

fish occupying the channel. The net would be removed at release. 

• Land use: Tall Timber Ranch is operated as a church camp. 

• Access: The White River Road is plowed all winter. 

• Construction: A screened, surface water intake is planned to be 

prefabricated and installed in the bank of the Napeequa. The intake structure 

would conform to the existing bank profile and would not impede river flow 

or impact flood storage capacity. It will use a fixed, sloped screen with an air 

or water backwash system to flush debris off the screen face and will meet 

agency screen criteria for sweeping flow, approach velocity, and mesh size. 

800’ of buried pipeline would transport water from the intake to the existing 

side channel. It would include a large, below grade, sand trap near the 

intake and several manholes for maintenance. No excavation is expected in 

the side channel. The existing culvert outlet may be adequate to return flow 

to the Napeequa with the addition of dam boards for elevation control on the 

culvert inlet. 
 19

Figure 3-3. Tall Timber Site Plan 
 20

Figure 3-4. Tall Timber Pond 

3.3. Chikamin 

Two acclimation ponds are proposed on a single ownership; one using Chikamin 

Creek water and the other using Minnow Creek water (see Section 3.4). A new 

pond and new river intake is proposed for the Chikamin site. 

• Location: This site would release fish into an area of high quality habitat in 

Chikamin Creek and in the middle section of the Chiwawa River. 

• Surface water supply: An intake on Chikamin Creek would supply water by 

pipe to a constructed pond. 

• Ground water supply: None. 

• Acclimation space: The pond would be earthen bottom with an irregular 

shape. It would have inlet and outlet screens in place during acclimation to 

prevent other fish species from entering the rearing area. The pond would 

be approximately 120 ft. long and 80 ft. wide. Soil expected to be 

encountered during pond excavation is Kladnick cobbly fine sandy loam 

(NRCS, 2009). 

• Land use: Timber has been harvested from the property. 

• Access: The Chiwawa River Road is not plowed in winter. It is maintained 

for winter recreation and normally is not opened to the Chikamin site until 

May 1. Daily maintenance access to the acclimation site would need to be 

by snowmobile. 

• Water supply construction: An intake structure is planned to be 

prefabricated and placed in the Chikamin stream bank. It would conform to 

the existing bank profile and would not impede river flow or impact flood 

storage capacity. The intake uses a fixed, sloped screen with an air or water 
 21

backwash system to flush debris off the screen face and will meet agency 

screen criteria for sweeping flow, approach velocity, and mesh size. Pipe 

(120 ft.) would be buried from the intake to a pond constructed alongside 

Chikamin Creek. A 70 ft. long discharge channel would return water from 

the pond to the creek. It would be rock lined to prevent erosion. 

• Pond construction: The pond would be constructed by excavating material 

from a flat bench near the creek. A typical crossection through the pond is 

shown in Figure 3-7. Areas A and B would be cut from the existing ground 

contour and the fill would be spread elsewhere. No pond berms will be 

constructed. Although no flood elevation data is available for the area, it is 

likely in the 100 year flood plain, although out of the floodway. Because the 

pond will be below existing grade and material will be removed from the 

flood plain, pond construction will increase flood storage capacity (area A in 

Figure 3-7). 
 22

Figure 3-5. Chikamin and Minnow Site Plan 
 23

Figure 3-6. Chikamin Pond Location 

Figure 3-7. Chikamin Pond Crossection 

3.4. Minnow 

The Minnow pond is proposed to be constructed in the creek channel. 

• Location: This site would release fish into an area of high quality habitat in 

Minnow Creek, a tributary of Chikamin Creek. 

• Surface water supply: Minnow Creek water would flow directly into and 

out of a constructed pond. No water intake or diversion is planned. 

• Ground water supply: None. 

• Acclimation space: An earthen bottom with an irregular shape would be 

built in the Minnow Creek channel. Coho would be contained in pond 

during acclimation by temporary seines. Free passage up and downstream 
 24

by other fish would be maintained. The pond would be approximately 120 ft. 

long and 80 ft. wide. Soil expected to be encountered during pond 

excavation is Kladnick cobbly fine sandy loam (NRCS, 2009). 

• Land use: Timber has been harvested from the property. 

• Access: The Chiwawa River Road is not plowed in winter. It is maintained 

for winter recreation and normally is not opened to Chikamin until May 1. 

Daily maintenance access to the acclimation site would need to be by 

snowmobile. 

• Construction: A pond would be excavated next to the current Minnow 

Creek stream channel (see the aerial photo in Section 3.3). After completion 

and stabilization of the pond bottom, Minnow Creek would be diverted into 

the completed pond. The pond would be constructed by excavating and 

removing material and would be located in the 100 year floodplain and 

floodway. Because the pond will be below existing grade and material will 

be removed from the flood plain, pond construction will increase flood 

storage capacity. The pond would be rock lined to prevent erosion. 

Figure 3-8. Minnow Pond Location 

3.5. Scheibler 

An impoundment in the Chumstick Creek channel was built at some point in the 

past, forming a pond. 

• Location: The site is located 13.0 km up Chumstick Creek, above some 

areas that may become coho spawning habitat. Several culverts throughout 

the lower and middle sections of Chumstick Creek have been removed, 

vastly improving salmonid passage. 
 25

• Surface water supply: Chumstick Creek flows directly into the existing 

pond. 

• Ground water supply: None. 

• Acclimation space: The existing pond is 100’ long and 15’ wide. With 

landowner permission, expansion of the pond will be proposed. Increasing 

the capacity by 14,000 cft would require the removal of 350 cubic yards of 

material. 

• Seine net system: A temporary seine net would enclose a part of the pond. 

It would be positioned to allow free access to the inlet, outlet, and part of the 

pond habitat by other fish. The net would be removed at release. 

• Land use: The surrounding property is used for farming. 

• Access: The surfaced Chumstick Road provides year round access to a point 

close to the ponds. Three-phase power is on the property and near the pond. 

• Construction: Excavation and enlargement of the existing pond would 

increase room for coho acclimation and would provide rearing space for 

other fish in the Chumstick Creek. Excavation will occur during low flow 

and the creek will be piped around the work area during construction. 

Material cut from the pond will be spread at approved areas, as dictated by 

permit conditions. 
 26

Figure 3-9. Scheibler Aerial 

Figure 3-10. Scheibler Photo 
 27

4. Site Descriptions – Proposed, No Construction 

The sites listed below would require no construction activities that result in earthmoving activities or permanent changes. Existing ponds and water supplies would 

be used for acclimation. 

4.1. Coulter 

Site function: This site is currently being used by the MCCRP for coho 

acclimation. Plans call for up to 105,000 coho to be acclimated and released every 

other year (alternating with the Butcher Creek site) during the NPIP phase. No 

overwinter acclimation is planned. 

• Location: In an area of potential coho habitat on Nason Creek. Fish migrate 

down Coulter Creek from the pond into a large wetland complex owned by 

the Yakama Nation before entering Nason Creek. 

• Surface water supply: Coulter Creek flows directly into the acclimation 

pond. 

• Ground water supply: None. 

• Acclimation space: An existing pond that measure approximately 200’ wide 

by 80’ long has been created by beaver activity. 

• Enclosure system: A temporary barrier net at the beaver dam is installed 

during acclimation to prevent premature downstream migration by coho presmolts. 

• Land use: A vacation home is located near the pond. 

• Access: An unsurfaced road from Highway 2 is plowed in the winter, 

providing adequate access throughout the year. 
 28

Figure 4-1. Coulter Aerial 

Figure 4-2. Coulter Photo 

4.2. Rohlfing 

This site is currently being used by the MCCRP for coho acclimation. 

• Location: Near the upstream end of accessible coho habitat on Nason Creek. 

• Surface water supply: An unnamed, seasonal stream flows at over 1-4 cfs in 

the spring directly into the acclimation pond. Low stream flows during the 
 29

fall adult migration period may encourage coho to distribute to suitable 

spawning habitat in Nason Creek. 

• Ground water supply: An 8” well was dug in 2003 that is estimated to 

produce 130 gpm (Williamson, 2003). Plans call for piping to be installed in 

2010 that would deliver this water to the pond. Ground water would allow 

the Rohlfing site to be used for overwinter acclimation. 

• Acclimation space: An existing pond was expanded in 2004. It currently 

measures approximately 90’ long by 50’ wide with an average depth of 4’. 

A barrier net at the pond outlet is installed during acclimation to prevent 

premature downstream migration by coho pre-smolts. The net is removed at 

release. 

• Land use: A vacation home is located near the pond. 

• Access: Whitepine Road is an unsurfaced US Forest Service road which is 

plowed in the winter, providing adequate access throughout the year. It is 

one mile from Highway 2 to the Rohlfing Pond. Single phase, underground 

power is currently in place. 

Figure 4-3. Rohlfing Site Plan 
 30

Figure 4-4. Rohlfing Photo 

4.3. White River Springs 

Two springs originating from talus slopes on Dirty Face Mountain combine and 

flow into a system of beaver ponds. 

• Location: In a very low gradient section of the White River. Adults would 

need to migrate past the release location or into tributaries on the lower 

White to find suitable spawning habitat. 

• Water supply: The combined springs flow is 1.5 cfs at the head of the 

channel during the spring period. Flow entering the White River is reduced 

by water leaking from the channel into the cleared field and from seepage 

and dispersion that result from beaver dams. It may be possible to 

overwinter acclimate with the temperate spring water supplies. 

• Acclimation space: Existing ponds are formed by beaver dams between the 

cleared property and the White River. Their size depends on the location 

and condition of the dams. 

• Enclosure system: A temporary barrier net at a beaver dam would be 

installed during acclimation to prevent premature downstream migration by 

coho pre-smolts. The net is removed at release. 

• Land use: A residence is located on the property. 

• Access: The surfaced White River Road is plowed in the winter. 
 31

Figure 4-5. White River Springs Aerial 

Figure 4-6. White River Springs Pond Photo 
 32

4.4. Dirty Face 

Spring water flows through a flat, open field and then into the White River. The 

mouth is on publicly owned land, where adult plants are proposed. 

• Location: In a very low gradient section of the White River. Adults would 

need to migrate past the release location or into tributaries to find suitable 

spawning habitat. 

• Water supply: A spring originating from talus slopes on Dirty Face 

Mountain. 

• Acclimation space: None. A temporary weir would be placed near the 

mouth of the creek and adults would be planted behind the weir. When 

spawning is completed, the weir would be removed. 

• Land use: The mouth of the creek is in the Chelan Wildlife Area - White 

River Unit and is owned and managed by the Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife. A vacation home is located on adjacent property. 

• Access: The surfaced White River Road is plowed in the winter. 

 

Figure 4-7. Dirty Face Aerial 
 33

Figure 4-8. Dirty Face Photo 

Figure 4-9. Sample Adult Barrier 
 34

4.5. Two Rivers 

This site has been used in the past for coho acclimation and is on the Two Rivers 

gravel mine. 

• Location: The site is located in the lower section of the Little Wenatchee 

River. Adults would need to migrate past the release location to find 

suitable spawning habitat. 

• Surface water supply: None. 

• Ground water supply: Water is pumped from a lake formed by the gravel 

mine to an existing acclimation pond. Gravel excavation through the winter 

and spring creates relatively high turbidity in the lake. To minimize 

sediment discharge, water is returned to the lake rather than to the Little 

Wenatchee River. 

• Acclimation space: The existing acclimation pond is 500’ long and 15’ 

wide. An existing screened outlet structure confines the fish during 

acclimation. 

• Land use: Gravel mining. 

• Access and power: The surfaced Little Wenatchee River Road is plowed in 

the winter to the mine, providing adequate access throughout the year. 

Public power does not extend to the site and main power is produced by 

generators. 
 35

Figure 4-10. Two Rivers Aerial 

Figure 4-11. Two Rivers Pond 
 36

4.6. Clear 

Several man-made ponds exist on a private campground site. 

• Location: In the lower section of the Chiwawa River. 

• Water supply: Clear Creek is a spring influenced water supply. It has a 

relatively stable flows and temperatures which may allow overwinter 

acclimation. Clear Creek flows into and out of the acclimation pond. 

• Acclimation space: There are three ponds connected in series. The 

upstream pond has been proposed for coho acclimation. 

• Enclosure system: A temporary seine net would enclose a part of the pond. 

It would be positioned to allow free access to the inlet, outlet, and to part of 

the pond habitat by other fish. The net would be removed at release. 

• Land use: The ponds are on a Thousand Trails private campground. 

• Access: Surfaced, plowed roads provide adequate access. 

 
 37

Figure 4-12. Clear Creek Aerial 

Figure 4-13. Clear Creek Pond
 38

4.7. Beaver 

This site has been used in the past for coho acclimation. 

• Location: Beaver Creek is a small direct tributary of the Wenatchee River. 

Coho habitat exists in the creek but to date no spawning activity has been 

documented. A passage barrier at the mouth may prevent coho from 

accessing the creek. 

• Surface water supply: An existing intake on Beaver Creek diverts flow into 

the pond. 

• Ground water supply: None. 

• Acclimation space: The existing acclimation pond is 115’ in diameter. Bird 

predation is limited to some extent by the surrounding mature tree cover, but 

otters are present. An existing screened outlet structure confines the fish 

during acclimation. 

• Enclosure system: The screen prevents free passage of naturally produced 

fish in Beaver Creek during coho acclimation. 

• Land use: The pond is owned by Mountain Springs Lodge, a recreationoriented guest facility. 

• Access: An unsurfaced road extends 1,000’ from the Lodge to the pond. 

Figure 4-14. Beaver Aerial 
 39

Figure 4-15. Beaver Pond 

4.8. Brender 

This site is the lowest and most accessible to returning adults in the Wenatchee 

basin. Mission and Brender creeks have low-gradient, small-stream habitat that 

might be used by coho. Habitat degradation is an impediment to reintroduction in 

these watersheds. 

• Location: The site is located on Brender Creek, a tributary to Mission 

Creek, which in turn flows into the Wenatchee near the town of Cashmere. 

• Surface water supply: Brender Creek flows directly into the existing pond. 

• Ground water supply: None. 

• Acclimation space: The existing acclimation pond is approximately 130’ in 

diameter. 

• Seine net system: A temporary seine net would enclose a part of the pond. 

It would be positioned to allow free access to the inlet, outlet, and to part of 

the pond habitat by other fish. The net would be removed at release. 

• Land use: The area includes some light industry, retail stores, and 

residences. 

• Access: Surfaced roads provide adequate access and power is nearby. 
 40

Figure 4-16. Brender Aerial 

Figure 4-17. Brender Pond 

4.9. Leavenworth NFH 

This USFWS hatchery on Icicle Creek is currently being used by the MCCRP for 

acclimation and release. Coho are held in second-use water in old Foster-Lucas 

concrete raceways. Smolts are released from the raceways and then passed 

through the hatchery ladder into Icicle Creek. The main purpose of the site has 

been for broodstock development; releases would continue during natural 
 41

production phases to provide a back-up broodstock source. The hatchery might 

also be used in the future as an intermediate acclimation location between lower 

river hatcheries and upriver release sites. 

5. Site Descriptions – Back-up, With Construction 

5.1. Squadroni 

Squadroni would be used if the other primary Nason Creek sites are not. 

• Location: In an area of potential coho habitat on Nason Creek. 

• Surface water supply: An existing ditch that flows seasonally would be 

connected to the pond. There will be some surface water flow during snow 

melt and rain events. 

• Ground water supply: A new well is proposed. 

• Acclimation space: A new pond is proposed pond that would have an 

earthen bottom and irregular shape. The pond would be approximately 120 

ft. long and 90 ft. wide. Soil expected to be encountered during pond 

excavation is Aeric Fluvaquents (NRCS, 2009). 

• Enclosure system: The pond would have inlet and outlet screens in place 

during acclimation. 

• Land use: A vacation home is located near the pond. 

• Access: Highway 2. 

• Construction: The well is proposed to be located near existing roads, the 

exact location would be determined with the help of geotechnical experts 

and with input from landowners. Water from the well would be delivered 

through a 50 ft. long rock-lined open channel. Pumps would be powered by 

line power and back-up generators. The pond would be constructed by 

excavating material from a pasture area. Because it will be below existing 

grade and material will be removed from the flood plain, pond construction 

will increase flood storage capacity. A 20 ft. long discharge channel would 

return water from the pond to the ditch. It would be rock lined to prevent 

erosion. 
 42

Figure 5-1. Squadroni Aerial 

5.2. Dryden 

This site is a proposed hatchery (see the Adult Capture and Rearing Site 

Descriptions for site details). Smolt releases may also occur for several purposes. 

Releases above Dryden Dam may provide an alternative broodstock source, release 

into Peshastin Creek may help seed that stream, and releases directly into the 

Wenatchee may help distribute coho throughout the lower river. Facility designs 

would allow releases to occur in Peshastin Creek or in the Wenatchee above 

Dryden Dam as well as potentially provide intermediate rearing for juveniles 

destined for the upper watershed. 
 43

6. Site Descriptions – Back-up, No Construction 

6.1. Allen 

The Allen pond is used for recreation by the Valley Hi community. 

• Surface water supply: A diversion from Allen Creek feeds the pond. 

• Ground water supply: None. 

• Acclimation space: The pond measures approximately 200’ in diameter. 

• Land use: Recreation. 

• Access: Year-round paved roads provide access to Valley Hi from Highway 

97. 

Figure 6-1. Allen Aerial 
 44

6.2. Coulter/Roaring 

The Coulter/Roaring wetland is owned by the Yakama Nation, although access to 

potential sites is through private property. Several large ponds are formed in the 

wetland by beaver dams. A seine in part of a pond would allow acclimation to 

occur. 

• Location: In an area where small tributaries may be seeded and where a 

wetland complex may provide rearing habitat. Smolts would migrate from 

the acclimation area, through the wetland, and then in to Nason Creek. 

• Surface water supply: Coulter and Roaring creeks. 

• Ground water supply: None. 

• Acclimation space: A large beaver pond. 

• Land use: Habitat preservation, recreation, and rural residential. 

• Access: A gravel road from Hwy 2 is plowed in the winter. 

See the aerial photo in Section 4.1. 

6.3. McComas 

Grant Public Utility District has proposed developing the McComas site for spring 

Chinook acclimation in the White River. Some coho could be acclimated at the 

site as a back-up to the upriver sites on the White River. 

• Location: Low in the White watershed, below coho spawning habitat. 

• Surface water supply: White River. 

• Ground water supply: Wells. 

• Acclimation space: Large, constructed ponds. 

• Land use: Habitat preservation and rural residential. 

• Access: The paved, plowed Little Wenatchee Road. 
 45

Figure 6-2. McComas Aerial 

7. Other Locations and Methods 

Areas where ponds do not currently exist and where pond construction is not 

possible may be targeted for adult plants. Procedures would be similar to those 

described for Dirty Face above, using a temporary adult weir to confine fish to 

targeted areas during spawning. 

Acclimation and release of coho at existing and planned facilities that are 

developed for other species may also be considered in the future. Mixing coho 

with spring chinook and or steelhead, or acclimating in separate rearing units on 

the same site, may be possible. 
 46

8. References 

Chelan County. 2009. Chelan county Shoreline Master Program Environment 

Designations. June 2009. 

ftp://mail.watershedco.com/Chelan%20Co%20SMP/SMP/County%20environment

designations.pdf

FEMA. 2009. National Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance Rate Maps. 

Various dates. 

http://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10001

&storeId=10001&categoryId=12001&langId=-1&userType=G&type=1

NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2009. Web Soil Survey 

(http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/) 

Williamson & Associates. 2003. Report of Mahar Groundwater Study. Submitted 

to Yakama Nation, December 27, 2003. 
1 

APPENDIX 3 

METHOW ACCLIMATION SITE DESCRIPTIONS 

Prepared by: Greg Ferguson, Sea Springs Co. 

May, 2011 

Table of Contents 

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... i

List of Figures................................................................................................................................ ii

1. Summary....................................................................................................................................3

2. Site Details .................................................................................................................................5

2.1. Information Tables ............................................................................................................5

2.2. Net Confinement Systems................................................................................................13

2.3. Other Site Design Features..............................................................................................14

3. Site Descriptions – Primary, With Construction .................................................................16

3.1. MSWA Eightmile .............................................................................................................16

3.2. Mason (Eightmile)............................................................................................................19

3.3. Lincoln...............................................................................................................................20

3.4. Twisp Weir........................................................................................................................22

3.5. Gold ...................................................................................................................................24

4. Site Descriptions – Primary, No Construction .....................................................................25

4.1. Goat Wall ..........................................................................................................................25

4.2. Pete Creek.........................................................................................................................27

4.3. Heath .................................................................................................................................29

4.4. Parmley .............................................................................................................................31

4.5. Lower Twisp .....................................................................................................................32

4.6. Hancock.............................................................................................................................34

4.7. Winthrop NFH .................................................................................................................36

5. Site Descriptions – Back-up, With Construction .................................................................38

5.1. MSRF Chewuch ...............................................................................................................38

5.2. Chewuch AF .....................................................................................................................40

5.3. Utley...................................................................................................................................42

5.4. Newby................................................................................................................................43

6. Site Descriptions –Back-up, No Construction ......................................................................45

6.1. Poorman............................................................................................................................45

6.2. Biddle.................................................................................................................................45

6.3. Balky Hill ..........................................................................................................................46

6.4. Other .................................................................................................................................47

7. References ................................................................................................................................47
ii 

List of Figures 

Figure 1-1. Methow Subbasin Acclimation Site Map ................................................................... 4 

Figure 2-1. General, Location, and Land Use Details ................................................................... 5 

Figure 2-2. Water and Space Details ............................................................................................. 9 

Figure 2-3. Construction and Operation Impacts......................................................................... 12 

Figure 2-4. Barrier Net Example ................................................................................................. 13 

Figure 2-5. Seine Net Example.................................................................................................... 14 

Figure 2-6. Example Net System Designs ................................................................................... 14 

Figure 2-7. Pond Phosphorous Removal Efficiency.................................................................... 15 

Figure 3-1. MSWA and Mason Aerial......................................................................................... 18 

Figure 3-2. MSWA Side Channel................................................................................................ 19 

Figure 3-3. Mason Ponds ............................................................................................................. 20 

Figure 3-4. Lincoln Site Plan....................................................................................................... 21 

Figure 3-5. Lincoln Pond 2 .......................................................................................................... 21 

Figure 3-6. Twisp Weir Draft Site Plan....................................................................................... 23 

Figure 3-7. Twisp Weir Site......................................................................................................... 23 

Figure 3-8. Gold Aerial................................................................................................................ 24 

Figure 3-9. Gold Ponds................................................................................................................ 25 

Figure 4-1. Goat Wall Aerial ....................................................................................................... 26 

Figure 4-2. Goat Wall Pond......................................................................................................... 26 

Figure 4-3. Pete Creek Aerial ...................................................................................................... 28 

Figure 4-4. Pete Creek Photo....................................................................................................... 28 

Figure 4-5. Heath Aerial .............................................................................................................. 30 

Figure 4-6. Heath Pond................................................................................................................ 30 

Figure 4-7. Parmley Aerial .......................................................................................................... 31 

Figure 4-8. Parmley Pond ............................................................................................................ 32 

Figure 4-9. Lower Twisp Aerial .................................................................................................. 33 

Figure 4-10. Lower Twisp Pond .................................................................................................. 33 

Figure 4-11. Sample Adult Barrier .............................................................................................. 34 

Figure 4-12. Hancock Spring Aerial............................................................................................ 35 

Figure 4-13. Hancock Spring....................................................................................................... 36 

Figure 4-14. Winthrop NFH Aerial ............................................................................................. 37 

Figure 4-15. Winthrop NFH Back Channel................................................................................. 37 

Figure 5-1. MSRF Chewuch Site Plan......................................................................................... 39 

Figure 5-2. MSRF Chewuch Pond Site........................................................................................ 39 

Figure 5-3. Chewuch AF Site Plan .............................................................................................. 41 

Figure 5-4. Chewuch AF.............................................................................................................. 41 

Figure 5-5. Utley Site Plan........................................................................................................... 42 

Figure 5-6. Utley Ponds ............................................................................................................... 43 

Figure 5-7. Newby Site Plan........................................................................................................ 44 

Figure 5-8. Newby ....................................................................................................................... 44 

Figure 6-1. Poorman Ponds.......................................................................................................... 45 

Figure 6-2. Lower Biddle Pond ................................................................................................... 46 

Figure 6-3. Balky Hill Pond......................................................................................................... 47 
 3

1. Summary 

The proposed alternative for the Methow Natural Production Implementation 

Phase (NPIP) includes smolt releases at up to 12 locations in the Methow 

watershed (see Fig 1-1). Back-up acclimation sites and methods have also been 

identified. 

Tributary sites where releases occur upstream of traps will be important as they 

would initiate production in areas where returning natural origin adults will be 

available for broodstock collection. Continued releases from the Winthrop 

National Fish Hatchery (Winthrop NFH) on the mainstem Methow have a dual 

purpose: 1) to distribute spawning adults throughout the Methow basin and 2) to 

serve as a back-up brood source. 

The proposed Chewuch sites are a large part of the Methow program, with 

approximately 30% of the proposed releases for the Methow basin occurring in this 

watershed. Three primary acclimation sites and two back-ups have been identified 

in the Chewuch, with Methow State Wildlife Area (MSWA) Eightmile and Mason 

adjacent to each other and located as far upstream as access allows. 

The Lincoln site on the Twisp River is at the upper end of the low gradient habitat 

preferred by coho salmon. It is capable of over winter operation. The Twisp weir 

site also releases fish above the existing trap on the Twisp River. 

Two sites on the mainstem, Heath and Hancock, are located on large springs that 

may be productive coho spawning habitat. The Hancock location does not have a 

pond and adult plants would be the reintroduction technique used. 

Other acclimation sites and procedures may be evaluated in the future. Small 

streams with potential coho habitat may be targeted for reintroduction. Feedback 

from the Monitoring and Evaluation program would help determine the value of 

such tributary habitat. Along with adult plants and pond acclimation, in-river 

acclimation may be tested as an alternative reintroduction strategy. 

Site activities at acclimation ponds include fish delivery, feeding, predator hazing, 

sampling, and release monitoring. Sites would be visited one or more times per 

day to conduct the routine activities. Large truck access is required once at the 

start of acclimation at each site for fish delivery. Daily access could occur by 

small vehicle, foot, or snowmobile. 

Proposed construction at the primary sites includes the excavation of one new 

pond, one new intake, excavation of accumulated material in two existing ponds 

and new wells at four sites. A total of 0.9 acres is expected to be disturbed by 

construction activities. 
 4

Figure 1-1. Methow Subbasin Acclimation Site Map 
2. Site Details 2.1. Information Tables The tables below include specific details for each proposed Methow acclimation site. 

Figure 2-1. General, Location, and Land Use Details 

 7

Key, Figure 2-1: 

Release (thousands). The proposed peak number of coho smolts to be released 

during the Natural Production Implementation Phase. 

Overwinter. Does the site have a reasonable potential for over-winter acclimation? 

This requires a source of groundwater and reliable access. 

Adult Trap. The nearest downstream collection facility: W = Wells, T = Twisp 

Weir, WH = Winthrop NFH. 

Previously used. Has the site been used by the coho reintroduction program in past 

years? 

Distance to mouth (rkm). The distance from the mouth of the Wenatchee to the 

acclimation site in river kilometers. 

Zoning. C= City, R1 = Rural 1 acre, R5 = Rural 5 acre, R20 = Rural 20 acre, RR5 

= Rural residential 5, AG20 = Agriculture 20. Data from Okanogan County, 

2009b. 

Comprehensive Plan. SUA = Sub-Unit-A, RL = Rural Low, RM = Rural Medium, 

FL = Forest Lands, AL = Agricultural Lands, UGA = Urban Growth Area. Data 

from Okanogan County, 2009a. 

Shoreline Master Plan Designation. CE = Conservancy Environment, NE = Natural 

Environment, N = None, RE = Rural Environment, T = Towns, ND = No 

Designation. Data from Okanogan County Shorelines Designations Map, 

12/26/01. 

Land use. The predominant use of land surrounding the acclimation site. 

FEMA flood designation. 100 Yr. = 100 year floodplain, None = not in an 

identified flood zone, NM = not mapped. Data from FEMA, 2009. 

Figure 2-2. Water and Space Details
 10

Key, Figure 2-2: 

• Power. N = None, 1P = single phase, 3P = three phase. 

• Road access. Asphalt surfaced or unsurfaced (gravel). 

• New water right. G = new ground water right needed, S = new surface water 

right needed. 

• Water requirement (cfs). Minimum water requirements for each site are based 

on a flow density of 9 pounds of fish per gallon/minute (flow density index of 

1.5 lbs/gpm/inch). This is an average minimum value based on approximate 

springtime water temperatures and fish sizes. Actual flow rates would be 

higher to provide a safety margin, with the amount of margin depending on the 

reliability of the water supply at each site. 

• Water available (cfs). The expected low flow during the acclimation period. 

• Surface stream name. The name of the stream supplying water to the 

acclimation site. 

• New surface water intake. Would a water intake structure need to be 

constructed? 

• WDNR stream type. Washington Department of Natural Resources stream type 

designation, from FPARS ARCIMS viewer: 

http://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/app1/fpars/viewer.htm. 

o Type "S" = Shoreline. Streams and waterbodies that are designated 

“shorelines of the state”. 

o Type "F" = Fish. Streams and waterbodies that are known to be used by 

fish, or meet the physical criteria to be potentially used by fish. 

o U = Unknown 

• Overwinter tempering. Is ground water needed to control ice formation on 

surface water intakes? 

• New well construction. Would new wells need to be built to meet water 

requirements? 

• GW needed (cfs). 

• Required space (cft x 1000). Space requirements are calculated using 0.3 

pounds of fish per cubic foot of water at sites (a volume index of 0.03 

lbs/cft/inch). Sites that rely on pumped supplies without backup will require 

more space. 

• Required pond area (acre). The pond area is calculated from the space 

requirement by assuming an average water depth of 3 ft. 

• Existing space (cft x 1000). Space is calculated by multiplying the existing 

pond surface area by a 3 ft assumed average depth. 
 11

• Existing pond area (acre). The total existing pond area, actual area used may be 

less if seine nets are used. 

• New pond area (acre). The amount of new area that is proposed to be added by 

expanding existing ponds or building new ones. 

• Acclimation area/Existing pond area. The ratio of area that is proposed to be 

used by coho during the acclimation period to the existing pond area. The 

calculation is made only for existing pond area, if new pond area is built and 

blocked, the ratio is 0%. For barrier nets, 100% is blocked and for seine nets, 

some part of the existing area is blocked. 

• Pond type. 

• Free passage allowed. Does the presence of small ESA listed fish require that 

free up and downstream passage be allowed by the coho confinement net? 

• Type of net. A barrier net (see section 2.2) confines coho and does not allow 

free passage of any fish past it during acclimation. A seine net encloses a 

portion of a pond and allows passage around it. The seine net separates coho 

and other fish species during acclimation. 
 12

Figure 2-3. Construction and Operation Impacts 

Key, Figure 2-3: 

• Plowing. Roads at some sites would require snow removal at least once per 

season to allow fish transport trucks to access acclimation ponds. 

• New well. Some sites would require that new wells be drilled and developed. 

• Surface disturbance – pond construction. The area permanently impacted by 

new pond construction. This does not include the surface area temporarily 

impacted by fill deposition. 

• Surface disturbance – water systems, open channels. Water would be delivered 

to and discharged from some ponds in rock-lined channels. 

• Buried water pipeline. Underground piping would deliver water to some ponds. 
 13

• Generator. Main or back-up power would be provided by electrical generators 

with automatic transfer switches. At locations where generators are the main 

source of power, two generators are proposed. 

Winthrop NFH is an existing facility and no changes are proposed by the MCCRP. 

The environmental impacts of the facility operation have been reviewed through past 

permitting processes. 

These details are approximate and are based on schematic designs. They are for the 

purpose of evaluating potential environmental impacts. 

2.2. Net Confinement Systems 

Net systems would be used to confine coho during the acclimation period at most 

sites. They would be configured in one of two ways. Where loss of habitat and/or 

coho interaction with listed fish species is not expected to have negative impacts, the 

nets fully block fish passage in the ponds - barrier nets. They would be placed 

perpendicular to the flow (see the figure below). 

Figure 2-4. Barrier Net Example 

Where impacts may be significant and free passage of fish up and downstream is 

required, the nets would form an enclosed impoundment - seine nets - of only a 

portion of the pond. 
 14

Figure 2-5. Seine Net Example 

In both cases the net systems are temporary and are in place only during acclimation. 

They will be designed to minimize premature escape and will include jump barriers 

and double lead lines (see below). 

Figure 2-6. Example Net System Designs 

2.3. Other Site Design Features 

Water effluent treatment systems outside of the acclimation ponds themselves are not 

planned for the natural sites. Relatively small numbers of fish would be held at low 

densities in large ponds at these locations. The minimum retention time for water 

flowing through the pond will be 2.5 hours and in most cases will be much longer than 

this. Fish waste will settle at low densities in the ponds and will be effectively treated 
 15

during the long periods of time through the summer and fall when coho are not being 

acclimated. 

The ponds are relatively effective at limiting the amount of Total Phosphorous (TP) 

being discharged into receiving waters. Fish feed rates and the amount of TP in the 

feed are known, along with the amount of TP leaving the pond in the discharge water 

(see Appendix 6) and in the fish. This data was used to perform the calculation below 

that estimates that over 75% of the TP fed was not discharged from the two of the 

acclimation ponds in 2009. 

Figure 2-7. Pond Phosphorous Removal Efficiency 

Avian and mammalian predation is a major consideration for remote acclimation sites. 

At some locations, physical barriers may be installed if predation becomes severe. 

Temporary fencing and overhead bird netting may be necessary. Deterrence of 

predation through human presence has been used effectively at sites currently 
 16

operated by the MCCRP as well as at federal and state hatcheries; this technique 

would be employed at most locations. 

Many of the ponds at proposed sites could become inundated during major floods. 

Because spring is the natural migration period, the unplanned release of fish during 

snowmelt floods would be allowed and no special flood control measures would be 

taken. 

3. Site Descriptions – Primary, With Construction 

Construction is proposed to involve the creation of new ponds and excavation of 

accumulated material in some existing ponds. The ponds have natural bottoms and 

construction would include the removal of cut and the spreading and revegetation of 

fill. Fill areas have not been located, but material would be spread where 

environmental impacts are minimized under the conditions of construction permits. 

Wells would be drilled to supply water to several sites. They would be located where 

high yields are most likely, near power sources, and where disturbance to existing 

vegetation is minimized. Water would be delivered from the wells to the ponds in 

buried pipelines and in rock-lined channels that will re-aerate the ground water. 

Generators would provide both primary and back-up power to well pumps. They will 

be sized after well tests determine pump motor requirements. 

North is up in all the following aerial photos, drawings, and maps unless otherwise 

denoted. 

3.1. MSWA Eightmile 

This site is an existing, disconnected side channel on the Chewuch River. It is the 

farthest upstream site that is easily accessible in the late winter on the Chewuch. 

• Location: Upstream of the mouth of Eightmile creek in an area of potential 

mainstem coho spawning habitat. 

• Surface water supply: Seepage through the side channel provides some flow 

(less than 1⁄2 cfs). 

• Ground water supply: A well is proposed near the side channel on private land 

to supplement the existing surface flow. 

• Acclimation space: The full side channel measures approximately 400’ x 70’. 

• Confinement system: A temporary seine-style net would be placed in the side 

channel that would allow continued use of most of the channel and full passage 
 17

by other fish species. The net would be removed at release. The area near the 

arrow in the aerial photo below is proposed for acclimation. 

• Land use: The side channel is part of the MSWA owned by the Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and managed for wildlife 

conservation and public recreation. 

• Access: Winter plowing stops 1⁄2 mile from the site on the West Chewuch River 

Road. Access to the side channel from the road is another 1,000’ on an 

unsurfaced MSWA road. 

• Construction: A well would be drilled just east of the side channel on private 

property. A rock lined open channel from the well to the side channel would 

deliver water while aerating it. A generator would be required to power the 

well pump. The soil materials in the area are Boesel fine sandy loam (NRCS, 

2009). 
 18

Figure 3-1. MSWA and Mason Aerial 
 19

Figure 3-2. MSWA Side Channel 

3.2. Mason (Eightmile) 

The Mason site was used in 1998 for coho acclimation. It consists of three man-made 

ponds in series fed by water from an irrigation intake. 

• Location: Near the mouth of Eightmile Creek. 

• Surface water supply: An irrigation diversion on Eightmile Creek. 

• Ground water supply: A domestic well exists near the ponds. Aquifer 

conditions may be favorable for developing more ground water. 

• Acclimation space: The lowest pond measures 100’ x 30’, the second pond 

measures 70’ x 40’, and the third pond measures 80’ by 45’. 

• Confinement system: The ponds have fish proof outlet screens and natural 

origin fish are prevented from entering the pond system by the irrigation fish 

screens at the diversion intake. 

• Land use: A vacation home is located adjacent to the ponds. 

• Access: Winter plowing stops on the West Chewuch River Road at the site. 

• Construction: A new well may be constructed to supplement Eightmile Creek 

water. Water would be delivered to the ponds through a rock-lined channel. 
 20

Figure 3-3. Mason Ponds 

3.3. Lincoln 

Two ponds are connected in series adjacent to the Methow River. A rock gabion berm 

separates the ponds from the river. The property includes a conservation easement, 

purchased by the Methow Conservancy, which divides the land into several zones. 

The acclimation pond and one well are proposed in the conservation zone. 

• Location: Relatively high in the Twisp system, in potential coho spawning 

habitat and above the Twisp weir. Adults returning to the Lincoln site can 

potentially be captured for broodstock and for management purposes in general 

at the weir. 

• Surface water supply: A perched culvert supplies water to the ponds at Twisp 

River flows greater than 200 cfs. 

• Ground water supply: New drilled wells would provide ground water when the 

existing culvert is not flowing. Two wells would be constructed near the ponds 

approximately 400’ apart. Water from Well 2 would be piped to Well 1 in a 

buried line located under an existing road. Water from both wells would be 

delivered to the upper pond through an open, rock-lined channel. 

• Power supply. Line power and back-up generators would be needed to power 

the pumps. Buried lines in the existing road would deliver power from the 

service entrance and generators to the well pumps. 

• Acclimation space: The existing Pond 2. The pond has silt, sand, gravel, and 

rock deposits that would be excavated to provide adequate water depths for 

acclimation. Approximately 10,000 cft of material is proposed to be removed. 

• Enclosure system: A seine net in the pond. 

• Land use: A rural home and farm are adjacent to the ponds. 

• Access: The Twisp River Road is plowed in the winter to within 1/2 mile of the 

Lincoln site. 
 21

• Soils: Boesel fine sandy loam (NRCS, 2009). 

• Construction: New wells may be drilled, water and electrical pipelines buried, 

the pond excavated, and generators installed. 

Figure 3-4. Lincoln Site Plan 

Figure 3-5. Lincoln Pond 2 
 22

3.4. Twisp Weir 

The Twisp Acclimation Facility has an existing pond operated by WDFW for spring 

Chinook acclimation. The pond is fed by Twisp River water diverted from an 

irrigation intake. It is proposed that a separate coho pond be constructed adjacent to 

the existing facility. 

• Location: At the Twisp weir. Fish would be released upstream of the weir. 

• Surface water supply: An upstream irrigation system diverts water from the 

Twisp into a ditch. A new intake, fish screen, and pipeline will remove water 

from the irrigation ditch and direct it to the coho pond. Another buried pipeline 

will return water to the Twisp. Water would be removed from the river 300 ft 

upstream of the point where it is returned. 

• Ground water supply: Wells are proposed to be dug near the Twisp shoreline. 

• Acclimation space: A 140 ft long, 50 ft wide, 3.5 ft deep, constructed, earthen 

pond, occupying approximately 0.2 acres. The pond will have a screened outlet 

structure to confine fish during acclimation. 

• Confinement system: The ponds would have fish proof inlet and outlet screens. 

• Land use: Part of the site is occupied by the Twisp Acclimation Facility and 

part is rural residential. 

• Access: Roads to the site are plowed all winter. 

• Soils: Boesel fine sandy loam (NRCS, 2009). 

• Construction: An intake will be constructed, a pond excavated, and pipelines 

buried. Because the pond will be below existing grade and material will be 

removed from the flood plain, pond construction will increase flood storage 

capacity. 
 23

Figure 3-6. Twisp Weir Draft Site Plan 

Figure 3-7. Twisp Weir Site 
 24

3.5. Gold 

A series of small man-made ponds were dug adjacent to South Fork gold Creek. 

• Location: Near the mouth of South Fork Gold Creek, in potential coho 

spawning habitat. 

• Surface water supply: An unscreened diversion on South Fork Gold Creek. 

• Ground water supply: None. 

• Acclimation space: The existing ponds. They have silt, sand, and gravel 

deposits that would be excavated to provide adequate water depths for 

acclimation. Approximately 7,000 cft of material is proposed to be removed. 

• Enclosure system: Seine nets in the ponds. 

• Land use: Several residences are adjacent to the ponds. 

• Construction: Silt, gravel, and rock that have accumulated in the ponds would 

be removed to increase effective rearing area. 

Figure 3-8. Gold Aerial 
 25

Figure 3-9. Gold Ponds 

4. Site Descriptions – Primary, No Construction 

The sites listed below would require no construction activities that result in earthmoving activities or permanent changes. Existing ponds and water supplies would be 

used for acclimation. 

4.1. Goat Wall 

A disconnected side channel system on the Methow includes a pond near the mouth. 

• Location: Downstream of the mouth of the Lost River. The site is in the river 

reach that periodically has no surface flow during some fall and winter months. 

The ability of coho to manage this flow regime will be carefully evaluated 

before and during test releases from this site. 

• Surface water supply: Water from the adjacent Gate Creek is diverted into the 

pond. 

• Ground water supply: Natural ground water seepage (Cold Creek) through the 

side channel provides flow at high Methow river levels. 

• Acclimation space: A natural, existing pond formed in the cold Creek channel. 

• Enclosure system: A temporary seine net system. 

• Land use: A residence is adjacent to the pond. 

• Access: The Lost River road is plowed in the winter. 
 26

Figure 4-1. Goat Wall Aerial 

Figure 4-2. Goat Wall Pond 
 27

4.2. Pete Creek 

Several ponds are part of a Methow River disconnected side channel system. 

• Location: Returning adults from this site in the lower Methow would distribute 

to nearby tributary streams, and the mainstem Methow. Some spawning may 

occur in the discharge channel. 

• Surface water supply: Future Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation plans call 

for reconnecting the side channel, which would result in Methow River water 

flowing through the acclimation pond. Pete Creek, a seasonal stream flows into 

the system and it may also be possible to deliver Twisp River irrigation water to 

the pond. 

• Ground water supply: Natural ground water seepage through the side channel 

provides approximately 0.5 cfs of flow. 

• Acclimation space: A natural pond. 

• Enclosure system: A temporary seine net system would allow passage by other 

fish species in the side channel system. 

• Land use: A large, rural estate with a 9-hole golf course is adjacent to the side 

channel complex. 

• Access: 800’ of gravel road provides access from the West Chewuch River 

Road. 
 28

Figure 4-3. Pete Creek Aerial 

Figure 4-4. Pete Creek Photo 
 29

4.3. Heath 

A series of large springs originate in the Methow valley floor. Ponds were 

constructed in the past to impound this water for irrigation purposes. Habitat 

restoration efforts are underway to provide fish passage into and past the ponds. The 

spring channels may provide the low gradient, small stream, spawning habitat 

preferred by coho and completion of the restoration work will allow access to more of 

this habitat. 

• Location: The pond proposed for coho acclimation is the lowest in the Heath 

springs complex. The general site location is downstream of the section of the 

Methow that periodically de-waters. Returning adults would distribute to 

nearby small tributaries, the mainstem, and return to the Heath springs. 

• Ground water supply: All the flow in the proposed acclimation pond consists of 

spring water. 

• Acclimation space: The pond measures approximately 450’ x 70’. 

• Enclosure system: A temporary seine net system would allow passage by other 

fish species in the spring system. 

• Land use: The pond is on rural residential land. The adjacent upstream 

property is owned by WDFW; the Big Valley Unit of the Methow Valley 

Wildlife Area is managed for riparian habitat protection and wildlife 

conservation. 

• Access: 800’ of existing gravel road provides access from SR 20. 
 30

Figure 4-5. Heath Aerial 

Figure 4-6. Heath Pond 
 31

4.4. Parmley 

A farm pond was dug in the past, adjacent to Beaver Creek. 

• Location: Upper Beaver Creek, in potential coho spawning habitat. 

• Surface water supply: An unscreened diversion on Beaver Creek. 

• Ground water supply: None. 

• Acclimation space: The 80’ diameter, existing pond. 

• Enclosure system: A seine net system. 

• Land use: A rural vacation home overlooks the pond. 

• Access: The Beaver Creek road provides reliable year round access. 

Figure 4-7. Parmley Aerial 
 32

Figure 4-8. Parmley Pond 

4.5. Lower Twisp 

The Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation owned site includes several ponds in 

series, some of which are used for steelhead acclimation. The lowest pond in the 

series was used for coho acclimation starting in 2009. 

• Location: The lower Twisp River. 

• Surface water supply: An unscreened intake on the Twisp provides a 

controllable amount of water to the ponds. 

• Ground water supply: An existing well can be used a back-up supply and as 

winter tempering water. 

• Acclimation space: Coho are acclimated in the lowest pond, downstream of 

steelhead. 

• Confinement system: A temporary barrier net is placed across the pond near 

the exit. 

• Land use: The property is managed for salmon recovery purposes. 

• Access: The Twisp River road provides reliable year-round access. 
 33

Figure 4-9. Lower Twisp Aerial 

Figure 4-10. Lower Twisp Pond 
 34

4.6. Hancock 

A large spring originates 1.3 km from the Methow River. Recent Yakama Nation 

restoration projects have replaced a road culvert, improved fencing, added woody 

debris, and improved flow patterns in the spring channel. It is now more accessible to 

salmonids and has habitat that should be attractive to spawning coho. Adult plants in 

the spring channel are proposed. 

• Location: Upstream of Winthrop in an area where steelhead and Chinook now 

spawn. 

• Ground water supply: Hancock Spring has the relatively stable temperature and 

flow patterns typical of other springs. 

• Enclosure system: A temporary rack in the spring channel would hold adults 

while redds are constructed and spawning occurs. The rack is proposed to be 

pre-assembled and installed in early October. It would be held in place with 

sand bags and rock (see diagram below) and removed in mid-November each 

year. 

• Land use: Farming. 

• Access: The Wolf Creek road provides good access to an area near the spring 

mouth. 

Figure 4-11. Sample Adult Barrier 
 35

Figure 4-12. Hancock Spring Aerial 
 36

Figure 4-13. Hancock Spring 

4.7. Winthrop NFH 

The Winthrop NFH is operated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Production 

goals are established by the Columbia River Fisheries Management Plan and include 

commitments in support of tribal trust responsibilities. 

• Location: Returning adults from this site in the Methow near Winthrop would 

distribute to nearby tributary streams, and the mainstem Methow. Adults 

returning to the hatchery can be trapped and used for broodstock. 

• Surface water supply: Surface water is diverted from the Methow and delivered 

to the hatchery in an irrigation channel. 

• Ground water supply: Infiltration galleries. 

• Acclimation space: A pond formed in the hatchery back channel. 

• Enclosure system: Fish screens in fixed outlet structures confine smolts. 

• Land use: A large, public hatchery. 
 37

Figure 4-14. Winthrop NFH Aerial 

Figure 4-15. Winthrop NFH Back Channel 
 38

5. Site Descriptions – Back-up, With Construction 

5.1. MSRF Chewuch 

The Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation (MSRF) owns a site on the lower 

Chewuch River that includes an existing well. 

• Location: Returning adults from this site in the lower Chewuch River would 

distribute to nearby tributary streams, and the mainstem Chewuch River. 

• Surface water supply: There is no surface water supply. 

• Ground water supply: The existing well would be developed and would be the 

main water source. If pump tests determine that the well will not produce the 

required flow, another well would be built. 

• Acclimation space: A 150 ft long, 50 ft wide, 3.5 ft deep, constructed, earthen 

pond (see figure below), occupying approximately 0.2 acres. 

• Enclosure system: The pond would include outlet structures with removable 

screens. 

• Land use: The MSRF mission is to enhance and preserve salmon habitat. 

• Access: The West Chewuch road provides reliable year round access. 

• Construction: A new pond would be required, along with a rock lined channel 

delivering water from the well(s) and another discharging water to the Methow. 

A back-up generator would also need to be installed on the site. The pond 

would be constructed by excavating material from a flat area near the creek. 

Because the pond will be below existing grade and material will be removed 

from the flood plain, pond construction will increase flood storage capacity. 
 39

Figure 5-1. MSRF Chewuch Site Plan 

Figure 5-2. MSRF Chewuch Pond Site 
 40

5.2. Chewuch AF 

The Chewuch Acclimation Facility (AF) is an existing pond operated by WDFW for 

spring Chinook acclimation. The pond is fed by Chewuch River water diverted from 

an irrigation intake. It is proposed that a separate coho pond be constructed 

downstream of the existing facility. 

• Location: At the Eastside Chewuch road bridge midway between the Eightmile 

sites and the Lower Chewuch/Pete Creek Pond sites. 

• Surface water supply: An irrigation diversion on the Chewuch River. 

• Ground water supply: None. 

• Acclimation space: A 150 ft long, 50 ft wide, 3.5 ft deep, constructed, earthen 

pond, occupying approximately 0.2 acres. 

• Confinement system: The ponds would have fish proof outlet screens and 

natural origin fish are prevented from entering the pond system by screens on 

the diversion intake. 

• Land use: A trailer park exists on the land proposed for pond construction. 

• Access: Roads to the site are plowed all winter. 

• Construction: An earthen bottom pond is proposed for the site. Water delivery 

pipelines from the fish screens on the irrigation intake to the pond and from the 

pond back to the river would also be installed. The pond is proposed to be 

constructed by excavating material from flat ground in the trailer park. Because 

the pond will be below existing grade and material will be removed from the 

flood plain, pond construction will increase flood storage capacity. The soils in 

the area are Winthrop loamy sand (NRCS, 2009). 
 41

Figure 5-3. Chewuch AF Site Plan 

Figure 5-4. Chewuch AF 
 42

5.3. Utley 

A large pond fed by spring water adjacent to the Twisp River. 

• Location: The Utley pond is 6 km upstream of the Twisp weir. It would be 

used as a backup if the primary Twisp sites are not used. 

• Water supply: Spring water that originates in the pond. 

• Acclimation space: A large, natural pond. 

• Enclosure system: A temporary seine net system or outlet structures with fish 

screens would confine coho during acclimation. 

• Land use: A rural home is adjacent to the ponds. 

• Access: The Twisp River road is plowed and there is a 1,200 ft gravel road 

from it to the pond. 

• Construction: A 80 ft long, 3 ft wide channel from the pond to the Twisp is 

proposed to allow released smolts access to the Twisp River. The pond 

currently drains into a large swampy area and there is no direct return to the 

river. 

Figure 5-5. Utley Site Plan 
 43

Figure 5-6. Utley Ponds 

5.4. Newby 

Newby is a high gradient, small tributary to the Twisp. 

• Location: Newby Creek will be inaccessible to coho adults. Returnees would 

distribute to nearby tributary streams and the mainstem Twisp. The site is just 

upstream of the Twisp trap, which could be used to capture adults released from 

the site. 

• Surface water supply: An intake constructed on Newby Creek. 

• Acclimation space: A 140 ft long, 50 ft wide, 3.5 ft deep, constructed, earthen 

pond (see figure below), occupying approximately 0.2 acres. The pond will 

have a screened outlet structure to confine fish during acclimation. 

• Enclosure system: The pond would include outlet structures with removable 

screens. The water intake system would prevent fish from entering the pond. 

• Land use: The site is recreation property. 

• Access: The Twisp River Road and the Newby Creek Road are plowed during 

winter. 

• Soils: Sandy loam (NRCS, 2009). 

• Construction: An earthen bottom pond and an intake on Newby Creek are 

proposed for the site. Buried water delivery pipelines from the intake to the 

pond and from the pond back to the river would also be installed. The intake 

would be located just upstream of a road culvert and water would be withdrawn 

from Newby for a distance of 220 ft. 
 44

Figure 5-7. Newby Site Plan 

Figure 5-8. Newby 
 45

6. Site Descriptions –Back-up, No Construction 

6.1. Poorman 

Four large ponds were constructed on private land in the Twisp River valley. 

• Location: Poorman is 3.4 kilometers upstream of the Lower Twisp ponds on 

the Twisp River. It would be used as a backup if the primary Twisp sites are not 

used. 

• Surface water supply: Twisp River water is diverted from an irrigation intake 

to the ponds. 

• Ground water supply: None. 

• Acclimation space: Large, natural ponds. 

• Enclosure system: A temporary seine net system or outlet structures with fish 

screens would confine coho during acclimation. 

• Land use: A rural home is adjacent to the ponds. 

• Access: The Twisp River road is plowed. 

Figure 6-1. Poorman Ponds 

6.2. Biddle 

Two existing ponds are fed by a creek diversion. 

• Location: Wolf Creek, in the relatively high gradient lower reach. 
 46

• Surface water supply: A diversion on Wolf Creek. 

• Ground water supply: None. 

• Acclimation space: One of the two existing ponds. 

• Enclosure system: An outlet structure in the pond with removable screens. 

• Land use: A rural vacation home overlooks the pond. 

• Access: The Wolf Creek road provides reliable year round access. 

Figure 6-2. Lower Biddle Pond 

6.3. Balky Hill 

A pond fed by groundwater was built in the past on farm property. 

• Location: Balky Hill pond is on Beaver Creek. It would be used as a backup if 

the Parmley site is not used. 

• Surface water supply: None. 

• Ground water supply: Spring water collects at the base of a hill and flows into 

the pond. 

• Acclimation space: One earthen pond. 

• Enclosure system: A temporary barrier net would prevent premature coho 

migration. 

• Land use: A farm is adjacent to the ponds. 

• Access: The Beaver Creek road is plowed. 
 47

Figure 6-3. Balky Hill Pond 

6.4. Other 

Acclimation and release of coho at existing and planned facilities that are developed 

for other species may be considered in the future. Mixing coho with spring Chinook 

and or steelhead, or acclimating in separate rearing units on the same site, may be 

possible. 

Areas where ponds do not currently exist and where pond construction is not possible 

may be targeted for adult plants. Procedures would be similar to those described for 

Hancock above, using a temporary adult weir to confine fish to targeted areas during 

spawning. 

7. References 

FEMA. 2009. National Flood Insurance Program, Flood Insurance Rate Maps. 

Various dates, ex: panel 530115 0675D for the Chewuch and Methow above 

Winthrop is dated 1/20/99. 

http://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10001&st

oreId=10001&categoryId=12001&langId=-1&userType=G&type=1

Okanogan County. 2009a. Okanogan County Comprehensive Plan Designation Maps. 

Updated 7/22/09. http://www.okanogancounty.org/planning/compplan_update.htm

Okanogan County. 2009b. Okanogan County Zoning Maps. Updated 7/31/09. 

http://www.okanogancounty.org/planning/compplan_update.htm

NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service). 2009. Web Soil Survey 

(http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/) 
Allen

 - Not Currently Used

 - No Construction

NF-7305

97

Blewett

Chelan

County

T23N

R17E

SEC14

T23N

R18E

SEC18

T23N

R17E

SEC11

T23N

R17E

SEC12

T23N

R17E

SEC24

T23N

R18E

SEC7

T23N

R17E

SEC13

T23N

R17E

SEC23

T23N

R18E

SEC19

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration EIS - Proposed Action

Methow

Subbasin

Wenatchee

Subbasin

82 90

Primary Acclimation Site

Backup Acclimation Site

Broodstock Capture Site

Primary Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Alternative Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Summer Steelhead

Dolly Varden/Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Township/Range/Section

(PLSS)

Quad Name and Boundary

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Wetlands Key

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Other

November 1, 2010

Blewett Quadrangle

Figure 10a - Allen
Brender

 - Not Currently Used

 - No Construction

TIGNER RD

97 2

Cashmere

Chelan

County

T23N

R19E

SEC8

T23N

R19E

SEC4

T23N

R19E

SEC5

T24N

R19E

SEC31

T24N

R19E

SEC32

T24N

R19E

SEC33

T23N

R19E

SEC7

T23N

R19E

SEC9

T23N

R19E

SEC6

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration EIS - Proposed Action

Methow

Subbasin

Wenatchee

Subbasin

82 90

Primary Acclimation Site

Backup Acclimation Site

Broodstock Capture Site

Primary Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Alternative Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Summer Steelhead

Dolly Varden/Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Township/Range/Section

(PLSS)

Quad Name and Boundary

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Wetlands Key

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Other

November 1, 2010

Cashmere Quadrangle

Figure 10b - Brender
Dryden Dam

 - Currently Used

 - No Construction

Dryden

 - Not Currently Used

 - Construction Proposed

Dryden

 - Not Currently Used

 - Construction Proposed

97

2

Peshastin

Chelan

County

T24N

R18E

SEC22

T24N

R18E

SEC16

T24N

R18E

SEC23

T24N

R18E

SEC21

T24N

R18E

SEC15

T24N

R18E

SEC28

T24N

R18E

SEC27

T24N

R18E

SEC26

T24N

R18E

SEC14

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration EIS - Proposed Action

Methow

Subbasin

Wenatchee

Subbasin

82 90

Primary Acclimation Site

Backup Acclimation Site

Broodstock Capture Site

Primary Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Alternative Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Summer Steelhead

Dolly Varden/Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Township/Range/Section

(PLSS)

Quad Name and Boundary

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Wetlands Key

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Other

November 1, 2010

Peshastin Quadrangle

Figure 10c - Dryden and Dryden Dam
Leavenworth NFH

 - Currently Used

 - No Construction

OLD BRIDGE RD

FISH HATCHERY RD

Leavenworth

Chelan

County

T24N

R17E

SEC26

T24N

R17E

SEC22

T24N

R17E

SEC23

T24N

R17E

SEC27

T24N

R17E

SEC13

T24N

R17E

SEC14

T24N

R17E

SEC15

T24N

R17E

SEC25

T24N

R17E

SEC24

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration EIS - Proposed Action

Methow

Subbasin

Wenatchee

Subbasin

82 90

Primary Acclimation Site

Backup Acclimation Site

Broodstock Capture Site

Primary Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Alternative Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Summer Steelhead

Dolly Varden/Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Township/Range/Section

(PLSS)

Quad Name and Boundary

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Wetlands Key

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Other

November 1, 2010

Leavenworth Quadrangle

Figure 10d - Leavenworth NFH
Coulter

 - Currently Used

 - No Construction

Butcher

 - Currently Used

 - Construction Proposed

Coulter/Roaring

 - Not Currently Used

 - No Construction

NASON RIDGE RD

LAKE JULIUS RD

2

Lake Wenatchee

Chelan

County

T26N

R16E

SEC1

T26N

R16E

SEC11

T26N

R16E

SEC12

T26N

R16E

SEC2

T26N

R16E

SEC14

T26N

R16E

SEC13

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration EIS - Proposed Action

Methow

Subbasin

Wenatchee

Subbasin

82 90

Primary Acclimation Site

Backup Acclimation Site

Broodstock Capture Site

Primary Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Alternative Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Summer Steelhead

Dolly Varden/Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Township/Range/Section

(PLSS)

Quad Name and Boundary

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Wetlands Key

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Other

November 1, 2010

Lake Wenatchee Quadrangle

Figure 10e - Coulter, Butcher, and Coulter/Roaring
Squadroni

 - Not Currently Used

 - Construction Proposed

GILL CREEK RD

2

Lake Wenatchee

Chelan

County

T26N

R16E

SEC10

T26N

R16E

SEC11

T26N

R16E

SEC9

T26N

R16E

SEC2

T26N

R16E

SEC4

T27N

R16E

SEC33

T27N

R16E

SEC35

T26N

R16E

SEC3

T27N

R16E

SEC34

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration EIS - Proposed Action

Methow

Subbasin

Wenatchee

Subbasin

82 90

Primary Acclimation Site

Backup Acclimation Site

Broodstock Capture Site

Primary Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Alternative Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Summer Steelhead

Dolly Varden/Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Township/Range/Section

(PLSS)

Quad Name and Boundary

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Wetlands Key

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Other

November 1, 2010

Lake Wenatchee Quadrangle

Figure 10f - Squadroni
Rohlfing

 - Currently Used

 - No Construction

WHITE PINE RD

2

Mount Howard Lake Wenatchee Chelan

County

T26N

R16E

SEC7

T26N

R16E

SEC8

T26N

R16E

SEC9

T26N

R16E

SEC4

T26N

R16E

SEC6

T27N

R16E

SEC31

T27N

R16E

SEC33

T26N

R16E

SEC5

T27N

R16E

SEC32

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration EIS - Proposed Action

Methow

Subbasin

Wenatchee

Subbasin

82 90

Primary Acclimation Site

Backup Acclimation Site

Broodstock Capture Site

Primary Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Alternative Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Summer Steelhead

Dolly Varden/Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Township/Range/Section

(PLSS)

Quad Name and Boundary

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Wetlands Key

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Other

November 1, 2010

Lake Wenatchee Quadrangle

Figure 10g - Rohlfing
Beaver

 - Currently Used

 - No Construction

CR-22

CHIWAWA

LOOP RD

Plain

Chelan

County

T26N

R17E

SEC1

T26N

R18E

SEC5

T26N

R17E

SEC12

T26N

R18E

SEC17

T26N

R18E

SEC7

T26N

R17E

SEC13

T26N

R18E

SEC18

T26N

R18E

SEC6

T26N

R18E

SEC8

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration EIS - Proposed Action

Methow

Subbasin

Wenatchee

Subbasin

82 90

Primary Acclimation Site

Backup Acclimation Site

Broodstock Capture Site

Primary Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Alternative Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Summer Steelhead

Dolly Varden/Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Township/Range/Section

(PLSS)

Quad Name and Boundary

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Wetlands Key

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Other

November 1, 2010

Plain Quadrangle

Figure 10h - Beaver
Chiwawa Weir

 - Not Currently Used

 - No Construction

Clear

 - Not Currently Used

 - No Construction

CR-22

CHIWAWA

LOOP RD

Plain

Chelan

County

T26N

R18E

SEC5

T27N

R18E

SEC29

T27N

R17E

SEC36

T27N

R18E

SEC30

T27N

R18E

SEC32

T27N

R17E

SEC25

T26N

R18E

SEC6

T27N

R18E

SEC31

T26N

R17E

SEC1

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration EIS - Proposed Action

Methow

Subbasin

Wenatchee

Subbasin

82 90

Primary Acclimation Site

Backup Acclimation Site

Broodstock Capture Site

Primary Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Alternative Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Summer Steelhead

Dolly Varden/Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Township/Range/Section

(PLSS)

Quad Name and Boundary

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Wetlands Key

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Other

November 1, 2010

Plain Quadrangle

Figure 10i - Clear and Chiwawa Weir
Tall Timber

 - Not Currently Used

 - Construction Proposed

NF-6400

WHITE RIVER RD

Mount David

Chelan

County

T28N

R15E

SEC39

T28N

R15E

SEC37

T28N

R15E

SEC38

T28N

R16E

SEC17

T28N

R16E

SEC37

T28N

R16E

SEC18

T28N

R16E

SEC19

T28N

R16E

SEC20

T28N

R16E

SEC38

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration EIS - Proposed Action

Methow

Subbasin

Wenatchee

Subbasin

82 90

Primary Acclimation Site

Backup Acclimation Site

Broodstock Capture Site

Primary Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Alternative Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Summer Steelhead

Dolly Varden/Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Township/Range/Section

(PLSS)

Quad Name and Boundary

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Wetlands Key

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Other

November 1, 2010

Mount David Quadrangle

Figure 10j - Tall Timber
Dirty Face

 - Adult Site

 - Not Currently Used

 - No Construction

White River Springs

 - Not Currently Used

 - No Construction WHITE RIVER RD

NF-6400

NF-6434

Mount

David

Mount

Howard

Schaefer

Lake

Lake

Wenatchee

Chelan

County

T27N

R16E

SEC4

T27N

R16E

SEC5

T28N

R16E

SEC32

T28N

R16E

SEC45

T28N

R16E

SEC29

T28N

R16E

SEC30

T28N

R16E

SEC46

T27N

R16E

SEC6

T28N

R16E

SEC31

T28N

R16E

SEC44

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration EIS - Proposed Action

Methow

Subbasin

Wenatchee

Subbasin

82 90

Primary Acclimation Site

Backup Acclimation Site

Broodstock Capture Site

Primary Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Alternative Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Summer Steelhead

Dolly Varden/Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Township/Range/Section

(PLSS)

Quad Name and Boundary

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Wetlands Key

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Other

November 1, 2010

Shaefer Lake Quadrangle

Figure 10k - White River Springs 
Chikamin

 - Not Currently Used

 - Construction Proposed

Minnow

 - Not Currently Used

 - Construction Proposed

NF-62

CHIWAWA RIVER RD

CHIWAWA VALLEY RD

NF-6200

CHIWAWA RIVER RD

Chikamin Creek

Chelan

County

T28N

R17E

SEC21

T28N

R17E

SEC27

T28N

R17E

SEC28

T28N

R17E

SEC40

T28N

R17E

SEC41

T28N

R17E

SEC20

T28N

R17E

SEC22

T28N

R17E

SEC29

T28N

R17E

SEC39

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration EIS - Proposed Action

Methow

Subbasin

Wenatchee

Subbasin

82 90

Primary Acclimation Site

Backup Acclimation Site

Broodstock Capture Site

Primary Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Alternative Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Summer Steelhead

Dolly Varden/Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Township/Range/Section

(PLSS)

Quad Name and Boundary

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Wetlands Key

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Other

November 1, 2010

Chikamin Creek Quadrangle

Figure 10l - Minnow and Chikamin
Parmley

 - Not Currently Used

 - No Construction

UPPER BEAVER CREEK RD

Blue Buck Mountain

Okanogan Okanogan

County

T34N

R22E

SEC34

T34N

R22E

SEC35

T34N

R22E

SEC36

T33N

R22E

SEC3

T34N

R22E

SEC25

T34N

R22E

SEC26

T34N

R22E

SEC27

T33N

R22E

SEC1

T33N

R22E

SEC2

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration EIS - Proposed Action

Methow

Subbasin

Wenatchee

Subbasin

82 90

Primary Acclimation Site

Backup Acclimation Site

Broodstock Capture Site

Primary Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Alternative Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Summer Steelhead

Dolly Varden/Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Township/Range/Section

(PLSS)

Quad Name and Boundary

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Wetlands Key

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Other

November 1, 2010

Blue Buck Mountain Quadrangle

Figure 10m - Parmley
Gold

 - Not Currently Used

 - Construction Proposed SOUTH FORK GOLD CREEK RD

Hungry Mountain

Methow

Okanogan Okanogan

County

T31N

R22E

SEC17

T31N

R22E

SEC19 T31N

R22E

SEC20

T31N

R22E

SEC18

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration EIS - Proposed Action

Methow

Subbasin

Wenatchee

Subbasin

82 90

Primary Acclimation Site

Backup Acclimation Site

Broodstock Capture Site

Primary Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Alternative Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Summer Steelhead

Dolly Varden/Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Township/Range/Section

(PLSS)

Quad Name and Boundary

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Wetlands Key

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Other

November 1, 2010

Methow Quadrangle

Figure 10n - Gold
Poorman

 - Not Currently Used

 - No Construction

POORMAN CREEK RD

TWISP RIVER RD

Winthrop

Twisp West

Okanogan Okanogan

County

T33N

R21E

SEC12

T33N

R21E

SEC14

T33N

R21E

SEC2

T33N

R21E

SEC1

T33N

R21E

SEC10

T33N

R21E

SEC3

T33N

R21E

SEC15

T33N

R21E

SEC11

T33N

R21E

SEC13

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration EIS - Proposed Action

Methow

Subbasin

Wenatchee

Subbasin

82 90

Primary Acclimation Site

Backup Acclimation Site

Broodstock Capture Site

Primary Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Alternative Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Summer Steelhead

Dolly Varden/Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Township/Range/Section

(PLSS)

Quad Name and Boundary

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Wetlands Key

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Other

November 1, 2010

Winthrop Quadrangle

Figure 10o - Poorman
Newby

 - Not Currently Used

 - Construction Proposed

Twisp Weir

 - Not Currently Used

 - Construction Proposed

Thompson Ridge Winthrop

Hoodoo Peak

Twisp West

Okanogan Okanogan

County

T33N

R21E

SEC5

T33N

R21E

SEC6

T33N

R21E

SEC7

T33N

R21E

SEC8

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration EIS - Proposed Action

Methow

Subbasin

Wenatchee

Subbasin

82 90

Primary Acclimation Site

Backup Acclimation Site

Broodstock Capture Site

Primary Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Alternative Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Summer Steelhead

Dolly Varden/Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Township/Range/Section

(PLSS)

Quad Name and Boundary

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Wetlands Key

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Other

November 1, 2010

Thompson Ridge Quadrangle

Figure 10p - Newby and Twisp Weir
Lower Twisp

 - Currently Used

 - No Construction

LOOKOUTMOUNTAIN RD

20

Twisp West

Twisp East Okanogan Okanogan

County

T33N

R21E

SEC24

T33N

R22E

SEC17

T33N

R22E

SEC19

T33N

R22E

SEC7

T33N

R22E

SEC20

T33N

R21E

SEC13

T33N

R22E

SEC18

T33N

R22E

SEC8

T33N

R21E

SEC12

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration EIS - Proposed Action

Methow

Subbasin

Wenatchee

Subbasin

82 90

Primary Acclimation Site

Backup Acclimation Site

Broodstock Capture Site

Primary Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Alternative Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Summer Steelhead

Dolly Varden/Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Township/Range/Section

(PLSS)

Quad Name and Boundary

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Wetlands Key

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Other

November 1, 2010

Twisp West Quadrangle

Figure 10q - Lower Twisp
Balky Hill

 - Not Currently Used

 - No Construction

UPPER BEAVER CREEK RD

BALKY HILL RD

Blue Buck

Mountain

Okanogan Okanogan

County

T34N

R22E

SEC34

T34N

R22E

SEC35

T34N

R22E

SEC36

T33N

R22E

SEC10

T33N

R22E

SEC12

T33N

R22E

SEC3

T33N

R22E

SEC1

T33N

R22E

SEC11

T33N

R22E

SEC2

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration EIS - Proposed Action

Methow

Subbasin

Wenatchee

Subbasin

82 90

Primary Acclimation Site

Backup Acclimation Site

Broodstock Capture Site

Primary Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Alternative Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Summer Steelhead

Dolly Varden/Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Township/Range/Section

(PLSS)

Quad Name and Boundary

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Wetlands Key

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Other

November 1, 2010

Blue Buck Mountain Quadrangle

Figure 10r - Balky Hill
Winthrop NFH

 - Currently Used

 - No Construction

Methow SFH

 - Currently Used

 - No Construction

TWIN LAKES RD

20

Winthrop

Okanogan Okanogan

County

T34N

R21E

SEC4

T34N

R21E

SEC10

T34N

R21E

SEC11

T34N

R21E

SEC3

T35N

R21E

SEC34

T35N

R21E

SEC35

T35N

R21E

SEC33

T34N

R21E

SEC9

T34N

R21E

SEC2

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration EIS - Proposed Action

Methow

Subbasin

Wenatchee

Subbasin

82 90

Primary Acclimation Site

Backup Acclimation Site

Broodstock Capture Site

Primary Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Alternative Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Summer Steelhead

Dolly Varden/Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Township/Range/Section

(PLSS)

Quad Name and Boundary

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Wetlands Key

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Other

November 1, 2010

Winthrop Quadrangle

Figure 10s - Winthrop NFH and Methow SFH
Hancock

 - Adult Site

 - Not Currently Used

 - No Construction

COUNTY ROAD 1131

WOLF CREEK RD

20

Rendevous

Mountain

Okanogan Okanogan

County

T35N

R20E

SEC15

T35N

R20E

SEC16

T35N

R20E

SEC11

T35N

R20E

SEC21

T35N

R20E

SEC22

T35N

R20E

SEC23

T35N

R20E

SEC10

T35N

R20E

SEC14

T35N

R20E

SEC9

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration EIS - Proposed Action

Methow

Subbasin

Wenatchee

Subbasin

82 90

Primary Acclimation Site

Backup Acclimation Site

Broodstock Capture Site

Primary Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Alternative Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Summer Steelhead

Dolly Varden/Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Township/Range/Section

(PLSS)

Quad Name and Boundary

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Wetlands Key

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Other

November 1, 2010

Rendevous Mountain Quadrangle

Figure 10t - Hancock
Chewuch A.F.

 - Not Currently Used

 - Construction Proposed

NF-37

COUNTY ROAD 9137

EASTSIDE CHEWACK RD E CHEWUCH RD

WESTSIDE CHEWACK RD

COUNTY ROAD 1213

Lewis Butte

Okanogan Okanogan

County

T35N

R21E

SEC12

T35N

R21E

SEC3

T35N

R21E

SEC1

T35N

R21E

SEC11

T35N

R21E

SEC2

T36N

R21E

SEC35

T35N

R21E

SEC10

T36N

R21E

SEC34

T36N

R21E

SEC36

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration EIS - Proposed Action

Methow

Subbasin

Wenatchee

Subbasin

82 90

Primary Acclimation Site

Backup Acclimation Site

Broodstock Capture Site

Primary Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Alternative Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Summer Steelhead

Dolly Varden/Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Township/Range/Section

(PLSS)

Quad Name and Boundary

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Wetlands Key

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Other

November 1, 2010

Lewis Butte Quadrangle

Figure 10u - Chewuch A.F.
XY

XY

MSRF - Chewuch

 - Not Currently Used

 - Construction Proposed

Pete Creek

 - Not Currently Used

 - No Construction

COUNTY ROAD 9137

EASTSIDE CHEWACK RD

E CHEWUCH RD

WESTSIDE CHEWACK RD

COUNTY ROAD 1213

Lewis

Butte

O k a n o g a n O k a n o g a n

C o u n t y C o u n t y

T35N

R21E

SEC26

T35N

R21E

SEC22

T35N

R21E

SEC23

T35N

R21E

SEC27

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration EIS - Proposed Action

!

!

Washington Washington

Methow

Subbasin

Wenatchee

Subbasin Spok

Spok

Seattle Seattle

§ ̈¦82 § ̈¦90

XY Primary Acclimation Site

XY Backup Acclimation Site

XYBroodstock Capture Site

XY Primary Incubation and 

Rearings Site

XY Alternative Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Summer Steelhead

Dolly Varden/Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Township/Range/Section

(PLSS)

Quad Name and Boundary

±

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Wetlands Key

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Other

November 1, 2010

Lewis Butte Quadrangle

Figure 10v – MSRF Chewuch and Pete Creek
Heath

 - Not Currently Used

 - No Construction

COTTONWOOD DR

20

Winthrop

Thompson Ridge

Lewis

Butte

Rendevous

Mountain

Okanogan Okanogan

County

T35N

R21E

SEC31

T35N

R21E

SEC19

T35N

R21E

SEC20

T35N

R20E

SEC25

T35N

R20E

SEC24

T35N

R21E

SEC32

T35N

R20E

SEC36

T35N

R21E

SEC30

T35N

R21E

SEC29

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration EIS - Proposed Action

Methow

Subbasin

Wenatchee

Subbasin

82 90

Primary Acclimation Site

Backup Acclimation Site

Broodstock Capture Site

Primary Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Alternative Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Summer Steelhead

Dolly Varden/Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Township/Range/Section

(PLSS)

Quad Name and Boundary

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Wetlands Key

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Other

November 1, 2010

Rendevous Mountain Quadrangle

Figure 10w - Heath
Biddle

 - Not Currently Used

 - No Construction

ntly Used

ruction

WOLF CREEK RD

20

Rendevous

Mountain

Lewis Butte

Thompson Ridge

Winthrop

Okanogan Okanogan

County

T34N

R21E

SEC4

T34N

R21E

SEC5

T35N

R21E

SEC28

T35N

R21E

SEC29

T35N

R21E

SEC30

T35N

R21E

SEC32

T34N

R21E

SEC6

T35N

R21E

SEC31

T35N

R21E

SEC33

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration EIS - Proposed Action

Methow

Subbasin

Wenatchee

Subbasin

82 90

Primary Acclimation Site

Backup Acclimation Site

Broodstock Capture Site

Primary Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Alternative Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Summer Steelhead

Dolly Varden/Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Township/Range/Section

(PLSS)

Quad Name and Boundary

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Wetlands Key

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Other

November 1, 2010

Winthrop Quadrangle

Figure 10x - Biddle
Goat Wall

 - Not Currently Used

 - No Construction

CASSAL RD NF-193

COUNTY ROAD 9140

LOST RIVER RD

McLeod Mountain

Mazama

Okanogan Okanogan

County

T36N

R19E

SEC37

T36N

R19E

SEC42

T36N

R19E

SEC45

T36N

R19E

SEC46

T36N

R19E

SEC3

T36N

R19E

SEC39

T36N

R19E

SEC41

T36N

R19E

SEC47

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration EIS - Proposed Action

Methow

Subbasin

Wenatchee

Subbasin

82 90

Primary Acclimation Site

Backup Acclimation Site

Broodstock Capture Site

Primary Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Alternative Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Summer Steelhead

Dolly Varden/Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Township/Range/Section

(PLSS)

Quad Name and Boundary

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Wetlands Key

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Other

November 1, 2010

McLeod Mountain Quadrangle

Figure 10y - Goat Wall
XY

XY

MSWA - Eightmile

 - Not Currently Used

 - Construction Proposed

Mason

 - Not Currently Used

 - No Construction

NF-51

NF-5130

NF-105

NF-100

NF-5010

Lewis

Butte

O k a n o g a n O k a n o g a n

C o u n t y C o u n t y

T36N

R21E

SEC15

T36N

R21E

SEC22

T36N

R21E

SEC23

T36N

R21E

SEC24

T36N

R21E

SEC25

T36N

R21E

SEC14

T36N

R21E

SEC27

T36N

R21E

SEC13

T36N

R21E

SEC26

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration EIS - Proposed Action

!

!

Washington Washington

Methow

Subbasin

Wenatchee

Subbasin Spok

Spok

Seattle Seattle

§ ̈¦82 § ̈¦90

XY Primary Acclimation Site

XY Backup Acclimation Site

XY Broodstock Capture Site

XY Primary Incubation and 

Rearings Site

XY Alternative Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Summer Steelhead

Dolly Varden/Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Township/Range/Section

(PLSS)

Quad Name and Boundary

±

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Wetlands Key

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Other

November 1, 2010

Lewis Butte Quadrangle

Figure 10z – Mason and MSWA Eightmile
Scheibler

 - Not Currently Used

 - Construction Proposed CHUMSTICK HWY

PRIMITIVE PARK RD

CAMP 12 RD

Winton

Van

Creek

Chelan

County

T25N

R18E

SEC5

T26N

R18E

SEC31

T25N

R17E

SEC1

T25N

R18E

SEC6

T26N

R17E

SEC36

T26N

R18E

SEC32

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration EIS - Proposed Action

Methow

Subbasin

Wenatchee

Subbasin

82 90

Primary Acclimation Site

Backup Acclimation Site

Broodstock Capture Site

Primary Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Alternative Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Summer Steelhead

Dolly Varden/Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Township/Range/Section

(PLSS)

Quad Name and Boundary

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Wetlands Key

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Other

November 1, 2010

Slate Peak Quadrangle

Figure 10ab - Scheibler
Cascade Hatchery

 - Currently Used

 - No Construction

NF-8400-777

TANNER CREEK RD

14

84 Bonneville Dam

Hood

River

County

Multnomah Multnomah

County

Skamania Skamania

County

T2N

R7E

SEC21

T2N

R7E

SEC23

T2N

R7E

SEC22

T2N

R7E

SEC27

T2N

R7E

SEC21

T2N

R7E

SEC22

T2N

R7E

SEC28

T2N

R7E

SEC26

T2N

R7E

SEC14

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration EIS - Proposed Action Washington Washington

Oregon Oregon

Salem

Portland Portland

5

84

Primary Acclimation Site

Backup Acclimation Site

Broodstock Capture Site

Primary Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Alternative Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Summer Steelhead

Dolly Varden/Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Township/Range/Section

(PLSS)

Quad Name and Boundary

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Wetlands Key

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Other

November 1, 2010

Bonneville Dam Quadrangle

Figure 10ac - Cascade Hatchery
George

 - Not Currently Used

 - Construction Proposed

BEAVER VALLEY RD

BREA BURN RD

OLD STATE HIGHWAY 150 CR-22

CHIWAWA

LOOP RD

Plain

Chelan

County

T27N

R17E

SEC28

T27N

R17E

SEC34

T27N

R17E

SEC21

T27N

R17E

SEC22

T27N

R17E

SEC23

T27N

R17E

SEC27

T27N

R17E

SEC33

T27N

R17E

SEC35

T27N

R17E

SEC26

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration EIS - Proposed Action

Methow

Subbasin

Wenatchee

Subbasin

82 90

Primary Acclimation Site

Backup Acclimation Site

Broodstock Capture Site

Primary Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Alternative Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Summer Steelhead

Dolly Varden/Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Township/Range/Section

(PLSS)

Quad Name and Boundary

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Wetlands Key

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Other

November 1, 2010

Plain Quadrangle

Figure 10ad - George
Willard NFH

 - Currently Used

 - No Construction

CHENOWITH RD

COOK-UNDERWOOD RD

14

Mount Defiance

Skamania Skamania

County

T3N

R9E

SEC27

T3N

R9E

SEC35

T3N

R9E

SEC22

T3N

R9E

SEC23

T3N

R9E

SEC24

T3N

R9E

SEC25

T3N

R9E

SEC26

T3N

R9E

SEC34

T3N

R9E

SEC36

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration EIS - Proposed Action Washington Washington

Oregon Oregon

Salem

Portland Portland

5

84

Primary Acclimation Site

Backup Acclimation Site

Broodstock Capture Site

Primary Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Alternative Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Summer Steelhead

Dolly Varden/Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Township/Range/Section

(PLSS)

Quad Name and Boundary

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Wetlands Key

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Other

November 1, 2010

Mount Defiance Quadrangle

Figure 10ae - Willard NFH
Tumwater Dam

 - Currently Used

 - No Construction

2

Winton

Leavenworth

Chelan

County

T24N

R17E

SEC4

T24N

R17E

SEC5

T25N

R17E

SEC29

T25N

R17E

SEC27

T25N

R17E

SEC33

T25N

R17E

SEC28

T25N

R17E

SEC32

T25N

R17E

SEC34

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration EIS - Proposed Action

Methow

Subbasin

Wenatchee

Subbasin

82 90

Primary Acclimation Site

Backup Acclimation Site

Broodstock Capture Site

Primary Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Alternative Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Summer Steelhead

Dolly Varden/Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Township/Range/Section

(PLSS)

Quad Name and Boundary

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Wetlands Key

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Other

November 1, 2010

Leavenworth Quadrangle

Figure 10af - Tumwater Dam
Peshastin

 - Currently Used

 - No Construction

2

Leavenworth

Peshastin

Chelan

County

T24N

R18E

SEC20

T24N

R18E

SEC17

T24N

R18E

SEC18

T24N

R18E

SEC19

T24N

R18E

SEC7

T24N

R18E

SEC8

T24N

R18E

SEC9

T24N

R18E

SEC21

T24N

R18E

SEC16

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration EIS - Proposed Action

Methow

Subbasin

Wenatchee

Subbasin

82 90

Primary Acclimation Site

Backup Acclimation Site

Broodstock Capture Site

Primary Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Alternative Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Summer Steelhead

Dolly Varden/Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Township/Range/Section

(PLSS)

Quad Name and Boundary

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Wetlands Key

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Other

November 1, 2010

Peshastin Quadrangle

Figure 10ag - Peshastin
Utley

 - Not Currently Used

 - Construction Proposed

NF-025

NF-800

E BUTTERMILK CREEK RD

NF-44

TWISP RIVER RD

Thompson Ridge

Hoodoo Peak

Okanogan Okanogan

County

T33N

R20E

SEC42

T33N

R20E

SEC37

T33N

R20E

SEC38

T33N

R20E

SEC39

T33N

R20E

SEC40

T33N

R20E

SEC3

T33N

R20E

SEC41

T33N

R20E

SEC43

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration EIS - Proposed Action

Methow

Subbasin

Wenatchee

Subbasin

82 90

Primary Acclimation Site

Backup Acclimation Site

Broodstock Capture Site

Primary Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Alternative Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Summer Steelhead

Dolly Varden/Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Township/Range/Section

(PLSS)

Quad Name and Boundary

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Wetlands Key

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Other

November 1, 2010

Hoodoo Peak Quadrangle

Figure 10ah - Utley
Lincoln

 - Not Currently Used

 - No Construction

NF-100

NF-44

TWISP RIVER RD

Oval Peak

Hoodoo Peak

Okanogan Okanogan

County

T33N

R20E

SEC19

T33N

R20E

SEC49

T33N

R20E

SEC50

T33N

R20E

T33N SEC45

R20E

SEC46

T33N

R20E

SEC47

T33N

R20E

SEC7

T33N

R20E

SEC8

T33N

R20E

SEC9

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration EIS - Proposed Action

Methow

Subbasin

Wenatchee

Subbasin

82 90

Primary Acclimation Site

Backup Acclimation Site

Broodstock Capture Site

Primary Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Alternative Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Summer Steelhead

Dolly Varden/Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Township/Range/Section

(PLSS)

Quad Name and Boundary

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Wetlands Key

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Other

November 1, 2010

Hoodoo Peak Quadrangle

Figure 10ai - Lincoln
XY

XYXY

Wells Dam

 - Currently Used

 - No Construction

Wells FH

 - Currently Used

 - No Construction

_`97

Azwell

Wells

Dam

O k a n o g a n O k a n o g a n

C o u n t y C o u n t y

C h e l a n C h e l a n

C o u n t y C o u n t y

D o u g l a s D o u g l a s

C o u n t y C o u n t y

T28N

R23E

SEC1

T28N

R23E

SEC12

T28N

R24E

SEC5

T28N

R24E

SEC6

T28N

R24E

SEC7

T28N

R24E

SEC8

T29N

R24E

SEC31

T29N

R24E

SEC32

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration EIS - Proposed Action

!

!

Washington Washington

Methow

Subbasin

Wenatchee

Subbasin Spok

Spok

Seattle Seattle

§ ̈¦82 § ̈¦90

XY Primary Acclimation Site

XY Backup Acclimation Site

XYBroodstock Capture Site

XY Primary Incubation and 

Rearings Site

XY Alternative Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Summer Steelhead

Dolly Varden/Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Township/Range/Section

(PLSS)

Quad Name and Boundary

±

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Wetlands Key

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Other

November 1, 2010

Figure 10aj - Wells Dam and Fish Hatchery

Wells Dam Quadrangle
Two Rivers

 - Currently Used

 - No Construction

McComas

 - Not Currently Used

 - No Construction

NF-65

LITTLE

WENATCHEE

RIVER RD

LITTLE WENATCHEE RD

Lake Wenatchee

Chelan

County

T27N

R16E

SEC15

T27N

R16E

SEC16

T27N

R16E

SEC14

T27N

R16E

SEC21

T27N

R16E

SEC23

T27N

R16E

SEC39 T27N

R16E

SEC9

T27N

R16E

SEC22

T27N

R16E

SEC40

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration EIS - Proposed Action

Methow

Subbasin

Wenatchee

Subbasin

82 90

Primary Acclimation Site

Backup Acclimation Site

Broodstock Capture Site

Primary Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Alternative Incubation and 

Rearings Site

Summer Steelhead

Dolly Varden/Bull Trout

Spring Chinook

Township/Range/Section

(PLSS)

Quad Name and Boundary

0 500 1,000 2,000

Feet

Wetlands Key

Estuarine and Marine Deepwater

Estuarine and Marine Wetland

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Lake

Riverine

Other

November 1, 2010

Lake Wenatchee Quadrangle

Figure 10ak - Two Rivers
Appendix 5. Monitoring and Evaluation Program 

Note: This section has been adapted from the Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Master 

Plan (YN 2010). For further information and for a list of cited references, see the Master 

Plan. 

Summary 

Table 7-1 summarizes the M&E plan. References to activities for BDP1 are left in the table to 

show the monitoring that was done for that phase, which is now completed in both basins, and 

the continuity of program monitoring.

Table 5-1. Summary of M&E activities 

M&E Activity Indicator 

Measured 

Strategy Restoration 

Phases 

Coordinated with 

other programs? 

Release-to-McNary 

survival 

Project 

Performance 

PIT tags BDP1, BDP2, 

NPIP, NPSP1 

No 

In-pond survival Project 

Performance 

PIT tags 

Predation control 

BDP1, BDP2, 

NPIP, NPSP1 

No 

Pre-release fish 

condition 

Project 

Performance 

Physical 

examination 

BDP1, BDP2, 

NPIP, NPSP

No 

Volitional release 

run-timing and 

tributary residence 

Project 

Performance / 

Species 

Interaction 

PIT tags 

Smolt trapping 

BDP1, BDP2, 

NPIP, NPSP1 

Yes: Integrated Status 

& Effectiveness 

Monitoring Program 

(ISEMP) (BPA project 

#2003-017-00); 

CCPUD/ DCPUD HCP 

Hatchery Programs; 

GCPUD Hatchery 

Programs 

Spawning 

escapement and 

distribution 

Project 

Performance 

Redd counts 

Carcass recovery 

Radio-telemetry 

CWT 

BDP1, BDP2, 

NPIP, NPSP

No 

Natural smolt 

production 

Project 

Performance 

Smolt trapping 

CWT 

BDP1, BDP2, 

NPIP, NPSP2 

Yes: ISEMP; CCPUD/ 

DCPUD HCP Hatchery 

Programs; GCPUD 

Hatchery Programs 

Egg-to-emigrant 

survival 

Project 

Performance 

Smolt trapping 

Redd counts 

CWT 

BDP1, BDP2, 

NPIP, NPSP2 

Yes: ISEMP; CCPUD/ 

DCPUD HCP Hatchery 

Programs; GCPUD 

Hatchery Programs 

Adult-to-adult 

survival 

Project 

Performance 

Adult trapping 

Redd counts 

Carcass recovery 

CWT 

BDP1, BDP2, 

NPIP, NPSP 

No 

Adult-to-adult 

productivity 

Project 

Performance 

Adult trapping 

Carcass recovery 

CWT 

Scale analysis 

NPIP, NPS No 

1 PIT tags will be used during NPSP if smolt-to-adult rates are not meeting program goals and further investigation 

into survival is warranted. 

2 Natural smolt production and egg-to-emigrant survival estimates will be specific to release tributaries during NPIP 

and NPSP, and basin-wide during BDP1 and BDP2. 
Table 5-1 (continued) 

M&E Activity Indicator Measured Strategy Restoration 

Phases 

Coordinated with 

other programs? 

Harvest rates Project Performance CWT 

Scale analysis 

Database queries 

BDP1, BDP2, 

NPIP, NPSP 

Yes: Coordinated with 

harvest management 

agencies 

NTTOC – Size 

structure 

Species Interactions Smolt trapping BDP1, BDP2, 

NPIP, NPSP3 

Yes: ISEMP; CCPUD/ 

DCPUD HCP Hatchery 

Programs; GCPUD 

Hatchery Programs 

NTTOC – 

Abundance and 

survival 

Species Interactions / 

Status of NTTOC 

Smolt trapping 

Underwater 

observation 

BDP1, BDP2, 

NPIP, NPSP3

Yes: ISEMP; CCPUD/ 

DCPUD HCP Hatchery 

Programs; GCPUD 

Hatchery Programs 

NTTOC – 

Distribution 

Species Interactions / 

Status of NTTOC 

Redd counts 

Underwater 

observation 

BDP1, BDP2, 

NPIP, NPSP3

Yes: ISEMP; CCPUD/ 

DCPUD HCP Hatchery 

Programs; GCPUD 

Hatchery Programs 

Competition Species Interactions / 

Mechanisms of 

Interaction 

Underwater 

observation 

Enclosures 

Size and growth 

NPIP No 

Predation by 

naturally 

produced coho 

on spring 

Chinook fry 

Species Interactions / 

Mechanisms of 

Interaction 

Smolt trapping 

Emergence and 

emigration 

timing 

NPIP Yes: ISEMP; CCPUD/ 

DCPUD HCP Hatchery 

Programs; GCPUD 

Hatchery Programs 

Morphometrics 

and life history 

traits 

Genetic Adaptability Adult trapping 

Redd counts 

Carcass recovery 

Smolt trapping 

CWT 

BDP1, BDP2, 

NPIP, NPSP 

Yes: ISEMP; CCPUD/ 

DCPUD HCP Hatchery 

Programs; GCPUD 

Hatchery Programs 

Genetic 

monitoring 

Genetic Adaptability Genetic sampling 

CWT 

BDP1, BDP2, 

NPIP, NPSP 

No 

Reproductive 

Success 

Genetic Adaptability Genetic sampling BDPII, NPIP, 

NPSP 

No 

3 Baseline NTTOC monitoring during BDP1 and BDP2, effects monitoring during NPIP and NPSP.

M & E Plan Details 

The goal of the M&E program is to monitor and evaluate the results of reintroduction so that 

operations can be adaptively managed to optimize hatchery and natural production while 

minimizing any negative ecological impacts. Pursuing this goal, research data collection and 

analysis endeavors to: 1) demonstrate when the reintroduction program is meeting the 

established phased restoration goals; 2) determine whether a change in status of sensitive species 

is occurring and whether it is a result of coho reintroduction; and 3) provide science-based 

recommendations for management consideration. 

The M&E plan is organized into three distinct categories: Project Performance Indicators, 

Species Interactions, and Genetic Adaptability. Project performance indicators are intended to 

evaluate how well reintroduced hatchery fish and the resulting naturally produced fish are 

surviving and adapting, whether certain reintroduction or hatchery practices can be modified to 
improve benefits achieved, and whether harvest levels threaten project success. Monitoring of 

project performance indicators will allow for adaptive management and evaluation of project 

progress toward successful reintroduction. Species interaction evaluations include monitoring 

the status of non-target taxa of concern (NTTOC) and investigating mechanisms of interaction 

(i.e., predation and competition). The species interactions evaluations described in this plan 

expand on issues examined during the feasibility phase and are integrated with other species 

monitoring ongoing or proposed in the two basins. Monitoring of genetic adaptability to local 

conditions is designed to determine whether the project is successfully creating a local 

broodstock distinct from lower Columbia River stocks in terms of genetic divergence and life 

history traits; and to determine the biological significance of the changes. 

M&E results and plan objectives will be reviewed and revised every six years (two generations) 

to allow for modification of actions and adaptive management. NTTOC monitoring will 

continue until program termination, 5 generations (15 years) after starting the natural production 

phases. 

Note: We have left references to Broodstock Development Phase 1 in the text, even though 

BDP1 has been completed in both subbasins, to show the continuity of the M&E program 

throughout the project. 

5.1 Project Performance Indicators 

5.1.1 Release-to-McNary Smolt Survival 

Objective: To estimate smolt-smolt survival (release to McNary Dam) for hatchery coho 

released in mid-Columbia tributaries. 

Metric: Smolt-to-smolt survival index (Neeley 2004) 

releasedor dFish tagge ofNumber 

Fish taggedofNumber Estimated McNary passing stratum during

Smolt - to-Smolt McNary Index to Survival

Strata

∑

=

Rationale: Mullan et al. (1992) and Chapman et al. (1994a; 1994b; 1995a; 1995b) recognize 

that a central limitation to building self-sustaining populations of anadromous fish in 

Wenatchee and Methow subbasins is the high smolt and adult mortalities incurred at the 

numerous hydropower facilities on the mainstem Columbia River. Mortalities related to 

hydropower facilities can severely reduce the escapement numbers. Salmon abundance is 

also heavily influenced by ocean conditions. Freshwater conditions reflect variability within 

a broader spectrum of population abundance that is largely controlled by ocean conditions 

(Mullan et al. 1992; Nickelson 1986). Therefore, we feel it is important to monitor survival 

of hatchery juveniles in freshwater to help partition smolt-to-adult survival of hatchery reared 

program fish into the components of freshwater and marine mortality. 

Smolt-to-smolt survival rates will be used to compare the “quality of smolt” produced by 

different rearing strategies, acclimation sites, acclimation duration, and time of release. 

Smolt-to-smolt survival indices will be used to evaluate rearing strategies and rearing 

facilities, to include current and proposed facilities, evaluations of growth rates, acclimation 

length, and smolt size. Knowing how rearing and environmental conditions affect smolt 
survival allows researchers to adaptively manage the reintroduction effort to maximize 

survival. Smolt-to smolt survival indices will be used to parse out that portion of mortality 

that is occurring during emigration. 

Restoration Phases: BDP1, BDP2, NPIP. Smolt-to-smolt survival rates will be measured 

during the Support Phases if smolt-to-adult rates are not meeting program goals and further 

investigation into survival is warranted. 

Methods: Groups of juvenile coho, ranging from 3,500 to 8,000 individuals, depending upon 

release location, will be PIT-tagged 3-6 months prior to release. PIT-tagged coho will be 

released from a minimum of one upper Wenatchee River acclimation site, LNFH, and 

Methow River site. PIT groups will also be released from ponds which have not previously 

been used for coho acclimation and from sites where smolt-to-adult survival rates are below 

expectations. All PIT tagging will follow protocols described in the PIT TAG Marking 

Procedures Manual (CBFWA 1999). When possible, volitional releases will be monitored 

for PIT tags. Survival estimates will be calculated based on subsequent PIT detections at 

McNary, John Day, and Bonneville Dams following methods described in Neeley 2007. 

5.1.2 In-Pond Survival 

Objective: To estimate in-pond (transport-to-release) survival of hatchery coho. 

Metric: In-pond survival estimate based on PIT tag releases (Neeley 2007) or predator and 

mortality observations (Kamphaus and Murdoch 2008). 

Rationale: In-pond survival estimates will increase the accuracy of smolt-to-adult and smoltsmolt survival estimates. In-pond survival estimates will be used to evaluate the success of 

acclimation ponds and predator control strategies, allowing researchers to maximize survival 

through adaptive management. 

Restoration Phases: All phases. 

Method: Groups of approximately 3,500 to 8,000 juvenile coho will be PIT tagged 3-6 

months prior to release (see Section 7.1.1 Release-to McNary Smolt Survival). In-pond 

survival estimates based on PIT tags are possible only in ponds with monitored releases. Inpond survival based on PIT tags will be calculated following methods described in Neeley 

2007. In-pond survival rates from acclimation sites that do not have PIT tag detection 

capability will be estimated based on moribund fish, numbers of predators observed, and 

predator consumption rates (Kamphaus and Murdoch 2008). 

5.1.3 Pre-Release Fish Condition 

Objective: To provide a comparative measure of fish condition and stage of smoltification 

prior to release. 

Metric: Stage of smoltification will be measured as the proportion of fish which, upon visual 

examination, appear to be smolts, transitional (in the process of becoming a smolt), or parr. 

Fish condition will be assessed not only on size and growth accrued during acclimation but 

also on morphological and physiological measures such as overall condition of fins and eyes; 

of internal organs (e.g., kidney, liver, spleen, etc.); and of mesenteric fat levels and blood 

components (% volume of red and white blood cells, plasma protein levels). 
Rationale: Pre-release fish condition examinations are intended to assess the normality or 

overall health of the population. These examinations will allow researchers to compare fish 

condition between ponds and between years as a measure that may affect survival. 

Restoration Phases: All phases. 

Methods: A random sample of 100 fish from each acclimation pond will be used to measure 

stage of smoltification and growth weekly until release. The pre-release fish condition 

assessment will be done once within 72 hours of release. Detailed methods describing how 

stage of smoltification is determined and how pre-release fish condition examinations are 

conducted can be found in Kamphaus and Murdoch 2008. 

5.1.4 Volitional Release Run-Timing and Tributary Residency 

Objective: To describe volitional release patterns, peak migration from acclimation ponds, 

duration of time spent in tributaries post-release, and run timing to McNary Dam. 

Metric: Run timing, in hours, calculated from PIT tag detections during monitored releases 

to recapture in tributary traps (i.e., smolt traps), in-stream PIT tag arrays, and Columbia 

River PIT detection facilities. 

Rationale: Knowing tributary residence time will enable researchers to better understand the 

potential for interaction between hatchery coho and listed and sensitive species (see Section 

7.2 Species Interactions). We will examine the relationship between volitional exit date and 

tributary residence time, allowing for programmatic changes to minimize potential negative 

interactions. The correlation between volitional exit date and smolt-smolt survival may also 

enable researchers to maximize survival of hatchery fish by releasing hatchery coho at an 

optimal time. 

Run timing is a life history attribute which may change with the development of a local 

broodstock (see Section 7.3.1 Morphometrics and Life History Traits). As natural 

production increases during the NPIP and Support Phases, run timing will be measured for 

both naturally produced and hatchery coho based on the distribution of migrating naturally 

produced coho captured in tributary smolt traps. 

Method: Using the same groups of 3,500 to 8,000 PIT-tagged juvenile coho as described in 

Section 7.1.1 Release-to-McNary Smolt Survival, tributary residence time will be 

calculated from ponds with PIT tag detection capabilities (e.g., Butcher Creek Pond, 

Rohlfing’s Pond, Beaver Creek Pond Coulter Creek Pond, Winthrop NFH back-channel and 

Lower Twisp Ponds). Dates and times of reported recaptures in tributary traps and Columbia 

River PIT tag interrogation facilities will be used to calculate residence time and run timing. 

5.1.5 Spawning Escapement and Distribution 

Objective: To estimate in-basin spawning escapement and distribution for both hatchery 

origin returns (HORs) and natural-origin returns (NORs). 

Metric: Annual redd counts, escapement estimates and spawning ground composition. 

Purpose: Redd counts will provide an estimate of spawning escapement and distribution of 

reintroduced coho salmon. The counts, along with spawning composition (pNOS and pHOS) 

and distribution, will allow researchers and managers to determine the efficacy of the 
reintroduction effort, collect empirical productivity data and determine whether spawning 

ground composition goals for each phase are being met. 

Hypotheses: 

o Implementation Phase – Ho: pHOS ≤ 90% 

o Support Phase (1) – Ho: pHOS ≤ 75% 

o Support Phase (2) – Ho: pHOS ≤ 65%

Restoration Phases: All phases. 

Method: Spawning escapement and distribution will be evaluated in terms of redd counts 

and an estimate of fish per redd (based on sex ratio observed at in-basin trapping facilities). 

Spawning ground surveys will be conducted in all tributaries where juvenile coho have been 

released and other tributaries that have coho spawning attributes such as low gradient, 

adequate winter flow and small gravel (about 25 mm) (Quinn 2005). Radio-telemetry or PIT 

tagging techniques could be used, particularly during the natural production phases, to 

identify previously unknown coho spawning locations, to ensure that all spawning reaches 

are surveyed, and to identify spawning locations of straying coho. A description of protocols 

for both spawning ground surveys and radio telemetry can be found in Murdoch et al. 2005. 

5.1.6 Natural Smolt Production 

Objective: To provide a population estimate of naturally produced coho smolts emigrating 

from the Wenatchee and Methow rivers. 

Metric: Population estimates of both spring and fall emigrating coho with 95% confidence 

intervals. 

Rationale: Natural smolt production estimates are a measure of productivity. Smolt 

production estimates will be used to evaluate program progress and success in terms of eggto-emigrant survival rates and smolt-to-adult survival rates. Natural smolt population 

estimates during all phases are essential to accurately measure key project performance 

indicators, such as smolt-to-adult survival rates. 

While the broodstock development phases primarily focus on the development of a local 

broodstock rather than on natural production, some natural production will occur during 

these early phases, likely in a geographically limited area. Fish trapping facilities at Dryden 

Dam are not 100% efficient, presumably resulting in some natural production on a limited 

geographical scale. It is important to collect data regarding natural production during the 

broodstock development phases because early measures of productivity (e.g., smolts per 

spawner, egg-to-emigrant survival, etc.) on a basin-wide scale will provide a rough baseline 

measure of the success of natural spawners prior to the natural production phases. 

Restoration Phases: All Phases. 

Methods: Operation of rotary smolt traps, protocols for fish handling, and data analysis will 

proceed as described in Murdoch et al. (2005) and Hillman (2004). Traps will be operated 

annually between March 1 and November 30. 

Broodstock Development Phases: During broodstock development phases we will 

coordinate with ongoing monitoring activities to reduce duplication of activities. 
Currently in the Wenatchee basin, WDFW operates a rotary smolt trap near the town of 

Monitor. Through a cooperative effort, this trap will be used to provide population 

estimates for naturally produced coho as it was during the feasibility phase. The YNoperated smolt trap in Nason Creek will provide a tributary-specific population estimate. 

Similar coordination with WDFW in the Methow basin should provide a basin-wide coho 

population estimate for the Methow.

Natural Production Phases: All monitoring efforts, including population estimates 

during the natural production phases, will be coordinated with other co-managers and 

recovery processes to avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts and cumulative handling 

effects. In tributaries currently without means of estimating smolt production, the YN 

proposes to operate either a rotary smolt trap or other sampling equipment during the 

spring and fall emigration periods to estimate the number of natural coho emigrants. 

5.1.7 Egg-to-Emigrant Survival Rates 

Objective: To estimate egg-to-emigrant survival rates for naturally produced coho salmon in 

mid-Columbia tributaries. 

Metric: Egg-to-Emigrant Survival (S) will be expressed as the ratio of the estimated number 

of emigrant coho (Ce) and the estimated number of eggs deposited (Ed). 

S= Ce/Ed

Rationale: The egg-to-emigrant survival rate will provide data to determine which tributaries 

are most productive for coho production. The relationship between egg-to-emigrant survival 

and seeding level will assist researchers in developing tributary-specific empirically derived 

estimates of carrying capacity. 

We assume that the freshwater productivity (expressed as an egg-to-emigrant survival rate) 

will increase as domestication selection is reduced, local adaptation is emphasized and 

habitat improvement projects are implemented. 

Hypothesis: 

o Ho: Egg-to-Emigrant Survival Broodstock Development Phases ≥ Egg-to-Emigrant Survival 

Implementation Phase ≥ Egg-to-Emigrant Survival Support Phase 

Restoration Phases: Egg-to-emigrant survival rates will be calculated on a basin-wide scale 

during the broodstock development phases (i.e., total number of redds vs. total number of 

emigrants). During the natural production phases we will calculate egg-to-emigrant survival 

independently in each tributary of reintroduction. 

Methods: The number of emigrant coho will be estimated from tributary trap data as 

described in Section 7.1.6 Natural Smolt Production. The number of eggs deposited will 

be calculated from the number of redds observed (see Section 7.1.5 Spawning Escapement 

and Distribution). Both basin-wide and tributary specific estimates will be calculated. 

5.1.8 Smolt-to-Adult Survival (SAR) 

Objective: To measure smolt-to-adult survival for hatchery and natural origin coho. 

Metric: Smolt-to-adult survival will be calculated as follows: 

Ssmolt-adult = Adults and Jacks broodyear X /Smolts broodyear X
Where S smolt-adult is the estimated smolt-to-adult survival rates; Adults and Jacks broodyear X is 

the number of adult coho to return from broodyear X ; Smolts broodyear X is the population of 

emigrating smolts. 

Rationale: For hatchery fish, smolt-to-adult survival will be used to test the premise that 

SARs will increase with the development of a local broodstock. SARs will also be used to 

compare the “quality of smolt” produced by different rearing strategies, acclimation sites, 

acclimation duration, and time of release. Knowing how smolt-to-adult survival indices 

correlate with rearing and environmental conditions will allow researchers to adaptively 

manage the reintroduction effort to maximize survival. The SARs will be used to evaluate 

rearing strategies and rearing facilities to maximize survival. Evaluations will include 

facility comparisons (currently ongoing), comparisons of growth rates, smolt size, and 

acclimation length (currently ongoing). 

We assume that the survival of Wenatchee and Methow coho will increase as domestication 

selection is reduced, local adaptation is emphasized and habitat improvement projects are 

implemented. 

Hypothesis: 

o Ho: Smolt-to-Adult Survival Broodstock Development Phases ≥ Smolt-to-Adult Survival 

Implementation Phase ≥ Smolt-to-Adult Survival Support Phases 

Methods: SARs will be calculated for both naturally and hatchery produced coho. We plan 

to mark 100% of the hatchery fish released under this program with CWTs. CWTs will be 

used to calculate SARs from each release group and location, and will be used to distinguish 

hatchery from natural fish (no CWT). Pre-release CWT retentions will be used to estimate 

the number of fish with CWTs released. To verify origin, scale samples will be taken from 

all adult coho that do not have a CWT. During the broodstock development phases, SARs 

for hatchery and naturally produced coho will be calculated based upon the number of smolts 

released (hatchery), smolt emigration estimates from WDFW’s Methow and Wenatchee river 

smolt traps, and CWTs recovered from hatchery and naturally produced coho collected at 

Dryden Dam for broodstock. During the natural production phases, tributary-specific SARs 

may be based on carcass recovery and tributary population estimates, in addition to the basinwide metric described above. 

5.1.9 Adult-to-Adult Productivity 

Metric: Adult productivity will be measured in the Wenatchee and Methow broodstock 

collection facilities and on the spawning grounds (through carcass recovery) for naturally 

spawning fish. Adult-to-adult survival will be calculated as follows: 

Padult = S2/S1

Where Padult isthe estimated adult-to-adult survival; S2 is the number of returning adults 

(including jacks); and S1 is the number of adults from the parent brood year producing the S2 

returning adults. A Padult value that averages greater than 1.0 over several generations 

indicates that the population is increasing. 

Rationale: The adult-to-adult survival rate measures the productivity of reintroduced coho, 

providing an overall indicator of project success. During the NPIP, Padult may indicate which 

tributaries are the most productive. 
We assume that the productivity of Wenatchee and Methow river coho salmon will increase 

as domestication selection is reduced, local adaptation is emphasized and habitat 

improvement projects are implemented. 

Hypothesis: 

o Ho: P Broodstock Development Phases ≥ P Implementation Phase ≥ P Support Phases 

Restoration Phases: Natural Production Phases 

Methods: Coho collected for broodstock and naturally spawning coho carcasses will be 

interrogated for the presence of CWTs. Scales will be taken from coho that are not marked 

with a CWT to confirm origin. These data will be used in calculations described under 

Metric. 

5.1.10 Harvest Rates 

Objective: Estimate out-of-basin harvest rates of program fish in order to determine if 

harvest rates are likely to limit project success. 

Rationale: Harvest may have been a significant factor in the disappearance or reduced 

number of coho in both the distant and recent past. Currently, the majority of coho in the 

Columbia River are produced and released below Bonneville Dam. The historical intent of 

this production was to supply coho for the 80-90% exploitation rate by ocean and lower 

Columbia River fisheries. However, since the period 1988-1993, harvest rates of coho 

(commercial ocean troll and recreational) have decreased by approximately 25% (PFMC 

1999). Harvest reductions were the result of mixed stock fishery issues related to the 

Endangered Species Act. Coho released under this project are subject to the following 

fisheries: ocean commercial troll fisheries, ocean recreation fisheries, Buoy 10 recreational 

fisheries, lower Columbia River commercial fisheries, lower Columbia River recreational 

fisheries, Zone 6 (Bonneville to McNary dams) Treaty Indian commercial fisheries, and 

above-Bonneville Dam recreational fisheries. All recreational fisheries and the ocean 

commercial troll fisheries are selective for adipose-fin-clipped fish. Harvest mortality for 

project fish in these fisheries will primarily be limited to incidental mortality, so we have no 

ability to recover CWTs from these fisheries. The Columbia River commercial coho 

fisheries (Buoy 10 to Bonneville Dam) do intercept both adipose-clipped and non-clipped 

fish. All coho captured in this fishery are examined for the presence of a CWT, with an 

approximate sampling rate of 20%. Presently, harvest monitoring of Treaty Indian fisheries 

does not include recovery of CWT. Although the total harvest rate on adipose-clipped fish 

could be as high as 50-60%, the total harvest rate on non-adipose-fin-clipped fish is 

substantially lower (20-25%) due to the selective fisheries that are likely to remain in place 

for many years as a result of ESA constraints. 

Restoration Phases: All phases.

Methods: We will coordinate with agencies responsible for harvest management (WDFW, 

ODFW, USFWS, CRITFC, etc.) to estimate the harvest rates of target stocks by querying 

existing databases that may contain harvest or stray information for program fish. 

5.2 Species Interactions 

During the feasibility phase, the YN completed several studies to evaluate predation and 

competition by hatchery coho with listed and sensitive species (Dunnigan 1999; Murdoch and 
Dunnigan 2002; Murdoch and LaRue 2002; Murdoch et al. 2004; Murdoch et al. 2005). Results 

of these studies indicate low predation rates and species-specific habitat segregation (see 

Chapter 3). Stream dwelling salmonids that have evolved in sympatry have developed 

mechanisms to promote coexistence and to partition the available habitat. Studies with coho 

salmon and steelhead trout (Hartman 1965; Johnson 1967; Fraser 1969; Allee 1974), Chinook 

salmon and steelhead trout (Everest and Chapman 1972), Chinook salmon and coho salmon 

(Lister and Genoe 1970; Stein et al. 1972; Murphy et al. 1989), coho salmon and cutthroat trout 

(Bjornn 1971; Bustard and Narver 1975; Sabo and Pauley 1997) and coho salmon and dolly 

varden (Dolloff and Reeves 1990) all support this statement.

Mechanisms to measure negative interactions between hatchery fish and other species have been 

studied by others (Larkin 1956; Fraser 1969; Stein et al. 1972; Glova 1986; Marnell 1986; 

Cannamela 1993; Riley et al. 2004), but impacts to non-target species in terms of abundance, 

distribution and size have not been conclusively measured (Fresh 1997, Pearsons et al. 2004) on 

a basin-wide scale. Interactions between reintroduced coho and listed and sensitive species will 

be evaluated through an integrated NTTOC monitoring program. A basin-wide NTTOC 

monitoring program has been implemented in the Yakima River (Busak et al. 1997, Hubble et al. 

2004; Pearsons et al. 2004). 

NTTOC status monitoring (Section 7.2.1) answers the question “Are there adverse changes in 

the status of NTTOC in tributaries where coho have been introduced?” NTTOC status 

monitoring does not answer questions of whether coho caused the changes in NTTOC status or 

the mechanism of change (e.g., predation, competition, etc.). The studies outlined in Section 

7.2.2 address those causal questions.

Species interaction monitoring will continue for a minimum of six years (two coho generations) 

during the Support Phases, but may continue longer pending results. 

5.2.1 Status of Non-Target Taxa of Concern (NTTOC) 

During the feasibility phase of the Mid-Columbia Coho Reintroduction Program, the HGMP 

(YN et al. 2002) and the mid-Columbia Coho Technical Workgroup (TWG) identified a number 

of critical uncertainties associated with coho reintroduction and species interactions. Studies 

implemented during the feasibility phase (see Chapter 3) answer many of those uncertainties, 

including the rates of predation by hatchery coho on spring Chinook fry and on sockeye fry. One 

main question remains unanswered, that of the predation rate of naturally produced coho on 

spring Chinook fry. As stated in Chapter 3, numbers of naturally producing coho were not 

sufficient to undertake a meaningful study (Murdoch et al. 2005). The study described in 

Section 7.2.2.2 proposes to address this remaining question. 

With most of the critical uncertainties answered, the proposed NTTOC monitoring plan is 

designed to integrate the coho reintroduction effort with other ongoing programs to monitor the 

status of listed and sensitive species. The non-target taxa monitoring program will focus on the 

status and freshwater residence of spring Chinook and steelhead, but data on all other species 

encountered, such as bull trout, cutthroat trout, lamprey and sockeye, will also be collected. 

We define status as the interaction of abundance, distribution, and size. A change in status is the 

deviation from baseline conditions. A change in status does not indicate causation, but if 

coho reintroduction has a negative impact on listed and sensitive species, decline in status 
would occur. If a decline in status is detected, further investigations into the mechanism of 

interaction and source of decline are warranted (see Section 7.2.2). 

To provide baseline data for evaluating effects of coho reintroduction, monitoring will begin 

during the broodstock development phases when the hatchery coho are released on a 

geographically limited scale and numbers of naturally spawning coho in tributaries containing 

spring Chinook and steelhead will be minimal. Baseline monitoring will be done in most 

tributaries proposed for future coho releases during the natural production phases. Monitoring of 

changes in tributaries with no previous coho release will occur during the Implementation Phase. 

The study design will include both a temporal and spatial control. Baseline data collected prior 

to coho reintroduction will function as a temporal control from which to compare any change in 

NTTOC status. 

The NTTOC monitoring plan builds on, and will be coordinated with, ongoing monitoring 

efforts in the Wenatchee, Entiat and Methow basins, thus avoiding duplication of efforts and 

minimizing cumulative handling effects and costs. Existing programs currently collecting data 

that may be used to help determine a change in status for NTTOC include the Chelan and 

Douglas County PUD HCP hatchery compensation monitoring and evaluation programs, the 

developing Grant County PUD hatchery monitoring and evaluation program, and the Integrated 

Status and Effectiveness monitoring program (ISEMP) (BPA project # 200301700). 

This NTTOC monitoring program is designed to provide data to measure the effects of both 

Type I and Type II interactions. Type I interactions are those that occur between hatchery fish 

and wild fish, while Type II interaction may occur between NTTOC and the naturally produced 

offspring of hatchery fish (Pearsons and Hopley 1999). 

5.2.1.1 NTTOC Risk Assessment 

As one part of the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for HCP Hatchery Compensation programs 

(Murdoch and Peven 2005; DCPUD 2005) and the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for Grant 

PUD Salmon and Steelhead Supplementation programs (GCPUD 2009), coho salmon will be 

included in a NTTOC risk assessment. An expert panel will conduct the assessment to evaluate 

risks associated with potential effects of supplemented Plan Species (including coho salmon) on 

non-target taxa using an approach similar to that used in the Yakima Basin (Ham and Pearsons 

2001). The process is intended to focus on assessing the risks to NTTOC and on identifying 

interactions, the actions that could be taken to minimize risks, and the level of uncertainty. Both 

positive and negative species interactions are included in the assessment; a list of interactions 

and species considered is shown in Table 7-1. The list of species was decided upon by 

consensus of the Chelan and Douglas County PUD HCP Hatchery Committees. 

Table 7-1. List of species and interactions to be considered in the NTTOC risk assessment 

NTTOC Negative Interactions 

Considered 

Positive Interactions 

Considered 

Spring Chinook 

Steelhead 

Sockeye 

Competition 

Behavioral anomalies 

Pathogenic 

Predation 

Prey 

Nutrient Enhancement 
5.2.1.2 Reference Stream Comparisons 

For a spatial control, we propose to use the Entiat River as a reference population of Chinook 

and steelhead from which any observed changes in abundance (as measured through egg-toemigrant survival rates), distribution, or size can be gauged. 

The Entiat River has been proposed by the resource managers (NOAA, WDFW, YN, USFWS, 

Colville Tribe), Chelan PUD and Douglas PUD as a potential reference stream for both spring 

Chinook and steelhead, to measure the success of the PUDs’ HCP hatchery programs (Murdoch 

and Peven 2005). As such, analysis to determine the ultimate suitability of the Entiat River as a 

reference stream for spring Chinook and steelhead, along with the data required to compare 

changes in size, abundance and distribution would be collected by the HCP monitoring activities 

funded by CCPUD and DCPUD hatchery compensation programs (Murdoch and Peven 2005). 

Reference stream suitability criteria have been adapted from the Chelan and Douglas HCP 

hatchery compensation program M&E plan (Murdoch and Peven 2005) and include the 

following: 

• No recent (within the last 5-10 years) hatchery releases directed at target species 

• Similar information of hatchery contribution on the spawning grounds 

• Similar fluvial-geomorphologic characteristics 

• Similar out-of-subbasin effects 

• Similar historic records of productivity 

• Appropriate scale for comparison 

• Similar in-basin biological components, based upon analysis of empirical information. 

The USFWS generates population estimates of juvenile salmonids through rotary trap operation, 

uses underwater observation techniques to estimate juvenile rearing distribution, and conducts 

spawning ground surveys for spring Chinook, summer Chinook, and steelhead in the basin. The 

use of the Entiat River as a potential reference stream for steelhead and spring Chinook 

precludes the release of these species in the Entiat basin, making the Entiat River similarly a 

reference stream to gauge potential NTTOC interactions as a result of coho reintroduction in the 

Wenatchee and Methow. 

The continued status of the Entiat River as a reference from which to gauge changes in the status 

of NTTOC in the Wenatchee and Entiat rivers is currently unknown. Spring Chinook spawning 

habitat is upstream of the ENFH, and the USFWS rotary smolt trap used to calculate population 

abundance is located near the facility. A portion of the steelhead production and likely all bull 

trout production also are upstream of the ENFH. 

Use of the Entiat River as a reference stream may also be complicated due to the intensive 

habitat restoration that is currently ongoing and planned. The ISEMP is testing the effectiveness 

of habitat restoration actions in the Entiat River. The ISEMP is supporting an accelerated 

schedule for the implementation of 75-80 in-stream habitat actions defined in Entiat Watershed 

Plan (CCCD 2004) within a short time frame (goal of 5 years). In relation to the size of the 

Entiat basin, this is a substantially faster rate of habitat improvement than will take place in the 

Wenatchee or Methow basins, potentially resulting in a population increase that could preclude 

the use of the Entiat River as a reference stream. 
If it is later determined that the Entiat River is not suitable as a spatial reference, we may need to 

rely solely on the temporal control to gauge changes in NTTOC status. 

5.2.1.3 Status of NTTOC 

We define a change in status of NTTOC as a change in size, abundance, or distribution. The 

following sections describe how we plan to monitoring any change in status of NTTOC as we 

proceed with coho restoration in the Wenatchee and Methow basins. 

The Integrated Status and Effectiveness Monitoring Program (ISEMP), BPA project #2003-017-

00, is a statistically robust intensive monitoring framework that builds on current status and trend 

monitoring infrastructures in the upper Columbia. The intent of the ISEMP project is to 

efficiently collect data to address multiple management objectives over a broad range of scales, 

including evaluating the status and trends for anadromous salmonids in their habitat. Since 

2004, ISEMP in the Wenatchee and Entiat basins has focused on the design and implementation 

of a sampling regime and status and trend monitoring program with 67 monitoring indicators 

(Hillman 2004). This monitoring project targets salmon and steelhead populations and habitat 

and is implemented in collaboration with the Upper Columbia Regional Technical Team. 

Data collected in this intense Status, Trend, and Effectiveness monitoring program will give 

statistically robust status updates for spring Chinook and steelhead on 5-year intervals. By 

coordinating with the ISEMP program, we minimize a duplication of sampling effort. 

Size Structure  

Objective: To monitor size (growth and K-factor) of NTTOC and juvenile coho in all 

tributaries proposed for coho reintroduction. 

Rationale: The size, condition, and growth of NTTOC and juvenile coho, combined with 

abundance and distribution data, will be used to evaluate the effect, if any, of coho 

reintroduction. Baseline monitoring during the broodstock development phases will 

establish trends in size, abundance and distribution of NTTOC prior to the natural 

production phases. Baseline monitoring in all tributaries with proposed coho releases 

will provide a temporal control in which to evaluate any changes in NTTOC size. 

Hypotheses: 

o Ho: NTTOC Size before reintroduction < NTTOC Size after reintroduction

o Ho: NTTOC Size treatment stream < NTTOC Size reference stream

Restoration Phases: Baseline monitoring during broodstock development phases; change 

monitoring during the natural production phases. 

Methods: The importance of monitoring size and growth of NTTOC in both the 

treatment and reference streams prior to reintroduction of coho is emphasized. Because 

seeding levels and intra-specific competition can influence the size structure of each 

population, a careful analysis of the relationship between seeding levels, survival, and 

growth should be established in each tributary (treatment and reference) in order to gauge 

the change. 

We will collect size and condition factor information from the various smolt traps 

operating within the Wenatchee, Entiat and Methow basins (Nason Creek, Chiwawa 

River, White River, Upper Wenatchee River, Entiat River, Twisp River and Methow 
River). Currently the Nason Creek smolt trap is operated by the YN as a cost-sharing 

effort between two BPA projects (Project # 1996-040-00 and #2003-017-00) and Grant 

County PUD. The White River smolt trap is operated by the YN and funded by Grant 

County PUD. The Chiwawa River trap is operated by WDFW. In the Methow basin, the 

Twisp and Methow rivers traps are both operated by WDFW. The USFWS operates two 

rotary smolt traps in the Entiat River (reference populations). Additional baseline and 

post-reintroduction data will be provided through the ISEMP status and trend monitoring 

program. 

Abundance and Survival  

Objective: To measure the abundance and corresponding survival rates for NTTOC in 

target tributaries. 

Rationale: See Size Structure above. Abundance of NTTOC, in-terms of population 

size and survival rates (egg-to-emigrant survival), will be used to evaluate the effect, if 

any, of coho reintroduction. Baseline monitoring during the broodstock development 

phases will establish trends in abundance and survival prior to the natural production 

phases. Abundance and survival monitoring for spring Chinook and steelhead in Nason 

Creek, Chiwawa River, White River, Wenatchee River, Twisp River, Methow River, and 

Entiat River are currently on-going or proposed under other programs. We propose to 

continue this monitoring as baseline and effect monitoring throughout the broodstock 

development and natural production phases. 

Baseline monitoring in all tributaries with proposed coho releases will provide a temporal 

control. Inclusion of the Entiat River in the monitoring plan will allow for a spatial 

control or reference stream. 

Hypotheses: 

o Ho: NTTOC Egg-to-Emigrant Survival before reintroduction < Egg-to-Emigrant Survival 

after reintroduction

o Ho: NTTOC Egg-to-Emigrant Survival treatment stream < NTTOC Egg-to-Emigrant 

Survival reference stream

Methods: It is important to monitor NTTOC abundance in terms of egg-to-emigrant 

survival in both the treatment and reference streams before reintroduction of coho. 

Currently, such monitoring is ongoing in Nason Creek, Chiwawa River, White River, 

Peshastin Creek, Twisp River, Methow River, and Entiat River. Because seeding levels 

and intra-specific competition directly influence the egg-to-emigrant survival rate (stockrecruitment curve) of each population, a careful analysis of the relationship between 

seeding levels, survival, and growth should be established in each tributary (treatment 

and reference) in order to gauge the change. 

Current on-going smolt trapping programs in Nason Creek, Chiwawa River, White River, 

Wenatchee River, Twisp River, Chewuch River, Methow River and Entiat River will 

form the basis for the NTTOC abundance and survival estimates. Similar traps on the 

Little Wenatchee may be proposed for coho natural production monitoring during the 

natural production phases and will also be used to collect abundance and survival data for 

the NTTOC monitoring program. 
In addition, ISEMP has implemented a PIT tagging program for natural origin juvenile 

spring Chinook and steelhead in the Wenatchee and Entiat basins. All Chinook and 

steelhead longer than 60 mm captured at all smolt traps are currently being PIT tagged. 

Parr rearing in the tributaries captured either by seine nets, electro-fishing, or hook and 

line are also being PIT tagged. This intensive tagging effort is expected to provide lifestage-specific survival rates for spring Chinook and steelhead rearing in tributary streams 

over time. 

Smolt trap operation for emigrant population analysis will proceed as described in 

Hillman (2004) and Prevatte and Murdoch (2004). We will follow protocols for 

underwater observation as described in Thurow (1994) and for electro-fishing in Temple 

and Pearsons (2004). The same index sites will be monitored annually. Any correlation 

between egg-seeding level, indexed rearing density, egg-to-emigrant survival, and 

emigrant population estimates will be analyzed using multiple regression techniques (Zar 

1999). 

In order to avoid duplication of efforts, NTT abundance and survival monitoring will be 

closely coordinated with ongoing monitoring and evaluation programs in the Wenatchee 

and Methow basins, including but not limited to BPA project #2003-017-000 (ISEMP) 

and M&E activities funded by the mid-Columbia PUDs. 

Restoration Phases: Baseline monitoring will proceed as described above during the 

broodstock development phases in all tributaries proposed for future coho releases. 

Monitoring of changes will be done during the natural production phases. Any change in 

NTTOC status during this monitoring will be closely evaluated in subsequent studies 

such as those described Section 7.2.2, to determine if the coho reintroduction efforts are 

causing the observed change or if other factors may be involved. 

Distribution of NTTOC  

Objective: To evaluate the status of NTTOC in terms of their distribution throughout 

each basin. 

Rationale: Data on the distribution of NTTOC and juvenile coho, in combination with 

abundance and size data, will enable researchers to evaluate changes in NTTOC status 

during the coho reintroduction process. 

Baseline monitoring in all tributaries with proposed coho releases will provide a temporal 

control. Inclusion of the Entiat River in the monitoring plan will allow for a spatial 

control or reference stream. 

Hypotheses: 

o Ho: NTTOC Distribution before reintroduction < NTTOC Distribution after reintroduction

o Ho: NTTOC Distribution treatment stream < NTTOC Distribution reference stream

Restoration Phases: Same as for size and abundance monitoring. 

Methods: It is important to monitor NTTOC spawning and rearing distribution in both 

the treatment and reference streams before reintroduction of coho. Currently NTTOC 

monitoring is ongoing in Nason Creek, Chiwawa River, White River, Peshastin Creek, 

Twisp River, Methow River, and Entiat River. A careful analysis of the relationship 
between seeding levels, survival, and distribution should be established in each tributary 

(treatment and reference) in order to gauge the change. 

Distribution will be evaluated in terms of adult spawning distribution (adult spawning 

distribution data are collected by WDFW and CCPUD) and juvenile rearing distribution, 

through the annual snorkel and electro-fishing surveys conducted under ISEMP. 

5.2.2 Mechanism of Interaction 

5.2.2.1 Competition 

Objective: To continue to evaluate competition for space and food between naturally 

produced coho and NTTOC. 

Rationale: If the status of NTTOC is determined to have declined, continued investigations 

into competition between reintroduced coho and NTTOC will help determine the cause of the 

decline and, if necessary, programmatic changes that can be made to minimize negative 

interactions between coho (hatchery and/or natural) and NTTOC. 

Hypotheses: Possible hypotheses to investigate include the following: 

o Ho: NTTOC microhabitat with coho = NTTOC microhabitat use without coho

o Ho: NTTOC growth with coho = NTTOC growth without coho

o Ho: Coho microhabitat use = NTTOC microhabitat use 

Methods: Competitive interactions between species are often investigated using two general 

techniques: controlled field studies or laboratory investigations (using aquaria or enclosures). 

Field studies can lack statistical power but are seldom criticized for lacking relevance to 

actual conditions. Studies in aquaria or enclosures more easily achieve statistical power 

through replication, but the natural conditions which closely parallel the stream ecosystem 

are difficult to duplicate. 

To investigate competition, a combination of approaches may be used, including field studies 

similar to those conducted during the feasibility phase (Murdoch et al. 2004, Murdoch et al. 

2005) or direct measures of competition such as growth and condition of NTTOC in smallscale enclosures with varying abundance of competitors under differing habitat and 

environmental conditions. Together competition studies may help ascertain conditions under 

which competition may have a negative effect on NTTOC. 

5.2.2.2 Predation by Naturally Reared Coho on Spring Chinook Fry 

Objective: To quantify predation rates by naturally produced coho on spring Chinook fry. 

Rationale: The extent to which naturally produced coho may prey upon NTTOC in the 

Wenatchee and Methow rivers is largely unknown. Preliminary investigations during the 

feasibility phase documented that some naturally produced coho smolts will consume frysized fish. Due to the low numbers and abundance of naturally produced coho in areas of 

ESA-listed spring Chinook production during the feasibility phase, it was not possible to 

accurately measure incidence of predation (Murdoch et al. 2005). 

Restoration Phases: Predation evaluations will occur during the NPIP. The tributary(s) 

chosen for the predation evaluation(s) will be based on the natural production rates and 

resources for fish capture. 
Methods: A study to determine the incidence of predation and an estimate of the total 

number of spring Chinook fry consumed will follow methods described in Murdoch et al. 

(2005). The study may be replicated in more than one tributary as deemed necessary to 

adequately assess the extent that predation may occur. 

5.3 Genetic Adaptability 

Few opportunities in the Columbia Basin exist to investigate the local adaptation process 

required for a species reintroduction project to be completely successful. This coho 

reintroduction plan presents such an opportunity to understand the natural selection intensities on 

naturalized coho. Success of this coho reintroduction program relies on the use of hatchery fish 

to develop naturalized spawning populations. Until recently the project has relied entirely upon 

the transfer of lower Columbia River hatchery coho to produce adult coho returns. If a viable 

self-sustaining population of coho is to be re-established in the Wenatchee and Methow basins, 

parent stocks must possess sufficient genetic variability to allow the newly founded population to 

respond to differing selective pressures between environments of the lower Columbia River and 

the mid-Columbia region. Some changes in the life history characteristics of the introduced 

broodstock are likely, due to multiple factors such as longer migration distance, differing 

environmental conditions of inland rivers, and historical artificial selection on donor stocks. 

Several of the life history characteristics that might be expected to differ could be endurance, run 

timing, sexual maturation timing, fecundity, egg size, length at age, juvenile migration timing, 

sex ratio, and allele frequencies of non-neutral loci. Therefore, a long-term monitoring effort 

will be continued to track changes over several generations. 

Implementation of the proposed study plan would be a valuable contribution to the science of 

salmon recovery by quantitatively addressing the following questions: 

1) Is divergence at neutral and adaptive SNP (Single Nucleotide Polymorphism)1

 loci a 

useful measure of reproductive isolation and adaptation? 

2) Is phenotypic divergence (if observed) a useful proxy for local adaptation, or are observed 

differences simply the result of phenotypic plasticity? 

3) What is the biological significance to perceived local adaptation/naturalization? 

4) What is the mechanism leading to local adaptation, and how quickly can stocks react to 

alternative natural selection regimes? 

5.3.1 Morphometrics and Life History Traits 

Metric: We will measure traits such as fecundity, body morphometry, run timing, maturation 

timing, length-at-age and spawn timing. 

Rationale: Because conditions in mid-Columbia tributaries are likely to be different from 

coastal streams and the lower Columbia River where the broodstock used for reintroduction 

originated, life history characteristics of reintroduced coho are likely to change. For one, the 

migration distance is much greater between the ocean and the mid-Columbia than, for 

example, between the ocean and Cascade Fish Hatchery. Optimal maturation rates and 

spawn timing are likely to be different between these two areas. In order to determine if the 

 

1

 SNP – Single nucleotide polymorphism: an alteration of one base in the genome of an organism (e.g., AÙG or 

CÙT). 
stock used has adequate genetic variance and phenotypic plasticity to adapt to local 

conditions, the life history characteristics of the coho broodstock should be monitored over 

the length of the program. 

Monitoring life history traits and morphometrics of mid-Columbia coho will contribute to 

answering broader questions about the rate of genetic drift when a broodstock is established 

in a subbasin. 

Methods: Through sampling efforts in the Wenatchee and Methow basins, we will collect 

morphometric and life history data from the reintroduced population. From adult coho 

captured for broodstock (HORs and NORs) we will collect data from phenotypic traits such 

as fecundity, body morphometry and maturation timing. Similar data will be collected from 

HORs and NORs recovered on the spawning grounds. Trend monitoring will be used to 

ascertain changes in life history or morphometry for each generation. 

5.3.2 Phenotypic Traits at Tumwater and Dryden Dams 

Metric: We will measure traits such as lipid levels, run timing, state of maturation (measured 

by hormone levels), fish size, fish shape, and gender. 

Rationale: In addition to tracking any changes in phenotypic traits over time for the 

population as a whole, during Broodstock Development Phase 2 (BDP2) we plan to assess 

whether there is any measurable difference in phenotypic traits between coho salmon that are 

able to ascend Tumwater Canyon and those that cannot. Knowledge of any potential 

phenotypic difference between fish that can ascend the canyon and those that cannot, could 

be used to revise our broodstock collection efforts if we are unsuccessful in completing 

BDP2 as described in Section 5.2 of this Master Plan. However, because targeting 

broodstock collection for certain traits would reduce genetic diversity and could also result in 

the inadvertent selection for deleterious traits, such measures would be a last resort. 

Hypotheses: Possible hypotheses to investigate include the following: 

o Ho: Lipid Levels successful coho = Lipid Levels unsuccessful coho

o Ho: State of Maturation successful coho = State of Maturation unsuccessful coho

o Ho: Run Timing successful coho = Run Timing unsuccessful coho

o Ho: Morphometrics successful coho = Morphometrics unsuccessful coho

Methods: Coho smolts released upstream of Tumwater Dam will be marked with a blank 

wire in the adipose fin. Upon return, adults headed upstream of Tumwater Dam will be 

identifiable at downstream trapping sites. During broodstock collection efforts at Dryden 

Dam, all coho destined for the upper Wenatchee basin will be scanned for a PIT tag; if no 

PIT tag is found, a tag will be applied. Phenotypic data described above will be collected. 

Fish that successfully ascend Tumwater Canyon to the dam will either be re-collected or 

detected on the antenna arrays (2) within the fishway. Data from phenotypic data from fish 

that have arrived at Tumwater Dam will then be compared to the data collected from the fish 

that did not successfully ascend the canyon. 
5.3.3 Genetic Monitoring 

Objective: To determine whether the project is successfully creating a local broodstock 

distinct from lower Columbia River coho salmon stocks; to measure the rate of divergence at 

neutral markers, and to determine the biological significance of local adaptation. 

Metric: We will measure the rate and direction of divergence in neutral and adaptive allele 

frequencies of coho stocks that are used for reintroduction in mid-Columbia rivers. 

Rationale: A sound understanding of the genetic structure of the species is a prerequisite for 

the assessment of the genetic impacts of human activities such as introductions, transfers, or 

stock enhancement on natural populations. A measure to assess the impact of human 

activities on natural populations is the degree to which the population structure responds to 

applied management action. This can be done by measuring the frequencies of alleles at 

specific loci through time in a population (Allendorf and Phelps 1981; Utter 1991; Allendorf 

1995). Such a database permits the determination of temporal and geographic (degree of 

isolation) variance components. 

Within the body of peer-reviewed literature, scientific views remain mixed regarding the 

scale and biological significance of perceived local adaptations (Taylor 1991b; Purdom 

1994). Utilizing both neutral and adaptive SNP loci provides the opportunity to evaluate the 

biological significance of genetic differentiation among stocks. The coho reintroduction 

effort in the mid-Columbia provides an ideal framework for studying rates of genetic and 

phenotypic divergence. 

Restoration Phases: Broodstock development phases will focus on collecting genetic 

samples from hatchery returns to measure the rate of divergence. Genetic analysis during 

natural production phases will include naturally spawning coho as described above. 

Methods: We propose to measure genetic divergence using 35 SNP markers. To do so, we 

intend to sample tissue from a minimum of 60 adult coho from each of four study groups: 

1) adults destined for natural spawning; 2) adults collected for broodstock; 3) naturally 

produced smolts; and 4) hatchery origin smolts. Over time the data will allow us to estimate 

three types of genetic drift: 

1) Changes in allele distribution between parent and progeny life history stages (e.g., drift 

occurring between the adult spawning population and their progeny) relative to the amount of 

genetic divergence expected to result from genetic sampling error attributed to reproductive 

events (Weir 1996). In addition, by measuring changes in composite haplotype2

 frequencies 

we can quantify variation in reproductive success on a very broad scale. These data will be 

used to scale the relevance of statistical tests of genetic differentiations (e.g., genetic 

sampling error will be included as a component of variance when assessing differentiation 

between hatchery and natural-origin adults and progeny). 

2) Genetic variation present in the hatchery broodstock compared to the naturally spawning 

population component. This will allow us to determine whether broodstock collection 

methods are effectively achieving a representative sample of returning adults. These data 

will be helpful in optimizing broodstock collection protocols. 

 

2

 Haplotype: The composite genotype of multiple loci that can provide a “fingerprint” for various lineages, 

populations, or individuals. 
3) Over time, as broodstock development progresses, we will be able to determine the length 

of time necessary to genetically recognize mid-Columbia coho salmon as a distinct spawning 

population from the lower river source populations. 

5.3.4 Reproductive Success 

Objective: To measure changes in reproductive success over generations as an indicator of 

local adaptation. 

Metric: Individual recruits per spawner as assessed through parental assignment. 

Rationale: Initially we expect the reproductive success of reintroduced coho salmon do be 

low because a domesticated hatchery stock was used for the reintroduction. This Master Plan 

describes a phased approach to first develop a local broodstock and then to focus on natural 

production and local adaptation to the natural environment (rather than hatchery 

environment). As we proceed with the phased reintroduction effort, we would expect the 

reproductive success of the population to improve. Because the program is designed to be an 

integrated hatchery program, we would not expect the reproductive success to be different 

between natural and hatchery produced fish; however, as our reliance on hatchery production 

diminishes in the NPS phases, we would expect an increase in reproductive success for the 

population. 

Hypotheses: Possible hypotheses to investigate include the following: 

o Ho: Reproductive Success BDPII (baseline) = Reproductive Success NPS2 (locally adapted) 

Restoration Phases: During the broodstock development phases, we will focus on collecting 

baseline reproductive success data which would be compared to the reproductive success of 

reintroduced coho at the conclusion of the Natural Production Phases. 

Methods: The reproductive success of reintroduced populations is a CRITFC-sponsored 

evaluation (Accord Project #200900900). We plan to coordinate with CRITFC researchers 

for the implementation of this study. A small fin clip will be taken from all coho ascending 

Tumwater Dam (and possibly Wells Dam). Genetic profiles acquired for each fish will be 

compared to the profiles for adults in its respective brood year to permit parentage 

assignment. 

Individual productivity (R/S) estimates will be calculated for each adult within brood years 

as well as average productivity and relative reproductive success among parental types. We 

will then compare the reproductive success of hatchery and naturally produced coho during 

the broodstock development phases (baseline) to data collected near the completion of the 

natural production phases. 

References 

YN (Yakama Nation Fisheries Resource Management). 2010. Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration 

Master Plan. Prepared for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 199 pages. 
1

APPENDIX 6 

Water Quality Data 

Table of Contents 

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... i

List of Figures................................................................................................................................ ii

1. Objectives............................................................................................................................1

1.1. Nason Creek........................................................................................................................1

1.2. Wenatchee Basin ................................................................................................................1

2. Active Study Site Descriptions..........................................................................................2

2.1. Fish Stocking Details..........................................................................................................2

2.2. Flow Dependent Parameters .............................................................................................4

2.2.1. Flow Density................................................................................................................4

2.2.2. Pond Retention Time .................................................................................................4

3. Data Collection Procedures...............................................................................................5

3.1. Methods...............................................................................................................................5

3.2. Locations .............................................................................................................................5

3.3. Schedule ..............................................................................................................................9

3.4. Quality Control ................................................................................................................10

4. Wenatchee Basin Water Data.........................................................................................11

4.1. Flows..................................................................................................................................11

4.1.1. Nason Creek..............................................................................................................11

4.1.2. Active Study Sites .....................................................................................................11

4.1.3. Wenatchee River ......................................................................................................13

4.2. Active Study Sites.............................................................................................................14

4.2.1. 2009 Water Quality Data.........................................................................................14

4.2.2. 2010 Water Quality Data.........................................................................................17

4.2.3. 2009 Total Phosphorous...........................................................................................18

4.2.4. 2010 Total Phosphorous...........................................................................................20

4.2.5. 2009 DO, pH, and Temperature .............................................................................22

4.2.6. 2010 DO, pH, and Temperature .............................................................................24

4.2.7. 24 Hour Test Data ....................................................................................................26

4.3. Other Basin Sites..............................................................................................................27

4.4. Upper Wenatchee Basin TP Load ..................................................................................28

4.5. Detailed Water Quality Sites...........................................................................................28

5. Data Accuracy Analysis...................................................................................................30

5.1. Detection Limits ...............................................................................................................30

5.2. TP Repeatability...............................................................................................................30

5.3. TP Measurement Accuracy.............................................................................................31

5.4. DO and pH Error.............................................................................................................32

5.5. General Error Discussion................................................................................................32
ii

List of Figures 

Figure 2-1. Rohlfing Coho Acclimation Pond............................................................................... 3 

Figure 2-2. Butcher Coho Acclimation Pond ................................................................................ 3 

Figure 2-3. Fish Loading – Flow Density...................................................................................... 4

Figure 2-4. Pond Retention Time................................................................................................... 4 

Figure 3-1. Measurement Methods................................................................................................ 5 

Figure 3-2. Sample Site Names ..................................................................................................... 6 

Figure 3-3. Wenatchee Sample Sites 1 .......................................................................................... 7 

Figure 3-4. Wenatchee Sample Sites 2 .......................................................................................... 8 

Figure 3-5. Wenatchee Sample Sites 3 .......................................................................................... 8 

Figure 3-6. Rohlfing Sample Locations......................................................................................... 9 

Figure 3-7. Butcher Sample Locations .......................................................................................... 9 

Figure 3-8. Data Collection Schedule.......................................................................................... 10 

Figure 3-9. Data Quality Objectives ............................................................................................ 10 

Figure 4-1. Nason Flow ............................................................................................................... 11 

Figure 4-2. Rohlfing and Butcher Flows ..................................................................................... 12 

Figure 4-3. Dilution Ratio............................................................................................................ 12 

Figure 4-4. 2009 Wenatchee Flow............................................................................................... 13 

Figure 4-5. Active Site Water Quality ......................................................................................... 15 

Figure 4-6. 2009 Rohlfing TP...................................................................................................... 18 

Figure 4-7. 2009 Butcher TP ....................................................................................................... 19 

Figure 4-8. 2010 Rohlfing TP...................................................................................................... 20 

Figure 4-9. 2010 Butcher TP ....................................................................................................... 21 

Figure 4-10. Rohlfing DO, pH, and Temperature........................................................................ 22 

Figure 4-11. 2009 Butcher DO, pH, and Temperature ................................................................ 23 

Figure 4-12. 2010 Rohlfing DO, pH, and Temperature............................................................... 24 

Figure 4-13. 2010 Butcher DO, pH, and Temperature ................................................................ 25 

Figure 4-14. 24 Hr. Butcher DO, pH, and Temperature.............................................................. 26 

Figure 4-15. Water Quality at Other Sample Locations .............................................................. 27 

Figure 4-16. Upstream TP Loads................................................................................................. 28 

Figure 4-17. Other Water Quality Data ....................................................................................... 29

Figure 5-1. Detection Limits........................................................................................................ 30 

Figure 5-2. TP Repeatability, Field Samples............................................................................... 31 

Figure 5-3. Hydrolab Sonde Calibrations .................................................................................... 32 
iii

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation Definition

C degrees Celsius

cfs cubic feet per second

cft cubic feet

DO Dissolved Oxygen

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

gpm gallons per minute

kg/day kilograms per day

m3/s cubic meters per second

mg/l milligrams per liter

μg/l micrograms/liter

μS/cm microSiemens/centimeter

mg/m3 miligrams/cubic meter

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

pH  ‐log10[H+

]

river KM river kilometer (distance from mouth)

RMS Root Mean Square

SD Standard Deviation

TMDL   Total Maximum Daily Load

TP Total Phosphorus

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WDOE Washington Department of Ecology
 

1. Objectives 

Coho salmon are being reintroduced into the Wenatchee and Methow watersheds by the Yakama 

Nation. Pre-smolts are proposed to be trucked to the upper areas of the watersheds for 

acclimation and release. Some sites will operate as spring time only facilities, with fish being 

reared from mid-March through April. Some sites will function as over-winter facilities from 

early November through April. Rearing will result in the release of some nutrients from these 

sites and project operation will require environmental evaluations and permits. 

The main purpose of the water quality data collection effort is to develop the baseline values and 

active site impact data necessary to make predictions about how planned salmon acclimation and 

rearing facilities may affect receiving water quality. 

Water quality data was collected in the Wenatchee basin throughout 2009. Nason Creek, a 

tributary of the Wenatchee was an important sampling target. Several currently active 

acclimation sites exist on Nason Creek and actual operational impacts were monitored there. 

The draft Wenatchee River Watershed Dissolved Oxygen and pH Total Maximum Daily Load 

(Carroll and Anderson, 2009) produced by WDOE recommends that reductions in Wenatchee 

phosphorus loading occur to achieve water quality standards. The focus of this water quality 

data collection effort was, as a result, on pH, dissolved oxygen and phosphorus, with other 

parameters also being monitored to support various impact evaluation objectives. 

1.1. Nason Creek 

Phosphorous (P) concentrations and loads entering and leaving the acclimation ponds on Nason 

Creek were intensively monitored. P measurements were also made in Nason Creek just 

upstream and just downstream of the mouths of the creeks supplying water to the ponds and at 

locations farther downstream of the acclimation sites. 

Another data collection objective was to measure any possible changes to DO and pH values in 

Nason Creek while fish were being acclimated. These parameters were measured at the 

acclimation study sites and at other locations in Nason Creek. 

1.2. Wenatchee Basin 

Along with the intensive Nason Creek data collection, other locations in the Wenatchee basin 

were also sampled. The objectives for the Wenatchee basin data included: 

• To support the evaluation of impacts in the lower subbasin 

• To develop baseline water quality information about receiving waters at proposed 

acclimation sites 

• To check the Total Phosphorous (TP) mass balance in the upper Wenatchee to help better 

understand the dynamics of nutrients in the watershed 

• To support the evaluation of general stream nutrient conditions. 
2

2. Active Study Site Descriptions 

2.1. Fish Stocking Details 

The Rohlfing and Butcher coho acclimation ponds (see photos below) were in operation the 

spring of 2009 and 2010. This provided the opportunity to measure changes in water quality at 

functioning sites and in the Nason Creek receiving waters. A third acclimation site, Coulter, is 

located between Butcher and Rohlfing, and was also operated during the water quality study. It 

was not specifically targeted for direct water quality measurement. 

2009 stocking details for Rohlfing: 

• Fish delivery date: 3/10/09 

• Number of fish released: 101,300 

• Size at release: 16.2 fish/lb 

• Total weight released: 6,250 lbs 

• Start of exit migration (date barrier nets pulled): 5/6/09 

2009 stocking details for Butcher: 

• Fish delivery date: 3/10/09 

• Number of fish released: 136,700 

• Size at release: 16.7 fish/lb 

• Total weight released: 8,190 lbs 

• Start of exit migration (date barrier nets pulled): 5/7/09 

2009 stocking details for Coulter: 

• Fish delivery date: 4/15/09 

• Number of fish released: 75,000 

• Size at release: 16.7 fish/lb 

• Total weight released: 4,490 lbs 

• Start of exit migration (date barrier nets pulled): 5/6/09 

In February, 2010, prior to acclimation, the Rohlfing pond was excavated and expanded. The 

pond was divided by a barrier net after the work was completed. Coho were acclimated on one 

side of the net and a small number of steelhead on the other. 

2010 coho stocking details for Rohlfing: 

• Fish delivery date: 3/22/10 

• Number of fish released: 85,700 

• Size at release: 16.7 fish/lb 

• Total weight released: 5,130 lbs 

• Start of exit migration (date barrier nets pulled): 5/7/10 

2010 steelhead stocking details for Rohlfing: 

• Fish delivery date: 3/25/10 

• Number of fish released: 10,300 

• Size at release: 7.4 fish/lb 

• Total weight released: 1,390 lbs 

• Start of exit migration (date barrier nets pulled): 4/22/10 

2010 stocking details for Butcher: 

• Fish delivery date: 3/24/10 

• Number of fish released: 144,600 
3

• Size at release: 15.7 fish/lb 

• Total weight released: 9,190 lbs 

• Start of exit migration (date barrier nets pulled): 5/7/10 

2010 stocking details for Coulter: 

• Fish delivery date: 5/6/10 

• Number of fish released: 68,200 

• Size at release: 17.3 fish/lb 

• Total weight released: 3,930 lbs 

• Start of exit migration (date barrier nets pulled): 5/7/10 

Figure 2-1. Rohlfing Coho Acclimation Pond 

Figure 2-2. Butcher Coho Acclimation Pond 
4

2.2. Flow Dependent Parameters 

Changes in the concentrations of water quality parameters are impacted by several parameters 

including fish biomass, the quantity of water flowing through the rearing system and the physical 

dimensions of the pond. The last two factors control the length of time required for the ponds to 

flush. A preliminary review of two flow dependent parameters are presented here as a precursor 

for water quality evaluations. A more detailed evaluation is provided in Appendix 7. 

2.2.1. Flow Density 

A rough approximation of relative fish biological loading is provided by flow density values, the 

mass of fish divided by the water flow rate. Flow density is an inexact measure of fish metabolic 

rates; water temperature and feed rates are other important variables. Nevertheless, it provides a 

useful relative measure when comparing sites with similar temperatures and feeding regimes. A 

comparison of fish flow densities for Rohlfing and Butcher in 2009 showed that Butcher had 

60% higher flow density on average during the 2009 acclimation season. 

Figure 2-3. Fish Loading – Flow Density 

2.2.2. Pond Retention Time 

Pond retention time is another parameter that may impact discharge water quality. Retention 

time is calculated by dividing the pond volume by the volumetric flow rate. It is a measure of 

the average time taken for water to pass through the pond. High retention time means low 

relative water velocities and that fish wastes have more opportunity to settle to the pond bottom. 

Pond nutrient assimilative capacity is presumably greater and discharge loads lower with higher 

retention times. The retention times for the study sites at the end of 2009 acclimation are shown 

in the table below. 

Pond volume 

(cft) 

Flow 

(cfs) 

Retention Time 

(hrs) 

Rohlfing 15,000 3.8 1.1 

Butcher 73,000 3.9 5.2 

Figure 2-4. Pond Retention Time 

The full retention time of the pond is not effective for settling wastes if the fish stay at the 

downstream end of the pond. This was the case at Butcher, fish were fed and the best habitat 

was near the pond exit. 

Settled solids generated by fish are annually covered by material that is carried into the ponds 

with the inflow. These are deposited on the pond bottoms due to a slowdown in flows through 

the ponds. The suspended solids loading in the form of gravel, sand, and silt peak during spring 

snowmelt period, which occurs during and after coho have migrated. Rohlfing has more 
5

deposited material than Butcher, with several inches per year being added to the pond bottom. 

Periodic excavation and land disposal of accumulated silt, sand, and gravel is planned at 

Rohlfing. 

The Rohlfing pond was excavated and expanded in 2010 to increase volume to 20,000 cft. 

3. Data Collection Procedures 

3.1. Methods 

Collections for laboratory analysis were grab samples taken just below the water surface from 

the main body of flow by using an extension rod from the streambank. Sample bottles were 

provided by AM Test, the accredited lab that performed the measurements. Each P bottle 

contained 1⁄2 mg of a sulfuric acid solution, giving the sample a 28 day period over which 

accuracy is maintained. 

EPA approved methods were used during the laboratory measurement process, which included: 

Figure 3-1. Measurement Methods 

Phosphorous samples were field replicated. Two collection bottles were filled from the same 

location at the same time for all P samples. 

Temperature, DO, pH, and conductivity field measurements were taken with Hydrolab® Data 

Sonde multi-meters at the same time and location that laboratory samples were collected. The 

Hydrolab sondes were maintained and calibrated at the Yakama Nation Peshastin field office. 

Calibrations were performed before and after each sampling period and used Hydrolab 

recommended procedures and traceable calibration standards. 

Sampling was done with a two person team and was completed over a 1 or 2 day period. All 

Nason Creek samples were taken on a single day. Most collections occurred between 1PM and 

6PM on the first day and 10AM and 1PM on the second day. Samples were delivered to AM 

Test within 5 days of collection. 

Flow measurements were taken at the Butcher and Rohlfing sites. Staff gauges were installed in 

the creeks supplying water to the ponds and flow volume measurements were taken periodically 

to develop a stage/discharge relationship. Other flow data in the watershed was taken from 

USGS and WDOE stream gauging stations. 

Periphyton sampling methods and results are discussed in Appendix 7. 

3.2. Locations 

A total of 22 sites were sampled, with 11 of those being in Nason Creek. The sample site names 

and general location descriptions are shown in the table below. 
6

Figure 3-2. Sample Site Names 

Sample locations in the Wenatchee basin are shown in the maps below. 
7

Figure 3-3. Wenatchee Sample Sites 1 
8

Figure 3-4. Wenatchee Sample Sites 2 

Figure 3-5. Wenatchee Sample Sites 3 
9

The Nason Creek active study site locations are shown in the aerials below. 

Figure 3-6. Rohlfing Sample Locations 

Figure 3-7. Butcher Sample Locations 

3.3. Schedule 

Water quality data was collected through all of 2009 and through the 2010 acclimation season. 
10

Measurements made at higher frequencies during the spring acclimation periods (March-April). 

The full sampling schedule for is shown in the table below, with locations and numbers of 

samples collected. 

Figure 3-8. Data Collection Schedule 

3.4. Quality Control 

Quality objectives conform to those listed in the Wenatchee River Basin Dissolved Oxygen, pH, 

and Phosphorus Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Study (Carroll et al, 2006), Table 5. 

Objectives for the parameters important to this plan are: 

Figure 3-9. Data Quality Objectives 

Accuracy and bias are expressed as deviations from true values and repeatability as the standard 

deviation (SD) of the data set. Values above 0.001 mg/l for phosphorous are reported in this 

study. Values below the 0.001 detection limit are listed at 0.0005 mg/l. 

Laboratory data was generated according to QA/QC procedures described in testing lab 
11

documents. Quality Control results were provided by the lab for each sampling survey. 

Several Hydrolab datasondes were used for measuring DO, pH, temperature, and conductivity. 

The MS5 minisonde and DS5 sondes employed have the same specifications (see Section 5.4). 

 

4. Wenatchee Basin Water Data 

4.1. Flows 

4.1.1. Nason Creek 

Figure 4-1. Nason Flow 

4.1.2. Active Study Sites 

Rohlfing and Butcher flows showed the typical snow-melt surge in the spring, while fish were 

being acclimated. Butcher baseline winter flows were slightly higher and the flow increase 

happened later than at Rohlfing. 
12

Figure 4-2. Rohlfing and Butcher Flows 

The discharge from the ponds was diluted by large amounts after entering Nason Creek. The 

table below shows the ratio of pond discharge flow to Nason Creek receiving water flow during 

2009 acclimation season. 

Figure 4-3. Dilution Ratio 
13

4.1.3. Wenatchee River 

Figure 4-4. 2009 Wenatchee Flow
4.2. Active Study Sites 

4.2.1. 2009 Water Quality Data 
Figure 4-5. Active Site Water Quality 

17

4.2.2. 2010 Water Quality Data 
18

4.2.3. 2009 Total Phosphorous 

The figures below show TP data for the Rohlfing and Butcher ponds through the full 2009 year. 

Figure 4-6. 2009 Rohlfing TP 
19

Figure 4-7. 2009 Butcher TP 
20

4.2.4. 2010 Total Phosphorous 

The figures below show TP data for the Rohlfing and Butcher ponds during the 2010 acclimation 

season. 

Figure 4-8. 2010 Rohlfing TP 
21

Figure 4-9. 2010 Butcher TP 
4.2.5. 2009 DO, pH, and Temperature Other parameters measured with the Hydrolab sondes are plotted below. 

Figure 4-10. Rohlfing DO, pH, and Temperature 
Figure 4-11. 2009 Butcher DO, pH, and Temperature 
4.2.6. 2010 DO, pH, and Temperature 

Figure 4-12. 2010 Rohlfing DO, pH, and Temperature 
Figure 4-13. 2010 Butcher DO, pH, and Temperature 
26

4.2.7. 24 Hour Test Data 

On 5/5/2010 and 5/6/2010 a Hydrolab sonde was moved between the 4 Butcher Creek sites, 

BU1, BU2, BU3, and BU4. Sample bottles were also filled at the time sonde measurements 

were recorded. Measurements were made every 2 hours over a 24 hour period, except for a gap 

between 23:30 and 05:30. Fish were released from the site on 5/7/10. 

Figure 4-14. 24 Hr. Butcher DO, pH, and Temperature 
27

4.3. Other Basin Sites 

Figure 4-15. Water Quality at Other Sample Locations 
28

4.4. Upper Wenatchee Basin TP Load 

The figure below shows the 2009 phosphorous load at the WIC site, just upstream of the mouth 

of the Icicle and the town of Leavenworth. The TMDL defines “upstream load” as the 

Wenatchee River load above the confluence with the Icicle. Loads are calculated by multiplying 

TP concentration times the river flow rate. 

The current TP upstream load estimate in the TMDL is 1.24 kg/day and the target load is 0.93 

kg/day. The loads measured in this study were much higher than these values with the lowest 

load measured on 3/15/09 at 4.8 kg/day. 

Figure 4-16. Upstream TP Loads 

4.5. Detailed Water Quality Sites 

A larger suite of water quality parameters were monitored periodically at 3 selected sites, one 

each on Nason Creek, White River, and the Wenatchee River respectively.
Figure 4-17. Other Water Quality Data 
30

5. Data Accuracy Analysis 

Due to the importance of phosphorous, most of the following error analysis is focused on that 

parameter. Data is available that would allow detailed analysis of error for the other water 

quality properties measured as well. 

The following error estimates were made using 2009 data only. 

5.1. Detection Limits 

The following detection limits for the laboratory measured parameters were provided by AM 

Test. They refer to the Method Detection Limits (MDL) that the EPA defines as “the minimum 

concentration that can be determined with 99% confidence that the true concentration is greater 

than zero.” 

Figure 5-1. Detection Limits 

Phosphorous measurements were made at levels close to the detection limits of the 

instrumentation, 0.001 mg/l for orthophosphate, total dissolved phosphorous, and total 

phosphorous. Most of the TP measurement made in January and February were below this limit 

and the average TP value for all samples was 0.01 mg/l. 

5.2. TP Repeatability 

Three different repeatability (precision) error estimates were made. One used duplicated 

measurements of the same samples in the laboratory; another used duplicate field samples 

collected at the same location, and the third used samples collected in close proximity. 

1). For each two day collection period, AM Test pulled every 10th sample and repeated the 

measurement. This data set consisted of 64 duplicates. The standard deviation of the difference 

between the two measurements for this data set was 0.001 mg/l or 2.6% of the average measured 

value. 

2). The duplicate TP samples collected in the field provide a large data set for estimating 

repeatability. The figure below shows the average standard deviation of the differences between 

the two samples collected at each site. 
31

Figure 5-2. TP Repeatability, Field Samples 

The average of all TP measurement taken was 0.011 mg/l for this data set of 480 values. The 

average standard deviation for all the sites of 0.0024 mg/l is 28% of this value, higher than the 

accuracy data quality objective for P (see section 3.4). The impact evaluation uses TP values at 

each site that are the average of the two measurements taken in order to reduce error. 

3). Another repeatability estimate can be made by comparing samples taken nearly 

simultaneously at separate collection sites located in close proximity and where there is no 

obvious nutrient source or sink between them. A pair of sites on Nason Creek, BO3 and BU4 

(separated by 200 meter), and a pair on the White River, MC3 and MC4 (separated by 190 

meters), meet these conditions. Neither pair have any incoming tributaries between the sample 

sites. The standard deviation of the differences between the pairs of TP values (a data set of 100 

measurements) at these two locations was 0.0038 mg/l and the average measured value was 

0.010 mg/l. The error ratio was then 38%. This large value indicates that there is high instream 

TP variation within relatively short distances and sampling intervals. 

5.3. TP Measurement Accuracy 

Estimates of other components of total error were also made. The accuracy of the AM Test 

laboratory measurements was estimated by comparing them to standard references and to blank 

samples. References before 4/11/09 had true values of between 0.010 and 0.230 mg/l. After that 

date, all comparisons were made at 0.100 mg/l. References meet National Environmental 

Laboratory Accreditation Conference standards and can be traced to National Institute of 

Standards and Technology reference materials. 

The standard reference comparison for TP produced a data set of 68 values. The standard 

deviation of the difference between the reference and the measured value was 0.0034 mg/l which 

is 3.5% of the reference value. This accuracy estimate is well below the objective of 25%. 

However, this estimate was made at TP values that were much higher than the field samples and 

it is expected that accuracy is lower closer to the resolution limit of the TP measurement method. 

Comparisons with blank values (de-ionized water) were also made. The average blank value 

measured was below the detection limit of the instrumentation, 0.001 mg/l. 
32

5.4. DO and pH Error 

The Hydrolab sonde DO and pH parameters were calibrated prior to use on day 1 and after use 

on day 2. The comparison between these values is shown in the table below. Both DO and pH 

generally drifted higher. The standard deviation for DO was 3.8% and for pH, 0.21 units. 

Collected data was not corrected based on the pre and post calibrations. pH data for 4/19/09 and 

10/30/09 was not used in the accuracy analysis or in the impact evaluations due to the large shift 

shown by post-calibration which occurred at some point in the sensor output. 

Figure 5-3. Hydrolab Sonde Calibrations 

All the Hydrolab sondes used had Luminescent Dissolved Oxygen technology (LDO) sensors. 

The manufacturer specifications are: 

Accuracy: +/- 0.2 mg/L 

Resolution: 0.01 mg/L 

The pH sensors were KCl impregnated glass bulbs with a refillable reference electrode. 

Manufacturer specifications are: 

Accuracy: +/- 0.2 units 

Resolution: 0.01 units 

5.5. General Error Discussion 

Overall measurement accuracy will be a function of error introduced by the field collection 

methods and by the instrumentation used. 

Data collection methods were designed to minimize error but it could have been introduced 

through several possible mechanisms. A significant error source for phosphorous and possibly 

other parameters, may be a result of spatial variations in concentrations, flow or other 

characteristics within the stream and temporal variations in sample collection. This is evidenced 

by the large differences (38% SD) in TP measurements made at the two sets of collection sites 

that were close together. 

Any estimate of total instrumentation measurement accuracy would need to include several 

different sources and types of error. Calibration, precision, detection limits, and drift would need 
33

to be accounted for. Several of the error terms are interdependent and estimating values for 

overall accuracy would be complex. Also, some of the error terms are less critical for important 

parts of the effort to predict impacts due to acclimation. For instance, calibration and precision 

errors are largely eliminated when differences between measurements made by the same 

instruments are used in the evaluation. 

Total error for LDO was assumed to be the root mean square (RMS) of the manufacturers 

reported accuracy and the standard deviation of the pre and post calibrated values, +/- 0.56 mg/l. 

Total pH error used the same assumptions, resulting in an estimated total error value of +/- 0.29 

units. 

Total phosphorous accuracy was assumed to be +/- 38%, the highest of the errors discussed in 

the sections above. The RMS of all the error terms was not used because the measurement 

differences between values collected at sites in proximity include most of the other important 

sources of error. 
APPENDIX 7

WATER QUALITY IMPACTS OF

DISCHARGES

Prepared for

Sea Springs and Yakama Nation 

Prepared by

Anchor QEA, LP 

400 Montgomery Street, Suite 650 

San Francisco, California 94104 

November 2010
 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project i 100595-01 

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

1 SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................................................8

2 INTRODUCTION AND DISCHARGE EVALUATION OBJECTIVES ............................................................9

2.1 OBJECTIVES ...............................................................................................................................................10

2.2 CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION ......................................................................................................................11

2.2.1 Regulatory Guidelines........................................................................................................................11

2.2.2 Data Quality........................................................................................................................................12

3 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AT ACTIVE SITES...........................................................................................12

3.1 APPROACH ................................................................................................................................................12

3.2 ANALYSIS OF DATA COLLECTED AT POND INFLOW AND OUTFLOW...........................................................13

3.2.1 Rohlfing...............................................................................................................................................13

3.2.1.1 TP Loads from Acclimation Activity ....................................................................................................... 13

3.2.1.2 Impact on Receiving Stream..................................................................................................................... 15

3.2.2 Butcher................................................................................................................................................19

3.2.2.1 TP Loads from Acclimation Activity ....................................................................................................... 19

3.2.2.2 Impact on Receiving Stream..................................................................................................................... 21

3.2.3 Estimation of Net Phosphorus Loading to Nason Creek...................................................................26

3.3 ASSESSMENT OF COMBINED IMPACTS ON RECEIVING STREAM ...................................................................26

3.3.1 Spatial Variability in Water Quality..................................................................................................26

3.3.2 Phosphorus Bioavailability.................................................................................................................31

4 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AT PROPOSED SITES.....................................................................................35

4.1 APPROACH ................................................................................................................................................35

4.1.1 Applicability of Active Site Data to Proposed Sites ..........................................................................35

4.2 IMPACTS AT WENATCHEE SUBBASIN SITES ................................................................................................36

4.2.1 White River ........................................................................................................................................36

4.2.1.1 Tall Timber................................................................................................................................................ 36

4.2.1.2 Gray........................................................................................................................................................... 36

4.2.1.3 Dirty Face.................................................................................................................................................. 36

4.2.2 Little Wenatchee River – Two Rivers ...............................................................................................37

4.2.3 Chiwawa..............................................................................................................................................39

4.2.3.1 Minnow..................................................................................................................................................... 39

4.2.3.2 Chikamin................................................................................................................................................... 39

4.2.3.3 Clear .......................................................................................................................................................... 39

4.2.4 Beaver..................................................................................................................................................39

4.2.5 Chumstick Creek - Scheibler .............................................................................................................39

4.2.6 Icicle Creek – Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery (LNFH)..........................................................40

4.2.7 Brender Creek.....................................................................................................................................40

4.2.8 Back-up Acclimation Sites .................................................................................................................40

4.2.8.1 McComas................................................................................................................................................... 40

4.2.8.2 Squadroni .................................................................................................................................................. 41

4.2.8.3 Coulter/Roaring ........................................................................................................................................ 41

4.2.8.4 Allen.......................................................................................................................................................... 41

4.2.9 Dryden Hatchery................................................................................................................................43

4.2.9.1 Mass Balance Modeling Setup .................................................................................................................. 43

4.2.9.2 Model Predictions and Impact Analysis .................................................................................................. 44
Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project ii 100595-01 

4.2.10 George Hatchery............................................................................................................................52

4.2.10.1 Model Predictions and Impact Analysis .................................................................................................. 52

4.3 METHOW SUBBASIN SITES .........................................................................................................................60

4.3.1 Methow River Mainstem ...................................................................................................................60

4.3.1.1 Goatwall .................................................................................................................................................... 60

4.3.1.2 Heath......................................................................................................................................................... 60

4.3.1.3 Winthrop National Fish Hatchery (WNFH) ........................................................................................... 61

4.3.2 Chewuch River...................................................................................................................................61

4.3.2.1 Methow State Wildlife Area (MSWA)..................................................................................................... 61

4.3.2.2 Mason ........................................................................................................................................................ 61

4.3.2.3 Pete Creek Pond ....................................................................................................................................... 61

4.3.3 Twisp River.........................................................................................................................................62

4.3.3.1 Lincoln ...................................................................................................................................................... 62

4.3.3.2 Twisp Weir................................................................................................................................................ 63

4.3.3.3 Lower Twisp.............................................................................................................................................. 63

4.3.4 Beaver Creek – Parmley .....................................................................................................................63

4.3.5 Gold Creek – Gold ..............................................................................................................................63

4.3.6 Back-up Acclimation Sites .................................................................................................................63

4.3.6.1 Chewuch Acclimation Facility................................................................................................................. 63

4.3.6.2 Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation (MSRF)...................................................................................... 64

4.3.6.3 Biddle ........................................................................................................................................................ 64

4.3.6.4 Canyon ...................................................................................................................................................... 64

4.3.6.5 Utley.......................................................................................................................................................... 64

4.3.6.6 Newby ....................................................................................................................................................... 65

4.3.6.7 Poorman.................................................................................................................................................... 65

4.3.6.8 Balky Hill .................................................................................................................................................. 65

5 EVALUATION OF COMBINED AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...............................................................65

5.1 APPROACH ................................................................................................................................................65

5.1.1 Wenatchee Subbasin ..........................................................................................................................66

5.1.2 Methow Subbasin ...............................................................................................................................66

5.2 CONSERVATIVE ASSUMPTIONS TO DETERMINE REASONABLY MAXIMUM IMPACTS....................................68

5.3 ASSESSMENT OF COMBINED IMPACTS.........................................................................................................69

5.3.1 Upper Wenatchee Subbasin – Lake Wenatchee ...............................................................................69

5.3.2 Lower Wenatchee Subbasin – Wenatchee River..............................................................................75

5.3.2.1 Approach for Adopting WDOE’s Model.................................................................................................. 75

5.3.2.2 Determination of Background Conditions in March .............................................................................. 78

5.3.2.3 Estimation of Nutrient Loads for Assessing Combined Impacts............................................................. 80

5.3.2.4 Model Predictions..................................................................................................................................... 80

5.3.2.5 Determination of Significance of Impacts ............................................................................................... 89

5.3.3 Methow Subbasin ...............................................................................................................................89

5.3.4 The Effect of Seasonal Flow Patterns on Combined Impacts...........................................................93

5.4 ASSESSMENT OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS.....................................................................................................93

5.4.1 Wenatchee Subbasin ..........................................................................................................................93

5.4.1.1 Background Conditions............................................................................................................................ 93

5.4.1.2 Assessment of Cumulative Impacts........................................................................................................ 100

5.4.1.3 Determination of Significance of Impacts ............................................................................................. 100

5.4.2 Methow Subbasin .............................................................................................................................107

6 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE........................................................................................................................107
Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project iii 100595-01 

6.1 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS FOR THE WENATCHEE SUBBASIN .....................................................................107

6.1.1 Combined Impacts............................................................................................................................107

6.1.2 Cumulative Impacts..........................................................................................................................114

6.2 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS FOR THE METHOW SUBBASIN ..........................................................................114

7 MITIGATION .................................................................................................................................................120

8 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................120

 

List of Tables  

TABLE 1 TP LOADS INTRODUCED DUE TO ACCLIMATION ACTIVITY AT ROHLFING POND...............................................13

TABLE 2 TP LOADS INTRODUCED DUE TO ACCLIMATION ACTIVITY AT BUTCHER POND ................................................19

TABLE 3 RELATIONSHIPS OF DOWNSTREAM PH AND TP MEASUREMENTS WITH BUTCHER DISCHARGE AND UPSTREAM 

MEASUREMENTS ..................................................................................................................................................23

TABLE 4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PH MEASUREMENTS DOWNSTREAM OF BUTCHER DISCHARGE WITH TP...................23

TABLE 5 COMBINED TP LOADS INTRODUCED DUE TO ACCLIMATION ACTIVITY IN NASON CREEK.................................27

TABLE 6 TP LOADS ESTIMATED FOR PROPOSED ACCLIMATION ACTIVITY WITHIN THE WENATCHEE SUBBASIN .............38

TABLE 7 TP LOADS ESTIMATED FOR PROPOSED ACCLIMATION ACTIVITY AT BACK-UP SITES IN WENATCHEE SUBBASIN 42

TABLE 8 ESTIMATION OF EFFLUENT PHOSPHORUS LOADS FOR PROPOSED HATCHERY AT DRYDEN.................................45

TABLE 9 TP LOADS ESTIMATED FOR PROPOSED ACCLIMATION ACTIVITY IN THE METHOW SUBBASIN ..........................62

TABLE 10 TP LOADS ESTIMATED FOR BACKUP SITES IN THE METHOW SUBBASIN...........................................................64

TABLE 11 COMPARISON OF METHOW AND WENATCHEE SUBBASINS.............................................................................66

TABLE 12 ESTIMATED RELATIVE CONTRIBUTION OF TP LOADS FROM 50 DAYS OF ACCLIMATION ACTIVITY IN UPPER 

WENATCHEE SITES ..............................................................................................................................................70

TABLE 13 ESTIMATION OF INORGANIC PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION FOR ACCLIMATION IMPACTED POINT SOURCES IN 

THE WENATCHEE SUBBASIN ................................................................................................................................81

TABLE 14 TP LOADS ESTIMATED FOR THE METHOW SUBBASIN WITH AND WITHOUT POTW LOADS ............................92

TABLE 15 TP LOADS ESTIMATED FOR WENATCHEE SUBBASIN WITH AND WITHOUT POINT SOURCE CONTRIBUTIONS ...92

TABLE 16 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE SITES IN WENATCHEE SUBBASIN .......................................................................108

TABLE 17 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE SITES IN METHOW SUBBASIN.............................................................................108

List of Figures

FIGURE 1 TOTAL PHOSPHOROUS CONCENTRATIONS IN ROHLFING POND .............................................................14

FIGURE 2A WATER QUALITY CHANGES IN NASON CREEK IN 2009 IN THE VICINITY OF ROHLFING DISCHARGE ......17

FIGURE 2B WATER QUALITY CHANGES IN NASON CREEK IN 2010 IN THE VICINITY OF ROHLFING DISCHARGE.......18

FIGURE 3 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED IN BUTCHER POND................................................20

FIGURE 4A WATER QUALITY CHANGES IN NASON CREEK IN 2009 IN THE VICINITY OF BUTCHER DISCHARGE ........24

FIGURE 4B WATER QUALITY CHANGES IN NASON CREEK IN 2010 IN THE VICINITY OF BUTCHER DISCHARGE ........25

FIGURE 5A SPATIAL VARIATIONS IN NASON CREEK WATER QUALITY IN 2009.........................................................28

FIGURE 5B SPATIAL VARIATIONS IN NASON CREEK WATER QUALITY IN 2010.........................................................29

FIGURE 6 SPATIAL VARIATIONS IN ORTHOPHOSPHATE CONCENTRATIONS MEASURED DOWNSTREAM OF ALL 

ACTIVE ACCLIMATION DISCHARGES IN NASON CREEK .........................................................................................33

FIGURE 7 FORMS OF TOTAL PHOSPHORUS ENTERING WENATCHEE RIVER FROM NASON CREEK...........................34

FIGURE 8 FLOWS SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR CASES WITH AND WITHOUT 

PROPOSED HATCHERY AT DRYDEN......................................................................................................................46
Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project iv 100595-01 

FIGURE 9 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR 

CASES WITH AND WITHOUT PROPOSED HATCHERY AT DRYDEN...........................................................................47

FIGURE 10 DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR 

CASES WITH AND WITHOUT PROPOSED HATCHERY AT DRYDEN...........................................................................48

FIGURE 11 PHS SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR CASES WITH AND WITHOUT PROPOSED 

HATCHERY AT DRYDEN .......................................................................................................................................49

FIGURE 12 TEMPERATURES SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR CASES WITH AND WITHOUT 

PROPOSED HATCHERY AT DRYDEN......................................................................................................................50

FIGURE 13 DIFFERENCE FROM NATURAL CONDITIONS IN RANGE OF PH AND MINIMUM DISSOLVED OXYGEN AT 

PERMISSIBLE POTW LOADING WITH AND WITHOUT THE PROPOSED HATCHERY AT DRYDEN .............................51

FIGURE 14 FLOWS SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR CASES WITH AND WITHOUT 

DISCHARGE FROM GEORGE HATCHERY ...............................................................................................................54

FIGURE 15 TOTAL PHOSPHOROUS CONCENTRATIONS SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR 

CASES WITH AND WITHOUT DISCHARGE FROM GEORGE HATCHERY....................................................................55

FIGURE 16 DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR 

CASES WITH AND WITHOUT DISCHARGE FROM GEORGE HATCHERY....................................................................56

FIGURE 17 PHS SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR CASES WITH AND WITHOUT DISCHARGE 

FROM GEORGE HATCHERY..................................................................................................................................57

FIGURE 18 TEMPERATURES SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR CASES WITH AND WITHOUT 

DISCHARGE FROM GEORGE HATCHERY ...............................................................................................................58

FIGURE 19 DIFFERENCE FROM NATURAL CONDITIONS IN RANGE OF PH AND MINIMUM DISSOLVED OXYGEN AT 

PERMISSIBLE POTW LOADING WITH AND WITHOUT GEORGE HATCHERY DISCHARGE........................................59

FIGURE 20 COMPARISON OF FLOWS IN METHOW AND WENATCHEE RIVERS..........................................................67

FIGURE 21 STREAMFLOWS IN THE UPPER WENATCHEE SUBBASIN IN 2009..............................................................72

FIGURE 22 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION AND ESTIMATED LOADS IN THE UPPER WENATCHEE SUBBASIN .73

FIGURE 23 MONTHLY TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOADS ENTERING AND LEAVING LAKE WENATCHEE IN 2009...............74

FIGURE 24 AIR TEMPERATURE FUNCTION FOR QUAL-2K MODEL ..........................................................................76

FIGURE 25 WATER TEMPERATURE AND DISSOLVED OXYGEN FUNCTIONS SPECIFIED AT THE MOUTH OF LAKE 

WENATCHEE FOR THE QUAL-2K MODEL FOR MARCH CONDITIONS...................................................................77

FIGURE 26 WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL WITH BACKGROUND TP LOADS UNDER 

7Q10 LOW-FLOW, AND SUMMER AND MARCH CLIMATIC CONDITIONS................................................................79

FIGURE 27 FLOWS SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR CASES WITH AND WITHOUT THE 

PROPOSED PROJECT FOR 7Q10 LOW-FLOW AND MARCH CLIMATIC CONDITION WITH MAXIMUM BACKGROUND 

LOADINGS DETERMINED IN WDOE TMDL .........................................................................................................82

FIGURE 28 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR 

CASES WITH AND WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT FOR 7Q10 LOW-FLOW AND MARCH CLIMATIC CONDITION 

WITH MAXIMUM BACKGROUND LOADINGS DETERMINED IN WDOE TMDL........................................................82

FIGURE 28 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR 

CASES WITH AND WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT FOR 7Q10 LOW-FLOW AND MARCH CLIMATIC CONDITION 

WITH MAXIMUM BACKGROUND LOADINGS DETERMINED IN WDOE TMDL........................................................83

FIGURE 29 DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR 

CASES WITH AND WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT FOR 7Q10 LOW-FLOW AND MARCH CLIMATIC CONDITION 

WITH MAXIMUM BACKGROUND LOADINGS DETERMINED IN WDOE TMDLFIGURE 30 PHS SIMULATED BY 

QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR CASES WITH AND WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT FOR 7Q10 LOWFLOW AND MARCH CLIMATIC CONDITION WITH MAXIMUM BACKGROUND LOADINGS DETERMINED IN WDOE

TMDL 84
Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project v 100595-01 

FIGURE 30 PHS SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR CASES WITH AND WITHOUT THE 

PROPOSED PROJECT FOR 7Q10 LOW-FLOW AND MARCH CLIMATIC CONDITION WITH MAXIMUM BACKGROUND 

LOADINGS DETERMINED IN WDOE TMDL .........................................................................................................85

FIGURE 31 TEMPERATURES SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR CASES WITH AND WITHOUT 

THE PROPOSED PROJECT FOR 7Q10 LOW-FLOW AND MARCH CLIMATIC CONDITION WITH MAXIMUM 

BACKGROUND LOADINGS DETERMINED IN WDOE TMDL..................................................................................86

FIGURE 32 DIFFERENCE FROM MARCH BACKGROUND CONDITIONS IN THE RANGE OF PH AND MINIMUM DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN WITH AND WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IN THE WENATCHEE SUBBASIN.......................................88

FIGURE 33 TP LOADS IN THE METHOW RIVER CALCULATED AT THE CITY OF PATEROS..........................................90

FIGURE 34 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR 

CASES WITH AND WITHOUT POTW DISCHARGES FOR 7Q10 LOW-FLOW AND MARCH CLIMATIC CONDITION .....95

FIGURE 35 DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR 

CASES WITH AND WITHOUT POTW DISCHARGES FOR 7Q10 LOW-FLOW AND MARCH CLIMATIC CONDITION .....96

FIGURE 36 PHS SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR CASES WITH AND WITHOUT POTW

DISCHARGES FOR 7Q10 LOW-FLOW AND MARCH CLIMATIC CONDITION .............................................................96

FIGURE 36 PHS SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR CASES WITH AND WITHOUT POTW

DISCHARGES FOR 7Q10 LOW-FLOW AND MARCH CLIMATIC CONDITION .............................................................97

FIGURE 37 TEMPERATURES SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR CASES WITH AND WITHOUT 

POTW DISCHARGES FOR 7Q10 LOW-FLOW AND MARCH CLIMATIC CONDITION ................................................97

FIGURE 37 TEMPERATURES SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR CASES WITH AND WITHOUT 

POTW DISCHARGES FOR 7Q10 LOW-FLOW AND MARCH CLIMATIC CONDITION ................................................98

FIGURE 38 DIFFERENCE FROM MARCH BACKGROUND CONDITIONS IN THE RANGE OF PH AND MINIMUM DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN WITH AND WITHOUT THE POTW DISCHARGES IN THE WENATCHEE SUBBASIN .....................................98

FIGURE 38 DIFFERENCE FROM MARCH BACKGROUND CONDITIONS IN THE RANGE OF PH AND MINIMUM DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN WITH AND WITHOUT THE POTW DISCHARGES IN THE WENATCHEE SUBBASIN .....................................99

FIGURE 39 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR 

CASES WITH AND WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT FOR 7Q10 LOW-FLOW AND MARCH CLIMATIC CONDITION 

WITH MAXIMUM POTW LOADING....................................................................................................................102

FIGURE 40 DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR 

CASES WITH AND WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT FOR 7Q10 LOW-FLOW AND MARCH CLIMATIC CONDITION 

WITH MAXIMUM POTW LOADING....................................................................................................................103

FIGURE 41 PHS SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR CASES WITH AND WITHOUT THE 

PROPOSED PROJECT FOR 7Q10 LOW-FLOW AND MARCH CLIMATIC CONDITION WITH MAXIMUM POTW LOADING

 103

FIGURE 41 PHS SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR CASES WITH AND WITHOUT THE 

PROPOSED PROJECT FOR 7Q10 LOW-FLOW AND MARCH CLIMATIC CONDITION WITH MAXIMUM POTW LOADING

 104

FIGURE 42 TEMPERATURES SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR CASES WITH AND WITHOUT 

THE PROPOSED PROJECT FOR 7Q10 LOW-FLOW AND MARCH CLIMATIC CONDITION WITH MAXIMUM POTW

LOADING ...........................................................................................................................................................104

FIGURE 42 TEMPERATURES SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR CASES WITH AND WITHOUT 

THE PROPOSED PROJECT FOR 7Q10 LOW-FLOW AND MARCH CLIMATIC CONDITION WITH MAXIMUM POTW

LOADING ...........................................................................................................................................................105

FIGURE 43 DIFFERENCE FROM MARCH BACKGROUND CONDITIONS IN THE RANGE OF PH AND MINIMUM DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN WITH AND WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IN THE WENATCHEE SUBBASIN WITH MAXIMUM POTW

LOADING ...........................................................................................................................................................105
Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project vi 100595-01 

FIGURE 43 DIFFERENCE FROM MARCH BACKGROUND CONDITIONS IN THE RANGE OF PH AND MINIMUM DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN WITH AND WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PROJECT IN THE WENATCHEE SUBBASIN WITH MAXIMUM POTW

LOADING ...........................................................................................................................................................106

FIGURE 44 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR THE 

NO ACTION AND PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES FOR 7Q10 LOW-FLOW AND MARCH CLIMATIC CONDITION WITH 

MAXIMUM BACKGROUND LOADINGS DETERMINED IN WDOE TMDL ...............................................................109

FIGURE 45 DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR THE 

NO ACTION AND PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES FOR 7Q10 LOW-FLOW AND MARCH CLIMATIC CONDITION WITH 

MAXIMUM BACKGROUND LOADINGS DETERMINED IN WDOE TMDL ...............................................................110

FIGURE 46 PHS SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR THE NO ACTION AND PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVES FOR 7Q10 LOW-FLOW AND MARCH CLIMATIC CONDITION WITH MAXIMUM BACKGROUND 

LOADINGS DETERMINED IN WDOE TMDL .......................................................................................................110

FIGURE 46 PHS SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR THE NO ACTION AND PREFERRED 

ALTERNATIVES FOR 7Q10 LOW-FLOW AND MARCH CLIMATIC CONDITION WITH MAXIMUM BACKGROUND 

LOADINGS DETERMINED IN WDOE TMDL .......................................................................................................111

FIGURE 47 TEMPERATURES SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR THE NO ACTION AND 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES FOR 7Q10 LOW-FLOW AND MARCH CLIMATIC CONDITION WITH MAXIMUM 

BACKGROUND LOADINGS DETERMINED IN WDOE TMDL ................................................................................111

FIGURE 47 TEMPERATURES SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR THE NO ACTION AND 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES FOR 7Q10 LOW-FLOW AND MARCH CLIMATIC CONDITION WITH MAXIMUM 

BACKGROUND LOADINGS DETERMINED IN WDOE TMDL ................................................................................112

FIGURE 48 DIFFERENCE FROM MARCH BACKGROUND CONDITIONS IN THE RANGE OF PH AND MINIMUM DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN IN THE WENATCHEE SUBBASIN FOR THE NO ACTION AND PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES ........................112

FIGURE 48 DIFFERENCE FROM MARCH BACKGROUND CONDITIONS IN THE RANGE OF PH AND MINIMUM DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN IN THE WENATCHEE SUBBASIN FOR THE NO ACTION AND PREFERRED ALTERNATIVES ........................113

FIGURE 49 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATIONS SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR THE 

PREFERRED AND NO ACTION ALTERNATIVES FOR 7Q10 LOW-FLOW AND MARCH CLIMATIC CONDITION WITH 

MAXIMUM POTW LOADING .............................................................................................................................115

FIGURE 50 DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR THE 

PREFERRED AND NO ACTION ALTERNATIVES FOR 7Q10 LOW-FLOW AND MARCH CLIMATIC CONDITION WITH 

MAXIMUM POTW LOADING .............................................................................................................................116

FIGURE 51 PHS SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR THE PREFERRED AND NO ACTION 

ALTERNATIVES FOR 7Q10 LOW-FLOW AND MARCH CLIMATIC CONDITION WITH MAXIMUM POTW LOADING.116

FIGURE 51 PHS SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR THE PREFERRED AND NO ACTION 

ALTERNATIVES FOR 7Q10 LOW-FLOW AND MARCH CLIMATIC CONDITION WITH MAXIMUM POTW LOADING.117

FIGURE 52 TEMPERATURES SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR THE PREFERRED AND NO 

ACTION ALTERNATIVES FOR 7Q10 LOW-FLOW AND MARCH CLIMATIC CONDITION WITH MAXIMUM POTW

LOADING ...........................................................................................................................................................117

FIGURE 52 TEMPERATURES SIMULATED BY QUAL-2K MODEL SHOWN COMPARED FOR THE PREFERRED AND NO 

ACTION ALTERNATIVES FOR 7Q10 LOW-FLOW AND MARCH CLIMATIC CONDITION WITH MAXIMUM POTW

LOADING ...........................................................................................................................................................118

FIGURE 53 DIFFERENCE FROM MARCH BACKGROUND CONDITIONS IN THE RANGE OF PH AND MINIMUM DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN FOR THE PREFERRED AND NO ACTION ALTERNATIVES IN THE WENATCHEE SUBBASIN WITH MAXIMUM 

POTW LOADING ..............................................................................................................................................118

FIGURE 53 DIFFERENCE FROM MARCH BACKGROUND CONDITIONS IN THE RANGE OF PH AND MINIMUM DISSOLVED 

OXYGEN FOR THE PREFERRED AND NO ACTION ALTERNATIVES IN THE WENATCHEE SUBBASIN WITH MAXIMUM 

POTW LOADING ..............................................................................................................................................119
Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project vii 100595-01 

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

Abbreviation Definition 

μg/L micrograms per liter 

cfs cubic feet per second 

degrees C degrees Celsius 

DMR Discharge Monitoring Report 

DO Dissolved Oxygen 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

g/d grams per day 

kg/d kilograms per day 

L/d liters per day 

LNFH Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery 

MSRF Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation 

MSWA Methow State Wildlife Area 

m3/s cubic meters per second 

mg milligrams 

mg/L milligrams per liter 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

pH -log10[H+] 

POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works 

PUD Public Utility District 

RKM River Kilometer 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

TP Total Phosphorus 

USGS U.S. Geological Survey 

WAC Washington Administrative Code 

WDOE Washington Department of Ecology 

WNFH Winthrop National Fish Hatchery 
 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 8 100595-01 

1 SUMMARY

The proposed coho salmon (coho) restoration activities within the Wenatchee and Methow 

subbasins pose a negligible impact on surface water quality. In the Wenatchee subbasin, the 

results of mechanistic modeling indicated that, even under the conservative assumptions 

applied, the proposed activity is expected to have a negligible impact on the water quality of 

the Wenatchee River. Indeed, in most instances the measured and predicted impacts were 

within the range of natural variability or the measurement error of targeted water quality 

standards. In the Methow subbasin, the assessment of basin-wide impacts of acclimation 

activity also led to the conclusion that acclimation activity is likely to have a negligible 

impact on water quality. 

The assessment in the Wenatchee subbasin was based on extensive site-specific data analysis 

and mechanistic water quality modeling of actual and potential discharges and included an 

evaluation of the cumulative impacts of the proposed acclimation and rearing sites. Impact 

in the Methow subbasin was assessed by evaluating the total phosphorus (TP) loading 

estimates for the proposed sites from the context of Methow subbasin characteristics and also 

by comparison to the impacts estimated for the Wenatchee subbasin. 

Water quality data collected through 2009 and 2010 at select locations of proposed and 

existing acclimation sites within the Wenatchee subbasin formed the basis for the analysis 

presented herein. Water quality data, collected in the vicinity of active acclimation sites, 

provided direct measurement of the impacts of ongoing acclimation activity that established 

acclimation-activity-related nutrient loading rates (total phosphorus load per fish) to the 

receiving stream. This estimate was then used in the assessment of impacts in the vicinity of 

the proposed sites in the Wenatchee and Methow subbasins, based on the number of fish 

proposed for acclimation at each site. 

Analysis of dissolved oxygen (DO), pH (negative logarithm of the proton concentration), TP, 

and temperature data collected upstream and downstream of active acclimation sites in 

Nason Creek in the Wenatchee subbasin suggested that ongoing acclimation activity has a 

negligible impact on the receiving stream. 

Basin-wide impact of the acclimation and rearing sites was estimated for the Wenatchee 

subbasin through mechanistic water quality modeling. The QUAL-2K model developed by 

Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE) for TP load allocations in the Wenatchee 

subbasin (Carroll et al. 2006; Carroll and Anderson 2009) was adapted for this basin-wide 

impact assessment. Several conservative assumptions were made in the mechanistic model 

application to provide an upper bound estimate of the impact of the site activity on nutrient 

loading to the Wenatchee River. The results of mechanistic modeling indicated that the 

proposed activity is expected to have a negligible impact on the water quality of the 

Wenatchee River. Model predictions indicated that contraventions in DO and pH standards 
 Assessment of Impacts at Active Sites 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 9 100595-01 

are unlikely even when the Wenatchee River receives maximum allocated loads (as specified 

in the WDOE Total Maximum Daily Load [TMDL], Carroll and Anderson 2009) from 

publicly owned treatment works and other point and distributed sources. 

It is concluded that the cumulative impact of the proposed coho restoration activities on the 

Wenatchee subbasin water quality is expected to be negligible because: 

1. The nutrient load is negligible. The maximum total addition of phosphorous due to 

the project, at peak production levels, is estimated to be 0.38 kilogram per day during 

the acclimation period, which is about 1% of average Wenatchee River load when 

acclimation activity is ongoing. 

2. Despite the conservative modeling assumptions used, impacts to DO and pH due to 

upstream acclimation are estimated to be negligible in the TMDL domain (the lower 

Wenatchee River downstream of the city of Leavenworth). 

3. Lower water temperatures during the acclimation period limit in-stream biological 

activity. 

4. An analysis of travel times suggests that the residence times of any nutrients 

discharged to the system would be small during spring high flows that are prevalent 

when feed rates are highest. Most of the loads are expected to be removed during 

spring high flows and impacts are not expected later in the year including the summer 

low flow period. 

5. In-stream data collected from the Wenatchee subbasin showed that most of the 

phosphorous being discharged is not in a readily bio-available form. Even the travel 

times calculated under low flow conditions was not expected to provide a sufficiently 

long residence of the total phosphorus loading in the system thereby keeping it 

largely unavailable for biological uptake during transport through the subbasin. 

Basin-wide impact of acclimation activity within the Methow subbasin was assessed by 

comparing the TP loading estimates for the proposed sites to the basin-wide TP loads 

calculated from historical data collected in the basin. The similarity in the characteristics of 

the two basins, combined with the assessments derived from mechanistic modeling of the 

basin-wide impacts for the Wenatchee subbasin, led to the conclusion that the basin-wide 

impacts within the Methow subbasin are also likely to have a negligible impact on water 

quality. 

2 INTRODUCTION AND DISCHARGE EVALUATION OBJECTIVES

Discharges from proposed coho salmon (coho) acclimation sites in the Wenatchee and 

Methow subbasins may contain nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) at levels that promote 

algal growth. Algal photosynthesis and respiration cycles results in diurnal pH (negative 

logarithm of the proton concentration) and Dissolved Oxygen (DO) swings and can induce 

changes in pH and DO beyond the ranges found under natural conditions. Such changes 

contravene water quality standards and negatively impact the designated uses of these 
 Assessment of Impacts at Active Sites 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 10 100595-01 

waterbodies, which include swimming; domestic, industrial, and agricultural water supply; 

aesthetic value; wildlife habitat; harvesting; and spawning, rearing, and migration for 

Endangered Species Act-listed coho. 

The Wenatchee River and portions of Icicle Creek are on the State of Washington’s 303(d) 

list of impaired waterbodies for DO, pH, and temperature excursions. The lower Wenatchee 

River downstream of the City of Leavenworth, and Icicle Creek below the Leavenworth 

National Fish Hatchery (LNFH) have a phosphorus Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) in 

effect. The TMDL analysis undertaken by Washington Department of Ecology 

(WDOE) advocates the implementation of a phased load reduction from point and non-point 

sources to prevent water quality excursions during critical low-flow conditions occurring in 

summer and fall (Carroll et al. 2006; Carroll and Anderson 2009). The Wenatchee River 

upstream of Leavenworth is presently not included in the State’s 303(d) list for DO and pH 

violations (Carroll and Anderson 2009). However, the WDOE TMDL document has 

recommended a limit for the total phosphorus (TP) loads entering the lower Wenatchee 

River from sources upstream of Leavenworth to address water quality degradation in the 

lower section of the Wenatchee River where the TMDL is in effect. 

The Methow River is not listed in the State’s 303(d) list of impaired water bodies for pH or 

dissolved oxygen violations. However, it is currently listed for temperature. 

This Appendix presents an analysis of potential water quality impacts (pH and DO) 

attributable to proposed coho acclimation sites (through nutrient addition) within the 

Wenatchee and Methow subbasins. The WDOE TMDL analysis of the Wenatchee River 

focused on phosphorus because it was determined to be the limiting nutrient for algal growth 

in the lower river and is the primary concern for water quality degradation. Thus, 

phosphorus was the primary nutrient considered in the analysis presented herein. 

The Wenatchee subbasin contains active acclimation sites from which extensive data were 

collected to form a basis for assessing coho acclimation activity impacts on water quality1. 

Nutrient loading estimates derived from these active acclimation sites were then used as a 

basis for forecasting nutrient loading from sites proposed in both the Wenatchee and 

Methow subbasins. Where appropriate, water quality modeling was used to facilitate the 

evaluation. 

2.1 Objectives

The purpose of this evaluation is to provide an assessment of the water quality impact of 

discharges originating from coho acclimation sites proposed in this project. This evaluation 

had the following objectives: 

• Assess phosphorus loading and the potential impacts on receiving waters from active 

 

1Appendix 6 contains details on the data collection effort as well as a preliminary presentation of the data. 
 Assessment of Impacts at Active Sites 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 11 100595-01 

acclimation sites in the Wenatchee subbasin 

• Use evidence from active sites in the Wenatchee to assess phosphorus loads from sites 

in the Wenatchee and Methow subbasins 

• In each subbasin, assess the combined impact of the project based on the contribution 

of loading from all acclimation sites relative to the background levels 

• Estimate the cumulative impact of the project in each subbasin based on existing 

subbasin phosphorus loads 

2.2 Criteria for Evaluation  

2.2.1 Regulatory Guidelines

Washington state law provides protection for surface water quality through an antidegradation policy (WAC 173-201A-300 of Washington Administrative Code; WAC 2006). 

Under this law, three levels of protection are provided: Tier I protection extends to all water 

bodies and maintains the current and designated uses for a given water body and prevents 

any further pollution; Tier II does not allow degradation of surface waters that are of 

exceptional quality (exceeding the water quality standards) through new or proposed actions 

unless such degradation is necessary and in the overriding public interest; and Tier III 

protection applies to water bodies classified as outstanding resource waters. 

Much of the upper Wenatchee subbasin and nearly the entire Methow subbasin exceed the 

water quality standards for temperature, DO, and pH. Thus, these waters are protected by 

the Tier II anti-degradation policy. The lower Wenatchee River and portions of Icicle Creek 

where the TMDL is in effect (to prevent pH and DO excursions) are protected under the 

Tier I policy. 

Most of the existing and proposed acclimation-related sites are located in waters protected by 

the Tier II anti-degradation policy. A Tier II anti-degradation evaluation will be required if 

the proposed activity has the potential to cause a measureable change in water quality, where 

measurable changes relevant to this context as defined in the legislation (WAC 2006) are: 

temperature increase of 0.3 degree Celsius (C) or greater; DO decrease of 0.2 milligrams per 

liter (mg/L) or greater; and pH change of 0.1 unit or greater. For Tier I waters, 

anthropogenic discharges must not affect the existing and designated uses. 

Based on the regulatory guidelines presented above, the following criteria were used to 

evaluate the local and cumulative impacts of the acclimation sites: 

• For active discharges in waters protected by the Tier II policy, evaluate the 

phosphorus levels with reference to the existing background conditions to assess 

whether acclimation-related discharges produces algal blooms that are sufficient to 

cause a measurable change in DO and pH beyond the mixing zone of the discharge 

• For proposed discharges in waters protected by the Tier II policy, estimate 

phosphorus load from discharge relative to existing background load to assess the 
 Assessment of Impacts at Active Sites 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 12 100595-01 

likelihood of measurable change in DO and pH 

• For the lower Wenatchee River (currently protected by Tier I policy), determine 

whether activities proposed in this project are likely to cause a measurable change in 

DO and pH, as defined above, that is sufficient to affect the existing and designated 

uses 

2.2.2 Data Quality

Whenever possible, instrument accuracy and precision were used to supplement the 

interpretations of significance in impacts in addition to the regulatory guidelines discussed in 

Section 2.2.1. For instance, small changes in DO and/or pH may be undetectable due to 

equipment limitations. 

Field duplicates for TP collected during sampling events were analyzed to obtain an estimate 

of instrument accuracy and precision. A detailed discussion is available in Chapter 5 of 

Appendix 6. When evaluating differences in nutrient levels between the acclimation sites 

and receiving streams, instrument accuracy and precision will be considered. 

3 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AT ACTIVE SITES

Nason Creek in the upper Wenatchee subbasin has three coho acclimation sites presently in 

operation for this project: Rohlfing; Butcher; and Coulter. In all three locations, fish 

acclimation activity was carried out in spring 2009 and 2010. The construction and 

operational details of the acclimation sites were presented in Appendix 2, and the associated 

data collection was presented in Appendix 6. 

3.1 Approach

To meet the objectives laid out in Section 2.1, a mass balance approach was adopted where 

phosphorus loadings entering and leaving the acclimation ponds were evaluated. The inflow 

phosphorus level provides the background or natural condition existing in the creek feeding 

the pond, while the outflow concentration reflects any potential impact of acclimation 

activity. 

The relative change in water quality at the upstream and downstream sampling locations 

compared to the criteria specified for measurable change (see Section 2.2) formed the basis 

for the evaluation of acclimation pond impacts on the receiving stream (Nason Creek). The 

applicability of these criteria was based on the following assumptions: 

• The concentrations in Nason Creek are unlikely to be affected during nonacclimation periods, given the low flows out of the ponds (typically less than 

1 percent (%) of Nason Creek flows). Data collected from Nason Creek in the 2009 

post-acclimation period supported this assumption. 

• In-stream water quality changes are unlikely due to factors other than the discharge 

over the reach of the natural waterway between the sampling locations that are 
 Assessment of Impacts at Active Sites 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 13 100595-01 

upstream and downstream of the discharge from the acclimation pond because of the 

proximity of the upstream and downstream locations. 

Combined effects of the acclimation ponds were evaluated by comparing relative changes in 

water quality from upstream to downstream along the length of Nason Creek. 

3.2 Analysis of Data Collected at Pond Inflow and Outflow

3.2.1 Rohlfing

3.2.1.1 TP Loads from Acclimation Activity

TP concentrations measured at the pond inflow and outflow measured during 2009 and 2010 

are presented in Figure 1. The figure suggests that while there was significant variability in 

outflow concentrations, the overall pattern indicated that outflow generally tracked inflow 

concentrations. Outflow concentrations were higher in all but two cases (both in 2009) 

when acclimation activity was ongoing, suggesting that there was nutrient addition to the 

receiving stream due to acclimation activity. 

Calculations that show the load introduced due to acclimation activity are presented in Table 

1. The load calculations showed an average TP load of about 37 grams per day (g/d) being 

introduced into the outflow. The data also show that the loading occurred during the 

acclimation period in April and May. 

Table 1

TP loads introduced due to acclimation activity at Rohlfing Pond

Average TP Concentration (μg/L) 

Date1 Flow2 (cfs) Flow (L/d) Inflow Outflow Difference3

TP Load

Introduced4

(g/d) 

3/14/2009 1.4 3425206 5.5 3 ‐2.5 0.0

4/5/2009 1.4 3425206 1.5 5 3.5 12.0

4/12/2009 4.1 10030960 7 15.5 8.5 85.3

4/19/2009 4.1 10030960 9 7.5 ‐1.5 0.0

5/3/2009 3.5 8563014 7 16.5 9.5 81.3

3/23/2010 2.1 5137809 1 2.5 1.5 7.7

4/18/2010 2.8 6850412 1.5 10.5 9 61.7

4/25/2010 2.1 5137809 4 13 9 46.2

Average                 36.8 

Notes:

1. 4/26/2009, 4/12/2010, and 5/5/2010 TP data were not used due to lack of paired stage measurements

2. Flow was estimated from the stage‐discharge relationship developed for the stream feeding into ponds.

3. Difference = total phosphorus concentration between pond inflow and outflow.

4. Volumetric inflows and outflows were assumed to be equal in load calculation.  Whenever the difference in

loads was negative, load introduced due to acclimation activity was set to 0.

μg/L ‐ micrograms per liter, cfs ‐ cubic feet per second, L/d ‐ liters per day, g/d ‐ grams per day
Figure 1 Total phosphorous concentrations in Rohlfing Pond
 Assessment of Impacts at Active Sites 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 15 100595-01 

3.2.1.2 Impact on Receiving Stream  

Temporal changes in DO, pH, TP, and temperature at two locations in Nason Creek that are 

upstream and downstream of the Rohlfing discharge are shown in Figures 2a and 2b for 2009 

and 2010, respectively. The sampling locations are shown in Figure 3-6 of Appendix 6. The 

difference between the downstream and upstream values for each component has also been 

presented (right ordinate in each panel). 

Figure 2 shows that the DO value at the downstream location was consistently lower than 

the upstream measurements although differences were small. A review of the DO 

measurement at the pond outflow during the acclimation months (March through May) 

suggested that DO at the outflow was consistently lower than the corresponding downstream 

measurements (by about 0.8 mg/L and 1.0 mg/L on average, respectively, for 2009 and 2010; 

see Figure 4-8 in Appendix 6). Moreover, the DO in the pond inflow was higher than in 

pond outflow when acclimation activity was ongoing (the average differences between 

outflow and inflow in 2009 and 2010 were, respectively, 0.4 mg/L and 0.7 mg/L; the average 

difference during non-acclimation periods in 2009 was 0.07 mg/L—see Figure 4-8 in 

Appendix 6). These data suggest that DO levels undergo some decline through the ponds 

when fish acclimation is ongoing. This is likely due to fish respiration. Thus, the somewhat 

lower DO levels in the downstream location could be a consequence of the discharge. 

However, it is clear from Figure 2 that even though the values in the downstream location 

were lower than in the upstream location, the difference is well above the limit for 

measurable change stipulated for waters protected under the Tier II anti-degradation policy 

(WAC 2006). 

In both years, TP levels downstream of the Rohlfing discharge were typically lower than 

upstream, suggesting that the loading from the ponds was not significant enough to affect the 

naturally high background levels that attenuated as the creek flowed past the Rohlfing 

discharge. 

The pH changes from upstream to downstream are negligible and generally fall within the 

bounds for measurable changes of 0.1 unit (WAC 2006). In 2009, one measurement in late 

April and one in early May, immediately before release of the acclimated coho, showed 

changes beyond the limits stipulated for Tier II waters, albeit in opposite directions. The 

larger of the two changes occurred in late April. Upon comparison with the TP 

concentrations, it is clear that the upstream TP sample corresponding to the higher pH 

change in late April showed a significantly larger TP level than the downstream sample 

suggesting a naturally high background TP level in the stream. This confirms that the 

departure in pH, if caused by algal activity stimulated by nutrient levels in the stream, did 

not result from nutrient loading from the Rohlfing discharge. 
 Assessment of Impacts at Active Sites 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 16 100595-01 

In 2010, one measurement in mid-April, on the same date when an unusually low DO 

concentration was measured upstream, showed a pH increase of 0.4 unit at the downstream 

station. Given that there was no appreciable increase in TP levels from the discharge (see 

Figure 1) before or during this period, it is unlikely that the discharge caused these water 

quality changes. On this date, upstream TP was unusually high (about 10 micrograms per 

liter [μg/L]) and dissolved inorganic phosphorus (used interchangeably with orthophosphate 

throughout this appendix) was measured to be above the detection limit on this date. This 

was the only orthophosphate measurement that was above the detection limit among all 

samples collected in 2010 in the vicinity of Rohlfing discharge. On the same date water 

temperature was also about 2 degrees C warmer. The elevated orthophosphate levels from 

upstream and the somewhat warmer water temperature could have contributed to localized 

algal bloom over the reach spanning the upstream and downstream stations and the resulting 

photosynthesis and respiration activity may have impacted DO and pH. 

The pH excursions occurred during periods when there was no acclimation activity, 

indicating substantial natural variability in pH. This suggests that the second assumption laid 

out in Section 3.1 may not be true for all in-stream conditions. Naturally occurring 

variability in pH could result in localized habitats that are more conducive for algal growth 

and also result in conditions that promote greater exchange of atmospheric DO and carbon 

dioxide, all of which could affect pH. Another possible explanation for the detections of pH 

variability is instrument accuracy—the data sonde (underwater data collection device) 

accuracy for pH measurement is estimated at 0.29 unit (see Chapter 5 in Appendix 6), which 

is greater than the differences detected in downstream and upstream measurements in 2009. 

Temperature changes upstream and downstream of the discharge were within the stipulated 

increase of 0.3 degree C on all dates when data were collected. 
Figure 2a Water quality changes in Nason Creek in 2009 in the vicinity of

Rohlfing Discharge
Figure 2b Water quality changes in Nason Creek in 2010 in the vicinity of Rohlfing Discharge
 Assessment of Impacts at Active Sites 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 19 100595-01 

3.2.2 Butcher

3.2.2.1 TP Loads from Acclimation Activity

The total phosphorus concentrations measured at the inflow and outflow of Butcher Pond 

are shown in Figure 3. Based on these measurements and flows estimated from the stagedischarge relationship, the average TP load introduced due to acclimation activity is 

estimated to be about 39 g/d (see Table 2). As at Rohlfing, in 2009 the dominant portion of 

the load entered Nason Creek immediately prior to release in early May, which coincided 

with the highest flow and fish feed rates during the acclimation period. 

More fish were acclimated at Butcher than at Rohlfing pond. This difference explains the 

relatively higher load exiting Butcher compared to Rohlfing. 

Table 2

TP loads introduced due to acclimation activity at Butcher Pond

Average TP Concentration (μg/L) 

Date1 Flow2 (cfs) Flow (L/d) Inflow Outflow Difference3

TP Load

Introduced4

(g/d) 

3/14/2009 1.6 3914521 3 3 0 0.0

4/5/2009 1.6 3914521 4 16 12 47.0

4/12/2009 1.9 4648494 7 13 6 27.9

4/19/2009 1.9 4648494 9.5 14 4.5 20.9

5/3/2009 2.8 6850412 9.5 33 23.5 161.0

3/23/2010 1.0 2446576 4.5 4 ‐0.5 0.0

4/12/2010 1.3 3180548 8.5 23.5 15 47.7

4/18/2010 1.3 3180548 10.5 17.5 7 22.3

4/25/2010 1.3 3180548 12 18.5 6.5 20.7

Average                 38.6

Notes:

1.   4/26/2009 and 5/5/2010 TP data were not used due to lack of paired stage measurements.

2.   Flow was estimated from the stage‐discharge relationship developed for the stream feeding into ponds.

3.   Difference represents the difference in total phosphorus concentration between the inflow and outflow

from the ponds.

4.   Volumetric inflows and outflows were assumed to be equal in load calculation.  Whenever the difference in

loads was negative, load introduced due to acclimation activity was set to 0.

μg/L micrograms per liter    g/d grams per day

cfs cubic feet per second    L/d liters per day g/d grams per day
Figure 3   Total phosphorus concentrations measured in Butcher Pond
 Assessment of Impacts at Active Sites 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 21 100595-01 

3.2.2.2 Impact on Receiving Stream  

The water quality changes in the vicinity of the Butcher discharge at upstream and 

downstream sampling locations (see Figure 3-7 in Appendix 6 for sampling locations) are 

shown in Figures 4a and 4b for 2009 and 2010, respectively. The solid green lines depict the 

state criteria for measurable change in Tier II waters (WAC 2006). 

With the exception of two pairs of measurements, one in May 2009 and one in April 2010, 

changes in DO concentrations during the acclimation period were below the criterion 

stipulated for waters protected by Tier II policy (WAC 2006). As with Rohlfing pond, DO at 

the Butcher Pond outflow was consistently lower than the inflow during acclimation periods 

(see Figure 4 through 9 in Appendix 6). On May 3, 2009, and April 12, 2010, the dates when 

these excursions occurred, the differences were particularly large (about 4.0 mg/L and 

2.3 mg/L, respectively), which explains the excursion. Notwithstanding these large 

differences between the pond outflow and inflow, the differences between downstream and 

upstream DO concentrations are generally small. The larger of the two differences between 

the upstream and downstream sample is 0.35 mg/L, which is comparable to the accuracy of 

the data sonde used for measuring DO (see Chapter 5 in Appendix 6). Moreover, this change 

relative to the upstream DO concentration is less than 3% of the average DO for both cases, 

and for both cases, the actual DO concentrations are well above the highest surface water 

aquatic life DO standard of 9.5 mg/L (WAC 2006). Therefore, it is concluded that this 

decline is sufficiently small and is unlikely to impact the designated uses for the system 

(whether for recreational contact or as aquatic habitat). 

TP levels were quite variable in both years in the upstream and downstream stations. As 

seen in the Rohlfing measurements, TP levels upstream of the discharge frequently exceeded 

the value of the downstream measurement, suggesting that TP load from the discharge was 

insignificant compared to the natural background variability. 

Levels of pH measured downstream in 2009 were higher than upstream, frequently 

exceeding the upper 0.1 unit threshold for measurable change. The pH of discharge from 

Butcher pond was consistently about .5 units higher than Nason despite being reduced in the 

pond itself (see Figures 4-11 and 4-12 in Appendix 6). This trend in pH is likely natural to 

the system because pH measured in the creek feeding Butcher pond were consistently higher 

at the inflow compared to the outflow, during and after the acclimation period. It is possible 

that the small increase in pH downstream of the Butcher discharge is a result of the 

discharge. Moreover, most of the excursions over the upper limit of measurable change were 

within the instrument accuracy range of 0.29 unit (see Chapter 5 in Section 6). Therefore, it 

is unclear whether these excursions are real or an artifact of the limitation in 

instrumentation. In any case, these excursions are small and do not appear to be correlated 

to acclimation activity. 
 Assessment of Impacts at Active Sites 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 22 100595-01 

A similar pattern in pH changes was observed in 2010 though the increases downstream 

were beyond the limits for measurable change in all cases. The pH measurements in the 

Butcher pond inflow in 2010 were similarly lower than the pond outflow. As in 2009, the 

changes in Nason Creek downstream of the pond discharge were generally small, with a 

largest difference of 0.28 unit, which is comparable to the instrument accuracy range. The 

same trend in two successive years, under different flow conditions (Spring of 2010 was 

significantly drier than 2009), suggest that the pH variations in the vicinity of the Butcher 

pond are natural to the system and are unlikely to be a result of acclimation activity. The pH 

measurements on May 5, 2010, were the only exception to this pattern observed on all other 

dates in 2010, with the upstream value exceeding the downstream value by a small amount 

(0.15 unit). 

In order to better understand the pH and TP patterns, correlation coefficients (R2) were 

calculated to assess the relationship of pH and TP downstream of the discharge with the 

corresponding values measured at the discharge point as well as at the location upstream of 

the discharge. Table 3 shows the R2 relationships for pH and TP. Correlation does not 

indicate a direct cause and effect relationship. Nonetheless, R2 was interpreted simply as the 

percentage of variance in the second variable that may be explained by the first. Thus, these 

tables present an estimate of the variability in samples collected downstream of the Butcher 

discharge that may be explained by the corresponding samples collected at the point of 

discharge (i.e., pond outflow) and upstream of the discharge. 

Table 3 shows that the downstream pH is highly correlated with both the pond outflow data 

and the upstream data, regardless of status of acclimation activity. In contrast, the variability 

in downstream TP data is aligned more closely with the upstream data during the nonacclimation periods and only weakly correlated to the discharge data under all conditions. 

Acclimation-period TP correlations with pH were generally poor for the discharge as well as 

the upstream locations. 

The relationship between TP and pH was also studied to assess whether variations in 

downstream pH can be explained by variations in upstream, downstream, and discharge TP. 

The correlations are presented in Table 4. In general, there are no significant correlations 

between downstream pH and upstream or discharge TP concentrations. The correlations are 

weak between the downstream TP concentration and pH. 

The analysis above indicates that it is difficult to explain the variability in pH through instream TP levels. This adds weight to the hypothesis posited above that factors other than 

TP and its affect on algal metabolism contribute to variability in pH. Another confounding 

factor is the lack of relationships between downstream TP with either the upstream TP or 

the discharge TP. This suggests that TP variability is large both spatially and temporally. 
 Assessment of Impacts at Active Sites 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 23 100595-01 

The small magnitude of the loads from the ponds (see Table 1 and Table 2) is within the 

levels of natural variability in the system and is unlikely to be a significant contributor to 

water quality degradation. 

Table 3

Relationships of downstream pH and TP measurements with Butcher discharge and upstream

measurements

R2 for pH R2 for TP

Period

No. of

Samples Discharge Upstream

No. of

Samples Discharge Upstream

All Data 16 0.88 0.82 20 0.07 0.14

Acclimation Period 10 0.84 0.77 11 0.00 0.00

Non‐Acclimation Period 6 0.98 0.98 9 0.42 0.79

Table 4

Relationship between pH measurements downstream of Butcher discharge with TP

R2 for Downstream pH vs.

Period

No. of

Samples

Discharge

TP

Upstream

TP

Downstream

TP

All Data 17 0.02 0.01 0.09

Acclimation Period 10 0.00 0.05 0.21

Non‐Acclimation Period 6 0.03 0.01 0.00

Temperature changes between the upstream and downstream locations were generally small 

and did not exceed the measurable change criterion in 2009 (see Figure 4). Two 

measurements in 2010 exceeded the criterion. In both instances, the temperature from the 

discharge was higher than the upstream temperature (see Figure 4-9 in Appendix 6). 

Therefore, it is likely that the discharge had an impact on the downstream temperature. The 

Butcher Pond is an existing, natural system. Acclimation activity does not affect the 

temperature in the pond in any way because an artificial temperature control system for the 

pond water has not been installed. Thus, the changes in downstream temperature are a 

consequence of the natural heat exchanges within the system, which includes the discharge 

from the Butcher Pond. 
Figure 4a Water quality changes in Nason Creek in 2009 in the vicinity of Butcher Discharge
Figure 4b Water quality changes in Nason Creek in 2010 in the vicinity of Butcher Discharge
 Assessment of Impacts at Active Sites 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 26 100595-01 

3.2.3 Estimation of Net Phosphorus Loading to Nason Creek  

Based on flows estimated through the ponds and the number of fish acclimated at each site, 

an estimate of the average daily phosphorus load was developed. The calculation of 

aggregate load is presented in Table 5. The average daily load estimated here provided a basis 

for evaluating the acclimation-induced loading to receiving streams for the proposed sites. 

3.3 Assessment of Combined Impacts on Receiving Stream

To evaluate the combined impact of acclimation activity on Nason Creek and ultimately on 

the Wenatchee River, an evaluation of the variability in water quality and bioavailability of 

phosphorus forms along the length of Nason Creek downstream of all discharges was 

conducted. 

3.3.1 Spatial Variability in Water Quality  

The spatial variation in water quality along the length of Nason Creek from upstream of the 

Rohlfing discharge to the mouth of Nason Creek in 2009 and 2010 are presented in 

Figures 5a and 5b, respectively. The Rohlfing and Butcher discharges enter Nason Creek at 

approximately River Kilometers (RKM) 23.4 and 19.3, respectively. 

The 2009 data consistently showed a drop in DO from the Rohlfing to Butcher discharges, 

regardless of whether it was during or after the acclimation period, and either rose slightly or 

fell significantly downstream of the Butcher discharge. Over the same reach, temperature 

showed a consistent increase of up to 2 degrees C, which likely explains the decline in DO. 

The spatial trends in DO in the 2010 acclimation season were consistent with the trends 

observed in 2009, with the exception of one unusual decline from the Boyce Station 

(RKM 20.3) to station upstream of Butcher discharge (RKM 19.4). On this same date, pH also 

showed a sharp decline while the changes in TP and temperature were not unusual. Because 

the DO and pH levels and the temperature from the Rohlfing discharge were within the 

observed ranges, this decline could not have been caused by the Rohlfing discharge. It is 

unclear whether the declines in DO and pH were a consequence of discharge from the 

wetland complex near Boyce, groundwater influx, or instrument error. 
 Assessment of Im

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 27 

Table

5

Combined TP loads introduced due to acclimation activity in Nason Creek

Rohlfing Butcher 

2009 2010 Overall 2009 2010 Overall 2009 

Total number of fish acclimated 101000 85656 186656 136000 144632 280632 237000 2Average TP load (g/d) 35.72 38.53 74.25 51.35 22.66 74.02 87.07 TP load per fish acclimated (mg/d/fish) 0.35 0.45 0.40 0.38 0.16 0.26 0.37 

Notes:g/d grams per day

mg/d/fish milligrams per day per fish
Figure 5a Spatial variations in Nason Creek water quality in 2009
Figure 5b Spatial variations in Nason Creek water quality in 2010
 Assessment of Impacts at Active Sites 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 30 100595-01 

Downstream of the Butcher discharge, DO rose slightly on three of the five sampling dates in 

both 2009 and 2010. DO measurements on April 25, 2010, remained low in-stream, from 

Boyce station downstream to the confluence with the Wenatchee River. Flows in April 2010 

were lower than 2009 but the temporal patterns were comparable. Therefore, the cause for 

the lack of recovery in DO (pH recovered along this reach) on this date is unclear. The 

lower values in 2009 occurred during spring high flows. This may be a consequence of the 

widening and subsequent reductions in creek flow turbulence, and the corresponding 

reduction in aeration potential in this section of the creek. During lower flows (March, 

April, and September samples), the DO patterns were similar during and after the 

acclimation period. The significant drop in DO downstream of the Butcher discharge in May 

and June samples may have resulted from a reduction in velocity as the creek widens in these 

reaches, but this could not be established definitively due to lack of stream flow information 

within this reach. 

The data showed an increase in TP for both years from downstream of the Rohlfing 

discharge to upstream of the Butcher discharge. TP data consistently showed a decline 

downstream of the Butcher discharge to Coles Corner (at RKM 6), and then an increase to 

the mouth of Nason Creek, with the exception of one out of four measurements in 2009 and 

two out of five in 2010. Discharge from the wetland complex upstream of the Route 2 bridge 

(see Figure 3-7 in Appendix 6) may contribute to the observed increase in TP between the 

location downstream of the Rohlfing discharge and the location upstream of the Butcher 

discharge. The decline from Butcher to Coles Corner suggests some in-stream assimilation, 

while an increase from Coles Corner to the creek mouth is indicative of a potential TP 

source. As there are no known point sources downstream of Coles Corner, the increase in 

TP observed at the mouth may result from non-point source inputs, such as groundwater 

inflow. 

The pH data from both years showed a decline downstream of Rohlfing to Boyce station 

(RKM 20.3), and an increase from downstream of the Butcher discharge to the mouth of 

Nason Creek. These patterns are consistent with the observations for DO and TP. Data 

collected during and after acclimation activity were similar (with the exception of the June 

sample), suggesting that pH changes are minimally affected by discharges from the 

acclimation ponds. 

Temperature patterns suggested negligible impact from acclimation pond discharges. Small 

changes in the mixing zone of the discharges could result from the natural variability within 

the system (see Section 3.2.2.2). With the exception of March 2010, changes in temperature 

were consistent with the season and showed little impact from the discharges. Air 

temperatures in March were unusually warm in 2010, which was reflected in the recorded 

water temperatures. In general, a small decline from Boyce Station to upstream of Butcher 

discharge (RKM 19.3) was observed and is likely a consequence of inherent variability in 
 Assessment of Impacts at Active Sites 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 31 100595-01 

stream flow, cooler discharge from the nearby wetlands complex, or groundwater influx. 

Temperatures increased slightly from downstream of Butcher to the creek mouth, reflecting 

the change in elevation and the associated changes in air temperature. 

3.3.2 Phosphorus Bioavailability

Another important metric that determines the amount of available phosphorus for algal 

uptake is the orthophosphate concentration. Phosphorus in natural aquatic ecosystems 

consists of particulate and dissolved forms. Both forms can be organic, inorganic, or a 

combination of organic and inorganic. Particulate organic phosphorus can undergo 

dissolution to form dissolved organic phosphorus, which in turn can hydrolyze to form 

dissolved inorganic phosphorus (in this appendix used interchangeably with orthophosphate, 

the simplest form to which all forms of dissolved inorganic phosphorus are converted prior 

to measurement in the laboratory). 

Phosphorus is an essential nutrient for algal growth. However, not all forms of phosphorus 

can be taken up by algae. Any form of phosphorus that is readily available for biological 

uptake is said to be bioavailable (i.e., available for ready assimilation by algae). 

Orthophosphate is readily utilized by algae during photosynthesis and is therefore 

considered bioavailable. Because dissolution and hydrolysis are slow processes, other forms 

such as dissolved organic phosphorus or particulate phosphorus cannot be incorporated into 

an algal cell. These forms are therefore not considered to be readily bioavailable. 

Figure 6 shows the range in orthophosphate concentrations from downstream of the Butcher 

discharge to the mouth of Nason Creek for periods with and without ongoing acclimation 

activity. The patterns suggest that there is little difference in the average orthophosphate 

levels throughout the year regardless of whether acclimation activity was ongoing or not. 

The variability in the orthophosphate levels is higher during non-acclimation periods in 

2009, which is reasonable given that the acclimation period spans only 3 months (March 

through May). There were occasional spikes during non-acclimation periods, particularly 

near the mouth of Nason Creek, suggesting that there could be a source of orthophosphate 

farther downstream of the acclimation sites in Nason Creek that is not related to discharges 

from the acclimation ponds. 

Figure 7 shows the forms of phosphorus entering the Wenatchee River at the Nason Creek 

mouth. On most dates sampled, the major component of the TP load entering the 

Wenatchee River was not readily bioavailable. During the 2009 acclimation period (March 

through May), the bioavailable fraction remained low (a maximum of 50%). In 2010, the 

bioavailable fractions were calculated to be greater than 50% on several occasions. On most 

dates when the bioavailable fraction exceeded 50%, the TP concentration was less than 

10 μg/L. This phenomenon suggests that even though the bioavailable fractions were higher, 

the loadings remained low. 
 Assessment of Impacts at Active Sites 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 32 100595-01 

It is possible that even though the phosphorus entering the upper Wenatchee River is in a 

non-bioavailable form (such as dissolved organic phosphorus), it could convert to 

orthophosphate as the water moves downstream. Assuming an upper bound (i.e., fastest) 

decay rate of 0.11 per day for conversion of dissolved organic phosphorus to orthophosphate 

(based on the range reported in Cole and Wells 2003), it would take roughly 6 days for 50% 

of the organic phosphorus at the headwater to be converted to orthophosphate. 

WDOE’s TMDL analysis indicated that during September 2002 low-flow conditions 

(comparable to the 7Q10 low-flow), the travel time from the headwater at Lake Wenatchee 

to the confluence with the Columbia River is less than 2.5 days (Carroll et al. 2006). This 

travel time is well below the 6-day estimate for conversion of 50% of the TP to bioavailable 

forms. Flows encountered during the higher feeding periods in April and May are typically 

higher, and so travel times would be even shorter. Thus, the fraction of acclimation pondrelated phosphorus that enters the upper Wenatchee River will likely be negligible when 

feeding rates are the highest. 

This analysis suggests that the phosphorus released due to acclimation pond activity 

generally contributes a small proportion of bioavailable load to the Wenatchee River. 

Moreover, the non-bioavailable form released to the upper subbasin is likely to remain 

largely non-bioavailable as it is carried through the critical regions of the lower Wenatchee 

River. 
Figure 6   Spatial variations in orthophosphate concentrations measured downstream of all active acclimation discharges in Nason Creek
Figure 7 Forms of total phosphorus entering Wenatchee River from Nason Creek
 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 35 100595-01 

4 ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS AT PROPOSED SITES

4.1 Approach  

The main challenge in the evaluation of impacts for proposed acclimation sites is to assign 

the phosphorus loads that would result from the proposed acclimation activity. A data-based 

approach was adopted for this project to estimate nutrient loads at proposed acclimation 

sites2. Water quality data collected at Nason Creek in the spring of 2009 and 2010, when 

active acclimation was ongoing, provided a basis for estimating acclimation activity-related 

nutrient loads from the proposed sites. Based on these data, the TP load contributed to the 

receiving stream was estimated to be 0.32 milligrams (mg) per day per fish (see Table 5). 

This estimate was scaled up or down by multiplying by the number of fish to be acclimated 

at each proposed site. This contribution was evaluated against the phosphorus loads 

calculated at the mouth of the major creeks that carried these loads into the Wenatchee and 

the Methow rivers. The objective behind this approach was to assess the significance of the 

loads relative to the background loads in the system. 

A different approach was adopted for the Dryden Hatchery because it is planned for 

proposed use as a year-round rearing facility. The Dryden Hatchery will discharge into a 

critical area of the Wenatchee River that is currently exhibiting water quality excursions. 

For this site, the mass balance modeling approach used in the WDOE TMDL analyses 

(Carroll et al 2006; Carroll and Anderson 2009) was adopted, with minor modifications as 

described in the following sections. 

4.1.1 Applicability of Active Site Data to Proposed Sites

Applying the active site data as a means of assessing the impacts of the proposed sites on 

water quality is reasonable for the proposed sites, aside from Dryden, because: 1) the sites 

will be used to acclimate the same species; 2) feeds are expected to be similar or identical to 

those used in the Nason Creek sites; 3) climatic conditions will be similar, which will result 

in similar metabolism; and 4) the majority of the acclimation sites are small, natural ponds 

that are fed by small tributary streams. 

As discussed above, the Dryden facility is proposed to operate as a year-round rearing 

facility. It will be a constructed site with discharges being treated to some level before being 

 

2 An approach that was considered and then abandoned in favor of the direct measurement approach included 

the estimation of potential acclimation pond loads using the anticipated feed rates, in conjunction with 

literature-reported rates of fish metabolism and growth, to estimate the amount of phosphorus excreted and 

egested into the water column, and to predict rates at which nutrients are assimilated in the acclimation ponds. 

While this approach is technically rigorous, there is considerable uncertainty in applying metabolic estimates 

from different sources that are potentially derived under different conditions. Moreover, fish rearing pond 

assimilation rates have not been extensively studied. Therefore, this approach was abandoned in favor of the 

more empirical approach described herein. 
 Assessment of Impacts at Proposed Sites 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 36 100595-01 

released into the Wenatchee River. Therefore, nutrient loading estimated from active 

acclimation sites operated over a specific time period (March through May) were not 

representative of the operations proposed at the Dryden facility. 

4.2 Impacts at Wenatchee Subbasin Sites

The estimated TP loads at the proposed sites in the Wenatchee subbasin are shown in Table 

6. The details of estimation for each site are discussed in the following subsections. 

4.2.1 White River

Three acclimation ponds are proposed in the White River watershed. Flows in the White 

River were estimated based on the WDOE gauge near Plain (Gauge ID: 45K090). Water 

quality data were derived from multiple sources: data collected by the Yakama Nation as part 

of this project at the McComas Site (presented in Appendix 6) were supplemented with 

monitoring data collected to support ongoing acclimation programs in Lake Wenatchee by 

Grant County Public Utility District (PUD) No. 2 (Grant PUD 2009) and Chelan PUD (2009 

– unpublished data). 

4.2.1.1 Tall Timber

Tall Timber is the most upstream of the three proposed acclimation ponds and does not 

directly flow into the White River, but it is located close to the confluence of the Napeequa 

and White rivers (see Appendix 2 for details). The estimated TP load from this acclimation 

site is 19.1 g/d, which is less than one fifth of a percent of the average TP loads delivered by 

the White River to Lake Wenatchee during the acclimation periods in 2009 and 2010. This 

level is well within the natural variability of the TP loads in the White River. Moreover, 

loads released at this site would have to travel a substantial distance prior to entering Lake 

Wenatchee. In-stream processes such as settling and uptake by biota would mitigate any 

impact farther downstream from the discharge. 

4.2.1.2 Gray

This is one of the smallest proposed ponds, with acclimation of 50,000 coho. Loads from this 

site are expected to be quite small, at less than one-tenth of a percent of the average White 

River loads. 

4.2.1.3 Dirty Face

Data from Nason Creek are not applicable to the Dirty Face site because adult fish 

acclimation is proposed at this site. Adult fish are not fed, so water quality impacts associated 

with the acclimation and feeding of juvenile fish are not relevant to the Dirty Face site. 
 Assessment of Impacts at Proposed Sites 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 37 100595-01 

4.2.2 Little Wenatchee River – Two Rivers

The Two Rivers site is located above the confluence of the Little Wenatchee River with Lake 

Wenatchee (see Appendix 2). This is one of the larger sites, with an estimated 120,000 coho 

being proposed for acclimation. 

WDOE’s gauge at Little Wenatchee River below Rainy Creek (Gauge ID: 45L110) was used 

to estimate flows. As with White River, water quality data for estimation of loads came from 

the program described herein, as well as from the Grant and Chelan PUD monitoring 

programs (Grant PUD 2009; Chelan PUD 2009 – unpublished data). 

The estimated loads contributed by this proposed site are higher than for the White River 

sites because of the greater number of fish proposed for acclimation. Nevertheless, the TP 

loads from acclimation activity are estimated to be about one-third of a percent of the 

average TP loads carried by Little Wenatchee River during the acclimation period. 
 Assessment of 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 38 

Table

6

TP loads estimated for proposed acclimation activity within the Wenatchee Subbasin

Proposed Site

No. of Fish

(thousands)

TP

Load1

(kg/d)

Receiving

Stream2

No. of

Days3

No. of

Sampling

Events4

Record

Start Date

Record

End Date

Re

S

L

(

Tall Timber 110 0.035 White River 84 14 3/15/2009 4/12/2010 Gray 50 0.016 White River 84 14 3/15/2009 4/12/2010 Two Rivers 120 0.038 Little Wenatchee 83 12 3/23/2009 5/9/2010 Chikamin 100 0.032 Chiwawa 71 7 4/4/2009 5/9/2010 Minnow 100 0.032 Chiwawa 71 7 4/4/2009 5/9/2010 Clear 150 0.048 Chiwawa 71 7 4/4/2009 5/9/2010 Beaver 100 0.032 Beaver N/A N/A N/A N/A Scheibler 65 0.021 Chumstick 23 2 4/11/2009 5/3/2009 Leavenworth NFH6 100 0.032 Icicle N/A N/A N/A N/A Brender7 50 0.016 Brender N/A 11 3/10/1997 5/3/2004 

Notes:1. Estimated from average load of 0.32 mg per fish per day calculated from measured data at active discharges in Nason Creek.

2. Nearest stream for which estimation of TP load at the downstream end of the receiving stream was possible.

3. Number of days in the acclimation period over which interpolation of loads was possible with available flow and concentration 

4. Number of events during the acclimation period (3/10/2009 through 5/10/2009 and 3/23/2010 through 5/9/2010). To maxim

period was extended to include additional samples. Some events included collection of duplicates.

5. TP load estimated at the mouth of the receiving stream was based on nutrient data collected during the acclimation period.

6. Loads for the receiving stream (Icicle Creek) represent the total load at the mouth of Icicle Creek for 2002 as determined in WD

7. Average TP load for receiving stream (Brender) was calculated over the acclimation months (March through May) based on his

reported by WDOE for Brender Creek near Cashmere Station (45D070).

kg/d kilograms per day
 Assessment of Impacts at Proposed Sites 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 39 100595-01 

4.2.3 Chiwawa

Three sites are proposed in the Chiwawa River watershed. This river joins the Wenatchee 

River near Plain, Washington. Flow data for this site were obtained from the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) Chiwawa River gauge near Plain (Station ID: 12456500). Water quality data 

were collected by the Yakama Nation near the mouth of the Chiwawa River.

4.2.3.1 Minnow

This is the most upstream of the three proposed acclimation ponds and enters the Chiwawa 

River through Chikamin Creek. TP contributions from this site are expected to be less than 

one half of a percent of the load carried by the Chiwawa River during the acclimation 

period. Also, given its distance from the mouth of the Chiwawa River, loads from this site 

are likely to be mitigated by in-stream processes and are unlikely to impact the Wenatchee 

River. 

4.2.3.2 Chikamin

The Chikamin site is close to the Minnow site and similarly enters the Chiwawa River 

through Chikamin Creek. Because the number of fish acclimated at this site is the same as at 

the Minnow site, the TP contributions from this site are expected to be similarly less than 

one half of a percent of the load carried by the Chiwawa River during the acclimation 

period. As with the Minnow site, loads from this site are also likely to be assimilated instream due to the distance from the confluence with the Wenatchee River, and therefore, 

they are unlikely to impact its water quality. 

4.2.3.3 Clear

Discharge from the Clear Creek site would enter the Chiwawa River through Clear Creek 

close to the confluence with the Wenatchee River. This is the largest site that is being 

proposed in the Wenatchee subbasin, with 150,000 coho planned for acclimation. Therefore, 

this site has the highest estimated TP load among all sites. However, in terms of relative 

magnitude, this load is about two-thirds of a percent of the average TP loads carried by the 

Chiwawa River. Therefore, this site, on its own, is not expected to significantly alter loads to 

the Wenatchee system. 

4.2.4 Beaver

Water quality data for this site is limited. Given the relatively small phosphorus loads, 

impacts from this site are expected to be similar to the other sites. 

4.2.5 Chumstick Creek ‐ Scheibler

Scheibler Creek is located 13 kilometers upstream of the confluence of Chumstick Creek 

with the Wenatchee River. Water quality data collected by the Yakama Nation at the mouth 

of Chumstick Creek (CH4—see Appendix 6) and flow estimated by WDOE near the river 
 Assessment of Impacts at Proposed Sites 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 40 100595-01 

mouth (Station ID: 45C060) were used to calculate background loads. Even though nutrient 

data were collected in 2010, the loading calculations used data from 2009 only, due to lack of 

paired flow measurements in 2010 (WDOE has suspended the gage operation). The loads 

from acclimation pond activity are estimated to be less than 1% of the average background 

load carried by Chumstick Creek. Given the small proportion of the background load, the 

water quality impacts are expected to be negligible. 

4.2.6 Icicle Creek – Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery (LNFH)

Facilities at the LNFH are being used for acclimation as part of this project. Discharges from 

this facility flow through the main hatchery outfall that dominates the Icicle Creek flow 

during low-flow season. Data at Icicle Creek were not collected as part of this project. The 

LNFH is required to provide a discharge report as part of the National Pollution Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES). However, a review of recent discharge reports did not yield 

any nutrient data. Thus, TP load specified at the Icicle Creek mouth in the WDOE TMDL 

(Carroll et al. 2006) was used as a basis for comparison. 

The proposed coho acclimation project was estimated to contribute about 2% of the TP loads 

used in the WDOE TMDL for summer 7Q10 conditions. Recognizing that acclimation 

activity is proposed overwinter and during spring, the load comparison here is illustrative. 

Nonetheless, because a large portion of the load enters during spring high flow, it will likely 

be rapidly flushed from the system and is unlikely to have a direct impact on the water 

quality of the lower Wenatchee River and Icicle Creek. 

4.2.7 Brender Creek   

Brender Creek site discharge would reach the Wenatchee River through Mission Creek. 

Water quality data were not collected for this site as part of this project. However, historical 

water quality and flow data were available for this site from WDOE (Brender Creek at 

Cashmere). A comparison to historical data shows that TP loads discharged from the 

acclimation site could contribute up to 2% of the loads carried by the creek. This 

comparison suggests that the loads from this site may have localized impacts, but the 

estimated average contribution of 16 g/d is unlikely to directly impact Wenatchee River 

water quality because much of this load will enter during the spring high flow season when 

loads from the site would be rapidly flushed from the system. 

4.2.8 Back‐up Acclimation Sites

4.2.8.1 McComas  

The McComas site is located in White River and it may be used to acclimate up to 50,000 

juvenile fish. The corresponding phosphorus loads are expected to be less than one-tenth of 

a percent of the loads carried by White River (see Table 7). Therefore, the impacts are not 

expected to adversely affect water quality. 
 Assessment of Impacts at Proposed Sites 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 41 100595-01 

4.2.8.2 Squadroni

The Squadroni site is located on Nason Creek and is planned as a back-up site should the 

other Nason Creek sites not be used. If used, 105,000 fish are expected to be acclimated at 

this site. Based on the active Nason Creek sites, the TP load due to acclimation activity is 

expected to be 34 g/d (see Table 7). This is about half a percent of the TP loading from Nason 

Creek to the Wenatchee River. Moreover, it was demonstrated earlier that the active 

acclimation occurring simultaneously at Rohlfing and Butcher with more than twice the 

number of fish (237,000 in 2009 and about 230,000 in 2010) did not adversely affect water 

quality in Nason Creek. Thus, the Squadroni site, if developed, is not likely to adversely 

affect water quality. 

4.2.8.3 Coulter/Roaring

The Coulter/Roaring site is part of a wetland complex owned by the Yakama Nation. As 

with Squadroni, if used, up to 105,000 fishes could be acclimated here and the impacts are 

likely to be similar to those at the Squadroni site. However, because this site is in a wetlands 

complex, the TP loads from ponds are likely to be assimilated within the marsh environs. 

Thus, impacts from acclimation activity are likely to be minimal. 

4.2.8.4 Allen

The Allen site, if used, is expected to acclimate up to 50,000 fishes, which could result in 

phosphorus loading of up to 16 g/d to Peshastin Creek. There were no nutrient or flow data 

available for Peshastin Creek for the month of March. In order to obtain a general sense of 

the relative contribution, the loading estimate for this site was compared to the loads 

specified in the WDOE TMDL summer natural conditions model (Carroll and Anderson 

2009). It is estimated that acclimation activity at this site could contribute about 10% of the 

loads carried by the stream during the summer season. Given that 7Q10 flows used in the 

WDOE TMDL are substantially lower than typical spring flows, the upstream loads 

calculated for 7Q10 conditions are substantially lower than what would be carried by the 

creek during spring high-flow season. Therefore, the contribution from acclimation activity 

is likely to be a much smaller fraction of the creek TP loads than that estimated using the 

7Q10 conditions. Regardless of the seasonal differences, 10% is still a small fraction of the 

total loads carried by the creek and is not likely to affect the water quality dynamics in the 

creek substantially. 
 Assessment of 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 42 

Table

7

TP loads estimated for proposed acclimation activity at back‐up sites in Wenatchee Subba

Proposed Site

No. of Fish

(thousands)

TP

Load1

(kg/d)

Receiving

Stream2

No. of

Days3

No. of

Sampling

Events4

Record

Start Date

Record

End Date

Re

S

L

(

McComas 50 0.016 White River 84 14 3/15/2009 4/12/2010 

Squadroni 105 0.034 Nason Creek 112 22 3/14/2009 5/9/2010 

Coulter/Roaring 105 0.034 Nason Creek 112 22 3/14/2009 5/9/2010 

Allen6 50 0.016 Peshastin Creek N/A N/A N/A N/A 

Notes:1. Estimated from average load of 0.32 mg per fish per day calculated from measured data at active discharges in Nason Creek.

2. Nearest stream for which estimation of TP load at the downstream end of the receiving stream was possible.

3. Number of days in the acclimation period over which interpolation of loads was possible with available flow and concentration 

4. Number of events during the acclimation period (3/10/2009 through 5/10/2009 and 3/23/2010 through 5/9/2010). To maxim

period was extended to include nearby samples. Some events included collection of duplicates.

5. TP load estimated at the mouth of the receiving stream was based on nutrient data collected during the acclimation period.

6. There were no data available for the receiving stream. Loads from the WDOE TMDL model for the 7Q10 natural conditions sim

comparison.

kg/d kilograms per day
 Assessment of Impacts at Proposed Sites 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 43 100595-01 

4.2.9 Dryden Hatchery  

4.2.9.1 Mass Balance Modeling Setup

As mentioned in Section 4.1, the Dryden Hatchery site is proposed for use as a year-round 

rearing operation. Therefore, it was necessary to evaluate impacts during low-flow 

conditions when water quality is most vulnerable to increases in nutrient loading. 

The QUAL-2K model was used in the WDOE TMDL (Carroll et al. 2006; Carroll and 

Anderson 2009) to allocate nutrient loading to point and non-point sources to bring DO and 

pH into compliance with existing state regulations. A phased implementation of load 

reductions has been recommended in the TMDL. Based on discussion with WDOE 

(November 12, 2009, meeting with Ryan Anderson, Yakima Regional office, Yakima), it is 

assumed for this evaluation that the load reduction measures will be implemented as 

recommended in the TMDL. 

The QUAL-2K model was set up for 7Q10 low-flow conditions with publicly owned 

treatment works (POTW) discharging at design flow and a phosphorus concentration of 

90 μg/L, and other sources were set to the estimated maximum natural condition values as 

determined in the WDOE TMDL (Carroll and Anderson 2009). 

Nutrient loading for the proposed hatchery was estimated based on the anticipated rearing of 

approximately 220,000 smolts at the hatchery, such that about 110,000 smolts will be 

removed in November and 110,000 will be removed the following March. Table 8 presents 

the details on the nutrient loading that is expected to result from hatchery operation. The 

average flow for the month of September, estimated at about 0.06 cubic meter per second 

(m3/s) (about 1,000 gallons per minute), was specified for the QUAL-2K model. Discharge 

from Dryden Hatchery was assumed to occur immediately upstream of Dryden Dam (at 

RKM 56.5). 

The Skretting Nutra Fry feed that is proposed for use at the hatchery contains about 1.42% 

phosphorus by weight. Tipping and Shearer (2007) have reported a phosphorus retention 

range of 29% to 36% for coho salmon fed commercial diets with similar phosphorus content 

(range 1.1% to 1.3%). Similar research on rainbow trout estimated phosphorus retention at 

50% (Flimlin et al. 2003). The average of these values, 39% phosphorous retention, was 

assumed for the analysis presented herein. The effluent from the hatchery is expected to 

undergo treatment prior to discharge to the Wenatchee River. For our purposes, we have 

assumed a treatment efficiency of 50%, which is the minimal requirement for any treatment 

system that will be designed for the system. 

The phosphorus loads estimated for the month of September (see Table 8) were specified as a 

point source in the QUAL-2K model. Other water quality parameters were set to the same 

values as those used for LNFH in the Icicle Creek water quality model used in the WDOE 
 Assessment of Impacts at Proposed Sites 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 44 100595-01 

TMDL analysis (Carroll et al 2006). This is appropriate because the level of treatment at 

Dryden Hatchery is expected to be similar or better than what is being implemented at 

LNFH. All other settings remained unchanged from the 7Q10 simulations in the WDOE 

TMDL analysis (Carroll and Anderson 2009). 

4.2.9.2 Model Predictions and Impact Analysis

Steady-state predictions for flow, TP, DO, pH, and temperature over the length of the 

Wenatchee River are shown in Figures 8 through 12. Given the relatively small flows out of 

the proposed Dryden Hatchery, mass balance modeling has shown that effluent from the 

hatchery is unlikely to change flows and water quality significantly in the lower Wenatchee 

River. Indeed, DO remains in compliance downstream of the hatchery discharge (Figure 10) 

and the change in minimum DO meets the measurable change criterion laid out in state 

standards (Figure 13; WAC 2006). 

The model predicts that pH could exceed the upper limit of 8.5 units downstream of 

Cashmere POTW discharge (Figure 11). After about RKM 60, there is little difference in the 

model predictions with and without the proposed hatchery discharge. This suggests that the 

pH excursion does not result from the hatchery loads, but is rather a consequence of the 

Cashmere POTW loads. This interpretation is reinforced by the WDOE TMDL, which 

acknowledges that Cashmere POTW discharge should release phosphorus at less than 

90 μg/L to prevent pH excursion downstream of the city of Cashmere. 
 Assessment of Impacts at Proposed Sites 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 45 

Table

8

Estimation of effluent phosphorus loads for proposed hatchery at Dryden

Phosphorus Concentration (mg/L)

Month

Number

of Fish1

Flow

(m3/s)

Total

Weight of

Fish (kg)

Feed Rate

(g feed/

g fish/d)

Phosphorus

Feed Rate2

(g/d) Feed

Untreated

Effluent3

After

Treatme

Mar 236703 0.010 106.5 2.9% 43.86 0.051 0.016 0.008 

Apr 235135 0.015 190.5 2.8% 75.73 0.060 0.018 0.009 

May 233578 0.020 315.3 2.7% 120.90 0.069 0.021 0.010 

Jun 232031 0.028 511.6 2.6% 188.89 0.078 0.024 0.012 

Jul 230495 0.033 663.8 2.6% 245.08 0.085 0.026 0.013 

Aug 228968 0.041 906.7 2.5% 321.88 0.091 0.028 0.014 

Sep 227452 0.060 1627.4 2.4% 554.62 0.106 0.032 0.016 

Oct 225946 0.079 2420.8 2.2% 756.27 0.111 0.034 0.017 

Nov 224449 0.089 2929.1 2.0% 831.85 0.108 0.033 0.016 

Dec 112963 0.048 1626.7 1.9% 438.87 0.106 0.032 0.016 

Jan 112215 0.049 1666.4 1.9% 449.59 0.107 0.033 0.016 

Feb 111472 0.049 1705.5 1.9% 460.15 0.108 0.033 0.017 

Mar 110733 0.052 1843.7 1.9% 497.43 0.111 0.034 0.017 

Notes:1 Numbers back‐calculated to produce 220,000 smolts, and assuming mortality of 0.7 percent per month, with 110,000 fish remov

the remaining 110,000 removed in March.

2 Skretting Nutra Fry diet contains 1.42 percent phosphorus by weight.

3 Assumes assimilation of 39 percent based on a highly digestible diet.

4 Assumes treatment efficiency of 50 percent.

mg/L milligrams per liter

m3/s cubic meters per second

kg kilograms

g feed/g fish/d grams of feed per gram of fish per day

g/d grams per day
Figure 8 Flows simulated by QUAL‐2K model shown compared for cases with and without proposed hatchery at Dryden
Figure 9 Total phosphorus concentrations simulated by QUAL‐2K model shown compared for cases with and without proposed hatchery at Dryden
Figure 10 Dissolved oxygen concentrations simulated by QUAL‐2K model shown compared for cases with and without proposed hatchery at Dryden
Figure 11 pHs simulated by QUAL‐2K model shown compared for cases with and without proposed hatchery at Dryden
Figure 12 Temperatures simulated by QUAL‐2K model shown compared for cases with and without proposed hatchery at Dryden
Figure 13 Difference from natural conditions in range of pH and minimum dissolved oxygen at permissible POTW loading with and without the propose
 Assessment of Impacts at Proposed Sites

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 52 100595-01 

In the vicinity of the hatchery as well as downstream of the Cashmere POTW, the difference 

in the pH range marginally exceeds the measurable change criterion (by much less than 

0.1 unit which is well below the limits of instrument accuracy—see Chapter 5 in 

Appendix 6) and is well within the typical ranges encountered within a day (Figure 13). 

Based on the analysis provided here, it is expected that the discharges from the Dryden 

Hatchery will have minimal impacts on the water quality of the lower Wenatchee River 

even under critical low-flow conditions. 

4.2.10 George Hatchery  

George Hatchery is being considered as an alternative to the Dryden Hatchery if the 

operation of the latter is determined to be infeasible. Discharge from the hatchery will enter 

the Wenatchee River 3 km downstream of the Lake Wenatchee outlet. Discharges from this 

hatchery, if operated, will flow through a disconnected side channel for about a mile before 

entering the Wenatchee River. 

The hatchery is expected to be operated under the same conditions as Dryden. Therefore, 

the QUAL-2K modeling approach taken to evaluate the discharge impacts was adopted here. 

The impact of hatchery operation was evaluated for 7Q10 summer low flow conditions. The 

only difference between this model setup and the one employed for Dryden is the location of 

the discharge. The reader is referred to the previous section for details on the assumptions, 

and phosphorus loading calculations. 

The channel into which the discharge from the proposed hatchery will enter is vegetated 

significantly and flows only during flood events. Therefore, it is unlikely that the hatchery 

discharge will enter the Wenatchee River in its entirety during critical summer conditions 

due to infiltration losses to the underlying aquifer. Also, significant amounts of nutrients 

will be assimilated in the 20 acres of side channel habitat that exists between the hatchery 

discharge and the river. However, for the purposes of this evaluation it is assumed that the 

discharge will reach the Wenatchee River in its entirety without any assimilation of 

phosphorus, and without any loss in flow. This is likely a substantial over estimate of the 

loading to the Wenatchee River, but in the absence of additional information further 

refinement was not possible and this conservative approach was adopted. 

4.2.10.1 Model Predictions and Impact Analysis

Figures 14 through 18 show the simulated steady state flow, TP, DO, pH and temperature 

respectively for the cases with and without the proposed hatchery. Changes to flow 

(Figure 14) are minimal given the small quantity of flow expected from the discharge. 

Phosphorus concentration (Figure 15) was predicted to increase downstream of the discharge 

but the differences over natural conditions are imperceptible past Tumwater Dam. In the 

same section of the river both dissolved oxygen (Figure 16) and pH (Figure 17) show 
 Assessment of Impacts at Proposed Sites 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 53 100595-01 

significantly wider ranges compared to the natural condition predictions. Predicted 

temperature range (Figure 18) showed negligible change over natural conditions simulation. 

Figure 19 shows the difference over the maximum natural conditions simulation for the case 

with the hatchery discharge. The differences in section of the river upstream of Tumwater 

Dam are relatively higher, particularly between river kilometer 5 through 15 where the 

changes are predicted to exceed the threshold for measurable change. 

These differences can be explained from the context of the hatchery loading relative to the 

background phosphorus load. The hatchery loading contribute to about 9% of the 

background load in the upstream section. The relative contribution for the Dryden Hatchery 

was calculated to be about 3% of the predicted background load immediately upstream of the 

discharge. Thus, the higher background concentration downstream of the George Hatchery 

discharge could produce a measurable change in DO and pH on a localized scale. 

When viewed in light of the fact that a very conservative estimate was used for specifying 

the load, the negligible impacts in the downstream reaches particularly in the TMDL domain 

(i.e., downstream of the city of Leavenworth) where the water quality changes resulting 

from the hatchery loads are imperceptible from the background condition simulation. Thus, 

it is concluded that while localized impacts are possible due the proposed hatchery, impacts 

farther downstream is unlikely. 
Figure 14 Flows simulated by QUAL‐2K model shown compared for cases with and without discharge from George Hatchery
Figure 15 Total phosphorous concentrations simulated by QUAL‐2K model shown compared for cases with and without discharge from George Hatcher
Figure 16 Dissolved oxygen concentrations simulated by QUAL‐2K model shown compared for cases with and without discharge from George Hatchery
Figure 17 pHs simulated by QUAL‐2K model shown compared for cases with and without discharge from George Hatchery
 Assessment of Impacts at Proposed Sites

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 58 100595-01 

Figure 18 Temperatures simulated by QUAL‐2K model shown compared for cases with and without discharge from George Hatchery
Figure 19 Difference from natural conditions in range of pH and minimum dissolved oxygen at permissible POTW loading with and without George Hatc
 Assessment of Impacts at Proposed Sites

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 60 100595-01 

4.3 Methow Subbasin Sites

The site-specific acclimation-related nutrient loads for the Methow sites were calculated 

using an approach similar to that of the Wenatchee sites. Loads estimated from measured 

data at active acclimation sites in Nason Creek (see Table 5) were used for this analysis. The 

TP loads estimated for the proposed sites in the Methow subbasin are shown in Table 9. 

The Methow subbasin was not sampled at the same spatial and temporal resolutions as the 

Wenatchee subbasin. Historical information on phosphorus concentrations for the 

acclimation months was limited. Therefore, the evaluations performed here are based on the 

potential for the acclimation-related TP loads dominating the background conditions as 

determined by a comparison to the impacts assessed for the Wenatchee subbasin. This 

method is possible because the characteristics of the Wenatchee and Methow subbasins are 

comparable (see Section 5.1.2 for a detailed discussion of the similarities). 

4.3.1 Methow River Mainstem

4.3.1.1 Goatwall

This is the most upstream site proposed that would discharge directly into the Methow 

River. For the relatively small number of smolts (50,000) acclimated, the TP loading to the 

Methow River is expected to be about 16 g/d. The average flow from 1990 through 2010 for 

the months of March through May in this section of the Methow River (USGSG Gage 

12447383, Methow River near Goat Creek) is about 900 cfs, which is comparable to the flow 

at the mouth of the White River in the Wenatchee subbasin (WDOE Station 45K090, March 

through May average from 2003 through 2010 is about 1,000 cfs). Given the predominantly 

forested nature of the upper portions of the Wenatchee and Methow subbasins, the 

background phosphorus concentrations are likely to be similar. It was shown that a TP load 

of up to 35 g/d (see Table 6) from individual acclimation-related discharges in the White 

River will only comprise a very small fraction (less than a fifth of a percent) of the 

background load. Given the similarity in the flows and land type between the two 

watersheds, the impacts are expected to be similarly negligible in this reach of the Methow 

River due to discharges from this site. 

4.3.1.2 Heath

About 200,000 smolts are expected to be acclimated in a large pond at the proposed Heath 

acclimation site. The TP loads from this site are estimated to be four times that of Goatwall 

at about 64 g/d. This site is located upstream of the city of Winthrop in the same section of 

the river as Goatwall (although farther downstream). Therefore, the assessment applied for 

Goatwall can be extended here. Even though the load is higher, this is comparable in 

magnitude to the largest load expected for the White River sites. By extending the reasoning 

from Goatwall, the impacts are expected to be similarly negligible. 
 Assessment of Impacts at Proposed Sites

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 61 100595-01 

4.3.1.3 Winthrop National Fish Hatchery (WNFH)

This is a public hatchery and discharges from this site are covered by a discharge permit. 

The loads from acclimation activity are expected to be about 32 g/d. Some level of treatment 

of the discharge that is associated with hatchery operations is expected. Thus, the loads from 

this site will be even smaller. Therefore, potential impacts related to acclimation activity are 

expected to be negligible. 

4.3.2 Chewuch River  

4.3.2.1 Methow State Wildlife Area (MSWA)

The MSWA site is the most upstream proposed site on the Chewuch River, located in a side 

channel above the confluence with Eight Mile Creek. About 87,500 smolts are proposed to 

be acclimated, for which the estimated TP load to the system is 28 g/d. The watershed for 

the Chewuch is similar to the upper portions of the Methow River (predominantly forested 

with very little anthropogenic influence). Thus, a similar approach as that used for the upper 

Methow sites (Goatwall and Heath) was used here. The long-term (1991 through 2010) 

average flow for March through May reported at the USGS Gage in Winthrop (Chewuch at 

Winthrop, USGS Gage 12448000) is about 700 cfs, which is lower than but comparable to the 

upper Methow River flows. Given the similarity in the subbasin characteristics, background 

loads, and acclimation-related nutrient loads, water quality impacts from acclimation activity 

are expected to negligible. 

4.3.2.2 Mason  

Discharges from this proposed site enter the Chewuch River through Eight Mile Creek. The 

number of smolts proposed to be acclimated at this site is identical to MSWA. Given its 

proximity to MSWA and the similarity in in-stream conditions, impacts are expected to be 

similar to MSWA. 

4.3.2.3 Pete Creek Pond

Approximately 125,000 smolts are expected to be acclimated at this site, corresponding to a 

TP load of 40 g/d. This site is proposed on the lower Chewuch River where the watershed 

and background loads will be comparable to the other two Chewuch River sites. While the 

acclimation-related loads are expected to be higher (by 40% compared to MSWA) due to the 

greater number of fish acclimated, the background loads in the Chewuch River will be much 

higher. Moreover, this site is located closer to the confluence with the Methow River, 

thereby providing greater dilution of any phosphorus loading that is transported farther 

downstream. Given these factors, acclimation activity-related impacts on the receiving 

stream are expected to be negligible. 
 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 62 100595-01 

Table 9  

TP loads estimated for proposed acclimation activity in the Methow Subbasin

Proposed Site

# of Fish

(thousands)

TP Load1

(kg/d)

Receiving

Stream

Goat Wall 50 0.016 Methow

Heath 200 0.064 Methow

Winthrop NFH 100 0.032 Methow

MSWA 87.5 0.028 Chewuch

Mason 87.5 0.028 Chewuch

Pete Creek Pond 125 0.040 Chewuch

Lincoln 110 0.035 Twisp

Twisp Weir 110 0.035 Twisp

Lower Twisp 30 0.01 Twisp

Parmley 50 0.016 Beaver

Gold 50 0.016 Gold

Notes:

1. Estimated from average load of 0.32 mg per fish per day calculated from measured data at active

discharges in Nason Creek.

kg/d     kilograms per day

4.3.3 Twisp River

4.3.3.1 Lincoln

This site is the most upstream among the proposed sites on the Twisp River. The TP load in 

the discharge associated with the proposed acclimation of 110,000 smolts is expected to be 

about 35 g/d. 

The primary anthropogenic influence in the Twisp River occurs near the city of Twisp, 

which is at the confluence of the Twisp and Methow rivers. Thus, much of the Twisp River 

watershed is forested, which is similar to the upper section of the Methow River and the 

Chewuch River. Therefore, background phosphorus concentrations in the Twisp River will 

likely be similar. The Twisp River flows are smaller than those in the upper Methow River 

and Chewuch River (average flow at the USGS Gage 12448998 on the Twisp River near the 

city of Twisp for March through May in 1990 through 2010 is about 440 cfs). Therefore, 

background loads in the Twisp River will be smaller, and the acclimation-related loads can 

be a larger proportion of the background loads than what will be encountered in the 

Chewuch River and upper Methow River sites. Even if the proportion is double what is 

expected at the upper Methow River and Chewuch River sites, it is still expected be a small 

fraction of the background conditions (see proportions calculated for the upper Wenatchee 

River sites in Table 6 for an order of magnitude estimate). Impacts on the receiving stream 

are therefore expected to be negligible. 
 Evaluation of Combined and Cumulative Impacts 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 63 100595-01 

4.3.3.2 Twisp Weir

This site is the located approximately midway between the Lincoln site and the confluence 

of the Twisp River with the Methow. As with Lincoln, the TP load in the discharge 

associated with the proposed acclimation of 110,000 smolts is expected to be about 35 g/d. 

Given the similar in-stream conditions to the Lincoln site and the same number of fish being 

proposed, impacts resulting from the Twisp Weir site are expected to be negligible. 

4.3.3.3 Lower Twisp

The Lower Twisp proposed acclimation site is located close to the Twisp River confluence 

with the Methow River. For the 30,000 fish proposed at this site the acclimation-related TP 

loads are expected to be less than 10 g/d. Given the Lower Twisp River site’s proximity to 

the Methow River, greater dilution of the TP load can be expected downstream of the 

confluence. Therefore, impacts for this site will likely be lower than for the Lincoln site. 

4.3.4 Beaver Creek – Parmley

The Parmley site is expected to be used for acclimating 50,000 smolts. The TP load 

associated with this site is an estimated 16 g/d. Beaver Creek is smaller than the other 

streams considered thus far; however, the number of fish proposed for acclimation at this site 

is proportionally smaller. Consequently, the nutrient loading that could occur as a result of 

acclimation at this site is also expected to be smaller than the other sites discussed thus far. 

Impacts are therefore likely to be negligible. A more definitive evaluation was not possible 

due to the lack of sufficient data for calculating background loads in the creek. 

4.3.5 Gold Creek – Gold

This proposed site is located in the lower Methow subbasin. About 50,000 smolts are 

expected to be acclimated here, with a corresponding TP load of about 16 g/d to Gold Creek. 

Gold Creek is similar in size to Beaver Creek. Also, because this is the only acclimation site 

proposed on Gold Creek with the same number of fish as proposed for the Parmley site on 

Beaver Creek, localized impacts are expected to be similarly negligible. 

4.3.6 Back‐up Acclimation Sites

Five backup sites are proposed for the Methow subbasin. The TP loads estimated for these 

sites are presented in Table 10 and discussed in the following sections. 

4.3.6.1 Chewuch Acclimation Facility  

This is an existing acclimation facility proposed for expansion under this project in case other 

sites on the Chewuch River are not developed. About 125,000 smolts will be acclimated in 

the proposed site. The TP loads associated with this activity are expected to be about 40 g/d. 

The assessments from the other Chewuch River sites can be extended here due to the 

similarity in location and number of fish. Impacts are expected to be negligible. 
 Evaluation of Combined and Cumulative Impacts 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 64 100595-01 

4.3.6.2 Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation (MSRF)  

The number of fish proposed for acclimation at the MSRF site is the same as proposed for the 

Chewuch Acclimation Facility (about 125,000). Given the site’s proximity to the confluence 

with the Methow River and the similarity in the magnitude of the estimated TP loads to the 

other Chewuch sites for which localized impacts were expected to be negligible, localized 

impacts on the Chewuch River due to TP loading from this site are expected to be negligible. 

4.3.6.3 Biddle

This acclimation site is located on Wolf Creek. About 16 g/d of TP is expected to be 

discharged due to the proposed acclimation of about 50,000 smolts. Given that this is the 

only site on a relatively small creek, the impacts are likely to be similar to those estimated for 

the Parmley and Gold Creek sites. A detailed evaluation of localized impacts associated with 

this proposed site was precluded by a paucity of data. 

4.3.6.4 Canyon  

This is the most upstream of the proposed back-up acclimation sites on the Twisp River. For 

the 83,000 smolts proposed to be acclimated here, the TP loads are expected to be about 

27 g/d. The number of fish proposed is less than Lincoln and Twisp Weir (the two primary 

sites) on the Twisp River. Following the discussion for the larger primary sites 

(Section 4.3.3) the arguments for negligible impact from those sites can be extended here. 

4.3.6.5 Utley  

The Utley site is proposed with the same number of smolts downstream of the Canyon site. 

The TP loads and the impacts are expected to be similar. 

Table 10

TP loads estimated for backup sites in the Methow Subbasin

Proposed Site

No. of Fish

(thousands)

TP Load1

(kg/d)

Receiving

Stream

Chewuch A.F. 125 0.040 Chewuch

MSRF 125 0.040 Chewuch

Biddle 50 0.016 Wolf

Canyon 83 0.027 Twisp

Utley 83 0.027 Twisp

Newby 83 0.027 Twisp

Poorman 83 0.027 Twisp

Balky Hill 50 0.016 Beaver

Notes:

1. Estimated from average load of 0.32 mg per fish per day calculated from measured data at active

discharges in Nason Creek.

kg/d     kilograms per day
 Evaluation of Combined and Cumulative Impacts 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 65 100595-01 

4.3.6.6 Newby

The Newby site is proposed with the same number of smolts downstream of the Canyon and 

Utley sites. The TP loads and the impacts are expected to be similar to the other two sites. 

4.3.6.7 Poorman  

This proposed acclimation site is located farthest downstream of all back-up sites on the 

Twisp River. Given its proposed location on the Twisp River and the identical number of 

fish to the other Twisp sites, the arguments for negligible impact from those sites can be 

extended here. 

4.3.6.8 Balky Hill

This site is located in Beaver Creek, and impacts are expected to be similar to those at the 

Biddle and Parmley sites. As with the Biddle site, due to lack of sufficient data, a detailed 

evaluation of localized impacts was not possible. 

5 EVALUATION OF COMBINED AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The assessments provided in the previous sections have indicated that water quality impacts 

from the individual sites are likely to be negligible because they would not result in a 

measurable change in the DO and pH levels in the receiving water. In addition to the 

assessment of the impacts from the individual sites, the combined and cumulative impacts on 

the water quality of the Wenatchee and Methow rivers required assessment. For the 

purposes of this assessment, combined and cumulative impacts were defined as follows: 

• Combined impacts are the water quality impacts, specifically pH, DO, and 

temperature excursions, that lead to measurable change, as defined in Section 2.2, in 

the Wenatchee and Methow subbasins based on all the discharges proposed in this 

project at each subbasin without the influence of any other anthropogenic sources. 

Back-up sites are not included as they will be used only as replacements for the 

primary proposed sites. 

• Cumulative impacts are the combined water quality impacts under the condition that 

all anthropogenic and natural influences are simultaneously considered while 

evaluating the discharges proposed in this project. 

5.1 Approach

The approach for evaluation of combined and cumulative impacts differed between the two 

subbasins because a calibrated water quality model was readily available for the Wenatchee 

River, but such a model was not available for the Methow River. Development of such a 

model for the Methow would require a great deal of focused data collection, which was 

beyond the scope of this assessment. Thus, a more simplistic approach, as discussed in the 

following sections, was adopted for the Methow. 
 Evaluation of Combined and Cumulative Impacts 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 66 100595-01 

5.1.1 Wenatchee Subbasin

The mass balance model developed by WDOE for the purpose of establishing load allocations 

(Carroll et al. 2006; Carroll and Anderson 2009) was applied to assess both the combined and 

cumulative impact evaluations for the Wenatchee River (hereafter referred to as the lower 

Wenatchee subbasin). The portion of the Wenatchee subbasin composed of Lake Wenatchee 

and its tributaries, the White River and the Little Wenatchee River (hereafter referred to as 

the upper Wenatchee subbasin) was evaluated based on mass balance analyses using existing 

water quality and flow data as discussed below. 

5.1.2 Methow Subbasin

A rigorous mass balance model, such as the one developed by WDOE for the Wenatchee 

subbasin, was not undertaken for the Methow subbasin due to the paucity of data for model 

development and calibration. The evaluation for the Methow subbasin applied existing data. 

Loads estimated for the Methow were compared to the trends simulated using the QUAL-2K 

model for the Wenatchee subbasin and results and conclusions from the Wenatchee subbasin 

were used to inform the assessment of impacts in the Methow subbasin. 

Important subbasin characteristics that affect in-stream conditions including water quality 

and quantity are shown compared for the two subbasins in Table 11. Both watersheds are 

predominantly forested. Both have the high peaks of the Cascade Mountains that contribute 

the majority of flows through snowmelt in spring. In both subbasins, much of the 

precipitation occurs during the months of October through March, and this precipitation is 

predominantly in the form of snow (Andonaegui 2001; Konrad et al. 2003). 

Table 11

Comparison of Methow and Wenatchee subbasins

Attribute Methow Wenatchee

Area (sq.mi.) 1,825 1,333

Elevation Range (ft) 800 (near Pateros) to 8,500

(Cascade Crest)

610 (near Wenatchee) to 5,000

(Cascade Crest)

Annual Precipitation (inches) 10 (Pateros) to 80 (Cascade Crest) 8.5 (Wenatchee) to 150 (Cascade

Crest)

Predominant Form of Precipitation Snow Snow

Predominant Land Type Forest (about 87%) Forest (about 70%)

Data Sources: KWA Ecological Sciences Inc. et al. 2004; Andonaegui 2000; Andonaegui 2001
Figure 20 Comparison of flows in Methow and Wenatchee Rivers
 Evaluation of Combined and Cumulative Impacts 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 68 100595-01 

Table 11 shows that the Methow subbasin is somewhat drier (even though it is larger in 

terms of area) than the Wenatchee subbasin. This is evident in the long-term flows shown 

in Figure 20 where the Wenatchee River flows are higher. Notwithstanding these 

differences, the flow patterns in Figure 20 are consistent between the two subbasins with 

coincident peak and dry flow periods. This indicates that flow-driven processes such as 

mobilization of particulates, dilution of nutrients, in-stream re-aeration, and habitat 

conditions for attached algae are likely to be similar between the two subbasins. Moreover, a 

majority of the watershed is forested for both subbasins, with minimal anthropogenic 

influence. The populations within the Methow and Wenatchee subbasins, excluding the city 

of Wenatchee, are similar, at around 5,000 based on the census from the year 2000. The city 

of Wenatchee is at the confluence of the Wenatchee and Columbia rivers. Nutrient loads 

from the city’s sources do not pose any water quality concerns for the Wenatchee River. 

Based on this discussion, it is evident that the similarities between the two subbasins provide 

some justification for using the evaluation for the Wenatchee subbasin to inform the 

assessment performed for the Methow subbasin. 

5.2 Conservative Assumptions to Determine Reasonably Maximum Impacts  

As described in Section 4, local impacts in the vicinity of the discharges are not expected to 

adversely impact water quality. The objective of the mass balance modeling was to assess 

potential combined and cumulative water quality impacts imposed by the proposed project 

in the most critical areas of the Wenatchee River (i.e., below the City of Leavenworth). 

To achieve this objective, several assumptions were made to determine the reasonable 

maximum impact in the lower Wenatchee River: 

1. March was chosen as the critical period for evaluation. All the proposed acclimation 

sites would be operational at this time. Flows later in the spring increase 

significantly, diluting nutrient loads and scour attached algae from the system. 

Approximately half the sites may be operated through the winter but due to the 

smaller number of fish being acclimated, low water temperatures, and low feed rates, 

water quality impacts in winter are expected to be lower than during March. 

2. Flows in March were specified as the 7Q10 summer low flow calculated by WDOE 

for the TMDL evaluation (typically, March flows are somewhat higher). 

3. Phosphorus discharged due to acclimation activity was considered to be 100% 

bioavailable (i.e., phosphorus discharges are all in the orthophosphate form such that 

they can be readily taken up by algae during photosynthesis). 

4. Phosphorus released from the acclimation ponds enters the Wenatchee River without 

undergoing any change while being transported through the receiving stream 

(i.e., there is no assimilation of phosphorus prior to reaching the Wenatchee River). 
 Evaluation of Combined and Cumulative Impacts 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 69 100595-01 

This bounding assumption ensures that the entire phosphorus load discharged from 

the ponds reaches the Wenatchee River. 

5. Average phosphorus loads from the proposed acclimation ponds that were developed 

based on the data collected from the active ponds in Nason Creek from late March 

through early May are applicable in March. The implication of this assumption is 

that fish feed rates in March reflect the overall average feed rate. However, feed rates 

are typically highest immediately before release, which occurs in the beginning of 

May, and lowest in March when the smolts are smaller. 

The assumption that the loadings occur under extreme low-flow conditions maximizes any 

potential impacts the discharges may have on water quality because the effect of dilution in 

the receiving water is minimal under these conditions (i.e., this will manifest the highest 

possible concentration in the receiving water). The other assumptions provide an upper 

bound estimate of bioavailable phosphorus loads from the discharge location to the lower 

Wenatchee River. Combined, these assumptions provide an upper bound on the potential 

impacts that acclimation activity may have in the lower Wenatchee River. If river water 

quality is protected under these extreme conditions, then it provides a level of confidence 

that the water quality of the Wenatchee River will be fully protected under the proposed 

project. 

5.3 Assessment of Combined Impacts

5.3.1 Upper Wenatchee Subbasin – Lake Wenatchee

Lake Wenatchee is a deep water lake (maximum depth of nearly 100 feet) that is fed by the 

Little Wenatchee River and the White River and discharges to the Wenatchee River. Four 

of the proposed acclimation sites discharge to this receiving water system. These include the 

Two Rivers site in the Little Wenatchee River and the Tall Timber, Gray, and Dirty Face 

sites in the White River. 

Given the relatively large size of the lake and its associated long hydraulic retention period, 

it is unlikely that loads entering the lake will reach the Wenatchee River directly; instead, 

they are likely to be cycled within the lake. Therefore, the water quality impact of concern 

within the upper Wenatchee subbasin is Lake Wenatchee proper. The approach adopted 

here was to perform a mass balance analysis for phosphorus for the lake based on tributary 

flows and measured TP concentrations. 

Flows estimated for the upper Wenatchee subbasin are shown in Figure 21. Flows for the 

outlet were estimated based on simple flow balance of gauged flows at the mouth of Nason 

Creek, the Wenatchee River at Plain, and the mouth of the Chiwawa River. TP data for 

Lake Wenatchee, the White River, and the Little Wenatchee River were based on Grant and 

Chelan PUD monitoring programs (Grant PUD 2009; Chelan PUD 2009 – unpublished data). 
 Evaluation of Combined and Cumulative Impacts 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 70 100595-01 

In addition, for the White and Little Wenatchee rivers, data collected under the project 

described herein were applied to construct the mass balance. 

Figure 22 shows the estimated TP loads for the upper Wenatchee subbasin including the 

loads at the mouth of Lake Wenatchee. A comparison of flows in conjunction with the TP 

data shows a clear correlation—higher flows mobilize more phosphorus in the system. The 

data suggest that TP concentrations in the White River can be high (up to 50 μg/L), while 

background levels in the Little Wenatchee River did not reach such levels in 2009. 

Figure 23 shows the estimated cumulative monthly TP loads that entered and exited the lake 

in 2009. The differences between the loads brought in by the inflows and the loads leaving 

the lake are shown in the bottom panel. As expected, the data suggest that the lake acts as a 

net sink of phosphorus loading from the tributaries. The lake is known to be oligotrophic 

and the tributaries that contribute to the lake are in forested watersheds with little to no 

anthropogenic influence. The TP loads brought in are typically associated with high flows 

(see Figures 21 and 22); much of it is from watershed and snowmelt runoff from forested 

lands (Chelan County and Yakama Nation 2004), which typically do not have readily 

bioavailable forms of phosphorus. The TP load entering the lake is therefore most likely 

dominated by non-reactive particulate forms. These likely settle upon reaching the lake. 

The lake thus buffers the upstream phosphorus loads and transmits only a fraction of the 

upstream loads to the Wenatchee River. 

To estimate the combined impact of the four proposed locations, the total phosphorus loads 

anticipated from acclimation activity were calculated based on the proposed number of coho 

to be acclimated. Table 12 shows the relative contribution of the loads from combined 

acclimation activity in the White River and the Little Wenatchee River. In 2009, these loads 

were estimated to contribute less than 0.25% of the total background loads that entered the 

lake over the acclimation period (March through May) from these two tributaries. This 

calculation does not account for in-stream assimilation, which, if considered, would further 

reduce the relative contribution from acclimation activity. 

Table 12

Estimated relative contribution of TP loads from 50 days of acclimation activity in upper

Wenatchee sites

Location

No. of

Fish

TP Loading from

Acclimation1 (kg)

TP Load In

System2 (kg)

Contribution

to Total

Little Wenatchee River 120,000 1.92 604.50 0.32%

White River   160,000 2.56 1242.86 0.21%

Notes:

1. Uses an estimate of 0.32 mg/d/fish derived from active sites in Nason Creek, see Table 5

2. Loads calculated using 2009 flows and TP measurements from 3/23/2009 to 5/10/2009

kg   kilograms
 Evaluation of Combined and Cumulative Impacts 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 71 100595-01 

Based on this analysis, the proposed acclimation activity in the upper Wenatchee subbasin 

will produce TP loads that are sufficiently low as to not produce a measurable impact on the 

water quality of the tributaries and Lake Wenatchee. 
Figure 21 Streamflows in the upper Wenatchee subbasin in 2009
Figure 22 Total phosphorus concentration and estimated loads in the upper Wenatchee subbasin
Monthly TP loads entering and lea

D

Mid‐Colum

Figure 23 Monthly total phosphorus loads entering and leaving Lake Wenatchee in 2009

 

\\SF‐PMUGUNTHAN\AQ\Jobs\SeaSprings\Yakama_Nation_Coho\Analysis\Lake_Wenatchee\Mass_balance_analysis.xlsx
 Evaluation of Combined and Cumulative Impacts 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 75 090595-01 

5.3.2 Lower Wenatchee Subbasin – Wenatchee River

5.3.2.1 Approach for Adopting WDOE’s Model

The WDOE TMDL model that was used to determine the Wenatchee River and Icicle Creek 

phosphorus load allocations (Carroll and Anderson 2009) was applied with minimal changes 

to assess the potential impacts of the proposed acclimation sites on water quality within the 

lower Wenatchee subbasin. Changes to the model focused on representing boundary 

conditions for the month of March. As discussed in Section 5.1, 7Q10 low-flow conditions 

were used for headwater and all tributaries without modification from the WDOE TMDL 

model. The simulation was setup to represent March 23 (near the spring equinox), so that 

photoperiod was approximately equal to that used by WDOE for development of the TMDL 

which simulated the autumnal equinox period (September 23). Model parameters 

(e.g., reaction rates, stoichiometric coefficients, etc.) remained unchanged from those applied 

by the WDOE for the TMDL. Finally, nutrient loads, with the exception of those pointed 

out in the subsequent sections, were applied unchanged. 

Forcing functions applied to the model reflected climatic conditions for the month of March. 

Long-term March air temperature readings were obtained from National Ocean and 

Atmospheric Agency’s (NOAA’s) meteorological station in Leavenworth, Washington. Based 

on the daily minimum and maximum temperatures recorded for the month of March, a 

sinusoidal function was developed to capture the diurnal variations (see Figure 24). This 

function was assumed to be representative of the entire domain from the mouth of Lake 

Wenatchee to the confluence with the Columbia River. A similar approach was adopted in 

the WDOE TMDL model. Dew point temperature was estimated from the temperature 

function in Figure 24, and the relative humidity values were estimated from the WDOE 

TMDL model. This approach was adopted due to a lack of dew point temperature data for 

the month of March. 

Water temperature is also significantly colder in March compared to summer conditions. A 

temperature function was developed for the headwater to encompass the range of 

temperatures measured at the mouth of Lake Wenatchee and in the Wenatchee River in the 

month of March (see Figure 25). 
Air temperature 

D

Mid‐Colum

Figure 24 Air temperature function for QUAL‐2K model
Water temperature and dissolved oxygen functions specified at t

for the QUAL‐2

D

Mid‐Colum

Figure 25 Water temperature and dissolved oxygen functions specified at the mouth of Lake

Wenatchee for the QUAL‐2K model for March conditions

\\SF‐PMUGUNTHAN\AQ\Jobs\SeaSprings\Yakama_Nation_Coho\Model\Combined\Inputs
 Evaluation of Combined and Cumulative Impacts 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 78 100595-01 

Temperatures for tributaries and groundwater inflows for the month of March were 

estimated using the headwater temperature and the ratio of respective tributary/groundwater 

source temperature to the headwater temperature available in the WDOE TMDL model. 

DO was assumed to be at saturation for the headwater and all other inflows. It was estimated 

from the water temperature and river elevation. Figure 25 shows the DO function specified 

in the QUAL-2K model at the mouth of Lake Wenatchee along with observations from 

March 2009 and 2010. 

5.3.2.2 Determination of Background Conditions in March

Due to the differences in some of the boundary conditions as described previously, the upper 

bound in natural conditions developed for the summer period as represented in the WDOE 

TMDL model cannot be used as the basis for evaluation of potential impacts of the 

acclimation sites. Hence, new background water quality conditions were established by 

simulating the model with the changes described above, but without introducing any loads 

from the proposed acclimation sites. The term “background conditions” is used to describe 

this simulation, rather than WDOE’s terminology of “maximum natural conditions,” to 

emphasize that the conditions simulated here are representative of critical conditions 

expected to occur in March during operation of the acclimation ponds and not the summer 

critical period in the TMDL evaluation. 

Figure 26 compares the differences in summer (WDOE TMDL) and March background 

simulations. Model results indicated that temperature is the primary driver of water quality 

in March. DO levels generally reflected saturation conditions for the range of water 

temperatures simulated in March. Diurnal pH variations were generally smaller in March, 

likely a result of depressed biological activity and temperature (higher water temperature 

stimulates biological activity and reduces the solubility of carbon dioxide and oxygen). TP 

variations were similar between the two periods, with the summer model showing slightly 

lower TP in the lower reaches which correlated well with bottom algae levels (not shown) 

and suggests stimulated biological activity in summer (and hence higher use of phosphorus). 
Figure 26 Water quality parameters simulated by QUAL‐2K model with background TP loads under 7Q10 low‐flow, and summer and March climatic con
 Evaluation of Combined and Cumulative Impacts 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 80 100595-01 

5.3.2.3 Estimation of Nutrient Loads for Assessing Combined Impacts

To assess the combined impacts, TP loads were estimated for the active sites (Table 5) and 

proposed sites (Table 6). Dryden Hatchery inputs determined for the month of March (see 

Table 8) were also used. The estimated TP loads from the discharges were included with the 

background orthophosphate load in the model. The final orthophosphate concentrations 

were calculated using the flows used in the model and the combined load estimate. The 

calculations are summarized in Table 13. 

Even though a separate analysis was presented in Section 5.2.1 for upper Wenatchee 

subbasin sites in White River and Little Wenatchee River, and given that Lake Wenatchee 

will buffer TP loads originating from the upper subbasin sites, discharges from these sites 

were represented in the model as being 100% available at the outlet of Lake Wenatchee. 

Hence, these assumptions provide an upper bound estimate of the potential impacts in the 

Wenatchee River. As with the background conditions simulation, nutrient inputs from 

POTWs were not considered (see the introduction in Section 5 for definition of combined 

impacts). Other model inputs remained unchanged from the March background conditions 

simulation. As pointed out in Section 5.1, phosphorus loads were represented in the model 

as being available for biological uptake and were assumed to discharge to the Wenatchee 

River proper without any assimilation in the receiving tributary. 

5.3.2.4 Model Predictions  

Figure 27 presents model-predicted flows as compared to March background conditions. 

Differences in flow between the two simulations were imperceptible because acclimationrelated inflows were predominantly derived from natural inputs that contribute to the 

Wenatchee system under background conditions. Moreover, Dryden Hatchery inflows were 

relatively too minor to substantially alter flows in the system. 
 Evaluation of Combined 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 81 

Table 13

Estimation of inorganic phosphorus concentration for acclimation impacted point sources in the Wena

Natural Conditions

Orthophosphate2

Source1 Station ID

River

Kilometer

Flow

(m3/s)

Concentration

(μg/L)

Load

(g/d)

TP Load due

to Acclimation

Activity (g/d)

Lo

(g

Upper Wenatchee Subbasin Loads3  ‐‐ 

0 4.616 1.50 598.2 89.6 68

Nason Creek Sites4 45NC00.7 0.5 0.655 4.55 257.4 67.2 32Chiwawa Sites 45CW00.5 9.1 2.039 3.90 687.0 112.0 79Beaver 45BC00.1 12.2 0.051 4.70 20.8 32.0 5LNFH ‐ Icicle Creek 45IC00.1 45.9 1.214 4.70 492.9 32.0 52Chumstick 45CS00.1 49.4 0.066 4.70 26.9 20.8 4Dryden5 ‐‐  59.0 0.010  ‐‐  ‐‐  6.7 6Brender 45BR00.1 70.8 0.187 4.70 75.9 16.0 9

Notes:

1. See Table 6 for a list of proposed sites in the Wenatchee subbasin and the estimated TP loads from these sites.

2. Loads estimated from flows and concentrations specified for natural conditions QUAL‐2K model simulation in WDOE TMDL (Carro

Anderson 2009).

3. Loads from the White and Little Wenatchee River sites were assumed to enter the Wenatchee River at the mouth of Lake Wenatc

4. Includes loads from the Coulter site in addition to Rohlfing and Butcher ponds (see Table 2 in Appendix 2 for number of fish at eac

5. Estimated TP loads from proposed Dryden Hatchery for the month of March (see Table 8).
Figure 27 Flows simulated by QUAL‐2K model shown compared for cases with and without the proposed project for 7Q10 low‐flow and March climatic 

background loadings determined in WDOE TMDL
Figure 28 Total phosphorus concentrations simulated by QUAL‐2K model shown compared for cases with and without the proposed project for 7Q10 lo

condition with maximum background loadings determined in WDOE TMDL
Figure 29 Dissolved oxygen concentrations simulated by QUAL‐2K model shown compared for cases with and without the proposed project for 7Q10 lo

condition with maximum background loadings determined in WDOE TMDL
Figure 30 pHs simulated by QUAL‐2K model shown compared for cases with and without the proposed project for 7Q10 low‐flow and March climatic co

background loadings determined in WDOE TMDL
Figure 31 Temperatures simulated by QUAL‐2K model shown compared for cases with and without the proposed project for 7Q10 low‐flow and March 

maximum background loadings determined in WDOE

TMDL
 Evaluation of Combined and Cumulative Impacts 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 87 100595-01 

TP predictions for combined impacts are presented and compared to background conditions 

in Figure 28. TP is higher in the upper reaches (upstream of Leavenworth) and declines 

steadily after an initial increase. The increase in the first 10 kilometers of the river reflects 

inputs from the Nason Creek, the upper Wenatchee subbasin, and the Chiwawa River sites. 

Much of the phosphorus appears to be assimilated around RKM 27, which is upstream of 

Tumwater Canyon. In this stream reach, lower simulated flows provide habitat for bottom 

algae whose growth was elevated relative to the simulated values for background conditions 

in this reach. 

Differences in the range of DO simulated with and without the project-related loads are 

negligible (see Figures 29 and 32; the maximum difference is less than 0.1 mg/L). The daily 

minimum DO is well above the water quality threshold for DO. These results indicate that 

in the absence of other nutrient sources, the project alone is not expected to adversely impact 

DO resources within the Wenatchee River. 

The range of pH with the project is generally equal to the range simulated for the natural 

conditions (Figure 30). At approximately RKM 27, the upper bound of the pH appears to be 

somewhat higher than the pH simulated for background conditions. This is a consequence of 

the higher algal levels simulated in this reach over background conditions, as discussed 

above. 

Finally, there is no appreciable difference in the range of the temperature simulated with and 

without the project loads (Figure 31). 
Figure 32 Difference from March background conditions in the range of pH and minimum dissolved oxygen with and without the proposed project in th
 Evaluation of Combined and Cumulative Impacts 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 89 100595-01 

5.3.2.5 Determination of Significance of Impacts  

The measurable change criterion defined in Section 2.2 was applied as the basis for assessing 

the QUAL-2K model outputs and determining potential water quality impacts of the 

proposed project. The difference in the range of pH evaluated against the measurable change 

criterion of 0.1 unit is presented in Figure 32. The model simulations are generally well 

below the criterion. The minor increase in the difference in range near RKM 27 can be 

attributed to induced biological activity associated with project loads. Nonetheless, these 

increases were well below the criterion. Moreover, Figure 32 also shows that the DO 

concentrations simulated by the model do not produce any deficit that exceeds 0.2 mg/L. 

The only deviation from the background conditions appears to be at RKM 27 and is 

associated with algal activity. 

The spatial differences in TP, DO, and pH simulated by the model with and without the 

loads from the proposed project show that the majority of the phosphorus load from the 

project enters in the upstream reaches and much of it is assimilated in the Wenatchee River 

prior to entry into the lower reaches (below the city of Leavenworth). Collectively, these 

results indicate that even under the extreme flow and extreme project-related loading 

conditions simulated here, the proposed project will not adversely impact water quality. The 

model simulations presented herein have demonstrated that the maximum predicted impact 

from the proposed project, including discharges from the proposed hatchery at Dryden, is so 

small as to be undetectable. 

5.3.3 Methow Subbasin   

The sparsely populated Methow subbasin3 has very little anthropogenic impacts upstream of 

the city of Winthrop (Ely 2003). Even between Winthrop and Pateros, the subbasin is 

sparsely populated3. Konrad et al. (2003) concluded, based on an analysis of water quality 

data collected throughout the subbasin, that anthropogenic impact is generally low. The 

major anthropogenic sources within the subbasin are the Twisp and Winthrop POTWs and 

WNFH. 

Figure 33 shows TP loads calculated at the city of Pateros for the months of March, April, 

and May, and the overall average loads for this period based on data collected by WDOE 

from 2005 to 2009. These TP loads represent the cumulative loads from the entire subbasin. 

As with the Wenatchee subbasin, the loads generally followed the flow (compare to 

Figure 20) with peaks in May that were much larger than March and April. The average TP 

load over the 3-month period was estimated at approximately 36 kg/d. 

 

3 Population of less than 5000, based on 2000 census. 
TP loads in the Methow River calculated at 

Discharge Ev

Mid‐Columbia Coho R

Figure 33 TP Loads in the Methow River calculated at the city of Pateros

\\SF‐PMUGUNTHAN\AQ\Jobs\SeaSprings\Yakama Nation Coho\Analysis\Impact Analysis\Methow\Com
 Evaluation of Combined and Cumulative Impacts 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 91 100595-01 

In order to estimate the combined impact of the proposed project, the TP loads from POTWs 

were separated out of the overall loads to provide an estimate of background conditions. 

Based on discharge monitoring reports (DMR), the average daily loads from the POTWs 

were estimated and subtracted out of the average loads calculated for the Methow River at 

Pateros. A DMR was not available for WNFH. Thus, the loads from this facility could not be 

differentiated. 

Acclimation activity may contribute about 0.9% of the average background loads (Table 14). 

Noting that loads from WNFH and other minor point sources were not included, this is 

likely an underestimate of the relative contribution of the acclimation activity loads. 

There is some incongruence in the overall analysis because DMR data from fall were used for 

estimation of the loads due to lack of data for spring periods. Loads from municipal POTWs 

generally do not show strong seasonal variability. Moreover, subbasin flows in October 

through February are generally comparable to flows in early spring (see Figure 20). Thus, 

loads estimated for POTW presented herein, while seemingly inexact, are meaningful for the 

analysis performed. 

In order to determine the veracity of the calculations for Methow subbasin, a similar loading 

calculation was performed for the Wenatchee subbasin (see Table 15), where point source 

discharge data were available for spring, and a comparison between the two subbasins was 

performed. Major point source loads were estimated for April 2003 based on point source 

measurements reported in WDOE TMDL appendices (Carroll et al. 2006). TP loads were 

estimated for the Wenatchee subbasin based on paired flow and TP measurements for the 

WDOE station at Wenatchee for the month of April 2003. An estimate of the background 

loads for the Wenatchee subbasin was obtained by subtracting the major point source loads 

from the subbasin loads (Table 15). Once the anthropogenic influences were subtracted from 

the loads, the background load at the downstream reaches of either subbasin is comparable 

(about 35 kg/d for Wenatchee and 39 kg/d for Methow). 

The relative contribution for the Wenatchee subbasin sites relative to the background load is 

approximately 1.5%. This is higher than the Methow subbasin estimate of 0.9%. This 

difference is expected because a larger number of fish are proposed for acclimation in the 

Wenatchee subbasin (about 1.155 million versus 1 million in Methow) and because of the 

contribution of TP loads from the proposed year-round rearing activities at the Dryden 

Hatchery in the Wenatchee subbasin. 
 Evaluation of Combined and Cumulative Impacts 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 92 100595-01 

Table 14

TP loads estimated for the Methow subbasin with and without POTW loads

Source TP Load (kg/d)

Methow River at Pateros1 39.20

Twisp POTW2 1.30

Winthrop POTW3 0.58

Estimated Background Load 37.31

Acclimation Activity Loads4 0.32

Notes:

1. Average over March ‐ May calculated from paired TP and flow data collected respectively by WDOE (48A070) and

USGS (12449950) in the Methow River at Pateros in 2005 through 2009.

2. Based on NPDES discharge monitoring report information from October 2009 through February 2010.

3. Based on NPDES discharge monitoring report information from November 2009.

4. Sum of the loads estimated for the individual sites in Table 9.

Table 15  

TP loads estimated for Wenatchee subbasin with and without point source contributions

Source TP Concentration (mg/L) Average Flow (cfs) Load (kg/d)

Lake Wenatchee POTW1 2.850 0.020 0.139

Leavenworth POTW1 2.260 0.440 2.433

LNFH ‐ Main Outfall2,3 0.015 34.534 1.225

Peshastin POTW1 7.050 0.050 0.862

Dryden POTW2,5 4.170 0.030 0.306

Cashmere POTW1 2.330 0.680 3.876

Non‐contact Cooling Water6 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.020

Total Point Source Loads ‐‐ ‐‐ 8.862

TP Loads from Acclimation Activity7 ‐‐ ‐‐ 0.376

TP loads for Wenatchee River at

Wenatchee8 0.0043 3280 34.507

Background Loads9 ‐‐ ‐‐ 25.644

Notes:

1. TP concentration reported for composite samples from April 2003 were used.

2. Composite values were not reported.  Values reported for grab samples from April 2003 were used.

3. Paired flow for April 2003 not available.  Flows represent average of monthly average flows for April reported

in DMR from 2006 to 2010.

4. TP measurement was not reported in WDOE TMDL study.  Orthophoshpate values from April 2003 were used.

5. Paired flow not available.  Design flow used in WDOE TMDL study is used here.

6. Critical period loads used in WDOE TMDL used here.

7. Sum of acclimation loads estimated in Table 13 and estimated April TP load for proposed hatchery in Dryden

(see Table 8).

8. April 2003 data reported for Wenatchee River at Wenatchee WDOE station (45A070).

9. Background loads estimated as difference between TP load at Wenatchee and total point source loads.

This analysis suggests that the background conditions in the two subbasins are comparable. 

Furthermore, loads from the proposed project contribute to a smaller proportion of the 

background phosphorus loads in the Methow subbasin. 
 Evaluation of Combined and Cumulative Impacts 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 93 100595-01 

Mechanistic modeling for the Wenatchee subbasin suggests that even for critical conditions, 

acclimation-related nutrient loads are not expected to produce a measurable change in DO 

and pH (see Section 5.3.2.5). Based on the analysis in this section and considering the 

similarities between the two subbasins (see Section 5.1.2), it is concluded that, in the absence 

of anthropogenic sources, the TP loads introduced to the Methow subbasin from this project 

are unlikely to produce a measurable change (as defined in Section 2.2.1) in DO and pH. 

5.3.4 The Effect of Seasonal Flow Patterns on Combined Impacts  

The timing of acclimation nutrient discharges, in relation to annual subbasin flow patterns, is 

important to the evaluation of combined project impacts on water quality. The Wenatchee 

and Methow rivers have peak average flows in early June (see Figure 20). Acclimation ends 

in early May just as spring runoff begins. Data collected from the subbasins (see Figure 4-16 

in Appendix 6) demonstrated that river phosphorous concentrations and loads peak along 

with river flows, as accumulated nutrients and attached algae that have been suspended are 

flushed from the subbasins. The majority of the phosphorous introduced by acclimation is 

included in this mechanical removal process thereby limiting the impact of project nutrients 

on water quality in the critical late summer through winter period. 

5.4 Assessment of Cumulative Impacts

5.4.1 Wenatchee Subbasin  

The cumulative impacts of the proposed project were assessed by applying the WDOE TMDL 

model and including discharges from POTWs in addition to the project-related loads. For 

this purpose, POTWs were assumed to be discharging at the load allocations specified in the 

WDOE TMDL (at a TP concentration of 90 μg/L) and at their design flows. The WDOE load 

allocation included allowance for future growth. Hence, it is assumed for the purpose of 

cumulative impact assessment that this represents a reasonable estimate of future loading 

conditions from municipal sources. 

5.4.1.1 Background Conditions  

For the purpose of comparing the cumulative impacts, background conditions were 

determined by including loads from POTWs (as specified above) to the base case simulation 

presented in Section 5.2.2. Figure 34 presents simulated water column TP concentration for 

the cases with and without the POTW loads. 

DO changes with and without the POTW loads are generally small and limited to the 

vicinity and immediately downstream of the discharges (Figure 35). The simulated DO 

levels were well above minimum DO criterion. In the lower reaches of the Wenatchee River 

where the POTW loads enter, the upper bound of the simulated pH levels appears to be 

affected more than the lower bound (Figure 36). POTW loading does not affect the 

temperature as there was no change in the specified temperature function (Figure 37). 
 Evaluation of Combined and Cumulative Impacts 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 94 100595-01 

The change in the range of pH and DO for the simulation that included loads from POTWs is 

presented in Figure 38. As expected, the highest changes were predicted in the vicinity of 

and downstream from the POTW discharges. In all cases, the changes were less than the 

measurable effect criteria for both pH and DO. 
Figure 34 Total phosphorus concentrations simulated by QUAL‐2K model shown compared for cases with and without POTW discharges for 7Q10 low‐f

condition
Figure 35 Dissolved oxygen concentrations simulated by QUAL‐2K model shown compared for cases with and without POTW discharges for 7Q10 low‐fl

condition
Figure 36 pHs simulated by QUAL‐2K model shown compared for cases with and without POTW discharges for 7Q10 low‐flow and March climatic condi
Figure 37 Temperatures simulated by QUAL‐2K model shown compared for cases with and without POTW discharges for 7Q10 low‐flow and March climatic condit
Figure 38 Difference from March background conditions in the range of pH and minimum dissolved oxygen with and without the POTW discharges in th
 Evaluation of Combined and Cumulative Impacts 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 100 100595-01 

The model simulations with and without the POTW loading have indicated only minor 

changes in water quality. The principal difference between these sets of simulations 

performed for March conditions and those performed for load allocations in the WDOE 

TMDL are the climatic conditions and water temperature. In the WDOE TMDL analysis, 

these same POTW loads when introduced in summer resulted in significantly elevated 

effects in water quality deterioration. These results suggest that temperature plays an 

important role in determining water quality of the Wenatchee River. 

5.4.1.2 Assessment of Cumulative Impacts  

The loads estimated for the proposed project (Section 5.2.2.3) were added to the background 

conditions and POTW model presented in the previous sub-section. This setup provided a 

reasonable conservative estimate of the cumulative nutrient loads to the Wenatchee River. 

Figure 39 depicts the TP concentrations simulated by the QUAL-2K model both with and 

without the loads estimated from the proposed project. As observed in the analysis of the 

combined impacts, TP levels are slightly elevated in the upper section of the river (up to 

RKM 60) from the project loads. The downstream reaches do not show an appreciable 

increase in TP. This phenomenon is due to the proposed locations for the acclimation ponds, 

which are in the upper subbasin. This also suggests that TP loads introduced in the upper 

subbasin are largely assimilated prior to entering the TMDL domain, which is downstream of 

the city of Leavenworth. 

The DO (Figure 40) and pH (Figure 41) ranges follow a very similar trend compared to those 

estimated under the combined impacts scenario (i.e., higher upper bound values in the 

vicinity of RKM 27 and minor changes elsewhere). As explained in the combined impacts 

analysis, this area likely provides habitat conducive to the establishment of bottom algae due 

to slower flows. Nonetheless, the model does not predict any water quality criteria 

excursions for DO and pH in the river. Finally, temperature changes under the cumulative 

impacts scenario are negligible (Figure 42). 

5.4.1.3 Determination of Significance of Impacts  

The change in the range of pH and DO for the cumulative impact simulation compared to 

the case without the project loads (note that the latter includes POTW discharges over 

background conditions simulations) is presented in Figure 43. The differences between 

simulations represent changes from the March background conditions established in 

Section 5.2.2.2. As expected, the largest differences occur in the vicinity of RKM 27 due to 

enhanced algal activity. 

In all cases, the model simulations suggest that potential impacts of the proposed project, as 

defined by the criteria for DO and pH, will be negligible under foreseeable future conditions. 
 Evaluation of Combined and Cumulative Impacts 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 101 100595-01 

When viewed in light of the conservative assumptions employed in establishing the 

translation of loads and flow conditions within the model framework (see Section 5.1), the 

actual impacts under average flow conditions will be much smaller than what was 

determined by the QUAL-2K modeling exercise. The fact that the model results indicated 

that much of the loads are likely to be assimilated upstream of Leavenworth suggests that 

existing POTWs are not likely to be further burdened to exceed their treatment 

requirements to buffer activity from the proposed project in the upper reaches. 
Figure 39 Total phosphorus concentrations simulated by QUAL‐2K model shown compared for cases with and without the proposed project for 7Q10 lo

condition with maximum POTW loading
Figure 40 Dissolved oxygen concentrations simulated by QUAL‐2K model shown compared for cases with and without the proposed project for 7Q10 lo

condition with maximum POTW loading
Figure 41 pHs simulated by QUAL‐2K model shown compared for cases with and without the proposed project for 7Q10 low‐flow and March climatic co

loading
Figure 42 Temperatures simulated by QUAL‐2K model shown compared for cases with and without the proposed project for 7Q10 low‐flow and March 

maximum POTW loading
Figure 43 Difference from March background conditions in the range of pH and minimum dissolved oxygen with and without the proposed project in th

maximum POTW loading
 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 107 100595-01 

5.4.2 Methow Subbasin  

An estimate of the cumulative project impact was assessed from the calculations performed 

for the combined project impacts presented in Section 5.3.3. The contribution of the project 

related loads relative to the cumulative subbasin load (Methow River at Pateros in Table 14) 

was estimated to be about 0.8%. 

The equivalent calculation for the Wenatchee sites resulted in a relative project contribution 

of 1.1% of the subbasin TP loading (Table 15). Mechanistic modeling in the previous section 

indicated that acclimation-related loads in the Wenatchee subbasin caused a negligible 

change in DO and pH even in the presence of anthropogenic sources. Given the lower 

estimate of nutrient loading from acclimation activity in the Methow subbasin (see Table 14) 

and the similarity in the basin characteristics (see Section 5.1.2), the TP loads from 

acclimation activity are unlikely to cause a measurable change in DO and pH in the Methow 

River. 

6 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The No Action alternative is described in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The 

sites included in the No Action alternative for the Wenatchee and the Methow subbasins are 

shown respectively in Table 16 and Table 17. This section presents the combined and 

cumulative impacts expected from the No Action alternative. 

6.1 Assessment of Impacts for the Wenatchee Subbasin  

The mechanistic modeling approach used for estimating the combined and cumulative 

impacts for the preferred alternative (see Sections 5.3 and 5.4.1) was extended for the No 

Action alternative sites. The estimated phosphorus loads for the sites in the No Action 

alternative (see Table 16) were used to calculate the phosphorus concentrations of the 

respective tributaries receiving the discharge in the QUAL-2K model. Loading from any 

other site in the preferred alternative that is not listed in Table 16 was excluded. All other 

simulation conditions and modeling assumptions remained unchanged from the preferred 

alternative simulations. 

6.1.1 Combined Impacts

Figures 44 through 47 show the water quality parameters for the combined impact 

simulation. These figures show that the impacts to water quality are negligible if the project 

were to continue without the changes proposed in the preferred alternative. This is not 

surprising given that the results discussed in previous sections demonstrated that even with 

the greater number of sites proposed in the preferred alternative, impacts were determined 

to be negligible. 
Figure 48 shows that the DO and pH changes over the background conditions are expected 

to be milder than the preferred alternative. Because two-thirds of the loads in the No Action 

alternative are released into Nason Creek, impacts in the upper section of the river 

(particularly near RKM 27) are comparable to, albeit smaller than, those resulting from the 

preferred alternative. In the lower Wenatchee River, there is almost no change in DO and 

pH over the background conditions for both alternatives. 

Table 16  

No Action alternative sites in Wenatchee subbasin

No Action Site No. of Fish ('000s) TP Load1 (kg/d) Receiving Stream

Rohlfing 100 0.032 White River

Coulter 100 0.032 White River

Butcher 100 0.032 Little Wenatchee

Beaver 100 0.032 Beaver

Leavenworth NFH 100 0.032 Icicle

Total 500 0.16

Notes:

1. Uses an estimate of 0.32 mg/d/fish derived from active sites in Nason Creek; see Table 5.

Table 17  

No Action alternative sites in Methow subbasin

No Action Site No. of Fish ('000s) TP Load1 (kg/d) Receiving Stream

Heath 20 0.006 Twisp River

Lincoln 60 0.019 Twisp River

Lower Twisp 20 0.006 Methow River

WNFH 100 0.032 Methow River

Total 200 0.064

Notes:

1. Uses an estimate of 0.32 mg/d/fish derived from active sites in Nason Creek; see Table 5.
Figure 44 Total phosphorus concentrations simulated by QUAL‐2K model shown compared for the No Action and Preferred alternatives for 7Q10 low‐fl

condition with maximum background loadings determined in WDOE TMDL
Figure 45 Dissolved oxygen concentrations simulated by QUAL‐2K model shown compared for the No Action and Preferred alternatives for 7Q10 low‐flo

condition with maximum background loadings determined in WDOE TMDL
Figure 46 pHs simulated by QUAL‐2K model shown compared for the No Action and Preferred alternatives for 7Q10 low‐flow and March climatic condit

background loadings determined in WDOE TMDL
Figure 47 Temperatures simulated by QUAL‐2K model shown compared for the No Action and Preferred alternatives for 7Q10 low‐flow and March clim

maximum background loadings determined in WDOE TMDL
Figure 48 Difference from March background conditions in the range of pH and minimum dissolved oxygen in the Wenatchee subbasin for the No Actio

alternatives
 Evaluation of Combined and Cumulative Impacts 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 114 100595-01 

6.1.2 Cumulative Impacts   

As with the preferred alternative, the impacts of discharges from the sites in the No Action 

alternative were assessed for the case when POTWs discharge at their design capacity, 

contributing a phosphorus load as allocated in the WDOE TMDL (corresponding to 90 μg/L). 

The spatial trends in water quality parameters (see Figures 49 to 52) were similar to those 

predicted for the preferred alternative. As expected, the changes in minimum DO and pH 

range over the background conditions were predicted to be milder than for the preferred 

alternative (Figure 53). 

6.2 Assessment of Impacts for the Methow Subbasin

The No Action alternative involves acclimation of 200,000 fish (see Table 17), which is 20% 

of the number of fish for the preferred alternative (see Table 9). Therefore, the TP loads for 

the No Action alternative are expected to be lower by 80%. Based on the background and 

subbasin loads estimated for the Methow subbasin (Table 14), it is expected that the No 

Action alternative will contribute less than 0.2% of the subbasin loads. Therefore, water 

quality impacts on the Methow River are expected to be negligible if the No Action 

alternative is implemented as proposed. 
Figure 49 Total phosphorus concentrations simulated by QUAL‐2K model shown compared for the Preferred and No Action alternatives for 7Q10 low‐fl

condition with maximum POTW loading
Figure 50 Dissolved oxygen concentrations simulated by QUAL‐2K model shown compared for the Preferred and No Action alternatives for 7Q10 low‐flo

condition with maximum POTW loading
Figure 51 pHs simulated by QUAL‐2K model shown compared for the Preferred and No Action alternatives for 7Q10 low‐flow and March climatic condit

loading
Figure 52 Temperatures simulated by QUAL‐2K model shown compared for the Preferred and No Action alternatives for 7Q10 low‐flow and March clim

maximum POTW loading
Figure 53 Difference from March background conditions in the range of pH and minimum dissolved oxygen for the Preferred and No Action alternatives 

subbasin with maximum POTW loading
 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges June 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 120 100595-01 

7 MITIGATION  

The project is proposed with several practices listed below that are aimed at reducing 

nutrient efflux in the discharge: 

• Acclimate and release small numbers of coho smolts from multiple sites. This dilutes 

the loads and reduces localized effects. 

• Select ponds with flow rates that are higher than those used in constructed regional 

fish facilities so that there is substantial dilution of nutrients in the discharges. 

• Acclimate in large, natural ponds. The higher water volumes in large ponds provide 

greater dilution of fish feed and wastes and buffer nutrient loading to the receiving 

stream. 

• Feed high-phosphorus digestibility foods. 

• Periodically remove sediments from some acclimation ponds, thereby eliminating 

potential long-term accumulation of nutrients. 

• At the Dryden Hatchery, provide a level of treatment that is comparable to LNFH. 

8 REFERENCES

Andonaegui, C., 2000. Salmon, Steelhead and Bull Trout habitat limiting factors, Water 

Resource Inventory Area 48, Washington State Conservation Commission, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 

Andonaegui, C., 2001. Salmon, Steelhead and Bull Trout habitat limiting factors, Water 

Resource Inventory Area 43 and 40, Washington State Conservation Commission, 

Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 

Carroll, J., S. O’Neal, and S. Golding, 2006. Wenatchee River Basin Dissolved Oxygen, pH, 

and Phosphorus Total Maximum Daily Load Study. Publication No. 06-03-018, 

Watershed Ecology Section, Environmental Assessment Program, Washington State 

Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington 98504-7710. 

Carroll, J. and R. Anderson, 2009. Wenatchee River Watershed Dissolved Oxygen and pH 

Total Maximum Daily Load, Water Quality Improvement Report. Publication No. 

08-10-062, Water Quality Program, Central Regional Office, Washington Department 

of Ecology, Yakima, WA. 

Chelan County and Yakama Nation, 2004. Wenatchee Subbasin Plan, prepared for 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council. Internet reference: 

http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/subbasinplanning/wenatchee/plan/ 

Chelan County Public Utility District (Chelan PUD), 2009. Unpublished data - upon request 

this data was received by e-mail from Waikele Hampton on behalf of Chelan County 

PUD by Carmen Andonaegui of Anchor QEA on Dec 9, 2009. 
 References 

Appendix 7: Water Quality Impacts of Discharges November 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 121 100595-01 

Cole, T.M. and S.A. Wells, 2006. CE-QUAL-W2: A two-dimensional, laterally averaged, 

Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Model, Version 3.5, Instruction Report EL-06-1. 

U.S. Army Engineering and Research Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. 

Ely, D.M., 2003. Precipitation-runoff simulations of current and natural streamflow 

conditions in the Methow River Basin, Washington, Water-Resources Investigations 

Report 03-4246, U.S. Geological Survey, Tacoma, WA, 35 p. 

Flimlin, G., S. Sugiura, and P. Ferraris, 2003. Examining Phosphorus in Effluents from 

Rainbow Trout (Oncorhyncus mykiss) Aquaculture, Rutgers Cooperative Extension, 

Bulletin E287. 

Grant County Public Utility District (Grant PUD), 2009. Final Water Quality Monitoring 

Report, Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County Lake Wenatchee Water Quality 

Monitoring, July 2009, Grant County PUD, Ephrata, Washington. 

KWA Ecological Sciences Inc., Okanogan County; Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife; and Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Tribes, 2004. Final 

Methow Subbasin Plan, prepared for Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 

Internet reference: http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/subbasinplanning/methow/plan 

Konrad, C.P., B.W. Drost, and R.J. Wagner, 2003. Hydrogeology of the unconsolidated 

sediments, water quality, and ground-water/surface-water exchanges of the Methow 

River Basin, Okanagon County, Washington, Water Resources Investigations Report 

03-4322, United States Geological Survey, Tacoma, WA, 137 p. 

Tipping, J.M., and K.D. Shearer, 2007. Postrelease Survival of Hatchery-Reared Coho 

Salmon Juveniles Fed Low-Phosphorus and Other Diets, North American Journal of 

Aquaculture, 69, 340–344. 

WAC (Washington Administrative Code), 2006. Water quality standards for surface waters 

of the State of Washington, Chapter 173-201A WAC, Internet reference: 

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=173-201A 
APPENDIX 8.2

FLOOD IMPACT ANALYSIS  

Prepared by

Anchor QEA, LLC 

811 Kirkland Avenue, Suite 200 

Kirkland, Washington 98033 

October 2010
Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project i 100595-01 

TABLE OF CONTENTS  

1 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 1

2 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 2

3 METHODS ............................................................................................................................. 3

4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT................................................................................................. 4

4.1 Regulatory Environment ...................................................................................................4

4.1.1 Federal Rules and Regulations....................................................................................4

4.1.1.1 Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management ........................................... 4

4.1.1.2 National Flood Insurance Program..................................................................... 5

4.1.2 State Rules and Regulations........................................................................................7

4.1.3 Local Rules and Regulations .......................................................................................7

4.1.3.1 Chelan County ..................................................................................................... 8

4.1.3.2 Okanogan County................................................................................................ 8

4.2 Existing Flood Information................................................................................................9

4.2.1 Wenatchee Subbasin Primary Sites............................................................................9

4.2.1.1 Butcher ............................................................................................................... 11

4.2.1.2 Tall Timber......................................................................................................... 11

4.2.1.3 Chikamin............................................................................................................ 12

4.2.1.4 Minnow .............................................................................................................. 12

4.2.1.5 Scheibler............................................................................................................. 13

4.2.1.6 Coulter................................................................................................................ 13

4.2.1.7 Rohlfing.............................................................................................................. 14

4.2.1.8 White River Springs .......................................................................................... 14

4.2.1.9 Dirty Face........................................................................................................... 15

4.2.1.10 Two Rivers ....................................................................................................... 15

4.2.1.11 Clear.................................................................................................................. 15

4.2.1.12 Beaver ............................................................................................................... 16

4.2.1.13 Brender............................................................................................................. 16

4.2.1.14 Leavenworth NFH ........................................................................................... 17

4.2.2 Wenatchee Subbasin Back-up Sites..........................................................................17

4.2.2.1 Squadroni ........................................................................................................... 17
Table of Contents 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project ii 100595-01 

4.2.2.2 Dryden................................................................................................................ 17

4.2.2.3 Allen ................................................................................................................... 18

4.2.2.4 Coulter/Roaring ................................................................................................. 18

4.2.2.5 McComas............................................................................................................ 19

4.2.2.6 George ................................................................................................................ 19

4.2.3 Methow Subbasin Primary Sites...............................................................................30

4.2.3.1 MSWA Eightmile............................................................................................... 32

4.2.3.2 Mason (Eightmile) ............................................................................................. 33

4.2.3.3 Lincoln................................................................................................................ 33

4.2.3.4 Twisp Weir......................................................................................................... 34

4.2.3.5 Gold .................................................................................................................... 34

4.2.3.6 Goat Wall ........................................................................................................... 35

4.2.3.7 Pete Creek Pond ................................................................................................ 35

4.2.3.8 Heath .................................................................................................................. 35

4.2.3.9 Parmley .............................................................................................................. 36

4.2.3.10 Lower Twisp..................................................................................................... 36

4.2.3.11 Hancock............................................................................................................ 37

4.2.3.12 Winthrop NFH................................................................................................. 37

4.2.4 Methow Subbasin Back-up Sites ..............................................................................37

4.2.4.1 MSRF Lower Chewuch ..................................................................................... 37

4.2.4.2 Chewuch AF ...................................................................................................... 38

4.2.4.3 Canyon ............................................................................................................... 38

4.2.4.4 Utley ................................................................................................................... 39

4.2.4.5 Newby ................................................................................................................ 39

4.2.4.6 Poorman ............................................................................................................. 39

4.2.4.7 Biddle.................................................................................................................. 40

4.2.4.8 Balky Hill ........................................................................................................... 40

5 IMPACT OF FACILITIES ON FLOOD ELEVATIONS ...................................................... 51

5.1 Significance Criteria.........................................................................................................51

5.2 General Impacts................................................................................................................51

5.2.1 Construction ..............................................................................................................51

5.2.1.1 Impact Avoidance and Mitigation .................................................................... 52

5.2.2 Operation ...................................................................................................................53
Table of Contents 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project iii 100595-01 

5.3 Site-Specific Impacts ........................................................................................................53

5.3.1 Wenatchee Subbasin Primary Sites..........................................................................54

5.3.1.1 Butcher ............................................................................................................... 54

5.3.1.2 Tall Timber......................................................................................................... 54

5.3.1.3 Chikamin............................................................................................................ 54

5.3.1.4 Minnow .............................................................................................................. 55

5.3.1.5 Scheibler............................................................................................................. 55

5.3.2 Wenatchee Subbasin Back-up Sites..........................................................................55

5.3.2.1 Squadroni ........................................................................................................... 55

5.3.2.2 Dryden................................................................................................................ 56

5.3.2.3 George ................................................................................................................ 57

5.3.3 Methow Subbasin Primary Sites...............................................................................57

5.3.3.1 MSWA Eightmile............................................................................................... 58

5.3.3.2 Mason (Eightmile) ............................................................................................. 58

5.3.3.3 Lincoln................................................................................................................ 58

5.3.3.4 Twisp Weir......................................................................................................... 59

5.3.3.5 Gold .................................................................................................................... 59

5.3.4 Methow Subbasin Back-up Sites ..............................................................................59

5.3.4.1 MSRF Lower Chewuch ..................................................................................... 59

5.3.4.2 Chewuch AF ...................................................................................................... 59

5.3.4.3 Canyon ............................................................................................................... 60

5.3.4.4 Utley ................................................................................................................... 60

5.3.4.5 Newby ................................................................................................................ 60

5.4 Combined Impacts ...........................................................................................................60

5.4.1 Proposed Alternative.................................................................................................60

5.4.2 No Action...................................................................................................................62

5.5 Cumulative Impacts .........................................................................................................63

5.5.1 Proposed Alternative.................................................................................................63

5.5.1.1 Wenatchee Subbasin Sites................................................................................. 64

5.5.1.2 Methow Subbasin Sites...................................................................................... 64

5.5.2 No Action...................................................................................................................64

6 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 66
Table of Contents 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project iv 100595-01 

List of Tables

Table 1 Wenatchee Acclimation Sites with Floodplain Development Activities ........ 10

Table 2 Methow Acclimation Sites with Floodplain Development Activities............. 32

Table 3 Combined Impacts of MCCRP Projects............................................................. 62

List of Figures

Figure 1 FIRM 530015 0775 B – June 5, 1989; Butcher, Coulter, Squadroni, and 

Coulter/Roaring Sites 

Figure 2 FIRM 530015 0750 B – June 5, 1989; Tall Timber, White River Springs, and 

Dirty Face Sites 

Figure 3 FIRM 530015 0775B – June 5, 1989; Scheibler Site 

Figure 4 FIRM 530015 0750 B – June 5, 1989; Rohlfing Site 

Figure 5 FIRM 530015 0750 B – June 5, 1989; Two Rivers and McComas Sites 

Figure 6 FIRM 530015 0575 B – June 5, 1989; Clear, Beaver, and George Sites 

Figure 7 FIRM 53001502763 D – September 30, 2004; Brender Site 

Figure 8 FIRM 530015 0787 B – July 2, 2002; Leavenworth NFH Site 

Figure 9 FIRM 5300152740D – September 30, 2004; Dryden Site 

Figure 10 FIRM 530015 0800D – September 30, 2004; Allen Site 

Figure 11 FIRM 530117 0850 C – December 20, 2000; Lincoln, Canyon, and Utley Sites 

Figure 12 FIRM 530117 1200 B – February 10, 1981; Gold Site 

Figure 13 FIRM 530117 0450C – May 2, 1994; Goat Wall Site 

Figure 14 FIRM 530117 0675 D – January 20, 1999; Pete Creek Pond, Winthrop NFH, 

and MSRF Lower Chewuch Sites 

Figure 15 FIRM 530117 0675 D – January 20, 1999; Heath and Biddle Sites 

Figure 16 FIRM 530117 0875 C – December 20, 2000; Lower Twisp Site 

Figure 17 FIRM 530117 0675 D – January 20, 1999; Hancock Site 

Figure 18 530117 0675 D – January 20, 1999; Chewuch AF Site 

Figure 19 530117 0850 C – December 20, 2000; Twisp Weir, Newby, and Poorman Sites 
Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 1 100595-01 

1 SUMMARY

Implementation of the Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project (MCCRP) will likely have 

little or no effect on flood elevations. Where there is an effect, it is likely to be beneficial as 

the acclimation ponds will provide some small amount of additional floodplain storage 

(difference between the existing land surface elevation and the working water surface 

elevation). While minor construction activities will occur at some sites (excavation of ponds 

and ditches, grading of roads to improve winter access, or installation of buried water supply 

pipes), the spoil materials created by these activities will be disposed of outside the 100-year 

floodplain in accordance with the local grading and floodplain management ordinances. 

Consequently, there are not likely to be changes in grades that could direct or diverts flood 

flows affecting properties either upstream or downstream of the individual project sites. 
Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 2 100595-01 

2 INTRODUCTION  

This Flood Impact Analysis report has been prepared to assist with an evaluation of the 

flooding impacts at proposed coho salmon acclimation sites for the Mid-Columbia Coho 

Restoration Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Executive Order 11988 

(Floodplain Management) directs federal agencies to evaluate the potential effects of their 

actions in 100-year flood hazard zones shown on Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) flood insurance rate maps (FIRMs). 

This report has been prepared as a companion document to support the EIS analysis. 

Consequently, project site details such as site locations; project descriptions; and associated 

maps, figures, and photographs are presented in the Brood Capture and Rearing Site 

Descriptions (Appendix 1 of the EIS), the Wenatchee Acclimation Site Descriptions 

(Appendix 2 of the EIS), and the Methow Acclimation Site Descriptions (Appendix 3 of the 

EIS), which were also prepared for the project, and the information is not duplicated in this 

report. 
Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 3 100595-01 

3 METHODS

Consistency of the proposed actions with rules and regulations and impacts to floodplains as 

a result of implementing the proposed actions are evaluated qualitatively. Existing flood 

hazards and potential flooding sources are identified. Where no floodplain mapping has 

occurred or no base flood elevation (BFE) established, potential sources of supplemental 

information are identified. No new hydrologic or hydraulic modeling was completed for this 

analysis. 

Many of the acclimation sites described in the EIS and identified in Section 2 of this report 

are located in or adjacent to special flood hazard areas designated Zone A on FEMA FIRMs. 

As such, these areas do not have BFEs determined. Although BFEs are not provided, the 

community (e.g., Chelan County or Okanogan County) is still responsible for ensuring that 

new development within “approximate” Zone A areas is constructed using methods that will 

minimize flood damages. Additionally, community floodplain management programs 

typically extend their regulations to all lands subject to inundation from any sources; this 

means that in order to obtain grading, building, development, or possibly conditional use 

permits for individual projects of the proposed action, these projects may be required to go 

through the floodplain development permit process. If it were determined that the 

floodplain development permit process is required, there would be a need for substantially 

more detailed analysis performed by a professional civil engineer to determine the BFEs in 

areas mapped Zone A or unmapped areas, as well as to perform an analysis of floodplain 

impacts. These additional analyses would possibly include hydrologic as well as hydraulic 

modeling and surveying. These detailed floodplain analyses are not part of this impact 

evaluation and are beyond the scope of the EIS. 
Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 4 100595-01 

4 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

4.1 Regulatory Environment

4.1.1 Federal Rules and Regulations

4.1.1.1 Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management  

Executive Order 11988 (EO) requires federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the 

long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of 

floodplains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever 

there is a practicable alternative. In accomplishing this objective, "each agency shall provide 

leadership and shall take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of 

floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and 

beneficial values served by floodplains in carrying out its responsibilities" for the following 

actions: 

• Acquiring, managing, and disposing of federal lands and facilities 

• Providing federally-undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements 

• Conducting federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not 

limited to water and related land resources planning, regulation, and licensing 

activities 

The guidelines address an eight-step process that agencies should carry out as part of their 

decision-making on projects that have potential impacts to or within the floodplain. The 

eight steps, which are summarized below, reflect the decision-making process required in 

Section 2(a) of the EO. 

1. Determine if a proposed action is in the base floodplain (that area with a 1 percent or 

greater chance of flooding in any given year). 

2. Conduct early public review, including public notice. 

3. Identify and evaluate practicable alternatives to locating in the base floodplain, 

including alternative sites outside of the floodplain. 

4. Identify impacts of the proposed action. 

5. If impacts cannot be avoided, develop measures to minimize the impacts and restore 

and preserve the floodplain, as appropriate. 

6. Re-evaluate alternatives. 
 Existing Environment 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 5 100595-01 

7. Present the findings and a public explanation. 

8. Implement the action. 

Among a number of things, the Interagency Task Force on Floodplain Management clarified 

the EO with respect to development in floodplains, emphasizing the requirement for 

agencies to select alternative sites for projects outside the floodplains, if practicable, and to 

develop measures to mitigate unavoidable impacts. 

4.1.1.2 National Flood Insurance Program

Congress, alarmed by increasing costs of disaster relief, passed the National Flood Insurance 

Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. The intent of these acts is to 

reduce the need for large, publicly funded flood control structures and disaster relief by 

restricting development on floodplains. 

FEMA administers the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which provides subsidized 

flood insurance to communities that comply with federal regulations that limit development 

in floodplains. The agency issues FIRMs for communities participating in the flood 

insurance program. These maps delineate flood hazard zones in the community. 

The primary requirement for community participation in the NFIP is the adoption and 

enforcement of floodplain management regulations that meet the minimum standards of the 

NFIP regulations in Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 60.3. These 

minimum standards are also codified by the State of Washington as described in the 

following section. 

Flood zones are geographic areas that FEMA has defined according to varying levels of flood 

risk. These zones are depicted on a community's FIRM or Flood Hazard Boundary Map. 

Each zone reflects the severity or type of flooding in the area. 

4.1.1.2.1 Moderate to Low Risk Areas

Zones B, C, and X include areas outside the 1 percent annual chance floodplain; areas of 1 

percent annual chance sheet flow flooding where average depths are less than 1 foot; areas of 
 Existing Environment 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 6 100595-01 

1 percent annual chance stream flooding where the contributing drainage area is less than 1 

square mile; or areas protected from the 1 percent annual chance flood by levees. No BFEs or 

depths are shown within this zone. 

4.1.1.2.2 High Risk Areas

Zone A includes areas with a 1 percent annual chance of flooding. Because detailed analyses 

are not performed for such areas, no depths or BFEs are shown within these zones. 

Zones AE and A1-A30 include areas with a 1 percent annual chance of flooding. In most 

instances, BFEs derived from detailed analyses are shown at selected intervals within these 

zones. 

Zone AH includes areas with a 1 percent annual chance of shallow flooding, usually in the 

form of a pond, with an average depth ranging from 1 to 3 feet. BFEs derived from detailed 

analyses are shown at selected intervals within these zones. 

Zone AO includes river or stream flood hazard areas, and areas with a 1 percent or greater 

chance of shallow flooding each year, usually in the form of sheet flow, with an average 

depth ranging from 1 to 3 feet. Average flood depths derived from detailed analyses are 

shown within these zones. 

Zone AR includes areas with a temporarily increased flood risk due to the building or 

restoration of a flood control system (such as a levee or a dam). 

Zone A99 includes areas with a 1 percent annual chance of flooding that will be protected by 

a federal flood control system where construction has reached specified legal requirements. 

No depths or BFEs are shown within these zones. 

4.1.1.2.3 Undetermined Risk Areas

Zone D includes areas with possible but undetermined flood hazards, and no flood hazard 

analysis has been conducted. Flood insurance rates are commensurate with the uncertainty 

of the flood risk. 
 Existing Environment 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 7 100595-01 

4.1.2 State Rules and Regulations

Chapter 86.16 Revised Code of Washington (RCW) establishes state-wide authority for 

floodplain management through the adoption and administration by local governments of 

regulatory programs that are compliant with the minimum standards of the NFIP. Chapter 

86.16 RCW directs the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) to establish 

minimum state requirements for floodplain management that equal the NFIP minimum 

standards; to provide technical assistance and information to local governments related to 

administration of their floodplain management ordinances and the NFIP; to provide 

assistance to local governments in identifying the location of the 100-year (base) floodplain; 

and to allow for the issuance of regulatory orders. 

Floodplains are also regulated by both the Ecology and the Department of Commerce 

(Commerce) via the Shoreline Management Act of 1971 (SMA) and the Growth Management 

Act of 1990 (GMA), respectively. The SMA Guidelines translate the broad policies of RCW 

90.58.020 into standards for regulation of shoreline uses including the floodplains of larger 

rivers. 

Commerce regulates floodplain development through the GMA. Local governments, 

counties, and cities must develop Comprehensive Plans that guide and regulate development 

in the community. The GMA requires local communities to develop and implement Critical 

Areas Ordinances; floodplains are one such critical area. 

The state agencies provide guidelines to local agencies and provide oversight to ensure that 

the minimum standards set forth in the rules and regulations are implemented at the local 

level. 

4.1.3 Local Rules and Regulations

As described previously, the primary requirement for community participation in the NFIP 

is the adoption and enforcement of floodplain management regulations that meet the 

minimum standards. The intent of floodplain management regulations is to minimize the 

potential for flood damages to new construction and to avoid aggravating existing flood 

hazard conditions that could increase potential flood damages to existing structures. 
 Existing Environment 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 8 100595-01 

4.1.3.1 Chelan County

Chelan County Code “Chapter 3.20 Flood Hazard Development” regulates development in 

flood prone areas of the county (Chelan County 2009). The ordinance prohibits 

development within the floodway, but allows development in the floodplain outside the 

floodway, as long the cumulative effect of the proposed and existing development does not 

increase water surface elevation of the BFE by more than 1 foot at any point. Special 

provisions apply for impacts inside the FEMA-designated shallow flooding areas (Zones AH 

and AO), where developments are allowed but restricted. The ordinance does not impose 

any restriction on a development in the FEMA-designated Zone X. Generally, Chelan 

County relies on the most recent FIRMs published by FEMA to designate areas of special 

flood hazard. When BFE data have not been provided or flood hazard areas established, the 

Chelan County shall obtain, review, and reasonably use any BFE data and floodway data 

available from federal, state, or other sources, in order to administer the development 

standards. Topographic data and hydrologic and hydraulic analyses by a professionally 

licensed surveyor and/or professionally licensed engineer are required to determine the BFE 

and floodway for a development permit. 

4.1.3.2 Okanogan County

Okanogan County Code “Chapter 15.08 Floodplain Management” regulates development in 

flood prone areas of the county (Okanogan County 2008). The ordinance prohibits 

development within the floodway, but allows development in the floodplain outside the 

floodway, as long the cumulative effect of the proposed and existing development does not 

increase water surface elevation of the BFE by more than 1 foot at any point. Special 

provisions apply for impacts inside the FEMA-designated shallow flooding areas (Zones AH 

and AO), where developments are allowed but restricted. The ordinance does not impose 

any restriction on a development in the FEMA-designated Zone X. Generally, Okanogan 

County relies on the most recent FIRMs published by FEMA to designate areas of special 

flood hazard, but the best available information shall be used if these maps are not available 

or sufficient as required by the State of Washington (RCW 86.16.051). Topographic data and 

hydrologic and hydraulic analyses by a professionally licensed surveyor and/or professionally 

licensed engineer are required for development in non-detailed study areas (Zone A). 
 Existing Environment 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 9 100595-01 

4.2 Existing Flood Information

4.2.1 Wenatchee Subbasin Primary Sites

The climate of Wenatchee subbasin is characterized by warm, dry summers and relatively 

cold winters. The average annual precipitation in the lower elevations is just greater than 11 

inches, increasing with elevation to about 35 inches. The bulk of this precipitation falls as 

snow, which reaches 100 inches or more in the upper watersheds. The Wenatchee River and 

other perennial streams follow an annual cycle with peak stream flow in April and May and 

low stream flow in August and September. Normally, stream flow in many of the smaller 

drainages is seasonally intermittent, while drainages in lower elevations are often dry 

(Chelan County Department of Emergency Management 2006). 

Two types of flooding common in the basin are stage and flash flooding. Stage flooding is 

usually seen during periods of heavy rains, especially upon existing snow packs during early 

winter and late spring. Stage flooding problem areas occur along the Wenatchee River near 

its confluence with Icicle Creek, the headwaters of the Wenatchee River, and the confluence 

area of the Wenatchee River (Chelan County Department of Emergency Management 2006). 

Flash floods are more likely to occur during the summer months, in thunderstorm season. 

The primary cause of flash flooding, which can occur in any drainage area in the county, is 

high-intensity rainfall. Although infrequent, and usually of short duration, high-intensity 

rainfall has been seen in all seasons in the past. Depending upon the characteristics of a 

particular watershed, peak flows may be reached from less than 1 hour to several hours after 

rain begins. The debris flows and mudslides accompanying rapid runoff conditions make 

narrow canyons and alluvial fans at the mouths of the canyons extremely hazardous areas 

(Chelan County Department of Emergency Management 2006). 

The most recent floodplain mapping information is available from the FEMA Flood 

Insurance Study (FIS) for Chelan County, Washington (FEMA 2004a) and the associated 

FIRMs. The following sections provide a brief narrative describing the location of each 

project site with respect to mapped floodplains as well as identifying the FIRM panel and 

effective date; the special flood hazard zone, if any; BFEs, if any; stream gage information 

that could be used to extrapolate the BFE, if any; and potential sources of additional 
 Existing Environment 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 10 100595-01 

information, which are typically county road crossings immediately upstream or downstream 

of the project that may have hydrologic and hydraulic data that were used in the crossing 

design. 

Table 1 lists all the Wenatchee subbasin acclimation sites, the floodplain development 

activities associated with each project, and the likely need for a floodplain development 

permit. As stated previously, where the floodplain development permit process is required, 

there would be a need for a professional civil engineer to perform substantially more detailed 

analysis of floodplain impacts. These detailed floodplain analyses are not part of this impact 

evaluation and are beyond the scope of the EIS. 

Table 1

Wenatchee Acclimation Sites with Floodplain Development Activities

Wenatchee River Subbasin, in Chelan County, Washington

Site Development Activities in Floodplain

Floodplain

Development

Permit Required

Butcher Excavation of an open channel Yes

Tall Timber Excavation of Napeequa River bank and pipeline corridor Yes

Chikamin Excavation of a pond, Chikamin Creek bank, open channel,

and pipeline corridor Yes

Minnow Excavation of bed and banks of Minnow Creek Yes

Scheibler Excavation of bed and bank of Chumstick Creek Yes

Coulter None No

Rohlfing None No

White River Springs None No

Dirty Face None No

Two Rivers None No

Clear None No

Beaver None No

Brender None No

Leavenworth National Fish

Hatchery None No

Squadroni Excavation of pond and open channels Yes

Dryden Possible development of water quality treatment

wetlands Maybe
 Existing Environment 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 11 100595-01 

Wenatchee River Subbasin, in Chelan County, Washington

Site Development Activities in Floodplain

Floodplain

Development

Permit Required

Allen None No

Coulter/Roaring None No

McComas None No

George

Excavation and construction of a fish hatchery and

associated facilities Yes

4.2.1.1 Butcher

The Butcher site is located on Butcher Creek at its confluence with Nason Creek and lies just 

north of Highway 2. The property is in the 100-year floodplain, designated as Zone AH by 

FEMA (FEMA 1989b). It appears that the primary source of flooding is backwater from 

Nason Creek. 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Butcher Creek and Nason Creek 

• FIRM: 530015 0775 B June 5, 1989 (Figure 1; FEMA 1989b) 

• Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA): AH 

• BFE: 2,140-2,141 feet (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 [NGVD29]) 

• Stream Gage Data: None 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: Washington State Department of 

Transportation (WSDOT) – State Route (SR) 2 Crossing of Nason Creek; Chelan 

County Public Works – Nason Ridge Road crossing of Nason and Butcher Creeks 

4.2.1.2 Tall Timber

The Tall Timber site is located on the Napeequa River near its confluence with the White 

River. FEMA has designated a special flood hazard area along the White River (Zone A) that 

extends upstream of this confluence (FEMA 1989a). The site is located outside the special 

flood hazard area. 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Napeequa River 

• FIRM: 530015 0750 B June 5, 1989 (Figure 2; FEMA 1989a) 

• SFHA: None 

• BFE: None 
 Existing Environment 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 12 100595-01 

• Stream Gage Data: None 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: Chelan County Public Works – 

County Road 167 crossing of Napeequa River 

4.2.1.3 Chikamin

The Chikamin site is along Chikamin Creek, which is a tributary of the Chiwawa River. 

Chikamin Creek will supply water to the Chikamin Pond, which would be located in the 

right floodplain of Chikamin Creek. FEMA has not determined the 100-year special flood 

hazard areas on the Chiwawa River in the vicinity of the site. 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Chikamin and Minnow Creeks 

• FIRM: None 

• SFHA: None 

• BFE: None 

• Stream Gage Data: None 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: Chelan County Public Works – 

Chikamin Ridge Road crossing of Minnow Creek and Chiwawa River Road crossing 

of Chikamin Creek 

4.2.1.4 Minnow

The Minnow site is along Minnow Creek South, which is tributary to Chikamin Creek. The 

outflow from a complex of beaver ponds located on Minnow Creek just downstream of the 

Chikamin Ridge Road crossing is conveyed by two creeks: Minnow Creek North and 

Minnow Creek South. Minnow Creek North discharges directly to the Chiwawa River. 

Minnow Creek South flows into Chikamin Creek. Minnow Pond is planned on Minnow 

Creek South before its confluence with Chikamin Creek. FEMA has not determined the 

100-year special flood hazard areas on the Chiwawa River in the vicinity of the site. 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Chikamin and Minnow Creeks 

• FIRM: None 

• SFHA: None 

• BFE: None 

• Stream Gage Data: None 
 Existing Environment 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 13 100595-01 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: Chelan County Public Works – 

Chikamin Ridge Road crossing of Minnow Creek and Chiwawa River Road crossing 

of Chikamin Creek 

4.2.1.5 Scheibler

The Scheibler site is located on Chumstick Creek, 8 miles upstream of its confluence with the 

Wenatchee River. FEMA has not studied or produced a floodplain map of this reach of the 

creek. It appears that the site is about 2,000 feet upstream of the limits of the FIS, where a 

BFE of 1,609 feet (NGVD29) was established. 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Chumstick Creek 

• FIRM: 530015 0775 B June 5, 1989 (Figure 3; FEMA 1989b) 

• SFHA: None 

• BFE: None 

• Stream Gage Data: None 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: Chelan County Public Works – 

Chumstick Road crossing of Chumstick Creek 

4.2.1.6 Coulter

The Coulter site is located on a parcel of rural residential property adjacent to Coulter Creek, 

approximately 1,500 feet upstream from its confluence with Nason Creek. The property is in 

the 100-year floodplain, designated as Zone AH by FEMA (FEMA 1989b). It appears that the 

source of flooding may either be backwater from Nason Creek or undersized culverts 

through the railroad grade resulting in flooding from the combined flows of Coulter and 

Roaring Creeks. 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Coulter, Roaring, and Nason Creeks 

• FIRM: 530015 0775 B June 5, 1989 (Figure 1; FEMA 1989b) 

• SFHA: AH 

• BFE: 2,142 feet (NGVD29) 

• Stream Gage Data: None 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: WSDOT – SR 2 Crossing of Nason 

Creek; Chelan County Public Works – Coulter Creek Road crossings of Coulter and 
 Existing Environment 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 14 100595-01 

Roaring Creeks, W. Dardenells Road crossing of Coulter Creek 

4.2.1.7 Rohlfing

The Rohlfing site is located on an unnamed seasonal stream that discharges into Nason 

Creek, near its confluence with Mahar Creek. FEMA has designated the 100-year floodplain 

of Nason Creek as Zone A3 in the vicinity of the site. The proposed site is located outside the 

special flood hazard area (Zone A3) 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Unnamed Creek and Nason Creek 

• FIRM: 530015 0750 B June 5, 1989 (Figure 4; FEMA 1989a) 

• SFHA: None 

• BFE: 2,230 feet (NGVD29) 

• Stream Gage Data: None 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: Chelan County Public Works – 

White Pine Road crossing of unnamed tributary 

4.2.1.8 White River Springs

The White River Springs site is located along the left bank of the White River (River Mile 

[RM] 8) downstream of the confluence of two unnamed creeks. The property is in the 100-

year floodplain, designated as Zone A by FEMA (FEMA 1989a). It appears that the White 

River is the source of flooding. 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: White River 

• FIRM: 530015 0750 B June 5, 1989 (Figure 2; FEMA 1989a) 

• SFHA: A 

• BFE: None 

• Stream Gage Data: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gage 12454000 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: Chelan County Public Works – 

County Road 167 intersection with National Forest Development Road (NFDR) 6434; 

U.S. Forest Service – NFDR 6435 crossing of the White River 
 Existing Environment 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 15 100595-01 

4.2.1.9 Dirty Face

The Dirty Face site is located at the confluence of Dirty Face Creek and White River (near 

RM 7). The property is in the 100-year floodplain, designated as Zone A by FEMA (FEMA 

1989a). It appears that the White River is the source of flooding. 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: White River 

• FIRM: 530015 0750 B June 5, 1989 (Figure 2; FEMA 1989a) 

• SFHA: A 

• BFE: None 

• Stream Gage Data: USGS gage 12454000 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: Chelan County Public Works – 

County Road 167 crossing of Dirty Face Creek; U.S. Forest Service – NFDR 6435 

crossing of the White River 

4.2.1.10 Two Rivers

The Two Rivers site is located on the left overbank of Little Wenatchee River, approximately 

1.5 miles upstream of its mouth at Lake Wenatchee. The site has been recently used as a 

gravel pit and settling basin. The property is in the 100-year floodplain, designated as Zone 

A by FEMA (FEMA 1989a). It appears that the site may be subject to flooding from either 

the Little Wenatchee River or Lake Wenatchee as a result of high flows in the White River 

and Little Wenatchee River. 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Little Wenatchee River, White River, Lake Wenatchee 

• FIRM: 530015 0750 B June 5, 1989 (Figure 5; FEMA 1989a) 

• SFHA: A 

• BFE: None 

• Stream Gage Data: None 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: Chelan County Public Works – Little 

Wenatchee River Road 

4.2.1.11 Clear

The Clear site is located on Clear Creek, a tributary of the Chiwawa River, approximately 1/2 

mile upstream of its confluence. There is no designated floodplain (FEMA 1989c). 
 Existing Environment 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 16 100595-01 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Clear Creek 

• FIRM: 530015 0575 B June 5, 1989 (Figure 6; FEMA 1989c) 

• SFHA: None 

• Stream Gage Data: None 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: Chelan County Public Works – 

Chiwawa River Road crossing of Clear Creek 

4.2.1.12 Beaver

The Beaver site is located on Beaver Creek, approximately 1/2 mile upstream of its 

confluence with the Wenatchee River. The site is outside the designated floodplain (FEMA 

1989c). 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Beaver Creek 

• FIRM: 530015 0575 B June 5, 1989 (Figure 6; FEMA 1989c) 

• SFHA: None 

• BFE: None 

• Stream Gage Data: None 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: Chelan County Public Works – 

Chiwawa River Road crossing of Beaver Creek 

4.2.1.13 Brender

The Brender site is located on Brender Creek near the town of Cashmere. Brender Creek 

flows into Mission Creek, a tributary to the Wenatchee River (RM 10). The site is outside 

the designated floodplain (FEMA 2004c). 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Brender Creek 

• FIRM: 53001502763 D September 30, 2004 (Figure 7; FEMA 2004c) 

• SFHA: None 

• BFE: None 

• Stream Gage Data: None 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: Chelan County Public Works – 

Kimber Road or Evergreen Drive crossings of Brender Creek 
 Existing Environment 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 17 100595-01 

4.2.1.14 Leavenworth NFH

The Leavenworth NFH site is located at the existing U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

hatchery on Icicle Creek, tributary to Wenatchee River, south of Leavenworth. The 

hatchery is outside the special flood hazard area (Zone AE). The Icicle Creek BFE just 

downstream of the hatchery was estimated at 1,122 feet NGVD (FEMA 2002b). 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Icicle Creek 

• FIRM: 530015 0787 B July 2, 2002 (Figure 8; FEMA 2002b) 

• SFHA: None 

• BFE: 1,122 feet (NGVD29) 

• Stream Gage Data: USGS gage 12458000 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: USFWS 

4.2.2 Wenatchee Subbasin Back‐up Sites

4.2.2.1 Squadroni

The Squadroni site is located adjacent to Nason Creek, near its confluence with Gill Creek. 

FEMA has designated the 100-year floodplain of Nason Creek as Zone A3 in the vicinity of 

the site (FEMA 1989a). The proposed site is located outside the special flood hazard area 

(Zone A3) 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Nason Creek 

• FIRM: 530015 0750 B June 5, 1989 (Figure 1; FEMA 1989a) 

• SFHA: None 

• BFE: 2,156 feet (NGVD29) 

• Stream Gage Data: None 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: Chelan County Public Works – Gill 

Creek Road crossing of Nason Creek 

4.2.2.2 Dryden

The Dryden site is on Peshastin Creek near its confluence with the Wenatchee River. 

Evaluation of flow and water surface elevation at the Dryden site is provided in a separate 

document Flood Evaluation Near Dryden Dam (Appendix 8.1). FEMA has designated a 

special flood hazard area along Peshastin Creek (Zone A). 
 Existing Environment 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 18 100595-01 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Peshastin Creek and Wenatchee River 

• FIRM: 530015 2740 D September 30, 2004 (Figure 9) 

• SFHA: A 

• BFE: 990 feet (NGVD29) 

• Stream Gage Data: None 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: Flood Evaluation near Dryden Dam 

(Appendix 8.1) 

4.2.2.3 Allen

The Allen site is located west of Peshastin Creek, just upstream of the confluence with Allen 

Creek. The site is outside the designated floodplain (FEMA 2004b). 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Peshastin Creek 

• FIRM: 530015 0800D September 30, 2004 (Figure 10; FEMA 2004b) 

• SFHA: AH 

• BFE: None 

• Stream Gage Data: None 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: Chelan County Public Works – 

Development permits for properties on Hansel and Allen Lanes 

4.2.2.4 Coulter/Roaring

The Coulter/Roaring site is located on Roaring Creek near its confluence with Coulter Creek, 

which then discharges to Nason Creek. The property is in the 100-year floodplain, 

designated as Zone AH by FEMA (FEMA 1989b). It appears that the source of flooding may 

be either back water from Nason Creek or undersized culverts through the railroad grade 

resulting in flooding from the combined flows of Coulter and Roaring Creeks. 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Roaring, Coulter, and Nason Creeks 

• FIRM: 530015 0775 B June 5, 1989 (Figure 1; FEMA 1989b) 

• SFHA: AH 

• BFE: 2,142 feet (NGVD29) 

• Stream Gage Data: None 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: WSDOT – SR 2 Crossing of Nason 
 Existing Environment 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 19 100595-01 

Creek; Chelan County Public Works – Coulter Creek Road crossings of Coulter and 

Roaring Creeks 

4.2.2.5 McComas

The McComas site is located on the left overbank of White River near the confluence of 

Siverly Creek, approximately 1 mile upstream of its mouth at Lake Wenatchee. The property 

is in the 100-year floodplain, designated as Zone A by FEMA (FEMA 1989a). It appears that 

the site may be subject to flooding from either the White River or Lake Wenatchee as a 

result of high flows in the White River and Little Wenatchee River. 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Little Wenatchee River, White River, Lake Wenatchee 

• FIRM: 530015 0750 B June 5, 1989 (Figure 5; FEMA 1989a) 

• SFHA: A 

• BFE: None 

• Stream Gage Data: None 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: Chelan County Public Works – Little 

Wenatchee River Road crossing of the White River 

4.2.2.6 George

The George site is located on the right overbank of the Wenatchee River. The property is in 

the 100-year floodplain, designated as Zone A3 by FEMA (FEMA 1989c). It appears that the 

site is subject to flooding from the Wenatchee River. 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Wenatchee River 

• FIRM: 530015 0575B June 5, 1989 (Figure 6; FEMA 1989c) 

• SFHA: A3 

• BFE: 1871 feet (NGVD1929) 

• Stream Gage Data: USGS 12455000, Wenatchee River below Wenatchee Lake, and 

12457000, Wenatchee River at Plain 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: WSDOT – State Route 207 crossing 

of the Wenatchee River 
FIRM 530015 0775 B – June 5, 1989; Butcher, Coulter, Squadro

Mid‐Colum

Squadroni Site 

Butcher Site 

Coulter/Roaring Site SiteCoulter Site
F FIRM 530015 0750 B – June 5, 1989; Tall Timber, White Rive

Mid‐Colum

Tall Timber Site 

White River Springs Site Dirty 

Face Site 
FIRM 530015 0775B 

Mid‐Colum

Scheibler Site
FIRM 530015 0750 B 

Mid‐Colum

Rohlfing Site
FIRM 530015 0750 B – June 5, 1989; Tw

Mid‐Colum

Two Rivers Site

White River 

Little Wenatchee River 

McComas Site 
FIRM 530015 0575 B – June 5, 1989; Cl

Mid‐Colum

Clear Site

Beaver Site

George Site 
FIRM 53001502763 D – Sept

Mid‐Colum

Brender Site 
FIRM 530015 0787 B – July 2

Mid‐Colum

Leavenworth NFH Site
FIRM 5300152740D – Sep

Mid‐Colum

Dryden Site
FIRM 530015 0800D – Se

Mid‐Colum

Allen Site
 Existing Environment 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 30 090595-01 

4.2.3 Methow Subbasin Primary Sites

The climate of Methow River subbasin is characterized by warm, dry summers and relatively 

cold winters. The average annual precipitation in the lower elevations is just greater than 11 

inches, increasing with elevation to about 35 inches. The bulk of this precipitation falls as 

snow, which reaches 100 inches or more in the upper watersheds. The Methow River and 

other perennial streams follow an annual cycle with peak stream flow in April and May and 

low stream flow in August and September. Normally, stream flow in many of the smaller 

drainages is seasonally intermittent, while drainages in lower elevations are often dry 

(Okanogan County Department of Emergency Management 2009). 

Two types of flooding common in the basin are stage and flash flooding. Stage flooding is 

usually seen during periods of heavy rains, especially upon existing snow packs during early 

winter and late spring. Stage flooding problem areas occur along the Methow River, 

especially where the Twisp River and Chewuch River join (Okanogan County Department of 

Emergency Management 2009). 

Flash floods are more likely to occur during the summer months, in thunderstorm season. 

The primary cause of flash flooding, which can occur in any drainage area in the county, is 

high-intensity rainfall. Although infrequent, and usually of short duration, high-intensity 

rainfall has been seen in all seasons in the past. Depending upon the characteristics of a 

particular watershed, peak flows may be reached from less than 1 hour to several hours after 

rain begins. The debris flows and mudslides accompanying rapid runoff conditions make 

narrow canyons and alluvial fans at the mouths of the canyons extremely hazardous areas. 

Present problem areas for flash flooding include drainages in the Methow/Twisp area where 

forest fires occurred in the recent past (Okanogan County Department of Emergency 

Management 2009). 

The most recent floodplain mapping information for the Methow subbasin sites was available 

from the FEMA FIS for Okanogan County, Washington (FEMA 2003), and the associated 

FIRMs. The following sections provide a brief narrative describing the location of each 

project site with respect to mapped floodplains as well as identifying the FIRM panel and 

effective date; the special flood hazard zone, if any; BFEs, if any; stream gage information 
 Existing Environment 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 31 090595-01 

that could be used to extrapolate the BFE, if any; and potential sources of additional 

information, which are typically county road crossings immediately upstream or downstream 

of the project that may have hydrologic and hydraulic data that were used in the crossing 

design. 

Table 2 lists all the Methow subbasin acclimation sites, the floodplain development activities 

associated with each project, and the likely need for a floodplain development permit. As 

stated previously, where the floodplain development permit process is required, there would 

be a need for substantially more detailed analysis performed by a professional civil engineer 

to perform an analysis of floodplain impacts. These detailed floodplain analyses are not part 

of this impact evaluation and are beyond the scope of the EIS. 

 
 Existing Environment 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 32 090595-01 

Table 2

Methow Acclimation Sites with Floodplain Development Activities

Methow River Subbasin, in Okanogan County, Washington

Site Development Activities in Floodplain

Floodplain

Development

Permit Required

Methow State Wildlife Area ‐

Eightmile None No

Mason (Eightmile) None No

Lincoln Excavation of an open channel and pipeline

corridor Yes

Twisp Weir Excavation of pond and pipeline corridor Yes

Gold None No

Goat Wall None No

Pete Creek Pond None No

Heath None No

Parmley None No

Lower Twisp None No

Hancock None No

Winthrop National Fish

Hatchery None No

Methow Salmon Recovery

Foundation ‐ Lower Chewuch Excavation of a pond and open channels Yes

Chewuch Acclimation Facility   Excavation of the Chewuch River bank, pond

and pipeline corridors Yes

Canyon None No

Utley Excavation of outlet channel to the Twisp River Yes

Newby Excavation of pond and pipeline corridors Yes

Poorman None No

Biddle None No

Balky Hill None No

4.2.3.1 MSWA Eightmile

The MSWA Eightmile site is located on an existing, disconnected side channel of the 

Chewuch River, approximately 1/2 mile upstream of Eightmile Creek confluence with the 

Chewuch River. FEMA studied the Chewuch River from its confluence with the Methow 
 Existing Environment 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 33 090595-01 

River upstream to the Cub Creek confluence, which is several miles downstream of the 

project site. FEMA has not mapped a special flood hazard zone near the site. 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Chewuch River 

• FIRM: None 

• SFHA: None 

• BFE: None 

• Stream Gage Data: None 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: Okanogan County Public Works and 

U.S. Forest Service – Forest Development Road (FDR) 51, possible bank stabilization 

projects along Chewuch River 

4.2.3.2 Mason (Eightmile)

The Mason (Eightmile) site is located just downstream of the mouth of Eightmile Creek. 

FEMA studied the Chewuch River from its confluence with the Methow River upstream to 

the Cub Creek confluence, which is several miles downstream of the project site. FEMA has 

not mapped a special flood hazard zone near the site. 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Chewuch River 

• FIRM: None 

• SFHA: None 

• BFE: None 

• Stream Gage Data: None 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: Okanogan County Public Works and 

U.S. Forest Service – FDR 51, possible bank stabilization projects along Chewuch 

River 

4.2.3.3 Lincoln

The Lincoln site is located on the Twisp River. The site appears to be within the special 

flood hazard area designated along the Twisp River (Zone A; FEMA 2000a). 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Twisp River 

• FIRM: 530117 0850 C December 20, 2000 (Figure 11; FEMA 2000a) 

• SFHA: A 
 Existing Environment 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 34 090595-01 

• BFE: None 

• Stream Gage Data: USGS Gage 12448998 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: U.S. Forest Service – NFDR crossing 

of Twisp River near War Creek Campground 

4.2.3.4 Twisp Weir

The Twisp Weir site is located adjacent to the Twisp River. Portions of the site appear to be 

within the special flood hazard area designated along the Twisp River (Zone A, FEMA 

2000a). 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Twisp River 

• FIRM: 530117 0850 C December 20, 2000 (Figure 19; FEMA 2000a) 

• SFHA: A 

• BFE: None 

• Stream Gage Data: USGS Gage 12448998 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: Twisp Valley Power and Irrigation 

Company, operators of the diversion weir on the Twisp River. 

4.2.3.5 Gold

The Gold site, located on South Fork Gold Creek just upstream of its confluence with Gold 

Creek, is approximately 2 miles upstream from the Gold Creek confluence with the Methow 

River. No flow monitoring data are available for Gold Creek. FEMA has not studied Gold 

Creek or its tributaries. The Gold site is not within a designated special flood hazard area. 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: South Fork Gold Creek 

• FIRM: 530117 1200 B February 10, 1981 (Figure 12; FEMA 1981) 

• SFHA: None 

• BFE: None 

• Stream Gage Data: None 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: Okanogan County Public Works – 

South Gold Creek Road crossing of Gold Creek 
 Existing Environment 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 35 090595-01 

4.2.3.6 Goat Wall

The Goat Wall site is located at a disconnected side channel system on the Methow River 

(RM 70), upstream of the mouth of Gate Creek. The site appears to be within the special 

flood hazard area designated by FEMA (Zone A2; FEMA 1994). 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Gate Creek and Methow River 

• FIRM: 530117 0450C May 2, 1994 (Figure 13; FEMA 1994) 

• SFHA: A2 

• BFE: 2,250 to 2,260 feet (NGVD29) 

• Stream Gage Data: None 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: None 

4.2.3.7 Pete Creek Pond

The Pete Creek Pond site is part of a disconnected side channel system of the Chewuch River 

located upstream of Pete Creek. The site is located within the special flood hazard area 

designated by FEMA (Zone A3; FEMA 1999). 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Chewuch River 

• FIRM: 530117 0675 D January 20, 1999 (Figure 14; FEMA 1999) 

• SFHA: A3 

• BFE: 1,848 to 1,852 feet (NGVD29) 

• Stream Gage Data: USGS gage 12448000 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: Okanogan County Public Works – 

development permits for the Windhaven Golf Club 

 

4.2.3.8 Heath

The Heath site is part of the Heath Springs complex located between the Methow River (RM 

55) and Highway 20. The site is within the special flood hazard area mapped by FEMA 

(Zone AE; FEMA 1999). 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Methow River 

• FIRM: 530117 0675 D January 20, 1999 (Figure 15; FEMA 1999) 

• SFHA: AE 

• BFE: 1,830 (NGVD29) 
 Existing Environment 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 36 090595-01 

• Stream Gage Data: USGS gages 12447370 and 12448500 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: Okanogan County Public Works – 

access roads from Highway 20 

4.2.3.9 Parmley

The Parmley site is located on Beaver Creek, about 8 miles upstream of its confluence with 

the Methow River. USGS maintains several flow monitoring gages: Gage 12449600 (Beaver 

Creek below South Fork near Twisp) is close to the site. FEMA has not studied or designated 

special flood hazard areas for Beaver Creek. Anchor QEA, LLC, completed detailed 

hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of Beaver Creek between RM 6.2 and RM 7.0, downstream 

of this site (Anchor QEA 2008). 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Beaver Creek 

• FIRM: None 

• SFHA: None 

• BFE: None 

• Stream Gage Data: USGS Gage 12449600 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: Anchor QEA 2008; Okanogan County 

Public Works – Beaver Creek Road crossings of Beaver Creek 

4.2.3.10 Lower Twisp

The Lower Twisp site is located in the Twisp River floodplain just upstream of the Town of 

Twisp and its confluence with the Methow River (RM 40). The site is within the FEMA 

designated special flood hazard area (Zone A3; FEMA 2000b). 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Twisp River 

• FIRM: 530117 0875 C December 20, 2000 (Figure 16; FEMA 2000b) 

• SFHA: A3 

• BFE: 1,623 to 1,627 feet (NGVD29) 

• Stream Gage Data: None 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: Okanogan County Public Works 

 
 Existing Environment 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 37 090595-01 

4.2.3.11 Hancock

The Hancock site is located on Hancock Creek, a small spring-fed tributary of the Methow 

River (RM 60). Hancock Creek originates at a large spring 0.8 mile upstream from the 

Methow River. The site is located outside of the special flood hazard area designated by 

FEMA along the Methow River (Zone A2; FEMA 1999). The Methow River BFE is 

estimated between 1,922 feet and 1,925 feet (NGVD29) at the mouth of Hancock Creek. 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Hancock Creek 

• FIRM: 530117 0675 D January 20, 1999 (Figure 17; FEMA 1999) 

• SFHA: None 

• BFE: None 

• Stream Gage Data: None 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: Okanogan County Public Works – 

Wolf Creek Road crossing of Hancock Creek 

4.2.3.12 Winthrop NFH

The Winthrop NFH site is located on the Methow River in the Town of Winthrop at an 

existing NFH site. Methow River flows have been recorded by USGS at the nearby gage 

(12448500). The NFH site is within the FEMA designated special flood hazard area (Zone 

A4; FEMA 1999). 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Methow River 

• FIRM: 530117 0675 D January 20, 1999 (Figure 14; FEMA 1999) 

• SFHA: A4 

• BFE: 1,748 feet (NGVD29) 

• Stream Gage Data: USGS Gage 12448500 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: Okanogan County Public Works 

4.2.4 Methow Subbasin Back‐up Sites

4.2.4.1 MSRF Lower Chewuch

The MSRF Lower Chewuch site is located on the Chewuch River approximately 1 mile 

upstream of its confluence with the Methow River. FEMA designated a special flood hazard 

area (Zone A5) along the Chewuch in the vicinity of the site, but the site is outside this flood 
 Existing Environment 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 38 090595-01 

hazard area (FEMA 1999). The Chewuch River BFEs are estimated between 1,757 and 1,760 

feet (NGVD29) in the vicinity of the site. 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Chewuch River 

• FIRM: 530117 0675 D January 20, 1999 (Figure 14; FEMA 1999) 

• SFHA: None 

• BFE: None 

• Stream Gage Data: None 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: Okanogan County Public Works 

4.2.4.2 Chewuch AF

The Chewuch AF site is located in the left floodplain of the Chewuch River on to the north 

of the Eastside Chewack Road bridge crossing. The site is located in a special flood hazard 

area (Zone A3; FEMA 1999). 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Coulter Creek and Nason Creek 

• FIRM: 530117 0675 D January 20, 1999 (Figure 18; FEMA 1999) 

• SFHA: A3 

• BFE: 1,995 to 2,000 

• Stream Gage Data: None 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: Okanogan County Public Works – 

Eastside Chewack Road crossing of the Chewuch River 

4.2.4.3 Canyon

The Canyon site is located adjacent to the Twisp River. The site appears to be outside the 

special flood hazard area designated along the Twisp River (FEMA 2000a). 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Twisp River 

• FIRM: 530117 0850 C December 20, 2000 (Figure 11; FEMA 2000a) 

• SFHA: None 

• BFE: None 

• Stream Gage Data: USGS Gage 12448998 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: Okanogan County Public Works – 

West Buttermilk Creek Road crossing of the Twisp River. 
 Existing Environment 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 39 090595-01 

4.2.4.4 Utley

The Utley site is located adjacent to the Twisp River. The site appears to be within the 

special flood hazard area designated along the Twisp River (Zone A, FEMA 2000a). 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Twisp River 

• FIRM: 530117 0850 C December 20, 2000 (Figure 11; FEMA 2000a) 

• SFHA: A 

• BFE: None 

• Stream Gage Data: USGS Gage 12448998 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: Okanogan County Public Works – 

Possible bank protection projects along the Twisp River to protect Twisp River Road. 

4.2.4.5 Newby

The Newby site is located adjacent to the Twisp River. The site appears to be within the 

special flood hazard area designated along the Twisp River (Zone A, FEMA 2000a). 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Twisp River 

• FIRM: 530117 0850 C December 20, 2000 (Figure 19; FEMA 2000a) 

• SFHA: A 

• BFE: None 

• Stream Gage Data: USGS Gage 12448998 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: Okanogan County Public Works – 

Newby Creek Road crossing of the Twisp River; Twisp Valley Power and Irrigation 

Company, operators of the diversion weir on the Twisp River. 

4.2.4.6 Poorman

The Poorman site is located on the Twisp River, downstream of the mouth of Poorman 

Creek. The site is within the FEMA designated special flood hazard area (Zone A2; FEMA 

2000a). 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Twisp River 

• FIRM: 530117 0850 C December 20, 2000 (Figure 19; FEMA 2000a) 

• SFHA: A2 
 Existing Environment 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 40 090595-01 

• BFE: 1,760 Feet (NGVD29) 

• Stream Gage Data: None 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: Okanogan County Public Works 

4.2.4.7 Biddle

The Biddle site is located on Wolf Creek, approximately 1 mile upstream of its confluence 

with the Methow River. FEMA has not studied or designated special flood hazard areas on 

Wolf Creek. The site is outside the special flood hazard area designated for the Methow 

River (FEMA 1999). The Methow River BFE was estimated at 1,802 feet NGVD at the Wolf 

Creek confluence. Wolf Creek flows are monitored by the USGS approximately 3 miles 

upstream of the site. 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Wolf Creek 

• FIRM: 530117 0675 D January 20, 1999 (Figure 15; FEMA 1999) 

• SFHA: None 

• BFE: None 

• Stream Gage Data: USGS Gage 12447397 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: U.S. Forest Service and Okanogan 

County Public Works – NFDR crossing of Wolf Creek 

4.2.4.8 Balky Hill

The Balky Hill site is located on Beaver Creek, 5 miles upstream of its confluence with the 

Methow River. USGS maintained several flow monitoring gages: Gage 12449600 (Beaver 

Creek below South Fork near Twisp) is close to the site. FEMA has not studied or designated 

special flood hazard areas for Beaver Creek. Anchor QEA completed detailed hydrologic and 

hydraulic analysis of Beaver Creek between RM 6.2 and RM 7.0, upstream of this site 

(Anchor QEA 2008). 

• Potential Sources of Flooding: Beaver Creek 

• FIRM: None 

• SFHA: None 

• BFE: None 

• Stream Gage Data: USGS Gage 12449600 
 Existing Environment 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 41 090595-01 

• Potential Sources of Supplemental Information: Anchor QEA 2008; Okanogan County 

Public Works – State Route 20 crossing of Beaver Creek 
FIRM 530117 0850 C – December 20, 2000; Lin

Mid‐Colum

Lincoln Site

Canyon Site

Utley Site
FIRM 530117 1200 B – 

Mid‐Colum

Gold Site
FIRM 530117 0450C – 

Mid‐Colum

Goat Wall Site
FIRM 530117 0675 D – January 20, 1999; Pete Creek, Winthrop NFH, an

Mid‐Colum

MSRF Lower Chewuch Site 

Pete Creek Pond Site 

Winthrop NFH Site 
FIRM 530117 0675 D – January 20, 

Mid‐Colum

Biddle Site

Heath Site 
FIRM: 530117 0875 C – Decemb

Mid‐Colum

Lower Twisp Site 
FIRM 530117 0675 D – Ja

Mid‐Colum

Hancock Site 
530117 0675 D – Janua

Mid‐Colum

Chewuch AF Site 
530117 0850 C – December 20, 2000; Twisp We

Mid‐Colum

Poorman Site

Twisp Weir Site

Newby Site 
Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 51 100595-01 

5 IMPACT OF FACILITIES ON FLOOD ELEVATIONS

5.1 Significance Criteria

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) determination of “significant” impacts is 

defined in the Council Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at 40 CFR 1508.27. The 

definition of “significance” involves both the context and intensity of proposed project 

actions. A general discussion of context and intensity is presented in the EIS. 

As described in Section 4.1, the primary goal of floodplain management is to restrict noncompatible development in the floodplain to avoid repetitive losses. FEMA delegates the 

responsibility of project review to the local regulatory agency through the NFIP program. 

Both Chelan and Okanogan Counties prohibit development within the floodway, but do 

allow development in the floodplain outside the floodway, as long the proposed development 

does not increase water surface elevation of the base flood by more than 1 foot. The context 

of significance estimates involves the local river basin floodplain and the intensity is 

measured by changes to flood elevations. Therefore, a project that would encroach into the 

floodway and increase the BFE or that would encroach upon the floodplain and increase the 

BFE by more than 1 foot would be determined to have a significant impact on flooding. A 

project that reduced the BFE would have a beneficial effect on flooding. 

5.2 General Impacts  

Sections 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 describe the general kinds of impacts that construction and operation 

of the proposed project could cause. Many of the proposed acclimation sites would not 

require construction activity or any permanent change to the landscape. Such sites would be 

subject only to impacts resulting from program operation. Potential site-specific impacts 

where there would be substantial construction activities are described in Sections 5.3 and 

5.4. 

5.2.1 Construction  

Proposed construction activities include: 

• Road building; clearing, grading, and surfacing with crushed rock. 

• Surface water supply system construction, including intake structures, pipelines, and 
 Impact of Facilities on Flood Elevations 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 52 100595-01 

open channels. New intakes will require some excavation along stream banks. 

Pipeline ditches will be excavated and refilled. Open channels will be surfaced with 

gravel and rock. 

• Groundwater supply system installation, including wells, buried pipelines, open 

channels, power lines, and generators. Wells require temporary access roads and 

areas for storage of drilled materials. Pipelines and open channels require excavation. 

Power lines will be placed in conduits and buried. Generators will be mounted near 

the wells in secondary containment systems to prevent potential spills or leaks of fuel, 

oil, or other fluids to the environment. 

• New pond creation or enlargement of existing ponds. Ponds will be excavated with 

heavy equipment. They will be earthen-bottomed and will have rock and gravel 

placed in areas where high flow rates may occur. 

Potential impacts to flooding from these activities include: 

• Obstruction of flood flows and alteration of local drainage patterns. 

• Disposal of spoil materials, filling the floodplain. 

• Pond creation or expansion, adding floodplain storage. 

Construction details specific to the individual sites are provided in the Brood Capture and 

Rearing Site Descriptions (Appendix 1 of the EIS), the Wenatchee Acclimation Site 

Descriptions (Appendix 2 of the EIS), and the Methow Acclimation Site Descriptions

(Appendix 3 of the EIS). 

5.2.1.1 Impact Avoidance and Mitigation

Measures that could be implemented to minimize potential impacts to flooding include: 

• Compensatory storage incorporated in the project design where aboveground 

facilities are located within the floodplain. 

• Spoil materials removed and disposed of in uplands or at offsite locations outside of 

the floodplain. 

• Infrastructure buried below grade not in elevated road prisms, preventing diversion 

or rerouting of floodwaters. 

• Disturbed areas will be restored with native vegetation. 
 Impact of Facilities on Flood Elevations 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 53 100595-01 

5.2.2 Operation  

Activities required to operate the project acclimation and new rearing sites include: 

• Setting and removing block nets 

• Operating generators and wells 

• Transporting salmon to each acclimation site for release 

• Transferring salmon from vehicles into ponds using flexible hoses temporarily laid on 

the ground 

• Daily feeding of juvenile fish and the non-lethal hazing of predators 

• Monitoring the volitional release of migrants with tag detectors 

Potential impacts on flooding from these activities include: 

• Potential increase in flows due to discharge of groundwater 

5.3 Site‐Specific Impacts

Site-specific impacts are discussed only for the primary and back-up sites with substantial 

construction activities. Projects that only include minor improvements to existing ponds, 

access roads, or conveyance facilities are not expected to alter the potential for flooding at 

those sites and are therefore not discussed further. New wells, although providing additional 

flow through the acclimation sites, will be withdrawing water from shallow aquifers that are 

typically hydraulically connected to the adjacent creek or river (Appendix 12. Ground Water 

Withdrawal Impacts). Therefore, there is no real gain or loss of water. Additionally, the 

well discharge will be very minor compared to flood flows. Consequently, projects that only 

include flow augmentation from wells are not discussed further. 

Surface water intakes proposed at the Tall Timber, Chikamin, and Dryden sites will be below 

grade and will match the existing contours of the river banks. They will be designed so they 

do not decrease flood storage volume and will not impede flow. Pipelines delivering water 

from these intakes will be buried and will have no impact on flood elevations. 
 Impact of Facilities on Flood Elevations 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 54 100595-01 

5.3.1 Wenatchee Subbasin Primary Sites

Site construction for each program location is detailed in the Brood Capture and Rearing Site 

Description (Appendix 1 of the EIS) and the Wenatchee Acclimation Site Descriptions

(Appendix 2 of the EIS). Primary sites with construction include: Butcher, Tall Timber, 

Chikamin, Minnow, Scheibler, and the Dryden Hatchery. One back-up site with 

construction is included: Squadroni. 

5.3.1.1 Butcher

A new well is proposed for the Butcher acclimation site. The exact location has not yet been 

determined but it will be close to existing roads to minimize access disturbance. An 

approximately 50-foot-long, 5-foot-wide, rock-lined, open channel would deliver water from 

the well to Butcher Creek upstream of the existing pond. Although the site is within the 

100-year floodplain (Zone AH), it appears that the source of flooding is backwater from 

Nason Creek rather than Butcher Creek. Construction or operation of the well and 

associated facilities would have no effect on flooding. 

5.3.1.2 Tall Timber

The Tall Timber site is located on the unmapped section of the Napeequa River near its 

confluence with the White River. Although FEMA has designated a special flood hazard 

area along the White River (Zone A), the project site is located outside the special flood 

hazard area. The Tall Timber acclimation site would require a river intake and pipeline 

delivering water to an existing disconnected side channel. An 800-foot-long water supply 

pipeline from the intake to the side channel would be buried. An existing culvert would 

convey water from the side channel back to the river. Because the pipeline would be buried, 

it is expected that there would be no effect on flooding. Flood water elevations in the stream 

reach between the intake and the outlet of the acclimation diversion may be slightly reduced 

due to the withdrawal of water from the main channel. 

5.3.1.3 Chikamin

Construction of an acclimation pond at the Chikamin site would require excavation of 

approximately 1,370 cubic yards of material. An intake would be constructed on the bank of 
 Impact of Facilities on Flood Elevations 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 55 100595-01 

Chikamin Creek and a 200-foot-long water supply pipeline from the intake to the pond 

would be buried. A rock-lined open channel, 100 feet long and 5 feet wide, would be 

constructed to convey water from the pond back to the creek. The Chikamin site is not 

located in a FEMA mapped flood hazard area, but is likely in the 100-year floodplain of 

Chikamin Creek. The construction of a pond would likely lower flood elevations a small 

amount due the removal of excavated soils from the floodplain. Overall, the project would 

have little effect on flooding. 

5.3.1.4 Minnow

Construction of an acclimation pond at the Minnow site would require excavation of 

approximately 1,370 cubic yards of material from the bed and banks of Minnow Creek, 

essentially widening and deepening the channel. The Minnow site is not located in a FEMA 

mapped flood hazard area, but is in the 100-year floodplain and floodway of Minnow Creek. 

During a flood event, the flows would be essentially the same because there is not a 

substantial amount of active storage in the pond. Consequently, there may be very small 

reduction in flooding and no change to the floodway. 

5.3.1.5 Scheibler

An impoundment was built in the Chumstick Creek channel forming a pond. Project 

construction would include excavating 350 cubic yards of material and enlarging the existing 

pond. Material excavated from the pond would be spread at approved areas, outside the 

floodplain. The site is located on Chumstick Creek floodplain in an area that has not been 

studied by FEMA. Furthermore, FEMA has not produced a flood hazard map of this reach. 

Because the construction is limited to excavation and the spoils will be disposed of outside 

the floodplain, the project may reduce flooding slightly along Chumstick Creek. 

5.3.2 Wenatchee Subbasin Back‐up Sites

5.3.2.1 Squadroni

To construct the Squadroni acclimation pond site, 1,200 cubic yards of material would be 

excavated. The seasonal flow from an existing ditch would contribute surface water and a 

well would be constructed to supply additional water. Water from the well would be 
 Impact of Facilities on Flood Elevations 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 56 100595-01 

delivered through a 50-foot-long, rock-lined, open channel. A 20-foot-long discharge 

channel would return water from the pond to the ditch prior to discharge to Nason Creek. 

Spoil materials will be removed from the site for disposal outside the floodplain. Although 

the pond would provide some additional floodplain storage, the volume is very small 

compared to the flood flows. Consequently, the project may slightly reduce flooding on 

Nason Creek. 

5.3.2.2 Dryden

The Dryden hatchery will require excavations to create rearing ponds, raceways, a hatchery 

building, an infiltration gallery, and an effluent treatment system. These excavations would 

occur outside the flood hazard area. A flood study of the site was completed (Anchor QEA, 

2009) and 100-year flood boundaries were mapped. They are shown in blue in the following 

illustration. Some construction may occur in the floodplain if constructed wetlands are built 

to treat hatchery discharges. Treatment systems have not yet been designed but if 

constructed wetlands are used, they will be built at existing grade and will not impact flood 

elevations. 

Approximately 2,050 cubic yards of material is proposed to be removed from areas outside 

the floodplain. Material disposal areas have not yet been located but they will be in 

approved locations that meet grading permit conditions and minimize potential for 

floodplain fill. Consequently, there would be no effect on flooding. 
 Impact of Facilities on Flood Elevations 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 57 100595-01 

5.3.2.3 George

The George hatchery will require grading to create rearing ponds, raceways, a hatchery 

building, parking areas, back-up generator station, and an effluent treatment system. Four 

concrete raceways (100-foot by 10-foot by 4-foot) would be used for fish production. Also, 

two ponds measuring 40-foot by 120-foot by 3-foot deep would provide low density rearing 

space. The site would be fenced and an overhead net system installed over the rearing units. 

Discharge water treatment would likely require a high degree of nutrient removal to meet 

conditions of the Total Maximum Daily Load restrictions in place for the Wenatchee River. 

An off-line treatment tank measuring 10-foot by 20-foot by 4-foot will hold and settle wastes 

vacuumed from the rearing units. A 3,000 sf hatchery building will enclose the incubators, 

rearing troughs, offices, and a small shop. Generators will provide back-up power. Parking 

will be provided for up to 10 vehicles. The hatchery facilities will require a permanent 

footprint of 1.5 acres. Including pipelines, water supply construction, and hatchery facilities; 

a total of 4 acres of land will be disturbed during construction. 

It appears that all permanent facilities would be located within, but near the limits of, the 

special flood hazard zone (A3) and be subject to inundation of less than 1 foot deep. As this 

is a back-up site, detailed engineering studies have not been completed. If this site were to 

be selected, it is expected that a detailed floodplain analysis would be completed to evaluate 

the project affects on flooding as well as to evaluate methods to flood proof the hatchery 

building and the back-up generator station to comply with the local floodplain ordinance. 

Although the raceways and ponds would be largely below grade, the hatchery building, 

fencing, and generator station would be located above grade and could be damaged by the 

100-year or potentially lesser floods. Because the project is near the edge of the floodplain, at 

an elevation similar to the BFE, it is not expected that the project would measurably obstruct 

flood flows or reduce floodplain storage. The project would have not have a substantial 

adverse effect on flooding. 

5.3.3 Methow Subbasin Primary Sites

Site construction for each program location is detailed in Methow Acclimation Site 

Descriptions (Appendix 3 of the EIS). Primary sites with construction include: MSWA 
 Impact of Facilities on Flood Elevations 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 58 100595-01 

Eightmile, Mason (Eightmile), Lincoln, and Gold. Back-up sites with construction include: 

MSRF Lower Chewuch and Chewuch A.F. 

5.3.3.1 MSWA Eightmile

The MSWA Eightmile site is located in an abandoned side channel of the Chewuch River, 

just upstream of the mouth of Eightmile Creek. Construction would include a well and a 

100-foot-long, 5-foot-wide, rock-lined, open channel that would deliver water from the well 

to the side channel. FEMA has not mapped a special flood hazard zone near the site. There 

would be no effect on flooding. 

5.3.3.2 Mason (Eightmile)

The Mason (Eightmile) site consists of three existing ponds adjacent to Eightmile Creek that 

are maintained by an irrigation diversion from the creek. A well is also proposed for the 

Mason (Eightmile) acclimation site. The exact location has not yet been determined, but it 

will be in a field near the existing ponds. A 50-foot-long, 5-foot-wide, rock-lined, open 

channel will deliver water from the well to the ponds. FEMA has not mapped a special flood 

hazard zone near the site. There would be no effect on flooding. 

5.3.3.3 Lincoln

Proposed construction at the Lincoln site would involve two wells to provide water to the 

existing two-pond system when water levels in the river are below the existing surface water 

diversion. A 50-foot-long, 5-foot-wide, rock-lined, open channel will deliver water from the 

wells to the upper pond. Buried water lines (approximately 600 feet long) will deliver water 

from the wells to this open channel. Excavation of material that has accumulated in one of 

the ponds is proposed to be removed but the flood storage capacity of the pond will not be 

changed. The Lincoln site is located in a FEMA mapped special flood hazard area (Zone A) 

on the Upper Twisp River. Spoil materials from any of the excavations will be disposed of 

outside the floodplain in accordance with local floodplain management ordinance 

requirements. There would be no effect on flooding. 
 Impact of Facilities on Flood Elevations 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 59 100595-01 

5.3.3.4 Twisp Weir

Proposed construction at the Twisp Weir site would include a 140-foot long, 50-foot wide, 

3.5-foot deep, constructed, earthen pond, occupying approximately 0.2 acres. Because the 

pond will be below existing grade and material will be removed and disposed of outside the 

flood plain, there would be no effect on flooding. 

5.3.3.5 Gold

The Gold site consists of several existing ponds located adjacent to Gold Creek. Construction 

activities would involve removing some accumulated sediment from the ponds to restore 

water depths adequately for acclimation. Excavated materials would be disposed of outside 

the floodplain in accordance with grading permits. The project site is not within a FEMA 

mapped special flood hazard area. The proposed construction would not alter the diversions 

from Gold Creek. Consequently, there would be no effect on flooding. 

5.3.4 Methow Subbasin Back‐up Sites

5.3.4.1 MSRF Lower Chewuch

Acclimation pond construction would include the excavation of approximately 890 cubic 

yards of material. A well would also be constructed. Rock-lined, open channels, a total of 

320 feet long and 5 feet wide, will be constructed from the well to the pond and from the 

pond to the Chewuch River. FEMA designated a special flood hazard area (Zone A5) along 

the Chewuch River in the vicinity of the project, but the project is outside the flood hazard 

area. There would be a minor increase in floodplain storage capacity and potentially a slight 

reduction in flood elevations due to pond construction. 

5.3.4.2 Chewuch AF

Acclimation pond construction would include the excavation of approximately 975 cubic 

yards of material. Water would be diverted from the Chewuch River. Water delivery 

pipelines with fish screens would also be constructed. The Chewuch AF site is located in the 

FEMA mapped flood hazard area (A3). Excavated materials would be removed from the site 

and disposed of in an upland location outside of the floodplain in accordance with local 
 Impact of Facilities on Flood Elevations 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 60 100595-01 

floodplain management ordinance requirements. Consequently, there would a minor 

increase in floodplain storage capacity and potentially a slight reduction in flood elevations 

due to pond construction. 

5.3.4.3 Canyon

Approximately 200 cubic yards of material are proposed to be removed from an existing pond 

to deepen it and expanded it by 0.04 acres. Excavated materials will be disposed of outside 

the floodplain. The site is outside the special flood hazard area designated along the Twisp 

River. There would be no effect on flooding. 

5.3.4.4 Utley

An 80-foot long, 3-foot wide channel from an pond to the Twisp River is proposed to allow 

acclimated smolts a route to the River. The existing pond and the proposed channel are 

within the special flood hazard area. Because excavated materials will be disposed of outside 

the floodplain there would be no effect on flooding. 

5.3.4.5 Newby

A 140-foot long, 50-foot wide, 3.5-foot deep earthen bottom pond and an intake on Newby 

Creek are proposed for the site. Buried water delivery pipelines from the intake to the pond 

and from the pond back to the Twisp River would also be constructed. The construction 

activities would occur within the special flood hazard along the Twisp River. Because 

excavated materials will be disposed of outside the floodplain there would be no effect on 

flooding. 

5.4 Combined Impacts

5.4.1 Proposed Alternative

The Wenatchee Acclimation Site Descriptions (Appendix 2 of the EIS) and Methow 

Acclimation Site Descriptions (Appendix 3 of the EIS) identify the primary acclimation site 

locations for the Proposed Alternative. Approximately half of the releases proposed are from 

acclimation sites capable of overwinter acclimation, having groundwater supplies that can 
 Impact of Facilities on Flood Elevations 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 61 100595-01 

provide secure flow during icing conditions. Back-up acclimation sites have also been 

identified, but may not be used. 

The majority of the project sites are located in rural and undeveloped areas of Chelan County 

and Okanogan County with high quality forested, riparian, and wetland habitats within the 

sites, or in the vicinity of the sites. Site-specific potential impacts associated with the 

Methow and Wenatchee sites were described in Sections 5.3 and 5.4. A combined impact 

evaluation considers the potential collective effects of the total MCCRP, as opposed to 

individual site-specific impacts. 

Combined impacts are summarized in Table 3. There are a total of 27 primary sites, 

including the Dryden hatchery, and 12 back-up sites. Combined impacts of the proposed 

project alternative will be evaluated only for the primary sites. Back-up sites will be used as 

replacements for primary sites that may become unavailable. A switch from a primary to a 

back-up site is not expected to alter the combined impact of the project on floods. 

The total amount of ground disturbed during construction of all the primary sites is proposed 

to be less than 2.5 acres and will include four new water intake structures, seven new wells, 

and 650 feet of unpaved road. New ponds are proposed for the Dryden hatchery, three 

primary acclimation sites, and three back-up sites. The construction details for each project 

are described in either the Wenatchee Acclimation Site Descriptions (Appendix 2 of the EIS) 

or the Methow Acclimation Site Descriptions (Appendix 3 of the EIS). The new ponds will 

remove material from floodplains, slightly increasing floodplain storage capacity and 

potentially decreasing flood elevations. 
 Impact of Facilities on Flood Elevations 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 62 100595-01 

Table 3   

Combined Impacts of MCCRP Projects

New intake constructionConveyance channel (ft)Inlet water screenNew wellsExisting wellsVolume excavated (cy) - pondSurface disturbance (acre) - pond constructionSurface disturbance (sf) - water systems, intakesSurface disturbance (sf) - water systems, open channelBuried water piepline (ft)Buried power line (ft)Primary Back-ups

Wenatchee 2,080 3 7 3 2 4,791 1.6 700 1,000 2,500 500 15 5 

Methow - 7 4 1 1 2,685 0.9 350 2,000 1,200 950 12 7 

TOTAL 2,080 4 14 7 3 7,476 2.5 1,050 3,000 3,700 1,450 27 12

 -

 650

SITES

GROUND 

WATER

SURFACE 

ACCESS WATER EARTH New road construction (ft)

 650

 

Proposed clearing and grading during construction is limited to small areas relative to total 

floodplain areas. At each site, impacts to flooding would be avoided or compensatory 

floodplain storage would be created to offset facilities located above ground in the floodplain. 

Overall, the combined effects to flooding due to proposed construction and operation of 

acclimation and rearing sites are not considered to be a significant impact because the 

projects individually have negligible or no effect, and the limits of effects are confined to the 

immediate project areas such that the effects of one do not overlap with the effects of 

another. 

5.4.2 No Action

The No Action Alternative is described in the EIS. It includes operation of fewer of the same 

sites described for the Proposed Alternative. Because fewer sites would be operated and no 

new construction is involved, the combined effects would be less than those of the Proposed 

Alternative; consequently, the impacts of the combined projects are considered to be less 

than significant. 
 Impact of Facilities on Flood Elevations 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 63 100595-01 

5.5 Cumulative Impacts

The EIS defines cumulative effects as the impact on the environment that results from the 

incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person 

undertakes such other actions. Other, outside impacts could result from any development in 

the floodplain not associated with MCCRP actions, which could exacerbate flooding; for 

example, diking, road development, and residential/urban development. 

5.5.1 Proposed Alternative

Because construction activities associated with the project are anticipated to result in very 

minor conversion of forested lands compared to the watershed as a whole, because the some 

acclimation sites would provide additional floodplain storage, and because new construction 

would be in accordance with floodplain development codes, the cumulative effects of these 

actions are not considered a significant impact. Additionally, many proposed county and 

state-funded road improvement projects include culvert replacements on existing roads 

having the potential to mitigate or reduce the effects of existing flooding. The known road 

improvement projects are identified in the following sections. 

Habitat improvement projects are also proposed for implementation throughout the project 

area. These habitat projects are funded by federal and state dollars under multiple programs 

and implemented by local stakeholder groups, counties, and conservation districts. Habitat 

improvement projects that re-establish floodplain access to undeveloped floodplain habitat 

have the potential to further mitigate or reduce the effects of existing flooding. Habitat 

improvement projects funded and proposed for implementation in the Wenatchee and 

Methow subbasins using Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) grants 

can be tracked at the Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board’s salmon habitat 

implementation website (http://uc.ekosystem.us//). Habitat improvement projects funded in 

the Wenatchee and Methow subbasins using Chelan County Public Utility District (PUD) 

and Douglas County PUD Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Tributary Fund dollars can be 

tracked at the Chelan County PUD HCP website (http://www.midcolumbiahcp.org/). Other 

projects may be implemented by various other public agencies or private parties that are not 

known at this time. 
 Impact of Facilities on Flood Elevations 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 64 100595-01 

5.5.1.1 Wenatchee Subbasin Sites

Planned projects in the basin include road improvement projects throughout the watershed 

that could have localized effects on nearby creeks. These projects are Chelan County 

projects: CRP636-North Road and CRP612-Eagle Creek Road that could impact Chumstick 

Creek, CRP597-Old Blewett Highway that could impact Peshastin Creek; and Washington 

State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) projects: US 2 bridge over Chiwaukum Creek, 

US 2 Wenatchee River bridge at Tumwater, and road improvements along US 97 that could 

impact Peshastin Creek. It is anticipated that the County and WSDOT would implement 

mitigation measures and Best Management Practices (BMPs) according to the Highway 

Runoff Manual (WSDOT 2008) to minimize floodplain impacts from any of these projects. 

Consequently the cumulative effects of the Proposed Action and other known projects in the 

Wenatchee Subbasin are not considered to be a significant cumulative impact. 

5.5.1.2 Methow Subbasin Sites

In the Methow subbasin, other known planned projects include road improvement projects 

throughout the watershed that could have localized effects on nearby creeks. These projects 

are Okanogan County and WSDOT road improvement projects such as Twisp River Road 

(affecting Twisp River), and Twin Lakes Road (affecting Methow River). It is anticipated 

that Okanogan County and WSDOT would implement mitigation measures and BMPs 

according to the Highway Runoff Manual (WSDOT 2008) to minimize floodplain impacts 

from any of these projects. Consequently, the effects of the Proposed Alternative combined 

with the effects of other known projects in the Methow Subbasin are not considered to 

create a significant cumulative impact. 

5.5.2 No Action  

As described for the Proposed Alternative, additional projects are likely to be implemented 

in the Wenatchee and Methow subbasins that may have floodplain effects. Because 

construction activities associated with these projects are anticipated to be conducted in 

accordance with floodplain development codes, the combined effects of the No Action 

Alternative and the other known projects are not considered to create a significant 

cumulative impact. Many culvert replacement projects on existing roads have the potential 
 Impact of Facilities on Flood Elevations 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 65 100595-01 

to reduce the effects of flooding, as do habitat improvement projects. The known road 

projects and links to funded habitat improvement projects are provided in Section 5.1.1. 
 References 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 66 100595-01 

6 REFERENCES

Anchor QEA, LLC. 2008. Hydrology Memorandum to Bureau of Reclamation. 

Anchor QEA, LLC. 2009. Flood Evaluation near Dryden Dam. June, 2009. 

Chelan County 2009. Chelan County Code, Chapter 3.20 Flood Hazard Development. Code 

Publishing Company. Accessed at: http://www.codepublishing.com/WA/ 

chelancounty.html. 

Chelan County Department of Emergency Management, 2006. Chelan County Hazard 

Inventory and Vulnerability Assessment. Wenatchee, WA. 

Ecology, see Washington State Department of Ecology. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1980. Flood Insurance Study (FIS), 

Chelan County, Washington, Unincorporated Areas. 

FEMA. 1981. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Okanogan County, Washington, 

Unincorporated Areas, Community Panel 5301171200B. 

FEMA. 1989a. FIRM, Chelan County, Washington (Unincorporated Areas), Community 

Panel 5300150750B, June 5, 1989. 

FEMA. 1989b. FIRM, Chelan County, Washington (Unincorporated Areas), Community 

Panel 5300150775B, June 5, 1989. 

FEMA. 1989c. FIRM, Chelan County, Washington (Unincorporated Areas), Community 

Panel 5300150575B, June 5, 1989. 

FEMA. 1994. FIRM, Okanogan County, Washington, Unincorporated Areas, Community 

Panel 5301170450C. 

FEMA. 1999. FIRM, Okanogan County, Washington, Unincorporated Areas, Community 

Panel 5301170675D. 

FEMA. 2000a. FIRM, Okanogan County, Washington, Unincorporated Areas, Community 

Panel 5301170850C. 

FEMA. 2000b. FIRM, Okanogan County, Washington, Unincorporated Areas, Community 

Panel 5301170875C. 
 References 

Flood Impact Analysis October 2010 

Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project 67 100595-01 

FEMA. 2000c. FIS, Okanogan County, Washington, Unincorporated Areas (Fourth 

Revision). 

FEMA. 2002a. FIS, Chelan County, Washington, Unincorporated Areas, First Revision. 

FEMA. 2002b. FIRM, Chelan County, Washington (Unincorporated Areas), Community 

Panel 5300150787B, July 2, 2002. 

FEMA. 2003. FIS, Okanogan County, Washington, Unincorporated Areas, January 2003 

(Fifth Revision). 

FEMA. 2004a. FIS, Chelan County, Washington, Unincorporated Areas, Second Revision. 

FEMA. 2004b. FIRM, Chelan County, Washington (Unincorporated Areas), Community 

Panel 5300150800D, September 30, 2004. 

FEMA. 2004c. FIRM, Chelan County, Washington (Unincorporated Areas), Community 

Panel 5300152763D, September 30, 2004. 

Okanogan County. 2008. Okanogan County Code Chapter 15.08 Floodplain Management. 

Code Publishing OnLine. Accessed at: http://nt5.scbbs.com/cgibin/om_isapi.dll? 

clientID=431830999&infobase=okanco.nfo&record={451D}&softpage=PL_frame. 

Okanogan County Department of Emergency Management, 2009. All Hazards Mitigation 

Plan. Okanogan, WA. 

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1975. Flood Hazard Analysis, 

Chewuch River, Portland, Oregon. 

Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). 2009. River and Stream Flow 

Monitoring. Accessed at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/wrx/wrx/flows/regions/state.asp. 

Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). 2008. Highway Runoff Manual. 

Accessed at: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Environment/WaterQuality/Runoff/ 

HighwayRunoffManual.htm 
Appendix 9. Impact of Fish Culture on ESAListed Fish 

Report Prepared by: 

Randolph Ericksen 

Cramer Fish Sciences 

600 NW Fariss Road 

Gresham, Oregon 97030 

November 2010 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

i ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ ii

LIST OF TABLES.........................................................................................................................iii

1.0 SUMMARY........................................................................................................................... 4

2.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 5

2.1 Life History of ESA Listed Fish ............................................................................................ 5

2.2 Potential Life Stages Affected ............................................................................................. 13

3.0 DETERMINING SPECIES PRESENCE ............................................................................ 15

3.1 Review of Existing Data ...................................................................................................... 15

3.2 On-site Surveys.................................................................................................................... 19

3.3 Results.................................................................................................................................. 20

3.3.1 Wenatchee onsite surveys ......................................................................................... 20

3.3.2 Methow onsite surveys ............................................................................................. 24

3.3.3 Summary of fish presence......................................................................................... 27

4.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS.......................................................................................................... 31

4.1 Wenatchee Subbasin ............................................................................................................ 32

4.1.1 Brender...................................................................................................................... 33

4.1.2 Dryden (new hatchery).............................................................................................. 35

4.1.3 Scheibler ................................................................................................................... 35

4.1.4 Butcher...................................................................................................................... 35

4.1.5 Coulter....................................................................................................................... 36

4.1.6 Rohlfing .................................................................................................................... 36

4.1.7 Beaver ....................................................................................................................... 36

4.1.8 Clear.......................................................................................................................... 37

4.1.9 Chikamin................................................................................................................... 37

4.1.10 Minnow................................................................................................................... 38

4.1.11 Two Rivers.............................................................................................................. 38

4.1.12 White River Springs................................................................................................ 38

4.1.13 Tall Timber ............................................................................................................. 39

4.1.14 Dirty Face................................................................................................................ 39

4.1.15 Wenatchee Backup Sites......................................................................................... 39

4.2 Methow Subbasin................................................................................................................. 41

4.2.1 Gold........................................................................................................................... 42

4.2.2 Parmley ..................................................................................................................... 43

4.2.3 Lower Twisp ............................................................................................................. 43

4.2.4 Twisp Weir................................................................................................................ 44

4.2.5 Lincoln ...................................................................................................................... 44

4.2.6 Mason........................................................................................................................ 45

4.2.7 MSWA Eight Mile.................................................................................................... 45

4.2.8 Pete Creek Pond........................................................................................................ 46

4.2.9 Heath ......................................................................................................................... 46

4.2.10 Hancock .................................................................................................................. 46

4.2.11 Goat Wall ................................................................................................................ 47

4.2.12 Methow Backup Sites ............................................................................................. 47

4.3 Combined Impacts ............................................................................................................... 50
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

ii ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

4.3.1 Proposed Alternative................................................................................................. 50

4.3.2 No Action.................................................................................................................. 53

4.4 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................. 53

4.4.1 Proposed Alternative................................................................................................. 54

4.4.2 No Action.................................................................................................................. 54

5.0 IMPACT AVOIDANCE OR MITIGATION ...................................................................... 54

6.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 55

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Life cycle of mid Columbia River spring Chinook salmon. ..............................................7

Figure 2. Life cycle of mid Columbia River summer steelhead........................................................10

Figure 3. Life cycle of mid Columbia River bull trout......................................................................12

Figure 4. Map generated using the online DNR interactive mapping program at the FPARS 

website showing stream classifications near the Mason and MSWA Eight Mile 

acclimation sites in the Methow River basin.......................................................................16

Figure 5. Map generated using the online WDFW interactive mapping program SalmonScape, 

showing the distribution of spring Chinook spawning (green) and rearing (purple) 

near the Mason and MSWA Eight Mile acclimation sites in the Methow River basin.......16

Figure 6. All acclimation sites in the Wenatchee basin (stars), fish survey sites (small dots), 

and survey sites with listed species observed. Fish survey data was supplied by 

USFS and ISEMP for survey years 1936-2007...................................................................18

Figure 7. Aerial view of the Butcher site showing habitat reaches and snorkel survey 

locations...............................................................................................................................21

Figure 8. Aerial view of the Coulter site showing snorkel survey boundaries in relation to the 

acclimation pond. ................................................................................................................22

Figure 9. Aerial view of the Rohlfing site showing snorkel survey boundaries in relation to the 

acclimation pond. ................................................................................................................24

Figure 10. Aerial view of the Goat Wall site showing snorkel survey boundaries. ..........................25

Figure 11. Aerial view of the MSWA Eight Mile site showing snorkel survey boundaries. ............26

Figure 12. The average proportion of spring Chinook (top), summer steelhead (middle) and 

bull trout (bottom) spawning in major tributaries of the Wenatchee Subbasin...................34

Figure 13. The average proportion of spring Chinook (top), summer steelhead (middle), and 

bull trout (bottom) spawning in major tributaries of the Methow Subbasin. ......................42

Figure 14. Confluence of Newby Creek and the Twisp River depicting the first of several fish 

passage impediments. ..........................................................................................................49
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

iii ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. List of fish species documented in the Wenatcheea and Methowb Subbasins. An “X” 

indicates the species is present in the Subbasin...................................................................6

Table 2. Life stages and size ranges of ESA listed fish that could be present in the Wenatchee 

and Methow Subbasins during proposed overwinter rearing periods (December-early 

May), spring acclimation periods (mid-March-early May) and site construction 

activities (June-September). ................................................................................................14

Table 3. List of contacts made to obtain fish survey data in the Wenatchee and Methow 

Subbasins by agency and location.......................................................................................17

Table 4. Summary of habitat reaches and fish observed during the snorkel survey at the 

Butcher site on April 26, 2009. ...........................................................................................21

Table 5. Summary of habitat reaches and fish observed during the snorkel survey at the 

Coulter site on April 28, 2009. ............................................................................................22

Table 6. Summary of habitat reaches and fish observed during the snorkel survey at the 

Rohlfing site on April 28, 2009...........................................................................................23

Table 7. Summary of fish observed during the snorkel survey at the Goat Wall site on April 

27, 2009. ..............................................................................................................................25

Table 8. Summary of fish observed during the snorkel survey at the MSWA Eight Mile site on 

April 27, 2009......................................................................................................................26

Table 9. Summary of spawning (S), rearing (R), and migration (M) data documented for listed 

species at affected streams near acclimation sites in the Wenatchee Subbasin...................27

Table 10. Summary of spawning (S), rearing (R), and migration (M) data documented for 

listed species at affected streams near acclimation sites in the Methow Subbasin. ............28

Table 11. Summary of ESA listed fish by life stage assumed to be presenta

 during overwinter 

rearing, spring acclimation, and construction activities in the Wenatchee Subbasin..........29

Table 12. Summary of ESA listed fish by life stage assumed to be presenta

 during overwinter 

rearing, spring acclimation, and construction activities in the Methow Subbasin. .............30

Table 13. Amount (acres) of existing pond or side channel habitat at primary sites that is 

currently accessible to listed fish or proposed to be added for new sites, versus the 

amount that would be potentially excluded during overwinter rearing and spring 

acclimation activities, by Subbasin. ....................................................................................51

Table 14. Potential juvenile Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout dislocated from currently 

accessible habitat at proposed primary rearing and acclimation sites in the 

Wenatchee Subbasin based on assumed fish densities........................................................52

Table 15. Potential juvenile Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout dislocated from currently 

accessible habitat at proposed primary rearing and acclimation sites in the Methow 

Subbasin based on assumed fish densities...........................................................................53
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

4 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

1.0 SUMMARY 

The presence of ESA listed fish by life stage was assessed using a two-step process. First, 

existing data on fish distribution available in the Wenatchee and Methow Subbasins was 

compiled and reviewed. This information was used to identify sites where fish presence 

information was lacking. Second, snorkel surveys were conducted at those sites without 

sufficient information to determine the presence and life stages of ESA listed fish during the time 

of year of proposed acclimation activities. Life history information was used to determine what 

life stages and size ranges were likely to be present during overwinter rearing, spring acclimation 

and construction activities for each species. Results are summarized for the Wenatchee Subbasin 

in Table 11 and Methow Subbasin in Table 12. 

Implementation of the Mid-Columbia Coho Restoration Project (MCCRP) proposed alternative 

could result in ESA listed fish temporarily being excluded from 0.3 acres of currently accessible 

habitat from December through early May, and an additional 0.9 acres from mid-March through 

early May in the Wenatchee Subbasin. In the Methow Subbasin, they could be temporarily 

excluded from 0.7 acres of currently accessible habitat from December through early May, and 

an additional 0.6 acres from mid-March through early May. These impacts will be balanced to 

some degree by newly constructed ponds. About 0.3 acres of new pond habitat in the Wenatchee 

Subbasin will be available to other fish for at least a portion of the year. The number of fish 

projected to be temporarily dislocated or excluded during rearing and acclimation is low (314 

fish or less) and represents a small percentage of the average smolt production in each Subbasin 

(less than 0.5% in the Wenatchee, and less than 1.7% in the Methow). These fish would be 

excluded from acclimation sites but could potentially occupy other available habitat. 

Other potential adverse impacts associated with coho acclimation on ESA listed fish are 

expected to be small. New site construction activities will be short-term and bank disturbances 

will be small. Hatchery coho could potentially prey on smaller fish including Chinook and bull 

trout fry but the incidence of predation has been low and other fish will be excluded from rearing 

and acclimation sites. 

Potential negative impacts to ESA listed fish will be avoided or minimized using the following 

measures: 

• Barrier nets will be used at acclimation sites where ESA listed fish do not reside or use to 

migrate through to existing habitat. This will minimize premature escape of coho salmon. 

• Seine nets will be used at acclimation sites to partition off a portion of a water body while 

allowing free upstream and downstream passage of ESA listed fish to available habitat. In 

areas where emergent spring Chinook or bull trout fry will be present, predation will be 

minimized by using fine seine mesh to exclude fry from enclosed areas. Seines will be 

installed in a manner that excludes fry from the coho acclimation area by moving out 

from the bank to encapsulate the rearing area. The enclosed area will be snorkeled to 

verify no ESA listed fish are present before hatchery coho are added. 

• Timing and methodology of construction activities will be coordinated with resource 

agencies to minimize disturbance to listed species and life-stages. Best management 

practices will be used and permit conditions will be followed during construction 

activities, to prevent sedimentation inputs. 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

5 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

2.0 INTRODUCTION 

The objective of this study was to determine if and when fish listed under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) are present in selected sites within the Wenatchee and the Methow Subbasins 

and to assess the potential effects of acclimation, rearing, and adult holding activities related to 

the Yakama Nation’s Mid-Columbia Coho Reintroduction Project on ESA listed fish. A list of 

all fish species documented in these Subbasins is found in Table 1. 

ESA listed fish that are likely to be present at these sites include spring Chinook Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha, summer steelhead O. mykiss, and bull trout Salvelinus confluentus. The Upper 

Columbia River spring-run Chinook salmon Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) was listed as 

endangered on March 24, 1999 (64 FR 14308), and its status was reaffirmed on June 28, 2005 

(70 FR 37160). The ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of spring-run Chinook 

salmon (spring Chinook) in Columbia River tributaries upstream of the Rock Island Dam as well 

as six artificial propagation programs. The Upper Columbia River steelhead distinct population 

segment (DPS) was listed as endangered on August 18, 1997 (62 FR 43937) and subsequently 

upgraded to ‘threatened” status in 2009 (74 FR 42605). Critical Habitat was designated in the 

Wenatchee and Methow basins for both Chinook and steelhead in 2005 (70 FR 52630). 

Columbia River bull trout were listed as threatened on June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31647). The 

Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow Rivers have been identified as core bull trout habitats for the 

Upper Columbia Recovery Unit, and designated as Critical Habitat October 18, 2010 (75 FR 

63898). 

Information in this report has been prepared as a companion document to support the project 

analysis. Project site details such as their locations; project descriptions; and associated maps, 

figures, and photographs, are presented in the Brood Capture and Rearing Site Descriptions

report (Appendix 1 of the EIS), the Wenatchee Acclimation Site Descriptions report (Appendix 2 

of the EIS), and the Methow Acclimation Site Descriptions report (Appendix 3 of the EIS) 

prepared for the project, and are not duplicated in this report. Impacts to listed fish resulting 

from acclimation activities that affect surface waters are discussed in a separate report entitled 

Effect of Surface Water Withdrawals on Listed Fish (Appendix 10 of the EIS) prepared for the 

project. 

Maps of the Wenatchee and Methow Subbasins showing the location of proposed acclimation 

and rearing sites are shown on Figures, 1-2 in Appendix 1, and Figures 1-1 in Appendix 2 and 

Appendix 3. Figures 2-1 in Appendix 2 and 3 include the site locations based on Section, 

Township, and Range as well as their latitude and longitude. 

2.1 Life History of ESA Listed Fish 

An understanding of a species life history is needed to predict impacts to the population from 

proposed activities. Life histories for the three ESA listed species are described below. 

Spring Chinook 

Chinook salmon life history patterns, including run timing, have evolved over thousands of years 

to match stream flow, water temperatures, and habitat in a particular stream. Spring Chinook are 

distinguished from late run Chinook salmon by an early adult entry into freshwater and a typical 

stream-type (yearling) juvenile life history. Both spring run and late run (summer) Chinook 

salmon spawn in the Wenatchee and Methow Subbasins. However, only spring Chinook are 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

6 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

Table 1. List of fish species documented in the Wenatcheea and Methowb Subbasins. An “X” indicates the 

species is present in the Subbasin. 

Family & Species Scientific Name 

Wenatchee Methow Habitat Origin 

Lamprey Family Petromyzontidae 

Pacific Lamprey Entosphenus tridentatus X X Larvae found in backwater silt Native 

Salmon Family Salmonidae 

Mountain Whitefish Prosopium williamsoni X X Riffles in summer, pools in winter Native 

Brown Trout Salmo trutta X Streams up to 75 degrees F. Introduced 

Cutthroat Trout Oncorhyncus clarki X X Cold water lakes and streams Native 

Rainbow/Steelhead O. mykiss X X Cold water lakes and streams Native 

Chinook Salmon O. tshawytscha X X Larger rivers and streams Native 

Sockeye/kokanee O. nerka X X Primarily lake rearing Native 

Coho Salmon O. kisutch X X Recently re-introduced Native 

Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis X X Cold water lakes and streams Introduced 

Bull Trout S. confluentus X X Cold water streams and pools Native 

Minnow Family Cyprinidae 

European Carp Cyprinus carpio X X Shallow quiet water with dense vegetation Introduced 

Peamouth Mylocheilus cauinus Xc

 Lakes and slow stretches of rivers Native 

Chiselmouth Acrocheilus alutaceus X Faster, warmer streams and rivers, and lakes Native 

Longnose Dace Rhinichthys cataractae X X Among stones at the bottom of swift streams Native 

Speckled Dace R. osculus X Small clear well oxygenated streams Native 

Northern Pikeminnow Ptychocheilus oregonensis X X Lakes and slow streams Native 

Redside Shiner Richardsonius balteatus X X Warmer ponds, lakes, streams Native 

Sucker Family Catostomidae 

Bridgelip Sucker Catostomus columbianus X X Bottom feeder in river backwaters and pools Native 

Largescale Sucker C. macrocheilus X X Bottom feeder in lakes, and pools in rivers Native 

Mountain Sucker C. platyrhynchus X Bottom feeder in cool mountain streams Native 

Longnose Sucker C. catostomus X Bottom feeder in lakes and streams Native 

Sunfish Family Centrarchidae 

Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieui X Warm streams and lakes Introduced 

Largemouth Bass M. salmoides X Shallow, warm weedy lakes and backwaters Introduced 

White Crappie Pomoxis annularis X X Lakes and streams with dense vegetation Introduced 

Catfish Family Ctaluridae 

Brown Bullhead Ctalurus nebulosus X Warm-water ponds, lakes, sloughs Introduced 

Sculpin Family Cottidae 

Mottled Sculpin Cottus bairdi Xc

 X Cold rivers Native 

Shorthead Sculpin C. confusus Xc

 X Cold rivers Native 

Torrent Sculpin C. rhotheus Xc

 X Cold rivers and lakes Native 

Perch Family Percidae 

Stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus Xc

 Lakes, sloughs, and slow moving streams Native 

Walleye Stizostedion vitreum X Large lakes and streams Introduced 

Yellow Perch Perca flavescens X Warm to cool clear lakes; slow weedy streams Introduced a

 Source: Wenatchee Subbasin Plan (NPCC 2004a) except where noted otherwise. b

 Source: Methow Subbasin Plan (NPCC 2004b). 

c

 Source: ISEMP database. 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

7 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

currently listed under ESA. Early entry of adults allows spring Chinook to reach snowmelt 

headwater tributaries that are generally only accessible during peak spring stream flows. Once 

they arrive at these upper reaches, adults hold for extended periods prior to spawning (Figure 1). 

Since spring Chinook enter freshwater well before the time of spawning, survival until the 

spawning period is primarily a function of body fat reserves at the time of freshwater entry. 

Spawning distributions of spring run and late run Chinook salmon tend to be segregated from 

one another. While spring run fish tend to spawn in colder headwater streams, late run Chinook 

tend to spawn in larger, lower elevation rivers where water temperatures are warmer. Late run 

Chinook typically have an ocean-type life history where juveniles migrate to sea during the same 

year that they emerge from the gravel. Because spring run Chinook spawn in headwater streams 

that are much colder than lower elevation reaches, they tend to have a stream-type life history; 

rearing in freshwater for a full year. This extended freshwater residency is characteristic of 

Chinook that inhabit more productive watersheds where temperature and flow conditions are 

relatively consistent. 

Figure 1. Life cycle of mid Columbia River spring Chinook salmon. 

Adult spring Chinook enter the lower Columbia River from March through May, well in advance 

of spawning in August and September (Figure 1). Migration into the Wenatchee and Methow 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

8 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

Subbasins occurs between May and August. Snow et al. (2008) reported peak migration of 

upstream passage at Wells Dam in 2007 occurred between May 15 and June 19. However, peak 

spawning in the Methow Subbasin that year occurred much later, between August 27 and 

September 8 (Snow et al. 2008). Successful spawning depends on sufficient clean gravel of the 

right size, in addition to the constant need of adequate flows and water quality. The driving force 

in redd site selection appears to be the presence of good subgravel flow; this need is likely 

greater in Chinook than the other salmon species. 

Chinook eggs incubate throughout the autumn and winter months with of fry emergence in early 

spring. Incubation and fry emergence timing depends primarily on water temperature, but are 

also influenced by dissolved oxygen concentrations, light intensities, and genetic variations 

(Beacham and Murray 1990, Bjornn and Reiser 1991). The time between egg fertilization and 

emergence for Chinook salmon was estimated to range between 191 days at 41o

F to 316 days at 

36oF (Quinn 2005). Chapman et al. (1995) reported fry emergence timing for the mid-Columbia 

basin ranging between mid-February and mid-April. Catches of newly emerged Chinook fry and 

sac fry in smolt traps operating in the Wenatchee Subbasin indicates emergence occurs between 

late February and mid-April (Todd Miller, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

biologist, and Matthew Collins, Yakama Nation biologist, personal communications). Floods can 

have their greatest impact on salmon populations during incubation, as they can scour salmon 

eggs from the gravel or deposit sediment over spawning gravels (Wade 2002). Gravel conditions 

can also affect success of emergence. Shelton (1955) found that only 13% of hatched alevins 

emerged from fine gravel while 80-90% emergence was observed in coarse gravels. Dewatering 

can occur in regulated rivers where discharge is varied to satisfy domestic or industrial water 

needs but also occurs in natural systems. 

Once fry emerge from the gravel there is a large dispersal of fry downstream, although most 

apparently take up residence near the spawning locations. The downstream dispersal of fry 

serves to distribute the fry among suitable freshwater nursery areas (Healey 1991). Emergent 

spring Chinook fry are rarely captured in smolt traps located greater than 0.6 miles (1 km) 

downstream of spawning locations within the Wenatchee Subbasin except during spring freshets 

(Todd Miller, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife biologist, personal communication). 

After fry leave the gravel, they seek out suitable rearing habitat within side sloughs, side 

channels, spring-fed seep areas and along the outer edges of the stream. These quiet-water side 

margin and off-channel slough areas are vital for early juvenile habitat (Wade 2002). The 

presence of woody debris and overhead cover aid in food and nutrient inputs, and provide 

protection from predators primarily for the first 2 months of freshwater residence. As Chinook 

fry grow, they gradually move away from the quiet shallow areas to rear in deeper, faster areas 

of the stream (Lister and Walker 1966). Chinook salmon parr are typically associated with 

riverine habitats and are seldom found in beaver ponds or off-channel sloughs (Murphy et al. 

1989, Healey 1991). High summer water temperatures in the lower reaches of the Wenatchee and 

Methow Subbasins limit survival of the stream-type juvenile life-history typical of spring 

Chinook salmon. 

As stream temperatures decrease in the fall, many juveniles move downstream in search of 

suitable overwintering habitat (Bjornn 1971, Bustard and Narver 1975, Hillman et al. 1987). 

Others may move upstream in search of suitable habitat (Chapman et al. 1995). During the 

winter, juvenile spring Chinook tend to prefer pools with adequate concealment cover. Once 

water temperatures drop below 50o

F juvenile Chinook tend to conceal during the day and can be 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

9 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

found near the substrate at night (Mullan et al. 1992, Hillman et al. 1987). Juveniles utilize a 

variety of cover types for overwintering habitat, including interstitial spaces amid the substrate 

(Hillman et al. 1987), large woody debris and rootwads (Bustard and Narver 1975), and 

overhanging banks and vegetation (Hillman et al. 1987). Van Dyke et al. (2009) found that 

winter biomass-density of juvenile Chinook salmon was positively associated with the amount of 

cobble substrate, and inversely associated with embeddedness in the Grande Ronde River Basin. 

While some may find suitable overwintering habitat in their natal tributaries, other juveniles 

migrate downstream into larger rivers, including the main stem Columbia River, where they are 

believed to over-winter before outmigration the next spring as yearling smolts. Within the 

Wenatchee River, Tumwater Canyon is an important overwintering area for juvenile spring 

Chinook (Hillman et. al. 1989). 

Stream-type Chinook salmon migrate to sea during their second or, more rarely, their third 

spring. Wild smolts migrate out of the Wenatchee and Methow Rivers between February and 

June with peak migrations typically from mid March to mid April (Snow et al. 2008, Hillman et 

al. 2008). Migration timing progresses as the smolts move downstream through the Columbia 

River with peak migration through Bonneville Dam around the last week of May (Chapman et al. 

1995). Once stream-type Chinook salmon leave freshwater, they usually move quickly through 

the estuary, into coastal waters, and ultimately to the open ocean (Healey 1983, Healey 1991). 

Adults migrate as far north as the Aleutian Islands and are widely distributed in the open ocean 

far from coastal waters. Spring Chinook originating from the Mid-Columbia Basin remain at sea 

from 1 to 5 years, with most returning after 2 winters (Chapman et al 1995). 

Summer Steelhead 

Steelhead are rainbow trout that migrate to and from the ocean. Resident and anadromous life 

history patterns are often represented in the same population and parents of one type may 

produce offspring of the other. Columbia River populations include summer and winter 

steelhead, however summer steelhead dominate inland populations upstream from Bonneville 

Dam including the mid-Columbia basin. 

Summer steelhead return to the Columbia River from May to September (Figure 2), enter 

freshwater in a sexually immature condition, and require several months in fresh water to reach 

sexual maturity and spawn. Most adults returning to the mid-Columbia basin migrate into 

Subbasins between August and September. However, a portion of the run overwinters in main 

stem reservoirs, passing over the upper mid-Columbia dams in April and May of the following 

year (Chapman et al. 1994). 

Spawning occurs when temperatures are cold but increasing in the late spring of the calendar 

year following entry into freshwater. Spawn timing optimizes competing risks from gravel-bed 

scour during periodic winter flood events and emergence when increasing temperatures support 

productive feeding conditions. During 2007, steelhead were observed spawning from mid-March 

through May with peak spawning in April in the Wenatchee and Methow Subbasins (Hillman et 

al. 2008, Snow et al. 2008). Steelhead spawn in clear, cool, well-oxygenated streams with 

suitable gravel and water velocity. A wide range of stream sizes are utilized, from small 

tributary streams to moderate sized mainstem areas. Adult steelhead, unlike salmon, do not 

necessarily die after spawning but can return to the ocean. However, repeat spawning is not 

common among steelhead migrating several hundred miles or more upstream from the ocean. 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

10 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

Egg incubation and timing of fry emergence is dependent on temperature and to a lesser extent 

on dissolved oxygen concentrations, light intensities, and genetic variation (Bjornn and Reiser 

1991). Steelhead eggs hatch in 35–50 days depending on water temperature and alevins remain 

in the gravel 2 to 3 weeks until the yolk-sac is absorbed (Barnhart 1986). Chapman et al. (1994) 

noted that newly emerged steelhead fry have been observed in the Wenatchee Subbasin during 

June and July and speculated that in colder tributaries they may emerge as late as September. 

Following emergence, fry usually move into shallow and slow-moving margins of the stream, 

where they may aggregate in small schools of up to 10 individuals (Barnhart 1986) in waters 3-

14 in (8 to 36 cm) deep (Bovee 1978). As they grow, juveniles cease schooling behavior and 

defend individual territories and inhabit areas with deeper water, a wider range of velocities, and 

larger substrate (Grant and Kramer 1990). Juvenile steelhead typically favor riffle habitats and 

are often more abundant in steeper stream reaches than juvenile Chinook or coho. 

Summer Steelhead

Eggs incubate

1-6 months

Late winter / early spring

spawning in gravel bars

 & pockets

Adults return to freshwater from

late spring through fall

Ocean residence is 1-3 years

January

January

March

September

June

June

September

January

June

September

Fry emerge from the 

gravel in mid summer

Smolts enter estuary, 

plume & ocean in late

spring

Wild

Hatchery

 juveniles rear 

for 2-3 years before

smolting & emigration

 juveniles 

smolts at age 1

Migration into spawning

streams requires several

months. Fish often hold

in freshwater for extended

periods prior to spawning

Ocean

Years 2-4

Year 1

Key:

Periods of heaviest use

Periods of moderate use

Periods of little or no use In-migration

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

In-migration

Life Sta ge

In-migration

Spawning

Incubation

Rearing

Mid-Columbia Subbasin Summer Steelhead Periodicity

Figure 2. Life cycle of mid Columbia River summer steelhead. 

Steelhead typically spend 1-3 years in freshwater before migrating to the ocean for the first time. 

Emigration of steelhead smolts out of the Wenatchee and Methow Rivers generally occurs from 

March to June, with peak migrations in April or May (Snow et al. 2008, Hillman et al. 2008). 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

11 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

Once they begin their migration, steelhead smolts actively migrate through the Columbia River 

mainstem and estuary to reach the ocean. In the ocean, steelhead generally migrate north along 

the continental shelf. Steelhead migrational patterns are generally believed to extend further out 

in the ocean than other salmonids; however, steelhead are seldom caught in ocean fisheries and 

limited CWT recovery data is available to conclusively confirm this belief. Individuals grow 

rapidly in the ocean. Size and age of maturation are related to ocean growth rates. Most adult 

steelhead return to freshwater after 1 or 2 years at sea. 

Bull Trout 

Bull trout in the Columbia River Basin exhibit resident and freshwater migratory life history 

patterns (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Resident forms live out their lives in the tributary where 

they were born or in nearby streams. Freshwater migratory forms include both fluvial and 

adfluvial strategies (Fraley and Shepard 1989). The fluvial form migrates between main rivers 

and tributaries while the adfluvial form migrates between lakes and streams. Tagging studies 

have confirmed fluvial bull trout in the Wenatchee and Methow Subbasins sometimes migrate 

into the Columbia River mainstem (USFWS 2002). Resident and migratory forms may coexist in 

the same stream. 

Researchers have consistently found that water temperature is a principal factor influencing 

distribution of bull trout (Rieman and McIntyre 1993, Baxter and McPhail 1996). Fraley and 

Shepard (1989) observed that water temperature above 59°F limited bull trout distribution in 

Montana. Studies in the John Day basin found bull trout present only when maximum summer 

temperatures were 61°F or below, and maximum densities occurred where maximum 

temperatures were 54°F or below (Buchanan et al. 1997). 

Bull trout have more specific habitat requirements than most other salmonids (Rieman and 

McIntyre 1993). Habitat components that influence bull trout distribution and abundance 

include water temperature, cover, channel form and stability, valley form, spawning and rearing 

substrate, and migratory corridors (Fraley and Shepard 1989; Goetz 1989; Hoelscher and Bjornn 

1989; Sedell and Everest 1991; Howell and Buchanan 1992; Pratt 1992; Rieman and McIntyre 

1993, 1995; Rich 1996; Watson and Hillman 1997). As a result bull trout exhibit a patchy 

distribution, even in pristine habitats (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). 

Preferred spawning habitats include stream reaches with groundwater infiltration, loose clean 

gravel and cobble substrates, and temperatures 41-48°F in late summer and early fall (Fraley and 

Shepard 1989, Goetz 1989). Migrating forms may travel to spawning streams during spring or 

early summer freshets and reside in deep pools up to 2 months before spawning (Figure 3). 

Adults typically spawn at night from August to November during periods of decreasing water 

temperatures (McPhail and Baxter 1996). Peak spawning in the Wenatchee and Methow 

Subbasins occurs between mid-September through October (USFS in prep., USFWS 2004). 

Redds are often constructed in stream reaches fed by springs or near other sources of cold 

groundwater (Goetz 1989; Pratt 1992; Rieman and McIntyre 1996). Bull trout reach maturity in 

4 to 7 years and may live longer than 12 years. Repeat- and alternate-year spawning has been 

reported, although repeat-spawning frequency and post-spawning mortality are not well 

documented (Leathe and Graham 1982; Fraley and Shepard 1989; Pratt 1992; Rieman and 

McIntyre 1996). 

Incubating and emergent bull trout require colder water than other salmonid species. Cool water 

during early life history results in higher egg survival and fry growth rates (Pratt 1992, McPhail 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

12 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

and Murray 1979, Shepard et al. 1984). Incubation is normally 100 to 145 days depending on 

water temperature, (Pratt 1992). After hatching, juveniles remain in the substrate for up to 3 

weeks before emerging from the gravel. Fry normally emerge from early April through May, 

depending on water temperatures and increasing stream flows (Pratt 1992; Ratliff and Howell 

1992). 

Bull Trout

Eggs incubate

3-5 months.

Early fall spawning in

runs and pool tailouts.

Season of upstream migration

is spring and summer.

Lake/River residence is 2-6 years.

Adults migrate back downstream 1-2 weeks

after spawning. Adults may spawn every year

or every other year.

January

January

March

September

June

June

September

January

June

September

Fry emerge April-May.

Migratory juveniles

migrate downstream in

spring, summer, and fall.

Migratory bull trout rear in their natal

stream 1-3 years before outmigrating.

Resident bull trout remain in natal

streams and rear 5-7 years before

spaw ning.

Migration into mainstem

rivers and tributaries

requires several months.

Fish often hold in deep

pools for extended periods

prior to spawning.

Lake/River

Years 2-4

Year 1-3

Mid-Columbia Subbasin Bull Trout Periodicity

In-migration

Life Stage Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

In-migration

Spawning

Incubation

Rearing

Key:

Periods of heaviest use

Periods of moderate use

Periods of little or no use

Figure 3. Life cycle of mid Columbia River bull trout. 

Juvenile bull trout typically rear in their natal streams for several years although some may 

migrate out as fry (McPhail and Baxter 1996, USFWS 2002). Within the Wenatchee Subbasin, 

bull trout fry are not typically captured in smolt traps except within the White River drainage 

where they are thought to migrate downstream to rear in Wenatchee Lake (Todd Miller, 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife biologist, and Matthew Collins, Yakama Nation 

biologist, personal communications). Similarly, bull trout fry are not captured in smolt traps 

located in the lower Methow and Twisp Rivers (Alex Repp, Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife biologist, personal communication). Juvenile bull trout are associated with complex 

cover, including large wood, undercut banks, boulders, and pools (Fraley and Shepard 1989). In 

addition, they prefer shallow water depths with good cover, near faster-flowing water that 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

13 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

delivers food particles (Baxter and McPhail 1996). Fry stay close to the streambed, perhaps as an 

adaptation to avoid being carried downstream before they are large enough to take up residence 

in a suitable feeding site. McPhail and Murray (1979) found that bull trout fry grew to larger 

sizes at lower temperatures, with maximum growth at about 39°F. Migratory bull trout generally 

leave their natal streams for the first time after 2 to 3 years when about 7.75 inches long. 

Although juvenile migration can occur any time of the year, it typically peaks during May and 

June. Once migratory bull trout leave the streams in which they are born, they travel to larger 

rivers and lakes throughout their range. Migratory corridors link seasonal habitats for all bull 

trout life histories and are important for the persistence of the species (USFWS 2002). At 

maturity, resident fish are generally smaller and less fecund than migratory fish (Fraley and 

Shepard 1989). 

Bull trout are opportunistic feeders, with food habits primarily a function of size and life-history 

strategy. Resident and juvenile migratory bull trout prey on terrestrial and aquatic insects, 

macro-zooplankton, and small fish (Boag 1987; Goetz 1989; Donald and Alger 1993). Adult 

migratory bull trout feed on various fish species (Leathe and Graham 1982; Fraley and Shepard 

1989; Brown 1992; Donald and Alger 1993). 

2.2 Potential Life Stages Affected 

Potential interactions between rearing coho and other fish will depend on the species and lifestages present at the time of the activity. There are three general classes of potential impacts 

considered in this analysis: opportunity for direct predation; temporary loss of habitat; and 

construction related. 

Only spring Chinook and bull trout fry would be small enough to be potential prey for juvenile 

coho during rearing and acclimation. Because Chinook fry typically remain near spawning areas 

or disperse downstream after emergence, they would be expected to be present at, or within 0.6 

miles downstream of, spawning areas. In contrast, juvenile bull trout tend to remain in their natal 

streams for 1 or more years (McPhail and Baxter 1996, USFWS 2002). Fry would only be 

expected to be present at sites near spawning locations, except within the White River where bull 

trout fry have been documented moving downstream. Within the White River drainage, bull trout 

fry would be assumed to be present in the mainstem down to Lake Wenatchee. 

Temporary loss of habitat would potentially occur when barrier nets or seines are used to enclose 

juvenile coho during rearing and acclimation. Other fish would be excluded from the immediate 

site and potentially prevented from migrating upstream. Spring Chinook fry, parr, and smolts; 

summer steelhead adults, parr and smolts; and bull trout fry, juveniles (remaining in natal 

streams), and migratory subadults (larger immature fish) and adults could potentially be affected 

by these activities. 

Construction is planned for a limited number of sites during the June through August time 

period. Spring Chinook adults, and parr; summer steelhead adults, fry, parr and smolts; and bull 

trout juveniles, and migratory subadults and adults could potentially be present during these 

activities. 

A list of life stages and size ranges of ESA listed fish that could be present proposed overwinter 

rearing sites (December through early May), spring acclimation (mid-March through early May), 

and site construction activities is found in Table 2. The potential effects of these activities are 

discussed in greater detail under the Impact Analysis section. 
Append

14 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

Table 2. Life stages and size ranges of ESA listed fish that could be present in the Wenatchee and Methow Subbasins during prrearing periods (December-early May), spring acclimation periods (mid-March-early May) and site construction activities (Jun

Overwinter rearing Spring acclimation During construction 

Species Life stage Timing Present Size (in) Present Size (in) Present Size (in) 

adult migration/holding May-Aug yes 12-36 yes 12-36 yes 12-36 Chapmaadult spawning Aug-Sep no no yes 12-36 Snow et eggs & alevin Aug-Apr yes < 1.2 yes < 1.2 yes < 1.2 Chapmafry Feb-May yes 1.25-1.75 yes 1.25-1.75 no Chapma

parr Jun-Mar yes 2.75-4.75 yes 2.75-4.75 yes 1.75-4.75 Chapma

Spring 

Chinook 

smolts Mar-Apr yes 2.75-5.0 yes 2.75-5.0 no Chapmaadult migration/holding Aug-Mar yes 20-34 yes 20-34 yes 20-34 Chapma

adult spawning Mar-May yes 20-34 yes 20-34 no Chapmaeggs & alevin Mar-Sep yes < 1.2 yes < 1.2 yes < 1.2 Chapmafry Jun-Sep no no yes 1.25-1.75 Chapmaparr Year-round yes 2.75-6.25 yes 2.75-6.25 yes 1.75-6.25 Chapma

Summer 

steelhead 

smolts Mar-Jun yes 5.5-8.25 yes 5.5-8.25 yes 5.5-8.25 Chapma

adult migration/holding May-Sep yes 14-32 yes 14-32 yes 14-32 McPhail adult spawning Aug-Nov no no yes 6-32 USFS in sub-adult/adult feeding Year-round yes 6-32 yes 6-32 yes 6-32 Pratt 199eggs & alevin Aug-Apr yes < 1 yes < 1 yes < 1 Pratt 199young-of-year Apr-Dec yes 1.0-1.75 yes 1.0-1.75 no Pratt 199

Bull trout 

juveniles Year-round yes 2.25-7.75 yes 2.25-7.75 yes 2.25-7.75 Sexauer 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

15 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

3.0 DETERMINING SPECIES PRESENCE 

We determined the presence of ESA listed fish by life stage by reviewing existing data and 

literature on fish distribution for the Wenatchee and Methow Subbasins, and by snorkel surveys 

at selected sites. 

3.1 Review of Existing Data 

A variety of resources were used to obtain existing data on presence of ESA listed fish for 

rearing and acclimation sites proposed for the Wenatchee and Methow Subbasins (see 

Appendices 2 and 3 of the EIS for site descriptions). These included online interactive mapping 

tools, published reports, and contacting individuals associated with agencies and private 

organizations to acquire unpublished reports and databases. 

The Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in cooperation with the Departments 

of Fish and Wildlife, and Ecology, and in consultation with affected Indian tribes maintains and 

updates “fish habitat water typing maps” under WAC 222-16 (See section 031) to help 

landowners identify and type streams on their property. These maps include both modeled and 

field-verified stream types and can be viewed on the Forest Practices Application and Review 

System (FPARS) mapping website (Figure 4). DNR classifies streams, lakes and ponds into four 

types: 

• Type S, shoreline 

• Type F, fish bearing 

• Type Np, non-fish bearing perennial, or 

• Type Ns, non-fish seasonal waters. 

In addition, codes used as placeholders include N (Non-fish where the Np or Ns determination 

has not been made), X (a water feature exists, but does not meet the definition of a typed water 

as described in WAC 222-16, and U (water type has not yet been presumed or field verified). 

Stream classifications for streams that would be affected by proposed acclimation sites are found 

in Figure 2-2 in Appendices 2 and 3. However, this site does not provide information on which 

species or life-stages are found in each stream. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) maintains SalmonScape, an online 

interactive mapping tool (Figure 5) that provides detailed information about fish distribution and 

status, habitat characteristics, smolt trapping locations, and passage barriers. Data used to create 

SalmonScape maps were collected by state, federal, tribal and local biologists as well as regional 

fisheries enhancement groups and watershed partners. We used SalmonScape to provide an 

initial list of sites with known fish presence information. 

Because SalmonScape may not represent the most current or complete dataset available for fish 

presence in the Wenatchee and Methow Subbasins, we contacted a wide range of governmental, 

tribal, and private organizations to obtain additional site-specific fish survey data. A complete 

list of contacts is found in Table 3. 

Within the Wenatchee Subbasin we found two large datasets with site specific information on 

fish sampling collected by state, federal, and tribal agencies. The Integrated Status and 

Effectiveness Monitoring Project (ISEMP) manages data on salmon and steelhead populations 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

16 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

Mason

M SWA Eight M ile

Figure 4. Map generated using the online DNR interactive mapping program at the FPARS website showing 

stream classifications near the Mason and MSWA Eight Mile acclimation sites in the Methow River basin. 

M ason

MSWA Eight Mile

Figure 5. Map generated using the online WDFW interactive mapping program SalmonScape, showing the 

distribution of spring Chinook spawning (green) and rearing (purple) near the Mason and MSWA Eight Mile 

acclimation sites in the Methow River basin. 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

17 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

Table 3. List of contacts made to obtain fish survey data in the Wenatchee and Methow Subbasins by agency 

and location. 

Contact Agency Location 

Tracy Hillman BioAnalysts, Inc. Boise, ID 

Jeff Osborn Chelan PUD Wenatchee 

Shaun Seaman Chelan PUD Wenatchee 

Pamela Nelle Terraqua, Inc. (ISEMP) Wenatchee 

James White Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board (ISEMP) Wenatchee 

Barbara Kelly Ringel US Fish & Wildlife Service Leavenworth 

Judy De Lavergne US Fish & Wildlife Service Wenatchee 

David Hopkins US Forest Service Winthrop 

Gene Shull US Forest Service Winthrop 

Pierre Dawson US Forest Service Wenatchee 

Cindy Raekes US Forest Service Wenatchee 

Dan Rife US Forest Service Deschutes 

Patrick Connolly US Geological Survey Cook 

Wes Tibbits US Geological Survey Twisp 

Jennifer Molesworth US Bureau of Reclamation Twisp 

Carol Volk Volk Consulting (ISEMP) Seattle 

Andrew Murdoch WDFW Wenatchee 

Casey Baldwin WDFW Wenatchee 

Charlie Snow WDFW Twisp 

Alex Repp WDFW Twisp 

Mike Tonseth WDFW Wenatchee 

Todd Miller WDFW Wenatchee 

Bob Steele WDFW Ephrata 

John Crandall Wild Fish Conservancy Duvall 

Keely Murdoch Yakama Nation Wenatchee 

Cory Kamphaus Yakama Nation Wenatchee 

Matthew Collins Yakama Nation Wenatchee 

Rick Alford Yakama Nation Winthrop 

and habitat collected since 2004. The US Forest Service in Wenatchee maintains a similar 

database for sampling years 1936 to 2006. We used Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to 

overlay fish survey data from these two sources on acclimation site locations to determine if fish 

surveys had been conducted in the near vicinity of each acclimation site (Figure 6). Additional 

information was provided by Chelan PUD (Hillman et al. 2008) and USFWS (USFWS 2003, 

2004). 

Site-specific fish survey data for the Methow Subbasin was provided by a number of agencies. 

Spring Chinook and summer steelhead spawning ground survey and smolt monitoring data was 

provided by WDFW (Snow et al. 2008). Bull trout redd surveys were provided by the US Forest 

Service (USFS in prep.). Electrofishing and trapping data collected in Lower Methow tributaries 

between 2004 and 2006 was provided by the US Geological Survey (Martens and Connolly 

2008). Additional fish survey data for selected sites was provided by Patrick Connolly (US 

Geological Survey, personal communication) and Gene Shull (US Forest Service, personal 

communication). 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

18 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

Figure 6. All acclimation sites in the Wenatchee basin (stars), fish survey sites (small dots), and survey sites 

with listed species observed. Fish survey data was supplied by USFS and ISEMP for survey years 1936-2007. 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

19 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

Protocols 

In some cases the available data was insufficient to determine what life-stages were present for a 

given species. To deal with these circumstances we established a set of rules to assume which 

life stages were present as described below: 

Presence documented: This common classification in SalmonScape did not provide any 

information on the size or timing of the fish. Unless other information was provided, we assumed 

these were rearing juvenile Chinook or steelhead, or migratory bull trout (juveniles and adults). 

Presence presumed: We treated this SalmonScape classification the same as “presence 

documented” unless actual snorkel/electrofishing sampling in that stream failed to capture any of 

fish of this species. In that case, the sampling data was assumed correct. 

Spawning: For all species, we assumed that if spawning was documented in the area, rearing 

also occurred there. In addition, we assumed that Chinook and steelhead rearing occurred within 

0.6 miles downstream of a spawning reach. Because bull trout typically rear in their natal 

streams for 1-3 years, we did not assume fry would be present downstream of spawning 

tributaries (except as noted below). 

Rearing: For Chinook and steelhead, we assumed that if rearing was documented in the area, 

but spawning was not documented upstream, that these fish had migrated upstream into the 

stream. We assumed that parr and smolts were present but fry were not because their ability to 

swim against the current is not fully developed. For bull trout we assumed that if rearing was 

listed but no spawning, that adult and sub-adult migratory fish were present. Bull trout fry tend to 

stay in their natal streams and were not assumed to be present in non-natal streams (except in the 

White River where bull trout fry have commonly been captured in smolt traps). 

Migration: We assumed that adult Chinook and steelhead migrated through any reach 

downstream of spawning locations. We assumed that bull trout migrated anywhere they had been 

documented as present. Because migrating bull trout can include immature fish (sub adults) and 

adults, we assumed that areas classified as “rearing” were migratory fish unless it was a known 

spawning area. 

3.2 On-site Surveys 

We conducted snorkel surveys to determine presence or absence of ESA listed fish species at 

five acclimation sites following methods described in Thurow (1994) and Murdoch and Nelle 

(2008) (Table 3). All surveys were conducted between April 26-28 to correspond with the 

general time period during which acclimation sites would be active. 

The snorkel crew completed a training exercise prior to conducting any stream surveys. Training 

consisted of reviewing snorkeling techniques, safety precautions, and photographs and 

descriptions of commonly observed fish species described in Thurow (1994). They also practiced 

fish identification and size estimation techniques in the field. Plastic fish cutouts of known length 

were used to help crew members estimate fish size underwater. 

We designated sample reaches at each acclimation site of approximately 475 feet in length, and 

where appropriate, located such that water intake and discharge sites were encompassed within 

the sample reach. General site descriptions were made at each site prior to conducting any 

snorkel surveys. Basic habitat data included reach length (measured with a hip chain), wetted 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

20 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

width (at five or more cross sections), and general channel type classification from Montgomery 

and Buffington (1993) (i.e., pool/riffle, plane-bed, step-pool, cascade, etc.). Upstream and 

downstream reach boundaries were initially marked with flagging and GPS coordinates were 

recorded. Information such as sample date (including start and stop time), water temperature, and 

visibility were recorded for each site. Visibility was measured using a 4 in Rapala fishing lure 

(Model # XRD-10RT) placed in the mid-water column and a snorkeler moved away from the 

lure until it was no longer identifiable. The snorkeler then moved towards the lure until it was 

identifiable again. The distance from the snorkeler to the lure was then measured using a 

measuring tape. 

All snorkel surveys were conducted at night because nighttime snorkel surveys have been shown 

to be more accurate than daytime surveys during winter months (Roni and Fayram 2000). A 

glowstick was set at reach boundaries prior to each survey. Surveys were carried out by one or 

two snorkelers depending on the stream width, habitat complexity, and visibility. Snorkelers 

entered the river approximately 15 ft downstream of the reach start and proceed upstream. Fish 

counts started when the snorkeler had passed the glow stick marking the downstream end of the 

reach. To avoid inaccuracies or double counts, fish were not counted until the observer passed 

them. For reaches requiring two snorkelers, the two snorkelers held position in the center of the 

channel as they moved upstream. The observer on the left counted all fish to the left of center, 

and the observer on the right counted the remainder. All salmonids were identified to species, 

while dace, suckers, and sculpins were identified to genus. Fish were grouped into commonly 

observed size categories as described in Thurow (1994). Data was recorded on a slate during the 

survey and transcribed onto waterproof rite-in-rain paper immediately after completing the 

survey. 

3.3 Results 

3.3.1 Wenatchee onsite surveys 

3.3.1.1 Butcher 

The Butcher site was snorkeled between 10:10 and 11:40 PM on April 26, 2009. Water 

temperature was measured at 45o

F and visibility at 5.25 ft. Five distinct habitat reaches were 

identified (Figure 7), including a 30 ft length of stream downstream of the beaver pond (reach 1). 

The MCCRP was acclimating coho in the beaver pond at the time of the survey and the water 

visibility was poor due to fish and beaver activity. The number and sizes of fish observed during 

the survey are found in Table 4. Chinook salmon fry were observed only below the beaver dam 

in Butcher Creek near the confluence with Nason Creek. We assumed the beaver dam prevented 

Chinook salmon from accessing the acclimation site. In contrast, juvenile rainbow/steelhead 

were found in Butcher Creek above and below the beaver pond. While these fish were likely 

resident rainbow trout, we could not exclude the possibility that juvenile steelhead were able to 

access the pond above the beaver dam under some flow conditions. 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

21 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

Figure 7. Aerial view of the Butcher site showing habitat reaches and snorkel survey locations. 

Table 4. Summary of habitat reaches and fish observed during the snorkel survey at the Butcher site on April 

26, 2009. 

Reach Reach Length Habitat Stream channel (ft) Fish observed 

number description (ft) type avg width avg depth speciesa size (in) number 

 Chin 1.0-1.5 > 100 

 Sthd 2.25-2.75 1 

 Sthd 2.75-6.0 2 

 RSS < 2.75 10 

1 PIT tag array 

to beaver dam 30 glide 9.0 1.5 

 HCoho 2.75-6.0 2 

2 Acclimation pond 322 pond 80 10 Poor visibility not surveyed 

3 Marshy area 46 backwater 105 0.3 Undefined channel not surveyed 

 Sthd 2.25-2.75 1 

 Sthd 2.75-6.0 1 

 RSS < 2.75 14 4 Upper pond 230 pond 78 5 

 HCoho 2.75-6.0 6 

5 Inlet stream 85 glide 7 0.75 HCoho 2.75-6.0 3 a

 Chin = Chinook, Sthd = rainbow/steelhead, RSS = red sided shiner, HCoho = hatchery coho 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

22 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

3.3.1.2 Coulter 

The Coulter site was snorkeled between 9:15 and 10:10 PM on April 28, 2009. Water 

temperature was measured at 46o

F and visibility at 6.5 ft. Two reaches were surveyed (Figure 8): 

a flowing section downstream of the acclimation site and beaver complex; and a representative 

section in the beaver complex above the acclimation site. The MCCRP was holding coho at the 

acclimation pond at the time of the survey and the water visibility was limited due to fish and 

beaver activity. The number and sizes of fish observed during the survey are found in Table 5. 

Figure 8. Aerial view of the Coulter site showing snorkel survey boundaries in relation to the acclimation 

pond. 

Table 5. Summary of habitat reaches and fish observed during the snorkel survey at the Coulter site on April 

28, 2009. 

Reach Length Habitat Stream channel (ft) Fish observed 

Reach description (ft) type avg width avg depth speciesa size (in) number 

 Sthd 2.75-6.0 1 

 Sthd 6-12 1 

 Brook 2.75-6.0 1 

 Brook 6-12 3 

3 Flowing section 

upstream of road 251 glide 8.2 1.2 

 HCoho 2.75-6.0 8 

 RSS 2.75-6.0 13 2 Beaver complex upstream of accl. pond 246 pond 10 5 HCoho 2.75-6.0 60+ a

 Sthd = rainbow/steelhead, Brook = brook trout, RSS = red sided shiner, HCoho = hatchery coho. 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

23 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

Rainbow/steelhead and brook trout were observed in Coulter Creek below the acclimation site 

and beaver complex, but not above. We assumed that the series of beaver dams prevented 

upstream migration of these species. 

3.3.1.3 Rohlfing 

The Rohlfing site was snorkeled between 10:50 and 11:30 PM on April 28, 2009. Water 

temperature was measured at 44oF and visibility at 10 ft. Two reaches of flowing stream were 

surveyed: one each above and below the acclimation pond (Figure 9) The MCCRP was holding 

coho at the acclimation pond at the time of the survey and the water visibility was poor due to 

fish activity. The number and sizes of fish observed during the survey are found in Table 6. 

Rainbow/steelhead trout were only observed downstream of the acclimation pond. Nevertheless, 

an adult steelhead was observed upstream of the acclimation pond in the past (Mike Tonseth, 

WDFW personal communication). However, because the stream goes dry during the summer, 

the importance of this habitat is likely minimal. 

Table 6. Summary of habitat reaches and fish observed during the snorkel survey at the Rohlfing site on 

April 28, 2009. 

 Reach Length Habitat Stream channel (ft) Fish observed 

Reach description (ft) type avg width avg depth speciesa size (in) number 

 Sthd 2.25-2.75 2 

 Sthd 2.75-6.0 2 

 HCoho 2.25-2.75 1 

1 

Section of stream 

from Whitepine Rd 

to acclimation pond 

295 glide 12.0 1 

 HCoho 2.75-6.0 4 

2 Acclimation pond 95 pond 60.7 6.5 poor visibiility - no survey 

 3 Stream upstream of 

acclimation pond 148 glide 6.9 0.75 HCoho 2.25-2.75 3 

a

 Sthd = rainbow/steelhead, HCoho = hatchery coho 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

24 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

Figure 9. Aerial view of the Rohlfing site showing snorkel survey boundaries in relation to the acclimation 

pond. 

3.3.2 Methow onsite surveys 

3.3.2.1 Goat Wall 

The Goat Wall site was snorkeled between 9:30 and 10:30 PM on April 27, 2009. Water 

temperature was measured at 45.5o

F and visibility at 43 ft. One reach beginning just upstream of 

the Methow River and ending at a pipe crossing near the homestead (Figure 10) was surveyed. 

The number and sizes of fish observed during the survey are found in Table 7. 

Rainbow/steelhead and bull trout were scattered throughout the reach. This was surprising 

because, like the Methow River nearby, the stream was completely dry during a site visit on 

April 8, 2009. 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

25 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

Figure 10. Aerial view of the Goat Wall site showing snorkel survey boundaries. 

Table 7. Summary of fish observed during the snorkel survey at the Goat Wall site on April 27, 2009. 

 Reach Length Habitat Stream channel (ft) Fish observed 

Reach description (ft) type avg width avg depth speciesa size (in) number 

 Sthd 2.75-6.0 3 

 Sthd 6-12 2 

 Bull 2.75-6.0 1 

 Bull 6-12 4 

1 

Upstream of Methow 

confluence to 

overhead pipeline 

522 pool 42 3.3 

 Unid 6-12 1 a

 Sthd = rainbow/steelhead, Bull = bull trout, Unid = unidentified salmonid (probable Sthd) escaped before positive 

identification. 

3.3.2.2 MSWA Eight Mile 

The MSWA Eight Mile site was snorkeled between 11:30 PM April 27, 2009 and 12:10 AM on 

April 28, 2009. Water temperature was measured at 44o

F and visibility at 14 ft. One reach 

beginning just upstream of the Chewuch River and ending 502 ft upstream was surveyed (Figure 

11). The number and sizes of fish observed during the survey are found in Table 8. One lamprey 

and four rainbow/steelhead were observed just upstream (30 ft) of the Chewuch confluence. 

Upstream of that point, the channel was very wide and shallow, with lots of aquatic vegetation 

and no measurable flow. Only one rainbow/steelhead was observed in this upper section of the 

reach. The dominant fish species throughout the channel was the bridgelip sucker. 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

26 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

Figure 11. Aerial view of the MSWA Eight Mile site showing snorkel survey boundaries. 

Table 8. Summary of fish observed during the snorkel survey at the MSWA Eight Mile site on April 27, 2009. 

 Reach Length Habitat Stream channel (ft) Fish observed 

Reach description (ft) type avg width avg depth speciesa size (in) number 

 Sthd 2.75-6.0 5 

 Lamp 6-12 1 

 Sckr 2.75-6.0 > 200 

1 

Start upstream 

of Chewuch 

confluence 

502 backwater 67 ~1.5 

 Sckr 6-12 1 a

 Sthd = rainbow/steelhead, Lamp = lamprey, Sckr = bridgelip sucker. 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

27 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

3.3.3 Summary of fish presence 

Summaries of the available data are found in Table 9 for the Wenatchee River Basin and Table 

10 for the Methow River Basin. 

Table 9. Summary of spawning (S), rearing (R), and migration (M) data documented for listed species at 

affected streams near acclimation sites in the Wenatchee Subbasin. 

 Spring Chinook Steelhead Bull trout 

Site Name Affected Stream S R M S R M S R M 

Primary Sites 

Beaver Beaver 3 2 2,3 2b 2b 

Brender Brender 1a,2a 1a 

Butcher Butcher 6 

Chikamin Chikamin 1, 3 1 1,3a 1,3b 1,3b,5 

Clear Clear Creek 1,4 1,2 

Coulter Coulter Creek 1a 

Dirty Face unnamed No Data 

Dryden Peshastin/Wenatchee 1,3 1 2,4 1,3 1b,2b 1b,2b 

White River 

Springs unnamed No Data 

Minnow Minnow 1a, 3 3a 3b 3b 

Rohlfing unnamed 6c 

Scheibler Chumstick No Data 

Tall Timber Napeequa 1,2 1,2 4 1a,2a 1b,2b 1b,2b 

Two Rivers none No Data 

Backup Sites 

Allen Allen No Data 

Coulter/Roaring Coulter/Roaring 1,2 1 

George Wenatchee River 1,2,4 1,2,3 1,2,4 1,2,3 1b 1b,2b 

McComas White River 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Squadroni unnamed No Data 

Data Source key: 

1 = Salmon Scape, 2 = USFS database (1904-2006), 3 = ISEMP database (2004-2007), 4 = Hillman et al. (2008), 

5 = USFWS 2003, 2004, 6 = onsite survey, a = Presence documented but size class not specified, b = Presence 

assumed, c = only found downstream of acclimation site, blanks indicate species/life stage not documented. 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

28 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

Table 10. Summary of spawning (S), rearing (R), and migration (M) data documented for listed species at 

affected streams near acclimation sites in the Methow Subbasin. 

 Spring Chinook Steelhead Bull trout 

Site Name Affected stream S R M S R M S R M 

Primary Sites 

Goat Wall Cold Creek 6 6 6 

Gold S Fork Gold 1c 1,2,3 1,2 2 

Hancock Hancock Creek 1,3,5 1,5 

Heath Heath ponds (spring) 2,4 2,4 2 

Lincoln Twisp River 1,3 1 1,3 1 3 1b 1b 

Lower Twisp Twisp River 1 1 3 1,3 1 3 1b 1b 

Mason Eight Mile 1 1,3 1,4 1b 1b,4 

MSWA Eight Mile Chewuch side channel 6 

Parmley Beaver Creek 1,2,3 1,2 1 2 

Twisp Weir Twisp River 1,3 1 3 1,3 1 3 1b 1b 

Pete Creek Pond Chewuch River 1,4 1 3 1,4 1 1 4 

Backup Sites 

Balky Hill unnamed (Beaver trib) No Data 

Biddle Wolf Creek 1 1,4 1,3 1,4 1 1,4 

Canyon Canyon Creek No Data 

Chewuch A.F. Chewuch River 1 1 3 1,3 1 1 4 

MSRF Chewuch Chewuch River 

Newby Newby Creek No Data 

Poorman Twisp River 1 1,4 3,4 1,3 1 1b 1b 

Utley unnamed (Twisp trib) No Data 

Data Source key: 

1 = Salmon Scape, 2 = USGS sampling, 3 = Snow et al. 2008 (WDFW), 4 = USFS sampling, 5 = Yakama Nation 

surveys, 6 = Onsite surveys, a = Presence documented but size class not specified, b = Presence assumed, c = 

Presence “presumed” in SalmonScape but not verified, blanks indicate species/life stage not documented. 
Append

29 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

Table 11. Summary of ESA listed fish by life stage assumed to be presenta during overwinter rearing, spring acclimation, and c

the Wenatchee Subbasin. 

Rearing/acclimation Co

 Spring Chinook Steelhead Bull trout 

Spring 

Chinook St

Site name Affected stream 

eggs/alevin 

fry 

parr 

smolts 

adults 

eggs/alevin 

parr 

smolts 

adults 

eggs/alevin 

young-of-year 

sub-adults 

adults 

eggs/alevin 

parr 

adults 

eggs/alevin 

Primary Sites Beaver Beaver Creek U U P P P P U U nonBrender Brender Creek U U P P nonButcher Butcher Creek A A Chikamin Chikamin Creek P P P P P P P A P P P P P Clear Clear Creek P P P P nonCoulter Coulter Creek nonDrydenb Peshastin/Wenatchee A P P P P P A A A A P P 

White River Springs unnamed A A A A A A nonMinnow Minnow Creek P P P P A P P Rohlfing unnamed U U Scheibler Chumstick A A Tall Timber Napeequa P P P P U U U U A A P P P U U Two Rivers none Backup Sites 

Allen Allen Creek nonCoulter/Roaring Coulter/Roaring P A P P nonGeorge Wenatchee River P P P P P P P P A U U A P P P P P McComas White River P P P P U U U P A P nonSquadroni unnamed 

a Presence denoted by “P” indicates presence well documented, “A” presence is assumed, “U” presence possible but unlikely, and blank

expected. 

b Dryden is listed as both a primary site for a small hatchery facility, and a backup overwinter rearing site. 
Append

30 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

Table 12. Summary of ESA listed fish by life stage assumed to be presenta during overwinter rearing, spring acclimation, and c

the Methow Subbasin. 

Rearing/acclimation C

Spring Chinook Steelhead Bull trout 

Spring 

Chinook 

Site name Affected stream 

eggs/alevin 

fry 

parr 

smolts 

 

adults 

eggs/alevin 

parr 

smolts 

 

adults 

eggs/alevin 

young-of-year 

sub-adults 

 

adults 

eggs/alevin 

parr 

 

adults 

/li

Primary Sites Goat Wall unnamed U U A P A P n

Gold S Fork Gold P A P P A P P Heath Heath ponds (spring) P P P P P P nLincoln Twisp River P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Lower Twisp Twisp River P P P P P P P P P P n

Mason Eight Mile A A P A P P A P A P MSWA Eight Mile Chewuch side channel A A P P A A Parmley Beaver Creek P P P P P P P Twisp Weir Twisp River P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 

Pete Creek Pond Chewuch River A A P P P P P P A P n

Backup Sites 

Balky Hill unnamed U U U U n

Biddle Wolf Creek A A P P P P P P P P nCanyon Canyon Creek A A A A 

Chewuch A.F. Chewuch River A A A A A A A A P P A A A A MSRF Chewuch Chewuch River A A A A A A A A P P A A A A Newby Newby Creek Poorman unnamed U U U U U U nUtley unnamed U U 

a Presence denoted by “P” indicates presence well documented, “A” presence is assumed, “U” presence possible but unlikely, and blank

expected. 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

31 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

4.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS 

The potential effects described below are common to all acclimation sites although the extent 

and duration may vary between sites. Impacts due to water withdrawals are discussed in a 

separate report entitled Effect of Surface Water Withdrawals on Listed Fish Report (Appendix 10 

of the EIS) prepared for the project. Potential impacts specific to the location of each acclimation 

site are further discussed in following sections. Impacts to listed and non-listed fish after coho 

have been released from the acclimation sites and impacts that result from naturally spawning 

populations being reintroduced are not evaluated in this Appendix. 

In addition to listed fish, a number of other species are present in the Subbasins (Table 1) and 

could be impacted during acclimation and construction activities. Because the acclimation sites 

are located higher in the drainages, species with colder water preferences are more likely to be 

present than warm water species. These cold water associated fish include salmonids (sockeye 

salmon, Westslope cutthroat trout, non-native brook trout, and mountain whitefish), lamprey, 

suckers, sculpins and some species of minnows. 

The most likely impact to fish that would result is related to access to habitat during rearing and 

acclimation periods. The amount of area that would be unavailable during rearing/acclimation 

would be limited to the area enclosed by seine or barrier nets at each acclimation site. The 

relative impact on listed species from being dislocated or excluded from this habitat will depend 

to some extent on the local availability of similar habitat which is discussed under each 

acclimation site in the following sections. 

Two sites are proposed as adult holding areas: one in each Subbasin. Temporary weirs would be 

installed in these streams from early October through November. Adult coho salmon would be 

planted upstream of the weir to allow them to spawn in available habitat. Potential impacts to 

other fish would primarily occur to larger adults that would be blocked from migrating in and out 

of these streams when the weirs are in place. In addition, spawning coho salmon could disturb 

eggs deposited in spawning redds established earlier in the year. These impacts would be limited 

to species that spawn in late summer or early fall. Spring spawners such as steelhead and other 

trout will be able to access these areas and spawn well before the weirs are installed. Further, 

trout fry emerge during the summer so eggs and alevins would not be disturbed by coho 

spawning activities in October. Spring Chinook would spawn prior to weirs being installed so 

they would not be prevented from accessing these sites, but spawning coho salmon could 

potentially disturb their eggs. However, fall spawning fish such as salmon and bull trout have not 

been documented spawning in either tributary proposed for adult holding. 

Construction is planned for 36% of the primary acclimation sites. Construction would occur 

during summer months (June – September). Potential impacts to fish would primarily occur from 

excavation and construction for acclimation ponds, water supply and discharge lines or channels, 

and electrical lines. Some additional impacts could result from road reconstruction and 

maintenance, although physical impacts would likely be limited to road crossings or other areas 

where fish bearing streams are in close proximity to the road prism. See Appendices 2 and 3 of 

the EIS for construction activities proposed for each site. 

The physical impacts from construction are expected to be minimal for all fish species. The 

acclimation sites are generally disturbed environments regularly subject to human activity. 

Excavation of accumulated material is proposed at three existing ponds which are discussed in 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

32 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

greater detail in following sections. All proposed new pond excavation and well drilling sites are 

in upland locations. The potential for impacts to listed fish is expected to be greatest when flow 

is provided to the site and discharged into the nearest stream. Permit conditions will be strictly 

followed during construction to prevent discharging suspended sediments into the stream. These 

measures will include but not limited to: use of a temporary revetment to prevent backwater from 

entering the work area; prior to release of water flow to the project area, any sediment laden 

water will be pumped out of the project area; and, upon return flow to the active channel, the 

sediment plume will not exceed 5 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTUs) above the background 

of 150 ft downstream of the project location. If these measures were not followed, a plume of 

suspended fine sediments could be discharged into the stream and dispersed downstream. These 

events are rarely lethal to fish, but their response can range from avoidance to temporary 

cessation of feeding activities (Hicks et al. 1991). Large amounts of fine sediment deposited on 

spawning gravels can reduce interstitial flow and dissolved oxygen levels causing mortality of 

eggs and alevins (Koski 1966, Meehan and Swanston 1977, Everest et al. 1987). The discharge 

of sediments into the stream will be prevented by lining new sites with gravel and rock, and slow 

filling of ponds to avoid suspending and mobilizing sediments. Localized bank and riparian 

disturbances will occur during construction of new surface water intake and acclimation 

discharge structures. The area impacted by these activities is small and the number of individual 

fish impacted would be few if any. 

Juvenile coho salmon have been shown to prey on smaller fish but impacts to other fish 

populations are expected to be minimal during acclimation periods. Other fish will be physically 

separated from hatchery coho smolts during acclimation and rearing by barrier nets. Thus, any 

predation is likely to occur at the time coho are released. Coho salmon sampled in the coastal 

waters or in aquaria were able consume prey up to 50% of their body length (Brodeur 1991, 

Pearsons and Fritts 1999). However, they typically consumed prey less than 20% of their length 

(Brodeur 1991). Coho salmon have been shown to prey on sockeye salmon (Ricker 1941; 

Foerster and Ricker 1953; Ruggerone and Rogers 1992), and fall Chinook salmon fry 

(Thompson 1966; Pearsons and Fritts 1999). Assuming that coho will consume prey 1/3 of their 

body length (or 1/9 of their weight), fish less than 1.8 inches would be vulnerable to predation 

using the target coho smolt size of 5.5 inches (YNFRM 2009). Chinook and bull trout fry would 

be listed species of potential prey for hatchery coho during release (Table 2). Predation studies 

conducted during the feasibility phase of this project found that hatchery coho salmon fed 

primarily on insects and rarely prey on fish. Less than 0.28% of the 2,159 hatchery coho salmon 

sampled in Nason Creek over two years were found to have preyed on spring Chinook fry or 

other fish (Murdoch and LaRue 2002, Murdoch et al. 2005). 

The Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery and Winthrop National Fish Hatchery are proposed as 

acclimation sites but no additional changes are expected as a result of the MCCRP. Impacts to 

fish due to construction and operations at these sites have been evaluated under past permitting 

processes. This is also the case for other facilities used for rearing MCCRP coho to pre-smolt 

sizes (i.e. Cascade and Willard Hatcheries). 

4.1 Wenatchee Subbasin 

Presence of ESA listed fish by life-stage during proposed acclimation and construction periods in 

the Wenatchee Subbasin is summarized by site in Table 11 and in the following sections. 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

33 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

Detailed descriptions of each site can be found in Appendix 2 of the EIS. For size ranges 

expected for each life stage and activity refer to Table 2. 

Comprehensive quantitative data on rearing habitat available to ESA listed fish is generally 

lacking throughout the Wenatchee Subbasin. However, spawning survey data is available for 

these species (Figure 12). Although spawning surveys do not cover every potential spawning 

area and can be influenced by environmental factors such as high water, this information can be 

useful for evaluating potential impacts of a given site on Subbasin populations. Between 1989 

and 2007, 44% of the spring Chinook redds were counted in the Chiwawa watershed (Hillman et 

al. 2008). The Nason watershed had the next highest proportion (24%), followed by Icicle, the 

upper Wenatchee River, White, Little Wenatchee and Peshastin watersheds. However, spring 

Chinook were considered extirpated from Peshastin Creek. Recent returns are believed to be 

progeny of adult outplants from non-listed spring Chinook returning to Leavenworth National 

Fish Hatchery (Cooper and Mallas 2004). An average of 40% of the summer steelhead redds 

were counted in the Wenatchee River between 2001 and 2007 (Hillman et al. 2008). The Nason 

watershed had the next highest proportion (33%), followed by Chiwawa, Peshastin, Icicle, 

Beaver, White, and Little Wenatchee watersheds. In contrast, 78% of the bull trout redds were 

counted in the upper Chiwawa watershed between 1989 and 2004 (USFWS 2004), followed by 

the White, Chiwaukum, Nason, White, and Little Wenatchee watersheds (Figure 12). 

4.1.1 Brender 

This is the only site located in the 59,712 acre Mission Creek watershed. No ESA listed fish have 

been documented spawning in the Mission Creek drainage but juvenile Chinook and steelhead 

rearing has been documented. SalmonScape lists spring Chinook presence in Brender Creek. We 

found one catch record of fish classified as spring Chinook in Brender Creek in 1998 (USFS 

database). A 2007 electrofishing survey conducted in Mission Creek captured 104 

rainbow/steelhead but failed to capture any Chinook salmon (ISEMP database). It is likely that 

Chinook salmon observed in Mission Creek were summer Chinook which are not ESA listed. 

However, we can not rule out the possibility that juvenile spring Chinook occasionally rear in the 

drainage under some conditions. Brender Creek flows directly into the existing pond and the site 

is proposed as a spring acclimation site. The affected environment would include about 0.08 of 

the 0.27 acres (30%) of existing pond enclosed by the temporary seine net. This type of habitat is 

limited in the Mission Creek watershed due to development within the floodplain (NPCC 2004a). 

No additional construction is planned for this site. Based on available data, Chinook parr, and 

smolts; and steelhead parr and smolts are assumed to be present during the acclimation period. 

Juvenile Chinook and steelhead would not be able to use this portion of the pond for six weeks 

during the spring through 2027 or until project goals are met. 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

34 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

Proportion of spawning redds

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Chiwawa Nason Little

Wenatchee

White Wenatchee

River

Icicle Beaver Peshastin

12%

4%

40%

0.2%

33%

0.2% 0.6%

10%

Summer steelhead (2001-2007)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Chiwawa Nason Little W enatchee White Ingalls Chiwaukum

78%

8%

1%

10%

1% 2%

Bull trout (1989-2004)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

Chiwawa Nason Little

Wenatchee

W hite Wenatchee

River

Icicle Peshastin

44%

3%*

11%

8% 6% 5%

24%

Spring Chinook (1989-2007)

Figure 12. The average proportion of spring Chinook1 (top), summer steelhead (middle) and bull trout 

(bottom) spawning in major tributaries of the Wenatchee Subbasin. 

 

1

 Note: Spring Chinook were considered functionally extirpated from Peshastin Creek. Recent returns are thought to 

be progeny of adult outplants from non-listed Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery Chinook salmon. 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

35 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

4.1.2 Dryden (new hatchery) 

A small hatchery is proposed to be constructed near Dryden Dam. Surface water could be 

diverted either from the Wenatchee River or Peshastin Creek. However, a well or infiltration 

gallery is also being considered as a source of groundwater for the hatchery. The affected 

environment would include the point of diversion to the point of discharge. SalmonScape 

indicates that non-listed summer Chinook spawn in the Wenatchee River and Peshastin Creek 

adjacent to this site, and spring Chinook rear in the area. During construction activities, spring 

Chinook adults, and parr; steelhead adults, eggs, fry, parr and smolts; and bull trout sub-adult 

and adult migrants are assumed to be present. The proposed hatchery will be located at an upland 

site and depending on the design, there may be localized bank disturbance during construction of 

the discharge pipe. Potential impacts due to surface water withdrawals are discussed in Appendix 

10 of the EIS. 

4.1.3 Scheibler 

Scheibler is the only site proposed within the 47,000 acre Chumstick drainage. Until recently, 

most adult and all juvenile salmon passage into Chumstick was blocked at RM 0.3 by a perched 

culvert under North Road. This culvert was removed and replaced with a bridge in 2009. Few 

steelhead were able to migrate through this culvert before it was replaced, although adults had 

been documented spawning about 5.7 miles upstream (about 2 miles below Scheibler). Rainbow 

and steelhead were present in low numbers prior to the removal of the culvert and brook trout 

had been planted throughout the drainage (NPCC 2004a). Chumstick Creek flows directly into 

an existing pond which is planned to be enlarged. During acclimation periods the affected 

environment would include about 0.1 acres of habitat enclosed by a temporary seine net. During 

construction activities, the affected environment would include the entire excavation site. The 

Wenatchee Subbasin Plan (NPCC 2004a) indicates that fish habitat is degraded in Chumstick 

Creek and that instream flows sometimes go subsurface during August and September. This site 

will be evaluated now that the culvert has been replaced, although it is likely that steelhead parr 

and smolts will be present during rearing activities. These fish would not be able to use the 

enclosed portion of the pond from March though early May through 2027, or until project goals 

are met. 

4.1.4 Butcher 

Butcher is one of three primary sites, including Coulter and Rohlfing, located in the 69,000 acre 

Nason Creek Watershed. The Nason watershed represents 24% of the Chinook, 33% of the 

steelhead, and 2% of the bull trout spawning redds counted in the Wenatchee Subbasin (Figure 

12). Butcher Creek flows directly into 0.56 acres of existing beaver pond currently used to 

acclimate coho. A new well is proposed to provide enough water to operate the acclimation site 

during the winter. The affected environment would include the existing pond upstream of the 

beaver dam near the confluence of Nason Creek. Although no ESA listed fish have been 

documented spawning in Butcher Creek, 54% of the steelhead spawning redds counted in Nason 

Creek in 2007 were upstream of the Butcher Creek confluence (Hillman et al. 2008). Juvenile 

Chinook salmon do not appear to be able to migrate past the beaver dam. During the onsite 

snorkel survey, juvenile rainbow/steelhead were observed in the beaver pond. These fish may 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

36 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

have been resident rainbow trout but we can not rule out the possibility that juvenile steelhead 

were able to access the pond under some flow conditions. Therefore we assume that juvenile 

steelhead will be present during the acclimation period. Other fish would be prevented from 

migrating into and out of the ponds from December though early May, on alternate years through 

2027, or until project goals are met. Although Nason Creek itself does not provide much offchannel habitat, accessible tributaries provide good off-channel habitat (NPCC 2004a). 

4.1.5 Coulter 

Coulter Creek flows into a series of beaver ponds, one of which is currently used to acclimate 

coho during the spring. No construction is planned for this site. The affected environment would 

include 0.37 acres of existing pond that would be blocked with barrier nets. Water spills over the 

beaver dams at multiple locations so if listed fish were able to migrate up past the beaver dams, 

they would only be excluded from the area blocked by the barrier nets. SalmonScape indicates 

steelhead are present upstream in Coulter Creek although no steelhead redds were counted in 

Coulter Creek in 2007 (Hillman et al. 2008). Based on onsite snorkel surveys, no ESA listed fish 

are expected to be present during the rearing period because a series of beaver dams appears to 

prevent upstream migration of anadromous fish to this site. Other fish would be prevented from 

migrating into and out of the enclosed pond during six weeks during the spring on alternate years 

through 2027 or until project goals are met. All of the accessible Nason Creek tributaries provide 

good off-channel habitat. 

4.1.6 Rohlfing 

An unnamed seasonal stream (“Rohlfing Creek”) flows directly into an existing pond currently 

used for coho acclimation. The affected environment would include 0.17 acres of existing pond 

and accessible upstream portions of Rohlfing Creek potentially blocked to fish access. 

SalmonScape does not show Rohlfing Creek within the distribution of ESA listed fish. However, 

an adult steelhead was observed upstream of the acclimation pond in the past (Mike Tonseth, 

WDFW personal communication). During the onsite snorkel survey, juvenile rainbow/steelhead 

were observed in the stream immediately below the acclimation pond. No other fish species were 

found above the acclimation pond. Because no steelhead were observed upstream of the pond, it 

is unlikely that they currently access the acclimation pond. The stream goes dry for much of the 

year, so it is unlikely that it provides critical rearing habitat. Other fish would be prevented from 

migrating into the pond and upstream from December through early May, through 2027 or until 

project goals are met. 

4.1.7 Beaver 

An existing intake on Beaver Creek diverts flow into a constructed pond currently used as a coho 

spring acclimation site. The existing culvert outlet is perched but other fish can access the pond 

through the inlet when screens are not in place. About 0.24 acres of existing pond would be 

affected, including the inlet and outlet which would be screened to prevent free passage of other 

fish into the acclimation site. No additional construction is planned for this site. Beaver Creek 

habitat information is limited so availability of similar off-channel habitat in the tributary is 

unknown. SalmonScape does not list Beaver Creek within the distribution of spring Chinook 

spawning and rearing, but 5 juvenile Chinook (out of 132 fish) were captured approximately 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

37 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

1,600 ft downstream of the acclimation site during an electrofishing survey on 9/25/2006 

(ISEMP database). These fish were likely spring Chinook parr that were seeking overwintering 

habitat. No Chinook were captured (out of 125 fish) at this site on 7/23/2007, or about 300 ft 

further downstream (109 fish) on 7/6/2006. No other records for juvenile Chinook were found 

for Beaver Creek so presence of Chinook smolts during acclimation is viewed as possible but 

unlikely. Beaver Creek represents an average of 0.6% of the steelhead spawning redds counted in 

the Wenatchee Subbasin (Figure 12) although no steelhead spawning redds were observed in 

2007. Based on available data, Chinook smolts; steelhead adults, eggs, parr and smolts; and bull 

trout sub-adult and adult migrants are assumed to be present during the acclimation period and 

would be excluded from the site from mid-March through early May through 2027, or until 

project goals are met. 

4.1.8 Clear 

Clear is one of three primary sites, including Chikamin and Minnow, located in the 117,000 acre 

Chiwawa Creek Watershed. The watershed represents 44% of the Chinook, 12% of the 

steelhead, and 78% of the bull trout spawning redds counted in the Wenatchee Subbasin (Figure 

12). Clear Creek flows directly into a series of three constructed ponds, and the upper pond is 

proposed as an overwinter rearing site with no construction activities planned. The affected 

environment would include about 0.24 of 0.52 acres (46%) of the existing pond area enclosed by 

the temporary seine net. The Chiwawa Creek watershed has an extensive network of ponds, 

beaver canals, side channels, abandoned oxbows and other wetlands (NPCC 2004a). Based on 

available data, steelhead adults, eggs, parr and smolts are expected to be present during the 

rearing period. Eight steelhead spawning redds were counted in Clear Creek in 2007 (Hillman et 

al. 2008). Clear Creek is not part of the juvenile monitoring program in the Chiwawa drainage. 

Other fish would be excluded from the enclosure from December through early May through 

2027, or until project goals are met. 

4.1.9 Chikamin 

A new pond would be constructed next to Chikamin Creek and would be fed with surface water 

from the creek. During construction, the affected environment would include two-ten foot 

sections along the bank of Chikamin Creek at the diversion and discharge sites. In addition, 

Chikamin Creek from the point of discharge downstream approximately 150 ft could potentially 

be affected. Chinook spawning has not been documented in Chikamin Creek. Summer steelhead 

spawning has been documented but no redds were counted in 2007 (Hillman et al. 2008). Bull 

trout redds have been observed in Chikamin Creek above and below the site (USFWS 2004). 

Chikamin (including the lower 0.2 miles of Minnow Creek) is part of the annual juvenile 

monitoring program in the Chiwawa Basin (Hillman et al. 2008). Chikamin Creek on average 

represents 3% of the subyearling Chinook, 8% of the subyearling and 5% of the yearling 

rainbow/steelhead abundance estimated in the Chiwawa drainage. This area also represented 

13% of the juvenile bull trout abundance surveyed in the Chiwawa drainage in 2007, but the 

survey does not include many upper tributaries where bull trout likely reside (Hillman et al. 

2008). Chinook parr; steelhead adults, eggs, fry, parr, and smolts; and bull trout adults, eggs, 

young-of-year, and sub adults are expected to be present in Chikamin Creek during construction 

activities. If permit conditions are not followed impacts to fish could potentially occur during 

bank excavation (one week) and when water is supplied to the pond and discharged back into the 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

38 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

stream (one day). The inlet and outlet would be screened to prevent free passage of other fish 

into the acclimation site. This will not impact other fish because they do not currently use this 

habitat. Impacts due to surface water withdrawals are discussed in Appendix 10 of the EIS. 

4.1.10 Minnow 

A new pond would be constructed next to Minnow Creek and the entire stream would be 

diverted through the pond after completion. During construction, the affected environment would 

include Minnow Creek from the point of diversion to the point of discharge and 150 ft 

downstream. If permit conditions are not followed impacts to fish could potentially occur during 

when the stream is diverted through the pond (one day). During acclimation, the affected 

environment would include about 0.16 acres of the constructed pond enclosed by the temporary 

seine net. An area about the size of the existing channel would be left open to allow free 

upstream and downstream passage of fish. Based on available data, Chinook parr; steelhead parr 

and smolts; and bull trout sub-adult and adult migrants are expected to be present during the 

construction period and Chinook parr and smolts; steelhead parr and smolts; and bull trout subadult and adult migrants during the acclimation period. Other fish would not be able to use the 

enclosed portion of the stream for six weeks during the spring through 2027 or until project goals 

are met. During the rest of the year, other fish would have free access to the newly created pond. 

4.1.11 Two Rivers 

An existing constructed pond that has been used in the past for coho acclimation is proposed as 

an overwintering site in the Little Wenatchee River watershed. Water is pumped from an existing 

constructed lake located in an active gravel mine. Water is returned to the lake which drains into 

the Little Wenatchee River. The proposed acclimation pond is not connected to the Little 

Wenatchee River and is not accessible to anadromous fish. Thus, no ESA listed fish are assumed 

to be present during the acclimation period. 

4.1.12 White River Springs 

The White River Springs and Tall Timber primary acclimation sites and the Dirty Face adult 

holding area are located within the 99,956 acre White River Watershed. The watershed 

represents 6% of the Chinook, 0.2% of the steelhead, and 10% of the bull trout spawning redds 

counted in the Wenatchee Subbasin (Figure 12). The White River Springs site is an existing 

beaver pond that is fed by unnamed spring-fed streams. This is a proposed overwinter rearing 

site with no construction activities planned. The affected environment would include the entire 

0.07 acres of existing pond blocked by barrier nets, and accessible upstream portions of streams 

potentially blocked to fish access. This site was added to the list after spring snorkeling surveys 

were completed, and no sampling data was found for this site. However, this stream is a tributary 

of the White River which is listed within the spawning and rearing distribution of Chinook, 

steelhead, and bull trout. We assume Chinook parr, and smolts, and bull trout sub-adult and adult 

migrants will migrate upstream and be present during the acclimation period. Although bull trout 

fry are assumed to be migrating down White River, we do not expect them to move upstream to 

this site. Because very few steelhead spawn in the White River drainage and no steelhead have 

been documented in this tributary, we do not expect steelhead to be present at this site. Other fish 

would be prevented from using the pond from December through early May, through 2027 or 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

39 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

until project goals are met. The White River drainage still maintains high quality, complex 

habitat with refuge and rearing habitat for multiple life stages and life histories (NPCC 2004a). 

4.1.13 Tall Timber 

Surface water from the Napeequa River will be diverted into a 0.61 acre disconnected side 

channel for acclimating coho salmon. The affected environment would include 0.18 acres of the 

side channel enclosed by a temporary seine net, a ten foot section along the bank of the 

Napeequa River where a diversion pipe will be buried, and a 150 ft section of the Napeequa 

River downstream of the discharge pipe. ESA listed fish do not currently have access to the side 

channel because it is not connected to the Napeequa River. Steelhead are not common in the 

White River drainage. Between 2002 and 2007, only two spawning redds were counted in 

Napeequa River (both in 2003, Hillman et al. 2007). During construction activities, Chinook 

adults, eggs, and parr; steelhead adults, eggs, fry, parr and smolts; and bull trout sub-adult and 

adult migrants are assumed to be present. Potential impacts to fish could occur during bank 

excavation (one week) and when water is supplied to the channel and discharged back into the 

stream (one day). Based on available data, Chinook eggs, fry, parr and smolts; steelhead adults, 

eggs, parr and smolts; and bull trout sub-adult and adult migrants are assumed to be present 

during the acclimation period. Other fish will be excluded from the acclimation site enclosed by 

the seine net for six weeks during the spring through 2027 or until project goals are met. During 

this time the fish will have access to the remaining 0.43 acres of the previously inaccessible 

channel. Impacts due to surface water withdrawals are discussed in Appendix 10 of the EIS. 

4.1.14 Dirty Face 

A small unnamed spring-fed tributary of the White River is proposed as an adult holding area. A 

temporary weir would be installed near the mouth of the tributary from early October through 

November. Adult coho salmon would be planted upstream of the weir to allow them to spawn in 

available habitat. No ESA listed fish are known to spawn in this tributary and only bull trout 

spawn during this time period. Steelhead and spring Chinook spawn before October and would 

not be blocked by the weir. Nevertheless, any larger fish (adult salmon and steelhead) in the area 

would be prevented from migrating in or out of the tributary from early October through the end 

of spawning in November through 2027, or until project goals are met. Smaller fish would not be 

blocked by the temporary weir. 

4.1.15 Wenatchee Backup Sites 

4.1.15.1 Allen 

The existing constructed pond is fed by a surface water diversion from Allen Creek, a tributary 

of Peshastin Creek. The pond was constructed by the community of Valley Hi and is seasonally 

filled and drained for the purpose of fire protection. This site is listed as a backup spring 

acclimation site with no construction planned. The affected environment would include 0.08 of 

the 0.72 acres of pond (11%) that would be enclosed by a seine net. Peshastin Creek near the 

Allen Creek confluence is listed within the distribution of spring Chinook spawning, rearing, 

migration; steelhead rearing and migration; and bull trout migration. However, spring Chinook 

were considered functionally extirpated from Peshastin Creek and non-listed spring Chinook 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

40 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

adults from Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery were outplanted there from 2001-2004 (Cooper 

and Mallas 2004). This site was added to the list after spring snorkeling surveys were completed, 

and no sampling data was found for Allen Creek. However, ESA listed fish are not assumed to 

use the pond because they would have to ascend a high gradient reach of Allen Creek and the 

pond is seasonally drained every year (Keely Murdoch, Yakama Nation biologist, personal 

communication). Other fish would not be able to use the enclosed portion of the pond for six 

weeks during the spring. 

4.1.15.2 Coulter/Roaring 

Coulter and Roaring Creeks located in the Nason Creek Watershed flow directly into beaver 

dams near their confluence. If this site is used, the affected environment would include 0.17 of 

the 5.8 acres (3%) of available pond habitat enclosed by a temporary seine net. Based on 

available data, steelhead adults, eggs, parr and smolts are expected to be present during the 

acclimation period. Other fish would be excluded from the enclosed area for six weeks in the 

spring. 

4.1.15.3 Dryden (rearing) 

Overwintering rearing ponds could be constructed near Dryden Dam. Surface water could be 

diverted either from the Wenatchee River or Peshastin Creek, or groundwater could be used. If 

this site is used, the affected environment would include the point of diversion to the point of 

discharge. SalmonScape indicates that non-listed summer Chinook spawn in the Wenatchee 

River and Peshastin Creek adjacent to this site, and that spring Chinook rear in the area. Based 

on available data, spring Chinook parr and smolts; steelhead adults, eggs, fry, parr and smolts; 

and bull trout sub-adult and adult migrants are assumed to be present during the rearing period. 

Screens would block access to the site by other species. This would not impact other fish because 

they do not currently use this habitat. During construction activities, spring Chinook adults and 

parr; steelhead adults, eggs, fry, parr and smolts; and bull trout sub-adult and adult migrants are 

assumed to be present. The proposed rearing facilities would be at an upland location and 

depending on the design, there may be localized bank disturbance during construction of the 

discharge pipe. Impacts due to surface water withdrawals are discussed in Appendix 10 of the 

EIS. 

4.1.15.4 George (back-up hatchery) 

An alternate to the proposed Dryden hatchery is a located on the Wenatchee River just 

downstream of Lake Wenatchee. The facility would have the same water and space needs as the 

Dryden site. Both surface and groundwater sources are being evaluated. Ground water would be 

developed by drilling two or more wells. Surface water would be pumped from the Wenatchee 

through a screened intake built into an existing rock barb. The site is currently undeveloped so 

construction would include disturbance of 4 acres of upland to develop the hatchery building, 

raceways, excavation of two ponds, well drilling, installation of water lines, construction of a 

permanent access road, water treatment tank and other supporting infrastructure. During 

construction activities, spring Chinook adults and parr; steelhead adults, eggs, fry, parr and 

smolts; and bull trout sub-adult and adult migrants are assumed to be present in the Wenatchee 

River. The proposed facilities would be at an upland location, and depending on the design, there 

may be localized bank disturbance during construction of the intake line. Water is proposed to be 

discharged into an existing side channel which drains into the Wenatchee River. The side 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

41 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

channel is classified as fish bearing on the FPARS, but is not within the distribution of ESA 

listed species according to SalmonScape. Screens would block access to the ponds by other 

species. This would not impact other fish because they do not currently use this habitat. Potential 

impacts due to surface water withdrawals are discussed in Appendix 10 of the EIS. 

4.1.15.5 McComas 

Grant PUD has proposed constructing overwintering ponds fed with surface water from the 

White River. Very few steelhead spawn in the White River drainage, so steelhead presence is 

viewed as possible but unlikely. Based on available data, spring Chinook eggs, fry, parr, and 

smolts; steelhead adults, parr and smolts; and bull trout fry, sub-adult and adult migrants are 

assumed to be present in the White River during the acclimation period. Fish screens would 

prevent other fish from accessing the acclimation pond. This would not impact other fish because 

they do not currently use the pond. 

4.1.15.6 Squadroni 

A pond would need to be constructed at this backup spring acclimation site and connected to a 

ditch that drains into Nason Creek. However, the ditch only has intermittent flow during snowmelt and rainwater events, so a new well would be needed to provide ground water for 

acclimation purposes. The affected environment would include the ditch from the point of 

diversion to the point of discharge. This ditch is not listed on FPARS or SalmonScape, and no 

survey data was found for this site. Because the ditch is dry during most of the year, it is unlikely 

that fish use the ditch and if they did, it would be short-term. If construction activities were 

conducted during dry periods, no ESA listed fish would be present. 

4.2 Methow Subbasin 

Presence of ESA listed fish by life-stage during proposed acclimation and construction periods in 

the Methow Subbasin is summarized by site in Table 12 and in the following sections. Detailed 

descriptions of each site can be found in Appendix 3 of the EIS. For size ranges expected for 

each life stage and activity refer to Table 2. 

Comprehensive quantitative data on rearing habitat available to ESA listed fish is generally 

lacking throughout the Methow Subbasin. However, spawning survey data is available for these 

species (Figure 13). Although spawning surveys do not cover every potential spawning area and 

can be influenced by environmental factors such as high water, this information can be useful for 

evaluating potential impacts of a given site on Subbasin populations. Between 2000 and 2007, 

61% of the spring Chinook redds were counted in the Methow River, followed by the Chewuch 

and Twisp watersheds (Snow et al. 2008). However, estimates of wild spawners show a more 

even distribution among the three areas (Figure 13). An average of 38% of the summer steelhead 

redds were counted in the Upper Methow River between 2000 and 2007 (Snow et al. 2008). 

Estimates of the proportion of hatchery steelhead spawning naturally in each basin are not 

currently available, although are thought to be high (Snow et al. 2008). The Twisp watershed had 

the next highest proportion (31%), followed by Lower Methow and Chewuch watersheds. In 

contrast, most (53%) of the bull trout redds were counted in the Twisp watershed between 2000 

and 2007 (USFS in prep.), followed by the Upper Methow, Chewuch, Wolf, and Gold 

watersheds (Figure 13). 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

42 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Methow Twisp Chewuch

All spawners

wild spawners

61%

27%

12%

30% 32%

38%

Proportion of spawning redds

Spring Chinook (2000-2007)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Upper Methow Lower Methow Twisp Chewuch

38%

11%

31%

20%

Summer steelhead (2002-2007)

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Upper Methow Twisp Chewuch Wolf Creek Gold Creek

19%

2%

10%

16%

53% Bull trout (2000-2007)

Figure 13. The average proportion of spring Chinook (top), summer steelhead (middle), and bull trout 

(bottom) spawning in major tributaries of the Methow Subbasin. 

4.2.1 Gold 

South Fork Gold Creek water is a tributary of Gold Creek located in the Lower Methow River. 

The Lower Methow represents an average of 20% of the steelhead redds counted in the Methow 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

43 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

Subbasin (Figure 13). A portion of South Fork Gold Creek flow at RM 1.6 is diverted into a 

series of man-made ponds proposed as a spring acclimation site. Some additional construction is 

planned to remove accumulated sediments and increase depth. During construction, the affected 

environment would include the ponds, and South Fork Gold Creek from the point of discharge 

downstream 150 ft. Based on available data, steelhead adults, eggs, fry, parr and smolts; and bull 

trout sub-adult and adult migrants are expected to be present in South Fork Gold Creek during 

construction activities. SalmonScape lists Chinook salmon presence as "presumed” in South 

Fork Gold Creek. However, we did not find any sampling data to confirm their presence near the 

acclimation site. USGS sampling confirmed the presence of rainbow/steelhead adults and 

juveniles, and bull trout juveniles in South Fork Gold Creek near the acclimation site (Pat 

Connolly, USGS, personal communication). South Fork Gold accounted for an average of 11% 

of the steelhead redds counted in the Lower Methow River between 2005 and 2007 (Snow et al. 

2008). Although an average of 2% of the bull trout redds in the Methow Subbasin were counted 

in Gold Creek (Figure 13), South Fork Gold Creek was not surveyed (USFS in prep.). Impacts 

from construction activities are expected to last 1-2 days. During acclimation, the affected 

environment would include 0.08 of 0.10 acres (80%) of existing pond enclosed by a temporary 

seine net. Based on available data, steelhead adults, eggs, parr and smolts; and bull trout subadult and adult migrants are expected to be present during the acclimation period. The lower 3.5 

miles of Gold Creek has had rip-rap placed along the banks. No habitat data was found for the 

lower 2.1 miles of South Fork Gold Creek where the proposed acclimation site is located. 

However, a survey of the stream was conducted on US Forest Service land upstream (RM 2.1-

5.5) in 1996 (unpublished data, Gene Shull US Forest Service, personal communication). This 

survey indicated that off-channel habitat was limited to a small number of old beaver dams 

scattered throughout. Other fish would be excluded from the seine net enclosure for six weeks in 

the spring through 2027, or until project goals have been met. 

4.2.2 Parmley 

Parmley is the only primary site located in the Beaver Creek Watershed. A portion of the surface 

water from Beaver Creek is currently diverted into a farm pond proposed as a spring acclimation 

site. The affected environment would include 0.08 of 0.11 acres of pond enclosed by a temporary 

seine net. Based on existing data, steelhead adults, eggs, parr and smolts; and bull trout sub-adult 

and adult migrants are expected to be present in Beaver Creek during the acclimation period. 

Beaver Creek represented an average of 9% of the steelhead spawning redds counted in the 

Lower Methow between 2004 and 2007(Snow et al. 2008). The percent of steelhead redds 

counted in Beaver Creek above this site has varied from 4% in 2005 to 50% in 2007. Other fish 

would be excluded from the enclosure for six weeks each spring through 2027, or until project 

goals are met. A habitat assessment of Beaver Creek conducted by the USFS indicated that side 

channel/off-channel habitat is very limited from RM 5.8 to 9.3 (unpublished data, Gene Shull, 

US Forest Service, personal communication). The reach of Beaver Creek that includes the 

Parmley site (RM 6.6 to 7.5) contained some of the best side channel/off-channel habitat 

surveyed. 

4.2.3 Lower Twisp 

Three primary acclimation sites are proposed for the 157,000 acre Twisp Watershed; Lower 

Twisp, Twisp Weir, and Lincoln. The watershed represents 30% of the wild Chinook, 31% of the 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

44 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

steelhead, and 53% of the bull trout spawning redds counted in the Methow Subbasin (Figure 

13). Surface water is diverted from the Twisp River to a series of man-made ponds owned by the 

Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation currently used for steelhead and coho acclimation. Other 

fish currently have access to these ponds during non-acclimation times. No construction 

activities are planned for this site. The affected environment would include 0.14 acres of pond 

that would be confined by a temporary barrier net. Over 95% of the Chinook and steelhead 

spawning in the Twisp River typically occurs upstream of this site (Snow et al. 2008). Based on 

existing data, Chinook eggs, fry, parr and smolts; steelhead adults, eggs, parr and smolts; and 

bull trout sub-adult and adult migrants are expected to be present in the Twisp River during the 

acclimation period. We assume that Chinook parr and smolts, steelhead parr and smolts, and bull 

trout sub-adult and adult migrants would access the pond during the overwinter period. A 

temporary barrier net would be used to prevent other fish migrating into the site. Habitat data is 

lacking for the lower Twisp River (below RM 2.1). However, the lower Twisp River from 

Buttermilk Creek to the mouth has been diked and riprapped in places, resulting in a highly 

simplified channel and disconnected side channels (NPCC 2004b). This combined with the fact 

that beaver activity is very limited in the lower Twisp, suggests that the availability of offchannel habitat in this reach is low. Other fish would be excluded from the acclimation pond 

from December though early May through 2027, or until project goals are met. 

4.2.4 Twisp Weir 

Surface water is currently diverted from the Twisp River to an existing spring Chinook 

acclimation pond through a screened irrigation ditch. A 0.2 acre pond is proposed to be 

constructed adjacent to the existing pond to overwinter coho salmon. On average 91% of the 

Chinook and 84% of the steelhead spawning in the Twisp River occurs upstream of this site 

(Snow et al. 2008). Construction plans include excavating an earthen pond, drilling new wells, 

and installing water delivery pipelines from the irrigation channel to the pond and from the pond 

back to the river. During construction, the affected environment would include the Twisp River 

from the discharge site downstream 150 ft. Chinook adults, eggs, and parr; steelhead adults, 

eggs, fry, parr and smolts; and bull trout sub-adult and adult migrants are expected to be present 

in the Twisp River during construction activities. Impacts to fish are expected to occur when 

water is supplied to the pond and discharged into the Twisp River (one day). Other fish would be 

excluded from the irrigation ditch and acclimation pond by inlet and outlet screens. This will not 

impact other fish because they do not currently use this habitat. 

4.2.5 Lincoln 

Surface water is currently diverted from the Twisp River during high flows to a side channel 

which includes two ponds. The lower pond is proposed as an overwinter rearing site. On average 

64% of the Chinook and 41% of the steelhead spawning in the Twisp River occurs upstream of 

this site (Snow et al. 2008). Construction plans include deepening the lower pond, drilling new 

wells, excavating an inflow channel and power line burial. During construction, the affected 

environment would include the lower pond and the Twisp River from the discharge site 

downstream 150 ft. Chinook adults, eggs, and parr; steelhead adults, eggs, fry, parr and smolts; 

and bull trout sub-adult and adult migrants are expected to be present in the Twisp River during 

construction activities. A recent snorkel survey found juvenile Chinook and steelhead present in 

the existing ponds (Rick Alford, Yakama Nation, personal communication). Impacts to fish are 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

45 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

expected to occur during pond and inflow channel excavation (1-3 days) and when water is 

supplied to the side-channel and discharged back into the Twisp River (one day). During 

acclimation, the affected environment would include 0.2 of 0.31 acres (65%) of the existing pond 

habitat enclosed by a temporary seine net used to hold coho salmon. Other fish would be 

excluded from the enclosed area from December through early May through 2027, or until 

project goals are met. Side channel habitat is relatively abundant in this reach of the Twisp River 

(RM 13.7 to 17.6), consisting of about 11% of the available habitat (unpublished data, Gene 

Shull, US Forest Service, personal communication). 

4.2.6 Mason 

Mason is one of three primary sites, including MSWA Eight Mile and Pete Creek Pond, located 

in the 340,000 acre Chewuch River Watershed. The watershed represents 32% of the wild 

Chinook, 11% of the steelhead, and 16% of the bull trout spawning redds counted in the Methow 

Subbasin (Figure 13). Surface water from Eight Mile Creek is seasonally diverted into a series of 

man-made ponds that have been used in the past to acclimate coho salmon. Construction 

activities may include developing a new well and channel to supplement flow into the ponds 

during the winter. The affected environment would include a 10 ft section of pond bank where 

the new channel would deliver water from the well. Chinook salmon spawning has not been 

documented but SalmonScape indicates that spring Chinook rear in Eight Mile Creek. Between 

2004 and 2007, 11% of the steelhead redds in the Chewuch watershed were counted in Eight 

Mile Creek (Snow et al. 2008). However, the percentage drops to 4% if 2005 is excluded (nearly 

50% were counted in Eight Mile that year). Based on existing data, Chinook parr; steelhead 

adults, fry, parr and smolts; and bull trout sub-adult and adult migrants are expected to be present 

in Eight Mile Creek during construction activities. Impacts to fish are expected to occur during 

channel construction (1 day). Screens will prevent other fish from using the ponds from 

December through early May. Because the ponds are normally dry during this period and thus 

not available for rearing, acclimation should not impact other fish. 

4.2.7 MSWA Eight Mile 

A spring acclimation site is proposed at a side channel to the Chewuch River. Construction plans 

include drilling a well and building a rock lined channel from the well to the site. During 

construction, the affected environment would include a 10 ft section of bank along the existing 

side channel and the side channel to the confluence with the Chewuch River. Based on the onsite 

snorkel survey, steelhead fry and parr are expected to be present during the construction period. 

Based on existing data for the Chewuch River at this site, we assume that Chinook parr, and 

smolts, steelhead parr and smolts, and bull trout sub-adult and adult migrants will be present 

during acclimation periods. SalmonScape indicates that spring Chinook and steelhead spawn and 

bull trout rear in this section of the Chewuch River. USGS confirmed the presence of spring 

Chinook adults and juveniles, rainbow/steelhead juveniles in this section of the Chewuch River 

(Pat Connolly, USGS, personal communication). On average, 47% of the Chinook and 36% of 

the steelhead spawning redds in the Chewuch River were counted upstream of this site (Snow et 

al. 2008). Impacts to fish are expected to occur during channel construction (3 days). During 

acclimation, the affected environment will include 0.14 of the 0.64 acres (22%) of existing side 

channel habitat enclosed by the seine net. Other fish would be excluded from the enclosed area 

for six weeks during the spring each year through 2027, or until project goals are met. Beavers 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

46 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

are active in this reach of the Chewuch River (RM 11.8 to 14.1, unpublished data, Gene Shull, 

US Forest Service, personal communication), indicating that off-channel habitats are relatively 

common. 

4.2.8 Pete Creek Pond 

The Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation is planning to reconnect the Chewuch River to a 

disconnected side channel that forms a series of ponds. The existing ponds are currently fed by 

Pete Creek, a seasonal stream. The affected environment would include 0.2 of 0.23 (87%) 

existing acres of pond enclosed by a temporary seine net. Based on available data, Chinook 

eggs, fry, parr and smolts; steelhead adults, eggs, parr and smolts; and bull trout sub-adult and 

adult migrants are present in the Chewuch River. On average, over 90% of the Chinook and 95% 

of the steelhead spawning redds in the Chewuch River were counted upstream of this site. The 

additional flow will likely attract Chinook parr and smolts; steelhead parr and smolts; and bull 

trout sub-adult and adult migrants into the side channel to rear. Other fish would be excluded 

from the enclosed area for six weeks during the spring through 2027, or until project goals have 

been met. A US Forest Service habitat assessment of this reach of the Chewuch River (RM 2.2 to 

5.6) found numerous backwater pools and some beaver activity that provided excellent rearing 

habitat (unpublished data, Gene Shull, US Forest Service, personal communication). However, 

the available side channel habitat was low compared to other streams with similar gradient 

depositional reaches without rip-rap or other hardened structures. 

4.2.9 Heath 

Heath and Goat Wall are primary acclimation sites and Hancock is an adult holding site 

proposed for the 322,385 Upper Methow River Watershed (above the Chewuch River 

confluence). The Upper Methow represents 38% of the wild Chinook, 38% of the steelhead, and 

19% of the bull trout spawning redds counted in the Methow Subbasin (Figure 13). At the Heath 

site, spring water provides flow to a series of large ponds that drain into the Methow River. The 

lowest pond is proposed as an overwinter acclimation site. Juvenile Chinook salmon, 

rainbow/steelhead, and adult and juvenile bull trout rear in the lower pond (Pat Connolly, USGS 

and Gene Shull, US Forest Service, personal communication). No construction activities are 

planned for this site. The affected environment would include 0.32 of the 0.72 acres (44%) of 

existing pond enclosed by a temporary seine. No ESA listed spawning fish have been 

documented in the stream, but on average 79% of the Chinook and 96% of the steelhead 

spawning redds counted in the Upper Methow were upstream of this site (Snow et al. 2008). 

Based on existing data, Chinook parr, and smolts; steelhead parr and smolts; and bull trout subadult and adult migrants are expected to be present in the lower pond during rearing activities. 

Other fish would be excluded from the enclosed area each year from December through early 

May until 2027, or when project goals are met. Habitat data is lacking for the Upper Methow 

River to assess the availability of similar habitat. 

4.2.10 Hancock 

Hancock Creek is a spring-fed tributary of the Upper Methow River proposed as an adult holding 

area. A temporary weir would be installed near the mouth of Hancock Creek (RM 0 to 0.5) from 

early October through November. Adult coho salmon would be planted upstream of the weir to 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

47 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

allow them to spawn in available habitat. Steelhead are known to spawn in this stream, and 23 

spawning redds were counted in the lower 0.7 miles of Hancock in 2007 (Snow et al. 2008). 

Adult steelhead are not expected to be present when the weir is in use and any steelhead fry will 

have emerged from the gravel well before coho spawn. Spring Chinook and bull trout have not 

been documented in Hancock Creek. In addition, spring Chinook spawn before October and 

would not be blocked by the weir. Nevertheless, any larger fish (adult salmon and steelhead) in 

the area would be prevented from migrating in or out of the tributary from early October through 

the end of spawning in November through 2027, or until project goals are met. Smaller fish 

would not be blocked by the temporary weir. 

4.2.11 Goat Wall 

A disconnected side channel of the Methow River is fed by ground water and surface water 

diverted from Gate Creek. The site is located in a portion of the Methow River that has no 

surface flow during some fall and winter months. No construction is planned for this site. The 

affected environment would include 0.08 acres of approximately 0.63 acres (13%) of accessible 

channel enclosed by a seine net system. No ESA listed fish have been documented spawning in 

this stream. On average 7% of the Chinook and 8% of the steelhead spawning redds counted in 

the Upper Methow were upstream of this site (Snow et al. 2008). Based on an onsite snorkel 

survey, steelhead parr and smolts, and bull trout sub-adult and adult migrants are expected to be 

present during the spring acclimation period. These fish would be excluded from the enclosed 

area for six weeks during the spring through 2027, or until project goals are met. Habitat data is 

lacking for the Upper Methow River to assess the availability of similar habitat. 

4.2.12 Methow Backup Sites 

4.2.12.1 Balky Hill 

An unnamed groundwater fed Beaver Creek tributary was previously dammed to create a pond 

on private farm property. This backup site would need no construction. The affected 

environment would include the groundwater stream from the pond to the origin of the spring 

water. This site was added to the list after spring snorkeling surveys were completed, and no 

sampling data was found for this stream. However, the existing dam is likely a barrier to fish 

migration except during high water events. Beaver Creek near the stream is listed within the 

distribution of steelhead spawning, rearing and migration; and bull trout migration. If this site is 

used, other fish would be excluded from the acclimation site for six weeks during the spring. 

4.2.12.2 Biddle 

Wolf Creek surface water is diverted into two existing constructed ponds of which one is 

proposed as a backup spring acclimation site. The affected environment would include 0.08 of 

the 0.17 acres (47%) of pond habitat enclosed by a temporary seine net. No additional 

construction is planned for this site. Based on available data, Chinook fry, parr, and smolts; 

steelhead parr and smolts; and bull trout sub-adult and adult migrants may be present in the 

ponds during the acclimation period. If this site is used, other fish would be excluded from the 

enclosed area for six weeks during the spring. 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

48 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

4.2.12.3 MSRF Lower Chewuch 

If this site is used, a 0.2 acre pond would be constructed on land owned by the Methow Salmon 

Recovery Foundation. Ground water would be supplied from an existing well. Proposed 

construction activities would include excavation of an earthen bottom pond and two rock lined 

channels: from the well to the pond; and from the pond to the Chewuch River. The affected 

environment during construction would include one 10 ft Chewuch bank section at the discharge 

site and the Chewuch River from the point of discharge 150 ft downstream. Based on available 

data, Chinook adults, eggs, and parr; steelhead adults, eggs, fry, parr and smolts; and bull trout 

sub-adult and adult migrants are expected to be present in the Chewuch River during 

construction activities. Impacts to fish are expected to occur when the pond is filled and 

discharged into the river the first time (1 day). Screens would block access to the site by other 

species. Listed fish are not expected to be impacted during acclimation because they are not 

currently using this habitat. 

4.2.12.4 Chewuch Acclimation Facility 

If this site were used, a pond would be constructed downstream of an existing Chinook 

acclimation pond. Chewuch River surface water would be delivered from an existing irrigation 

diversion through a pipeline. Proposed construction activities would include excavation of an 

earthen bottom pond and installation of water delivery lines from the existing intake to the 

Chewuch River. The affected environment during construction would include one 10 ft bank 

section at the discharge site and the Chewuch River from the point of discharge 150 ft 

downstream. Based on available data, Chinook adults, eggs, and parr; steelhead adults, eggs, fry, 

parr and smolts; and bull trout sub-adult and adult migrants are expected to be present in the 

Chewuch River during construction activities. Impacts to fish are expected to occur during the 

installation of pipelines and when the pond is filled and discharged into the river the first time (1 

day). Listed fish are not expected to be impacted during acclimation because they are not 

currently using this habitat. 

4.2.12.5 Poorman 

Surface water is currently diverted from a screened irrigation intake in the Twisp River to a 

series of constructed ponds proposed as a backup acclimation site. No additional construction 

activities are planned for this site. This site was added to the list after spring snorkeling surveys 

were completed, and no sampling data was found for this site. Two juvenile salmonids (likely 

rainbow/steelhead) were observed in the westernmost pond (David Hopkins, US Forest Service, 

Fisheries Bio Tech, personal communication), and Chinook eggs, fry, parr and smolts; steelhead 

adults, eggs, parr and smolts; and bull trout sub-adult and adult migrants are expected to be 

present in the Twisp River during the acclimation period. Fish access from the Twisp River is 

currently blocked by irrigation screens so impacts to ESA listed fish are not expected. 

4.2.12.6 Newby 

This site is a potential backup to other Twisp acclimation sites. If this site is used, a pond would 

be constructed adjacent to Newby Creek a non-fish bearing, high gradient, small tributary to the 

Twisp River. SalmonScape does not list Newby Creek within the distribution of listed fish. The 

proposed backup site would be located above a series of cascades (Figure 14) which make the 

site inaccessible to salmonids. A habitat survey conducted by CFS personnel revealed that there 

were natural fish passage barriers throughout the stream and the substrate was comprised mostly 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

49 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

of fines (Ian Courter, fisheries biologist, Cramer Fish Sciences, personal communication). Based 

on this information we believe that listed fish do not currently access this site. The effect of 

water withdrawals on other fish are discussed in Appendix 10 of the EIS. 

Figure 14. Confluence of Newby Creek and the Twisp River depicting the first of several fish passage 

impediments. 

4.2.12.7 Utley 

An existing constructed spring fed pond drains into a wetland area adjacent to the Twisp River 

about 3.75 miles upstream of Twisp Weir. The wetland area has no direct connection to the 

Twisp River. This site is a backup to other Twisp acclimation sites and would require 

construction of an 80 ft channel connecting the pond to the Twisp River. This site was added to 

the list after spring snorkeling surveys were completed, and no sampling data was found for this 

stream. However, because there is no direct connection to the Twisp River it is unlikely that ESA 

~ 4 ft.
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

50 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

fish currently access the pond. The Twisp River near the stream is listed within the distribution 

of spring Chinook spawning, rearing and migration; steelhead spawning, rearing and migration; 

and bull trout migration. It is possible but unlikely that steelhead parr and smolts access the site 

during high flows. However, if the channel is constructed to the Twisp River it is likely that ESA 

listed fish will access the pond. If this site is used, other fish would be excluded from the area 

enclosed by the seine net for six weeks during the spring. 

4.2.12.8 Canyon 

An unscreened diversion on Canyon Creek, a tributary of the Twisp River, provides water to a 

0.4 acre constructed pond. If this site is used, the pond would be deepened and enlarged to 0.8 

acres. During construction, the affected environment would include the pond, and Canyon Creek 

from the point of discharge downstream 150 ft. SalmonScape does not show Canyon Creek 

within the distribution of spring Chinook salmon, steelhead, or bull trout. However, the pond is 

located within 200 ft of the Twisp River within the distribution of spring Chinook spawning, 

rearing and migration; steelhead spawning, rearing and migration; and bull trout migration. 

Based on this information, we assume that juvenile steelhead and migratory bull trout may use 

the pond. Impacts from construction activities are expected to last 1-2 days. During spring 

acclimation, the affected environment would include 0.08 acres pond enclosed by a temporary 

seine net. The remainder of the year, other fish would have free access to the enlarged pond. 

4.3 Combined Impacts 

4.3.1 Proposed Alternative 

The most likely impact to fish that would result is related to access to available habitat during 

rearing and acclimation periods. Disturbance activities would be limited to the amount of area 

excluded by seine or barrier nets at each acclimation site. Other fish species would be blocked 

from 1.22 of the 1.69 acres of habitat currently accessible to ESA listed fish at primary sites in 

the Wenatchee Subbasin, and 1.24 of the 2.88 acres of those in the Methow Subbasin during a 

portion of the year (Table 13). Other fish would be dislocated or excluded from about 54% of the 

existing accessible habitat at the Wenatchee primary sites and 20% at the Methow primary sites 

from mid-March through early May. An additional 18% at the Wenatchee and 23% at the 

Methow sites would be inaccessible to other fish from December through early May. These 

impacts will be balanced to some degree by newly constructed habitat. About 0.26 acres of new 

habitat in the Wenatchee Subbasin will be available to other fish for at least a portion of the year 

(Table 13). 

The relative impact on listed species from being dislocated or excluded from this habitat will 

depend to some extent on the availability of similar habitats within each Subbasin. Because a 

comprehensive habitat database was not available for these subbasins, an alternate method was 

needed to evaluate the relative magnitude of these impacts to ESA listed populations. 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

51 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

Table 13. Amount (acres) of existing pond or side channel habitat at primary sites that is currently accessible 

to listed fish or proposed to be added for new sites, versus the amount that would be potentially excluded 

during overwinter rearing and spring acclimation activities, by Subbasin. 

 Habitat excluded (acres) Accessible 

 Habitat (acres) Overwinter Spring Total off-seasona

Wenatchee Subbasin 

Existing habitat 2.23 0.48 1.28 1.76 2.06 

Currently accessibleb 1.69 0.31 0.91 1.22 1.69 

Area added 1.03 0.00 0.60 0.60 0.26 

Methow Subbasin 

Existing habitat 2.88 0.66 0.58 1.24 2.88 

Currently accessibleb 2.88 0.66 0.58 1.24 2.88 

Area added None 

a

 Rohlfing goes dry during the summer and early fall so is not considered accessible to fish during most of the off 

season. 

b

 Accessible to ESA listed fish. 

Cramer and Ackerman (2009) demonstrated that the carrying capacity of various salmonids can 

be predicted based on channel units (e.g. pool, riffle, glide) and maximum fish densities based on 

a species life-stage and habitat preference. The proposed rearing and acclimation sites are similar 

to beaver pond and backwater habitats. In the natural environment coho salmon prefer these 

slower velocity habitats above other habitats with more current (Solazzi et al. 1998). While other 

salmonid parr use these habitats, many prefer pools in streams or other channel habitats with 

more velocity (Cramer and Ackerman 2009). For the purposes of this analysis, we assumed 

average fish (parr) densities for each species based on literature values for similar habitats, or 

average values observed in the Chiwawa Watershed (Hillman et al. 2008). We assumed a value 

of 291 Chinook parr per acre based on average densities in Chiwawa pool habitats (720/ha) 

between 1992 and 2007 (Hillman et al. 2008). This assumption is likely high because juvenile 

Chinook are rarely found in off-channel habitats or beaver ponds (Murphy et al. 1989). Further 

during the winter, Chinook are usually associated with cobble substrate (Hillman et al. 1987, 

Van Dyke et al. 2009) rather than fine sediments typically associated with backwater habitats. 

Therefore, juvenile Chinook are unlikely to be found in the acclimation ponds and our estimate 

of 291 parr/acre should be considered very conservative. We assumed 162 steelhead per acre 

based on average winter densities of similar habitat in Oregon (Johnson et al. 1993). Finally, we 

assumed a density of 7.6 subadult or adult bull trout per acre wherever migratory fish were 

expected to occur, and 23.6 juvenile bull trout per acre wherever spawning and rearing was 

expected to occur. The bull trout densities were based on sampling in the Chiwawa Watershed 

(Hillman et al. 2008). We acknowledge fish densities vary seasonally and annually depending on 

environmental conditions and population abundances. Further, excluding ESA listed fish from 

these habitats would presumably only affect the populations if the available habitat is fully 

seeded. If the habitats are not at carrying capacity, dislocated fish could occupy other 

underutilized habitat. However, this analysis provides a context to assess the relative magnitude 

of impacts due to acclimation and rearing on listed species. 

Our analysis suggests that the number of juvenile ESA listed fish potentially excluded during 

acclimation and rearing would be relatively small compared to overall Subbasin populations. 

Less than 250 juveniles of each species were projected to be excluded from sites in the 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

52 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

Wenatchee Subbasin (Table 14). This compares with the range of wild production estimated of 

55,619 – 311,669 for Chinook and 17,499 - 85,443 for steelhead smolts from the entire 

Wenatchee Subbasin between 2002 and 2007 (Hillman et al. 2008). Using an average smolt to 

adult survival rate of 0.00465 for hatchery spring Chinook and 0.0105 for summer steelhead 

from the Wenatchee Subbasin (Hillman et al. 2009), the number of juveniles excluded would 

represent 0.5 Chinook and 2.5 steelhead adult equivalents. In the Methow Subbasin, less than 

270 juveniles of each species were projected to be excluded from acclimation and rearing sites 

(Table 15). This compares with the range of wild production 15,306 – 33,710 estimated for 

Chinook and 8,809 - 15,003 for steelhead smolts from the entire Methow Subbasin between 2000 

and 2008 (data provided by Alex Repp, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, personal 

communication). Using the same smolt to adult survival rates used above, the number of 

juveniles potentially excluded from acclimation sites in the Methow basin would represent 1.5 

spring Chinook and 2.1 summer steelhead adult equivalents. No Subbasin juvenile bull trout 

abundance estimates are available but the number of juveniles projected to be excluded from 

sites in each Subbasin was very small (10 or less). It is important to understand that excluding 

juveniles from rearing and acclimation sites does not necessarily mean these fish will not 

survive. As previously noted, the acclimation and rearing sites are not ideal habitat for listed 

species. Juveniles displaced or excluded from these habitats will seek out other suitable habitat in 

the area. Assuming that other habitats are not fully occupied by other fish, these fish will likely 

continue to rear in these areas. 

Table 14. Potential juvenile Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout dislocated from currently accessible habitat at 

proposed primary rearing and acclimation sites in the Wenatchee Subbasin based on assumed fish densities. 

 Accessible area Potential juveniles dislocated 

Site name Overwinter excluded (acres) Chinook steelhead bull trout 

Beaver N 0.24 70 39 2 

Brender N 0.08 23 13 0 

Butcher N 0.56 0 91 0 

Chikamin N 0 0 0 

Clear Y 0.24 0 39 0 

Coulter N 0.37 0 0 0 

White River 

Springs Y 0.07 20 11 1 

Minnow N 0 0 0 

Rohlfing Y 0.17 0 28 0 

Scheibler N 0.03 0 16 0 

Tall Timber N 0 0 0 

Two Rivers Y 0 0 0 

Total dislocated 113 237 3 

Wenatchee smolt production range (2002-2007)a 55,619 - 311,669 17,499 - 85,443 not applicable a Data source Hillman et al. (2008). 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

53 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

Table 15. Potential juvenile Chinook, steelhead, and bull trout dislocated from currently accessible habitat at 

proposed primary rearing and acclimation sites in the Methow Subbasin based on assumed fish densities. 

 Accessible area Potential juveniles dislocated 

Site name Overwinter excluded (acres) Chinook steelhead bull trout 

Goat Wall 0.08 23 13 1 

Gold 0.08 0 13 1 

Heath Y 0.32 93 52 2 

Lincoln Y 0.20 58 32 2 

Lower Twisp Y 0.14 41 23 1 

Mason Y 0.00 0 0 0 

MSWA Eight Mile 0.14 41 23 1 

Parmley 0.08 0 13 1 

Twisp Weir Y 0.00 0 0 0 

Pete Creek Pond 0.20 58 32 2 

Total dislocated 314 201 11 

Methow smolt production range (2000-2008) 15,306 - 33,710 8,809 - 15,003 not applicable a Data source Alex Repp Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, personal communication. 

4.3.2 No Action 

The No Action Alternative described in the EIS includes operation of fewer of the same sites 

described for the Proposed Alternative. Because fewer sites would be operated and no new 

construction is involved, the combined effects would be less than those of the Proposed 

Alternative; consequently, the impacts of the combined projects are considered to be less than 

significant. 

4.4 Cumulative Impacts 

The EIS defines cumulative impacts as the impact on the environment that results from the 

incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other 

actions. Past and present activities that may have affected fish habitat in the Wenatchee and 

Methow Subbasins include diversions and dams, agricultural activities, stream channelization 

and diking, roads and railways, timber harvest, and urban and rural development (Mullan et al. 

1992; Chapman et al. 1994, 1995; NPCC 2004a-b). A hydro-power dam constructed on the 

lower Methow River near Pateros in 1915 was blocked upstream anadromous fish passage until 

it was removed in 1929 (Mullan et al. 1992; Peven 1992; Andonaegui 2000).These human 

induced habitat alterations have primarily occurred in the lower gradient, lower reaches of the 

subbasins (Andonaegui 2000, 2001) and have resulted in blocked access to habitat, loss of 

habitat complexity, off-channel habitats, and large, deep pools. Extensive use of rip rap to 

stabilize streambanks has decreased the channel sinuosity and recruitment of large woody debris 

(LWD). Chronic sedimentation from land and water management activities has caused habitat 

degradation in some areas. In contrast, upper reaches of these subbasins are in relatively good 

condition (Andonaegui 2000, 2001; NMFS et al. 1998). 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

54 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

Habitat conditions have improved in recent years and further improvements are expected in the 

future. Some of the factors that have affected habitat of ESA listed fish been partially addressed 

through changes in land-use practices (UCSRB 2007). These include improving fish passage at 

dams, installing irrigation diversion screens, culvert replacement, riparian buffer strips, and 

improved livestock management. Two major habitat restoration efforts are being been funded by 

BPA in the Wenatchee and Methow Subbasins. The Yakama Nation will be receiving 6-7 

million dollars annually over ten years for habitat restoration in these Subbasins. In addition, the 

Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board will be receiving about 3.5 million dollars for habitat 

restoration projects beginning in 2011 (Bruce will provide citation). These efforts should result 

in substantial habitat improvements over the next decade. 

The proposed action would result in reduced seasonal access to existing off-channel habitats 

used for acclimation and rearing of hatchery coho salmon, and potential short term delivery of 

additional sediment from bank disturbance and pond construction. Because these off-channel 

habitats are not preferred by spring Chinook, steelhead and bull trout, the impacts from the 

proposed seasonal use of small areas for acclimation and rearing purposes will not be additive to 

cumulative effects of past, present, and anticipated future anthropogenic impacts to habitat. In 

addition, permit conditions will require that sediment be strictly controlled during construction, 

and the small areas affected during construction, any unforeseen increased sediment delivery is 

likely to be minimal and highly localized. Also the construction is not expected to result in 

conditions that cause chronic sediment loads to increase. Therefore although there may be some 

short-term localized contribution to the cumulative effects, it would not persist more than 1-2 

weeks past construction. 

4.4.1 Proposed Alternative 

The amount of habitat excluded during acclimation and rearing activities or added through 

additional sites under the proposed alternative is not likely to have a measureable impact 

compared to past and current impacts and those likely to occur. 

4.4.2 No Action 

The no action alternative would have less impacts than the proposed alternative. 

5.0 IMPACT AVOIDANCE OR MITIGATION 

• Barrier nets (see Appendix 2 of the EIS for a description) will be used at acclimation sites 

where ESA listed fish do not reside, or use to migrate to existing habitat. This will 

minimize premature escape of coho salmon. 

• Seine nets (see Appendix 2) will be used at acclimation sites to partition off a portion of a 

water body while allowing free upstream and downstream passage of ESA listed fish to 

available habitat. In areas where emergent spring Chinook or bull trout fry will be 

present, predation will be minimized by using fine seine mesh to exclude fry from 

enclosed areas. Seines will be installed in a manner that excludes fry from the coho 

acclimation area by moving out from the bank to encapsulate the rearing area. The 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

55 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

enclosed area will be snorkeled to verify no ESA listed fish are present before hatchery 

coho are added. 

• Nets will be removed at a time of year when coho reach a size that maximizes the ratio of 

fully smolted fish. Smolts will migrate from the acclimation area quickly, reducing 

potential interactions with other species. 

• Timing and methodology of construction activities will be coordinated with resource 

agencies to minimize disturbance to listed species and life-stages. Best management 

practices will be used and permit conditions will be followed during construction 

activities, to prevent sedimentation inputs. 

6.0 REFERENCES 

Andonaegui, C. 2000. Salmon, steelhead, and bull trout habitat limiting factors for the Methow 

subbasin (Water Resource Inventory Area 48). Final draft report. WSCC. 

Andonaegui, C. 2001. Salmon, steelhead, and bull trout habitat limiting factors for the 

Wenatchee subbasin (Water Resource Inventory Area 45) and Portions of WRIA 40 

within Chelan County (Squilchuck, Stemilt and Colockum drainages). Final draft report. 

WSCC. 

Barnhart, R.A. 1986. Species profiles: Life histories and environmental requirements of coastal 

fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Southwest) – Steelhead. Biological Report 82(11.60) 

U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Coastal Ecology Group, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

Baxter, J.S. and J.D. McPhail. 1996. Bull trout spawning and rearing habitat requirements: 

summary of the literature. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, 

Fisheries Branch, Fisheries Technical Circular 98. 

Beacham, T. D., and C. B. Murray. 1990. Temperature, egg size, and development of embryos 

and alevins of five species of Pacific salmon: a comparative analysis. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 119: 927-945. 

Bjornn, T. C. 1971. Trout and salmon movements in two Idaho streams as related to temperature, 

food, stream flow, cover, and population density. Transactions of the American Fisheries 

Society 100: 423-438. 

Bjornn, T. C., and D. W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. Pages 83-

138 in W. R. Meehan, ed. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonid 

fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 

Boag, T.D. 1987. Food habits of bull char, Salvelinus confluentus, and rainbow trout, Salmo 

gairdneri, coexisting in a foothills stream in northern Alberta. Canadian Field-Naturalist 

101:56-62. 

Bovee, K. D. 1978. Probability-of-use criteria for the family Salmonidae. U.S. Department of 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 

Brodeur, R. D. 1991. Ontogenetic variations in the type and size of prey consumed by juvenile 

coho and Chinook salmon. Environmental Biology of Fishes. 30:303-315. 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

56 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

Brown, L.G. 1992. On the zoogeography and life history of Washington native char Dolly 

Varden (Salvelinus malma) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Washington 

Department of Wildlife, Fisheries Management Division Report, Olympia, Washington. 

Buchanan, D. V., M. L. Hanson and R. M. Hooten. 1997. 1996 Status of Oregon’s bull trout. 

Draft report. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland. 

Bustard, D. R., and D. W. Narver. 1975. Aspects of the winter ecology of juvenile coho salmon 

(Oncorhynchus kisutch) and steelhead trout (Salmo gairdneri). Journal of the Fisheries 

Research Board of Canada 32: 667-680. 

Chapman, D.W., C. Peven, T. Hillman, A. Giorgi, and F. Utter. 1994. Status of summer 

steelhead in the mid-Columbia region. Report for the Mid-Columbia PUDs. 235 pp.+ 

app. 

Chapman, D.W., C. Peven, A. Giorgi, T. Hillman, and F. Utter. 1995. Status of spring Chinook 

salmon in the mid-Columbia region. Report for thd Mid-Columbia PUDs. 270 pp.+ app. 

Cooper, M. and S. Mallas, 2004. Peshastin Creek smolt monitoring program, Annual Report 

2004. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mid-Columbia River Fishery Resource Office, 

Leavenworth, WA. 

Cramer, S.P., and N.K. Ackerman. 2009. Linking stream carrying capacity for salmonids to 

habitat features. Pages 225-254 in E.E. Knudson and J.H. Michael Jr., editors. Pacific 

salmon environmental and life history models: advancing science for sustainable salmon 

in the future. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 71, Bethesda, MD. 

Donald, D.B. and D.J. Alger. 1993. Geographic distribution, species displacement, and niche 

overlap for lake trout and bull trout in mountain lakes. Canadian Journal of Zoology 71: 

238-247. 

Everest, F.H., R.L. Beschta, J.C. Scrivener, K.V. Koski, J.R. Sedell, and C.J. Cederholm.1987. 

Fine sediment and salmonid production: a paradox. Pages 98-142 in Salo and Cundy 

(1987). 

Foerster, R. E., and W. E. Ricker. 1953. The coho salmon of Cultus Lake and Sweltzer Creek. 

Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 10:293-319. 

Fraley, J.J., and B.B. Shepard. 1989. Life history, ecology and population status of migratory 

bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Flathead Lake and River system, Montana. 

Northwest Science 63:133-143. 

Goetz, F. 1989. Biology of the bull trout, Salvelinus confluentus, literature review. Willamette 

National Forest, Eugene, Oregon. 

Grant, J. W. A. and D. L. Kramer. 1990. Territory size as a predictor of the upper limit to 

population density of juvenile salmonids in streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Sciences 47:1724–1737. 

Healey, M.C. 1983. Coastwide distribution and ocean migration patterns of stream- and oceantype chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha. Canadian Field Naturalist 97-427-433. 

Healey, M.C. 1991. Life History of Chinook Salmon. In: C. Groot, and L. Margolis. Pacific 

Salmon Life Histories. University of British Columbia Press, Vancouver. 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

57 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

Hicks, B.J., J.D. Hall, P.A. Bisson, and J.R. Sedell. 1991. Responses of salmonids to habitat 

changes. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:483-518. 

Hillman, T. W., D. W. Chapman, and J. S. Griffith. 1989. Seasonal habitat use and behavioral 

interaction of juvenile Chinook salmon and steelhead. I: Daytime habitat selection. Pages 

42-82 In: Don Chapman Consultants, Inc. Summer and winter ecology of juvenile 

chinook salmon and steelhead trout in the Wenatchee River, Washington. Final report to 

Chelan County Public Utility District, Wenatchee, Washington. 

Hillman, T. W., J. S. Griffith, and W. S. Platts. 1987. Summer and winter habitat selection by 

juvenile chinook salmon in a highly sedimented Idaho stream. Transactions of the 

American Fisheries Society 116: 185-195. 

Hillman, T., M. Miller, C. Peven, M. Tonseth, T. Miller, K. Truscott, and A. Murdoch. 2008. 

Monitoring and evaluation of the Chelan County PUD hatchery programs. 2007 Annual 

Report. Prepared for the HCP Hatchery Committee, Wenatchee, WA. 

Hillman, T., M. Miller, C. Peven, J. Miller, M. Tonseth, T. Miller, K. Truscott, and A. Murdoch. 

2009. Monitoring and evaluation of the Chelan County PUD hatchery programs. 2008 

Annual Report. Prepared for the HCP Hatchery Committee, Wenatchee, WA. 

Hoelscher, B. and T.C. Bjornn. 1989. Habitat, density and potential production of trout and char 

in Pend Oreille Lake tributaries. Project F-71-R-10, Subproject III, JobNo. 8. Idaho 

Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. 

Howell, P.J. and D.V. Buchanan. 1992. Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain Bull Trout 

Workshop. Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, Oregon. 

Johnson, S. L., M. F. Solazzi, and J. D. Rodgers. 1993. Development and evaluation of 

techniques to rehabilitate Oregon’s wild salmonids. Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Fish Research Project F-125-R, Annual Progress Report, Portland. 

Koski, K.V. 1966. The survival of coho salmon from egg deposition to emergence in three 

Oregon coastal streams. Master’s Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis. 

Leathe, S.A. and P. Graham. 1982. Flathead Lake fish food habits study. Environmental 

Protection Agency, through Steering Committee for the Flathead River Basin 

Environmental Impact Study. Contract R008224-01-4 to Montana Department of Fish, 

Wildlife and Parks. 

Lister, D.B., and C.E. Walker. 1966. The effect of flow control on freshwater survival of chum, 

coho, and chinook salmon in the Big Qualicum River. Canadian Fish. Cult. 37:3-25. 

Martens, K.D., and P.J. Connolly. 2008. Lower Methow tributaries intensive effectiveness 

monitoring study. Interim Report. USGS Western Fisheries Research Center, Columbia 

River Research Laboratory, Cook, WA. 

McPhail, J.D. and J.S. Baxter. 1996. A review of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) life-history 

and habitat use in relation to compensation and improvement opportunities. Department 

of Zoology, University of British Columbia. Fisheries Management Report No. 104. 

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

58 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

McPhail, J.D. and C. Murray. 1979. The early life history and ecology of Dolly Varden 

(Salvelinus malma) in the upper Arrow Lakes. Report to the British Columbia Hydro and 

Power Authority and Kootney Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Meehan, W.R., and D.N. Swanston. 1977. Effects of gravel morphology on fine sediment 

accumulation and survival of incubating salmon eggs. U.S. Forest Service Research 

Paper PNW-220. 

Montgomery, D.R., and J.M. Buffington. 1993. Channel classification, prediction of channel 

response, and assessment of channel condition. Washington State Timber/Fish/Wildlife 

Agreement, TFW-SW-93-002, Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, WA. 

Mullan, J.W., K.R. Williams, G. Rhodus, T.W. Hillman, and J.D. McIntyre. 1992. Production 

and habitat of salmonids in mid-Columbia River tributary streams. Monograph I, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Leavenworth, Washington. 

Murdoch, K., C.K. Kamphaus, and S.A. Prevatte. 2005. Mid-Columbia coho reintroduction 

feasibility study: 2003 monitoring and evaluation report, project No. 1996-040-000. 

Bonneville Power Administration, Portland Or. 

Murdoch, K., and M. LaRue. 2002. Feasibility and risks of coho reintroductions in midColumbia tributaries: 2001 annual monitoring and evaluation report, project No. 1996-

040-000. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland Or. 

Murdoch, K., and R.D. Nelle. 2008. A field manual of scientific protocols for underwater 

observations within the Upper Columbia Monitoring Strategy. Working Version 1.0. 

Bonneville Power Administration’s Integrated Status and Effectiveness Monitoring 

Program. Published by Terraqua, Inc., Wauconda, WA. 23 pp. 

Murphy, M.L., J. Heifetz, J.F. Thedinga, and K.V. Koski. 1989. Habitat utilization by juvenile 

Pacific salmon (Onchorynchus) in the glacial Taku River, Southeast Alaska. CJFAS, 46: 

1677-85. 

National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U. S. Forest Service, 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Confederated Tribes of the Yakama Indian 

Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation, Confederated Tribes of 

the Umatilla Indian Nation, Chelan County Public Utility District, Douglas County 

Public Utility District, and Grant County Public Utility District (NMFS et al.). 1998. 

Aquatic species and habitat assessment: Wenatchee, Entiat, Methow, and Okanogan 

watersheds. Report available at Chelan County Public Utility District, Wenatchee, Wa. 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC). 2004a. “Wenatchee Subbasin Plan.” In 

Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Portland, Oregon, 2005. 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC). 2004b. “Methow Subbasin Plan.” In 

Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Portland, Oregon, 2005. 

Pearsons, T. D., and A. L. Fritts. 1999. Maximum size of Chinook salmon consumed by juvenile 

coho salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 19:165-170. 

Peven, C.M. 1992. Population status of selected stocks of salmonids from the Mid-Columbia 

River Basin. Chelan County Public Utilities Division, Wenatchee, WA. 52 p. 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

59 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

Pratt, K.L. 1992. A review of bull trout life history. Pages 5-9 in P.J. Howell, and D.V. 

Buchanan, eds. Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain bull trout workshop. Oregon 

Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis. 

Quinn, T.P. 2005. The behavior and ecology of Pacific salmon & trout. American Fisheries 

Society, Bethesda Maryland. 

Ratliff, D.E. and P.J. Howell. 1992. The status of bull trout populations in Oregon. Pages 10-17 

in P.J. Howell and D.V. Buchanan, eds. Proceedings of the Gearhart Mountain Bull 

Trout Workshop. Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis, Oregon. 

Rich, C.F., Jr. 1996. Influence of abiotic and biotic factors on occurrence of resident bull trout 

in fragmented habitats, western Montana. M.S. Thesis, Montana State University, 

Bozeman, Montana. 

Ricker, W. E. 1941. The consumption of young sockeye salmon by predaceous fish. Journal of 

the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 5:104-105. 

Rieman, B.E., and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation 

of bull trout. U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station General Technical 

Report INT-302. 

Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1995. Occurrence of bull trout in naturally fragmented habitat 

patches of varied size. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 124:285-296. 

Rieman, B.E. and J.D. McIntyre. 1996. Spatial and temporal variability in bull trout redd 

counts. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:132-146. 

Roni, P., and A. Fayram. 2000. Estimating winter salmonid abundance in small Western 

Washington streams: a comparison of three techniques. North American Journal of 

Fisheries Management 20: 683-692. 

Ruggerone, G. T., and D. E. Rogers. 1992. Predation on sockeye salmon fry by juvenile coho 

salmon in the Chignik Lakes, Alaska: Implications for salmon management. North 

American Journal of Fisheries Management 12:87-102. 

Sedell, J.R. and F.H. Everest. 1991. Historic changes in pool habitat for Columbia River Basin 

salmon under study for TES listing. Draft U.S. Department of Agriculture Report, 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, Oregon. 

Sexaur, H.M., and P.W. James. 1997. Microhabitat use by juvenile bull trout in four streams 

located in the eastern Cascades, Washington. Pages 316-370.In. Mackay, W.C., M.K. 

Brewin and M. Monita. Friends of the bull trout conference proceedings. Calgary, 

Alberta. 

Shelton, J.M. 1955. The hatching of chinook salmon eggs under simulated stream conditions. 

Prog. Fish-Cult. 17:20-35. 

Shepard, B., K. Pratt, and J. Graham. 1984. Life histories of westslope cutthroat and bull trout in 

the upper Flathead River Basin, Montana. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and 

Parks, Kalispell. 
Appendix 9⏐ESA Listed Fish

60 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010 

Snow, C., C. Frady, A. Fowler, and A. Murdoch. 2008. Monitoring and evaluation of Wells and 

Methow Hatchery Programs in 2007. Prepared for Douglas County Public Utility District 

and Wells Habitat Conservation Plan Hatchery Committee, Twisp, WA. 

Solazzi, M. F., T. E. Nickelson, S. L. Johnson, and J. D. Rodgers. 1998. Development and 

evaluation of techniques to rehabilitate Oregon’s wild salmonids. Oregon Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, Fish Research Project F-125-R-13, Final Report, Portland. 

Thompson, R. B. 1966. Effects of predator avoidance conditioning on the post-survival rate of 

artificially propagated salmon. Ph.D. dissertation submitted to University of Washington, 

Seattle. 

Thurow, R.F. 1994. Underwater methods for study of salmonids in the Intermountain West. 

General Technical Report INT-GTR-307. United States Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 29 pp. 

Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board (UCSRB). 2007. Upper Columbia spring Chinook 

salmon and steelhead recovery plan. 307 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) Draft 

Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 137 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Bull Trout monitoring results. Unpublished 

Wenatchee Basin annual redd survey report provided by Barbara Kelly Ringel, USFWS 

Mid Columbia River Fishery Resource Office. 15 pp. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004. Bull Trout monitoring results. Unpublished 

Wenatchee Basin annual redd survey report provided by Barbara Kelly Ringel, USFWS 

Mid Columbia River Fishery Resource Office. 17 pp. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS). In prep. Methow Sub-basin bull trout redd survey report 2008. Draft 

report provided by Gene Shull, U.S. Forest Service. Winthrop, WA. 15 pp. 

Van Dyke, E.S., D.L. Scarnecchia, B.C. Jonasson, and R.W. Carmichael. 2009. Relationship of 

winter concealment habitat quality on pool use by juvenile spring Chinook salmon 

(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Grande Ronde River Basin, Oregon USA. 

Hydrobiologia 625:27-42. 

Wade, G. 2002. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors, WRIA 25 (Grays-Elochoman). 

Washington Department of Ecology. 

Watson, G. and T.W. Hillman. 1997. Factors affecting the distribution and abundance of bull 

trout: and investigation at hierarchical scales. North American Journal of Fisheries 

Management 17:237-252. 

Yakama Nation Fisheries Resource Management (YNFRM). 2009. Mid-Columbia coho 

restoration master plan. Prepared for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. 

197 pp.
Appendix 10. Effect of Surface Water 

Withdrawals on ESA-Listed Fish 

 

Report Prepared by: 

Randolph Ericksen, 

Clark Watry, 

Ian Courter, 

Jay Vaughan 

and 

Shadia Duery 

Cramer Fish Sciences 

600 NW Fariss Road 

Gresham, Oregon 97030 

November 2010 
Appendix 10⏐Water Withdrawal Effects

i ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................ ii

LIST OF TABLES.........................................................................................................................iii

1.0 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 2

3.0 METHODS....................................................................................................................... 3

4.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS...................................................................................................... 4

4.1 Surface Water Withdrawal Impacts 5

4.1.1 Wenatchee Subbasin ................................................................................................. 5

4.1.2 Methow Subbasin.................................................................................................... 24

4.2 Groundwater Impacts 28

4.2.1 Wenatchee Subbasin ............................................................................................... 28

4.2.2 Methow Subbasin.................................................................................................... 29

4.3 Combined Impacts 30

4.3.1 Proposed Alternative............................................................................................... 30

4.3.2 No Action................................................................................................................ 31

4.4 Cumulative Impacts 31

4.4.1 Proposed Alternative............................................................................................... 32

4.4.2 No Action................................................................................................................ 32

5.0 IMPACT AVOIDANCE OR MITIGATION ................................................................ 32

6.0 REFERENCES............................................................................................................... 32
Appendix 10⏐Water Withdrawal Effects

ii ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Proposed water needs for all species at the proposed MCCRP Dryden hatchery..............6

Figure 2. Peshastin Creek stream gage data collected at Green Bridge Rd by Washington 

Department of Ecology, 2002-2009 (Data source: 

https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/wrx/wrx/flows/station.asp?sta=45F070)..................................7

Figure 3. Wenatchee River stream gage data collected at Peshastin by US Geological Survey, 

1930-2008 (Data source: 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wa/nwis/inventory/?site_no=12459000&agency_cd=USGS

&).................................................................................................................................7

Figure 4. Estimated weighted useable area (WUA) of spawning habitat (top) and rearing 

habitat (bottom) as a function of stream flow in Peshastin Creek. Figure derived from 

EES Consulting (2005)........................................................................................................8

Figure 5. Estimated weighted useable area (WUA) of spawning habitat (top) and rearing 

habitat (bottom) as a function of stream flow in the Wenatchee River. Figure derived 

from EES Consulting (2005)...............................................................................................9

Figure 6. Chikamin Creek channel topography of the affected reach. ..............................................13

Figure 7. Chikamin Creek stream gage data collected by the US Forest Service, 2000 – 2008. ......14

Figure 8. Estimated weighted useable area (WUA) of habitat as a function of stream flow in 

the affected reach of Chikamin Creek. ................................................................................14

Figure 9. Napeequa River channel topography of the affected reach................................................16

Figure 10. White River stream gage data collected by the US Geological survey, 1955-1983 

(Data source: 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wa/nwis/inventory/?site_no=12454000&agency_cd=USGS

&).................................................................................................................................17

Figure 11. Relationship between Napeequa and White River flows. ................................................18

Figure 12. Estimated Napeequa River flows during the spring acclimation period based on the 

regression on White River gage data...................................................................................18

Figure 13. Estimated weighted useable area (WUA) of habitat as a function of stream flow in 

the affected reach of Napeequa River. ................................................................................19

Figure 14. Wenatchee River discharge below Lake Wenatchee, water years 2005-2010. 

Washington Department of Ecology stream gage 45A240. ................................................20

Figure 15. Map of the study reach adjacent to the George hatchery site. The reach was defined 

by the locations of surface water withdrawal and discharge. Locations of data 

collection transects are provided for reference....................................................................21

Figure 16. Estimated weighted useable area for spawning and rearing habitat as a function of 

fall stream flow in the Wenatchee River study reach..........................................................23

Figure 17. Twisp River discharge near Twisp, WA, water years 2005-2010. USGS stream 

gage 12448998.....................................................................................................................24
Appendix 10⏐Water Withdrawal Effects

iii ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010

Figure 18. Map of the study reach adjacent to the Twisp Weir acclimation site. The reach was 

defined by the locations of surface water withdrawal and discharge. Locations of 

data collection transects are provided for reference. ...........................................................25

Figure 19. Estimated weighted useable area for spawning and rearing habitat as a function of 

fall stream flow in the Twisp River study reach..................................................................27

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Proposed sites within the Wenatchee and Methow Subbasins that require new water 

sources. ................................................................................................................................3

Table 2. Estimated percent of weighted useable area (WUA) of habitat for various flow values 

in Peshastin Creek compared to the additional flow resulting from a discharge of 6.2 

cfs into Peshastin Creek from the proposed MCCRP component at the Dryden 

hatchery. ..............................................................................................................................10

Table 3. Estimated percent of weighted useable area (WUA) of habitat for various flow values 

in the Wenatchee River compared to the additional flow resulting from a discharge 

of 6.2 cfs into Peshastin Creek from the proposed MCCRP component at the Dryden 

hatchery. ..............................................................................................................................11

Table 4. Topographic survey dates and model inputs used in the River2D model to evaluate 

surface water withdrawal impacts to listed fish. .................................................................12

Table 5. Modeled weighted useable area (WUA) of habitat in the affected reach of Chikamin 

Creek for expected flow values during the spring acclimation period and with a 

maximum withdrawal of 2.3 cfs..........................................................................................15

Table 6. Modeled weighted useable area (WUA) of habitat in the affected reach of the 

Napeequa River for expected flow values and a maximum withdrawal of 2.6 cfs. ............19

Table 7. Estimated percent of weighted usable area for ESA listed species in the Wenatchee 

River study reach under low flow and extreme low flow conditions. Low flows for 

the study reach were calculated from available WDOE stream gauge data. Values 

are provided for current conditions and conditions expected if flows are reduced by 

4.7 cfs. .................................................................................................................................23

Table 8. Estimated percent of weighted usable area for ESA listed species in the Twisp River 

study reach under low flow and extreme low flow conditions. Low flows for the 

study reach were calculated from available USGS stream gauge data. Values are 

provided for current conditions and conditions expected if flows are reduced by 1.2 

cfs. .......................................................................................................................................27
Appendix 10⏐Water Withdrawal Effects

1 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010

1.0 SUMMARY 

A total of five proposed primary sites in the Wenatchee and five in the Methow Subbasin require 

new water sources. Three primary sites within the Wenatchee Subbasin (Dryden, Chikamin, and 

Tall Timber) and one within the Methow Subbasin (Twisp Weir) will require surface water 

withdrawals. These withdrawals will have local impacts to surface water from the point of 

withdrawal to the point of discharge. The impacts to listed fish will be limited to the affected 

portion of the stream and will vary depending on stream flow, species and life-stage. 

Depending on the final design of the proposed hatchery at Dryden, water withdrawals could have 

no measureable impact, or increase available habitat in a 200 ft section of Peshastin Creek during 

low flows. 

The maximum amount of water proposed for withdrawal at the Chikamin site would result in a 

very small reduction in weighted useable area (WUA) for all species. The reduction due to the 

withdrawal was less than one square foot of habitat for all species and life-stages. 

The effect of the proposed withdrawal at the Tall Timber site on ESA listed fish varied with the 

flow and species. The maximum proposed withdrawal at this site generally resulted in small 

decreases in WUA for most species at extreme low flows, and slight increases in WUA at higher 

flows. However, the modeled withdrawal generally increased WUA for Chinook salmon rearing. 

The proposed surface water withdrawal at the Twisp Weir site was projected to generally 

decrease the WUA of habitat for most species during low flows by a small amount. 

We caution readers that the absolute values presented in this report are presented to evaluate the 

relative effect of surface water withdrawals. The model predictions for the amount of WUA 

under the different scenarios should be used with caution, because the difference in flow between 

the two scenarios is small and model analyses are most useful for evaluating a broad range of 

flows. Specific values are provided to demonstrate that the relative change in WUA for all 

species and life-stages. 

The remaining sites require groundwater withdrawals that are expected to have some localized 

impacts to surface waters that will be completely offset by water discharged into the acclimation 

site. Because water is returned to the site, there will be no watershed impacts to surface water 

flow. 

The amount of habitat reduced through water withdrawals under the proposed alternative is not 

likely to have a measureable impact compared to past and current impacts and those likely to 

occur. 

Potential negative impacts to ESA listed fish can be avoided or minimized by: 

• Using existing sites wherever possible. 

• Minimizing the distance between surface water withdrawals and returns. 

• Returning ground water to surface streams at locations that minimize pumping impacts. 

• Constructing and operating intakes that meet guidelines for juvenile fish screens. 
Appendix 10⏐Water Withdrawal Effects

2 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010

2.0 INTRODUCTION 

Information in this report has been prepared as a companion document to support the 

Environment Impact Statement (EIS) of the Yakama Nation’s Mid-Columbia Coho 

Reintroduction Project (MCCRP). The objective of this technical report was to evaluate the 

effect of project related water withdrawals on fish listed under the Endangered Species Act 

(ESA). Project site details such as their locations; project descriptions; and associated maps, 

figures, and photographs, are presented in the Brood Capture and Rearing Site Descriptions

report (Appendix 1 of the EIS), the Wenatchee Acclimation Site Descriptions report (Appendix 2 

of the EIS) and the Methow Acclimation Site Descriptions report (Appendix 3 of the EIS) 

prepared for the project, and are not duplicated in this report. Maps of the Wenatchee and 

Methow Subbasins showing the location of proposed acclimation and rearing sites are shown on 

Figure 1-2 in Appendix 1, and Figures 1-1 in Appendix 2 and Appendix 3. Figures 2-1 in 

Appendix 2 and 3 include the site locations based on Section, Township, and Range as well as 

their latitude and longitude. Site specific information on the presence of listed fish and effects of 

acclimation activities are discussed in Presence and Impact of Fish Culture on Listed Fish 

(Appendix 9 of the EIS). The effect of groundwater withdrawals on surface water is found in 

Groundwater Withdrawal Impact Report (Appendix 11 of the EIS). 

The Washington Department of Ecology (WDEC) is charged both with administering state water 

rights laws and the federal Clean Water Act. Chapters 90.54 and 90.22 RCW require WDEC to 

maintain instream flows sufficient to protect and preserve fish and wildlife habitat, scenic and 

aesthetic values, navigation and other environmental values (WDFW and WDOE 2004). The 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) recommends instream flows to be 

conditions of water rights or Clean Water Act Section 401 certification (issued by WDEC). 

When a major water project is planned, WDFW and WDEC request that the project proponent 

conduct an instream flow study to provide adequate information on which to base an instream 

flow recommendation or requirement. WDFW defines a major water project as a project that: 

a) diverts at least 1.0 cubic feet per second (cfs), and 

b) changes flow by at least 10% of the monthly 90% exceedence flow (the flow that is 

equaled or exceeded 90 percent of the time) at any point along the stream channel. 

The proposed surface water withdrawals are greater than 1.0 cfs, but less than 10% of the 

monthly 90% exceedance flows and are therefore not considered major water projects. 

ESA listed fish that are likely to be present at these sites include spring Chinook Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha, summer steelhead O. mykiss, and bull trout Salvelinus confluentus. The Upper 

Columbia River spring-run Chinook salmon Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) was listed as 

endangered on March 24, 1999 (64 FR 14308), and its status was reaffirmed on June 28, 2005 

(70 FR 37160). The ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of spring-run Chinook 

salmon (spring Chinook) in Columbia River tributaries upstream of the Rock Island Dam as well 

as six artificial propagation programs. The Upper Columbia River steelhead distinct population 

segment (DPS) was listed as endangered on August 18, 1997 (62 FR 43937) and subsequently 

upgraded to ‘threatened” status in 2009 (74FR 42605). Critical Habitat was designated in the 

Wenatchee and Methow basins for both Chinook and steelhead in 2005 (70 FR 52630). 

Columbia River bull trout were listed as threatened on June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31647). The 

Wenatchee, Entiat, and Methow Rivers have been identified as core bull trout habitats for the 
Appendix 10⏐Water Withdrawal Effects

3 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010

Upper Columbia Recovery Unit, and designated as Critical Habitat October 18, 2010 (75 FR 

63898). 

3.0 METHODS 

A total of five primary sites in the Wenatchee and five in the Methow Subbasin require new 

water sources (Table 1). Three primary sites within the Wenatchee Subbasin (Chikamin, Tall 

Timber and Dryden) and one within the Methow Subbasin (Twisp Weir) will require surface 

water withdrawals. The affected environments for these sites include the affected stream from 

the point of diversion to the point of discharge, unless noted otherwise. The impact of these 

surface withdrawals on the affected environment is analyzed in detail below. The remaining sites 

will require new groundwater sources. The effect of these groundwater withdrawals on surface 

water flows is discussed in Groundwater Withdrawal Impact Report (Appendix 11 of the EIS). 

Only the impacts resulting from the change in surface flows on ESA listed fish are discussed in 

this report. 

Table 1. Proposed sites within the Wenatchee and Methow Subbasins that require new water sources. 

Site name Affected stream Water source Purposea

Wenatchee primary sites 

Butcher Butcher ground overwinter 

Chikamin Chikamin surface spring 

Rohlfing unnamed ground overwinter 

Tall Timber Napeequa surface spring 

Drydenb Peshastin/Wenatchee ground/surface hatchery/overwinter 

Wenatchee backup 

George Wenatchee ground/surface hatchery 

Squadroni unnamed ground spring 

Methow primary sites 

Lincoln Twisp River ground overwinter 

Lower Twisp Twisp River ground overwinter 

Mason Eight Mile ground overwinter 

MSWA Eight Mile Chewuch side channel ground spring 

Twisp Weir Twisp River ground/surface overwinter 

Methow backup 

MSRF Chewuch Chewuch River ground overwinter 

Newby Twisp River surface spring 

a

 Overwinter rearing, spring acclimation, or proposed hatchery site. 

b

 Dryden is a proposed hatchery site that is still under design. It would use either groundwater or surface 

water depending on the ongoing evaluations. The site is also listed as a backup overwinter acclimation 

site. 

A small hatchery facility is proposed for the Dryden site for coho and steelhead adult capture and 

culture purposes. This site is also a backup overwinter rearing site. Both surface water and 

groundwater (wells and/or infiltration galleries) sources are being considered. The effect of 

surface water withdrawals on listed fish at the Dryden site was evaluated using previous Physical 
Appendix 10⏐Water Withdrawal Effects

4 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010

Habitat Simulation System (PHABSIM) modeling for the lower Wenatchee River and Peshastin 

Creek (EES Consulting 2005). A backup hatchery facility is proposed for the George site in the 

event that the Dryden site is not developed. A similar PHABSIM analysis was conducted for this 

site. 

The effects of surface water withdrawal on listed fish at the Chikamin and Tall Timber sites were 

evaluated using a two-dimensional hydraulic and habitat model (River2D) intended for use on 

natural streams and rivers; this program was developed at the University of Alberta with funding 

provided by numerous governmental agencies including the United States Geological Survey 

(Steffler and Blackburn 2002). Two-dimensional modeling produces similar results to 

PHABSIM; however, River 2D is also able to model complex flow conditions which PHABSIM 

cannot (Gard 2009a). The model predicts the relative change in fish habitat at different flows; 

and compared to other models, River2D is regarded as more robust and capable of reproducing 

results (Gard 2009b). Model inputs included bed topography for the active channel and adjacent 

floodplain, bed roughness and transverse eddy viscosity distributions, boundary conditions, and 

initial flow conditions. Using model inputs, a discrete mesh, or grid, was designed to capture 

active channel flow variations. The preliminary mesh was refined to interpolate data for areas 

with poor resolution to increase modeling accuracy. From the refined mesh, the hydraulic 

component predicts velocities and depths throughout the channel to be used in the fish habitat 

component of the model. 

The fish habitat component of River2D was based on the Weighted Usable Area (WUA) (Bovee, 

1982) concept used in PHABSIM and other fish habitat models. The WUA was calculated as an 

aggregate of the product of a composite suitability index (CSI, range 0.0 - 1.0) evaluated at every 

point in the domain and the "tributary area" associated with that point. The suitability index for 

each parameter is evaluated by linear interpolation from an appropriate fish preference curve. 

The Chinook and steelhead preference curves used in these analyses were developed in 

Washington State for each target species and life stage as presented in WDFW and WDOE 

(2004). The preference curves for juvenile and adult bull trout used in this analysis (see 

Appendix A of EES Consulting 2005) were developed specifically for the Wenatchee Basin and 

utilized more data sets than Washington standard criteria (WDFW and WDOE 2004). To 

determine the overall wetted area, we used a 100% preference curve for suitability at depths 

greater than zero. WUA was calculated for each species and life stage. Further River2D model 

details can be found in Steffler and Blackburn (2002). 

The Twisp Weir site is the only primary acclimation site located in the Methow Subbasin that 

would require a new surface water withdrawal. The effect of surface water withdrawals on listed 

fish at the proposed Twisp Weir site was assessed using PHABSIM analysis. 

The model predictions for the amount of WUA under the different scenarios should be used with 

caution, because the difference in flow between the two scenarios is small and model analyses 

are most useful for evaluating a broad range of flows. Specific values are provided to 

demonstrate that the relative change in weighted useable area (WUA) is expected to be 

extremely small for all species and life-stages. 

4.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS 

The potential effects described below are common to all acclimation sites where new water 

sources impact surface water, although the extent and duration may vary between sites. Other 
Appendix 10⏐Water Withdrawal Effects

5 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010

impacts due to fish culture are discussed in a separate report entitled Presence and Impact of Fish 

Culture on Listed Fish (Appendix 9 of the EIS) prepared for the project. Potential impacts 

specific to each primary site listed in Table 1 are further discussed in following sections. 

The impact of water withdrawals on fish will depend on the type of water (surface or ground 

water), the length of stream affected, the amount of water withdrawn, the time of year, and the 

amount of surface water available. In general, potential impacts are expected to be greater where 

surface water is withdrawn directly from the stream, rather than groundwater withdrawals where 

the effect on surface water is dispersed over a larger area. Where surface water is withdrawn 

directly from a stream, the affected reach will include that portion of stream from the point of 

diversion to the discharge site. Withdrawing water during low flow periods has the potential to 

affect fish migration, and availability and quantity of habitat. Withdrawing water during high 

flow periods can improve habitat by reducing depth and velocities that are greater than optimal 

for fish. However the volume of water proposed to be diverted is relatively small and is not 

expected to substantially reduce instream flow quantities, change habitat availability including 

hiding/resting/foraging habitats, or affect migratory movements (fry, juvenile, and adult) of listed 

salmonids. 

Another potential impact to listed fish due to surface water withdrawals is entrainment in the 

intake system. If allowed to pass through the intake screens, fry of a small enough size could be 

subject to predation by coho in the acclimation ponds, and all entrained fish could have free 

migration delayed by the pond discharge fish screens. Fish entering the Dryden intake could be 

harmed by pump impellor blades and by rapid pressure changes in the water supply system. 

Fish screen guidelines have been published by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS 

1996) that minimize risks to anadromous fish. Structure placement, approach velocity, sweeping 

velocity, screen material, structural features, operation, and maintenance criteria have been 

developed. The intake systems at all sites will meet these screen guidelines to reduce threats to 

all fish. 

4.1 Surface Water Withdrawal Impacts 

4.1.1 Wenatchee Subbasin 

4.1.1.1 Dryden Site 

A small hatchery is proposed to be developed at this site. A combination of surface and 

groundwater sources is being explored to supply of up to 7.4 cfs (4.5 cfs surface water) to the 

site. The amount needed changes over the year (Figure 1). The impact of groundwater 

withdrawals on surface water is expected to be small as discussed in section 4.2.1.2 of this 

report. 

An intake located on the Dryden fishway is currently the preferred source for surface water. 

Two options are being considered for the return flow. One is to discharge return water into 

Peshastin Creek upstream of the fishway, and another is in a pipeline on the river bottom in the 

vicinity of the fishway near the proposed intake. The Peshastin discharge could help adult 

salmon navigate the mouth during low flow and would increase flow from the discharge site to 

the intake site downstream. Discharge near the fishway could help flush rock away from the 
Appendix 10⏐Water Withdrawal Effects

6 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010

fishway but would essentially result in minimal change in flow because water would be 

discharged near the intake. 

Figure 1. Proposed water needs for all species at the proposed MCCRP Dryden hatchery. 

We used the PHABSIM analysis developed by EES Consulting to assess the potential impacts of 

the proposed MCCRP component of the Dryden hatchery water use on ESA listed fish in 

Peshastin Creek and Wenatchee River. We analyzed the Peshastin discharge option because it 

has the largest possible impact on stream flow, and therefore represents the greatest potential to 

affect fish and fish habitat. The affected environment would include Peshastin Creek from the 

point of discharge downstream to the proposed intake at the fishway in the Wenatchee River. 

This includes about 200 lineal feet of Peshastin Creek, and 650 feet of the Wenatchee River. The 

daily mean flow in Peshastin Creek ranges from a low of around 10 cfs in mid-August to over 

500 cfs in May (Figure 2). The daily mean flow in the Wenatchee River ranges from a low of 

around 750 cfs in September to nearly 10,000 cfs by late May (Figure 2). 
Appendix 10⏐Water Withdrawal Effects

7 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010

0

250

500

750

1,000

1,250

1,500

10/111/112/1

1/12/13/14/15/16/17/18/19/1

Stream flow (cfs)

10th percentile

mean

90th percentile

Figure 2. Peshastin Creek stream gage data collected at Green Bridge Rd by Washington Department of 

Ecology, 2002-2009 (Data source: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/wrx/wrx/flows/station.asp?sta=45F070). 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

10/1

10/1510/2911/1211/2612/1012/24

1/7

1/21

2/4

2/18

3/4

3/18

4/1

4/154/295/135/276/106/24

7/8

7/22

8/5

8/19

9/2

9/169/30

Stream flow (1,000 cfs)

10th percentile

Mean

90th percentile

Figure 3. Wenatchee River stream gage data collected at Peshastin by US Geological Survey, 1930-2008 (Data 

source: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wa/nwis/inventory/?site_no=12459000&agency_cd=USGS&). 

EES Consulting (2005) completed PHABSIM analyses of four reaches of the mainstem 

Wenatchee River from the Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery downstream to its mouth, and 

the lower reach of Peshastin Creek from approximately RM 5.0 downstream to its mouth. They 

estimated that spawning habitat WUA was maximized at Peshastin Creek flows of 80 cfs for 

non-ESA listed summer Chinook salmon (spring Chinook do not spawn in the affected portions 

of the Wenatchee River and Peshastin Creek) and 120 cfs for ESA listed summer steelhead 

(Figure 4 top). Estimated rearing habitat was maximized at flows of 55 cfs for Chinook, 130 cfs 

for steelhead, and 19 cfs for bull trout (Figure 4 bottom). 
Appendix 10⏐Water Withdrawal Effects

8 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010

Figure 4. Estimated weighted useable area (WUA) of spawning habitat (top) and rearing habitat (bottom) as 

a function of stream flow in Peshastin Creek. Figure derived from EES Consulting (2005). 

The portion of the Wenatchee River from Peshastin Creek down to Dryden Dam was 

encompassed in Reach 1 of their analysis. EES Consulting (2005) estimated that spawning 

habitat was optimized in this reach of the Wenatchee River at flows of 2,800 cfs for Chinook and 

2,400 cfs for steelhead (Figure 5 top). Estimated rearing habitat was maximized at flows of 400 

cfs for Chinook, 900 cfs for steelhead, and 220 cfs for bull trout (Figure 5 bottom). 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Chinook

Steelhead

Bull trout (juvenile/adult)

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Chinook (Summer Chinook only)

Steelhead

WUA (ft2 of habitat per 1,000 ft of stream)

Stream flow (cfs)

Rearing habitat

Spawning habitat
Appendix 10⏐Water Withdrawal Effects

9 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010

Figure 5. Estimated weighted useable area (WUA) of spawning habitat (top) and rearing habitat (bottom) as 

a function of stream flow in the Wenatchee River. Figure derived from EES Consulting (2005). 

For modeling purposes, we assumed that 6.2 cfs (approximately 40% above the maximum 

proposed surface water needs, Figure 1) of water was drawn from the proposed intake site at the 

Dryden fishway and discharged upstream into Peshastin Creek (impact reach). This would result 

in a net increase of 6.2 cfs flow from the point of discharge to the intake site and that 

downstream flows would not be affected (because the increased flow would be offset by the 

intake). In reality, the amount of water needed will vary depending on the time of year (Figure 1) 

so the change in flow will be substantially less during some months than others. We evaluated 

WUA of spawning habitat for summer Chinook salmon during August and September, and 

steelhead from March through May. WUA of rearing habitat was evaluated over the entire year 

for all species. For each time period, we evaluated the minimum and maximum mean daily flows 

and the extreme low flow (minimum 10th percentile flow) where possible. For Peshastin Creek, 

the extreme low flow and maximum mean flows were sometimes beyond the range of flows used 

in the PHABSIM analysis (EES Consulting 2005). The Peshastin River extreme low flows were 

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000

Chinook

Steelhead

Bull trout (juvenile/adult)

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000

Chinook (Summer Chinook only)

Steelhead

WUA (ft2 of habitat per 1,000 ft of stream)

Spawning habitat

Rearing habitat

Stream flow (cfs)
Appendix 10⏐Water Withdrawal Effects

10 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010

outside the range of flows used in the PHABSIM analysis so we were not able to evaluate the 

impact on habitat at these flows . 

Table 2. Estimated percent of weighted useable area (WUA) of habitat for various flow values in Peshastin 

Creek compared to the additional flow resulting from a discharge of 6.2 cfs into Peshastin Creek from the 

proposed MCCRP component at the Dryden hatchery. 

 +6.2cfs 

Species Lifestage Timing Flow type Flow (cfs) % of WUA % of WUA 

Optimal 80 100.0% 

Extreme lowa 1 

Mean low 10 15.9% 34.8% Spawning Aug-Sep 

Mean high 22 45.9% 57.1% 

Optimal 55 100.0% 

Extreme lowa 1 

Mean low 10 32.5% 58.2% 

Chinook 

Rearing All year 

Mean highb 425 48.2% 48.4% 

Optimal 120 100.0% 

Extreme low 74 80.7% 85.7% 

Mean low 120 100.0% 99.9% Spawning Mar-May 

Mean highb 425 41.6% 41.5% 

Optimal 130 100.0% 

Extreme lowa 1 

Mean low 10 17.7% 28.3% 

Steelhead 

Rearing All year 

Mean highb 425 88.8% 88.6% 

Optimal 19 100.0% 

Extreme lowa 1 

Mean low 10 91.1% 98.6% Bull trout Rearing All year 

Mean highb 425 77.3% 79.4% a The extreme low represented by the minimum 10th percentile of daily flows for that period, was more than 10% 

less than the lowest flow used in the PHABSIM analysis by EESConsulting. No estimates of WUA were available. 

b The mean high was greater than 10% of the highest flow used in the PHABSIM analysis by EES Consulting. We 

used the highest value they evaluated in this analysis. 

The increased flow had very little effect on the modeled percent of WUA in the Wenatchee River 

(Table 3). Although there were both positive and negative effects on the percent of WUA, the 

difference was always less than 1%. 

The increased flow typically resulted in a modeled increase in the percent of WUA in Peshastin 

Creek but varied with species and lifestage (Table 2). The increased flow had a greater effect on 

WUA at low flows than during high flow periods. Optimal flow for summer Chinook salmon 

spawning (80 cfs) is typically not reached during the spawning season so any increase in flow 

had a positive effect on amount of WUA. The increased flow during the mean low flow 

increased the percent of WUA of summer Chinook salmon spawning habitat from 15.9 to 34.8%. 

In a few scenarios, the increased flow resulted in slight reductions (less than 1%) in the percent 

of WUA. 
Appendix 10⏐Water Withdrawal Effects

11 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010

Table 3. Estimated percent of weighted useable area (WUA) of habitat for various flow values in the 

Wenatchee River compared to the additional flow resulting from a discharge of 6.2 cfs into Peshastin Creek 

from the proposed MCCRP component at the Dryden hatchery. 

 +6.2cfs 

Species Lifestage Timing Flow type Flow (cfs) % of WUA % of WUA 

Optimal 2,800 100.0% 

Extreme low 405 17.2% 17.9% 

Mean low 751 53.5% 54.0% Spawning Aug-Sep 

Mean high 2,310 98.4% 98.5% 

Optimal 400 100.0% 

Extreme low 397 99.9% 99.9% 

Mean low 751 84.6% 84.3% 

Chinook 

Rearing All year 

Mean high 9,840 19.3% 19.3% 

Optimal 2,400 100.0% 

Extreme low 664 37.9% 38.4% 

Mean low 1,570 83.6% 83.8% Spawning Mar-May 

Mean high 9,660 24.8% 24.8% 

Optimal 900 100.0% 

Extreme low 397 81.2% 81.9% 

Mean low 751 99.1% 99.2% 

Steelhead 

Rearing All year 

Mean high 9,840 33.8% 33.7% 

Optimal 220 100.0% 

Extreme low 397 62.7% 61.9% 

Mean low 751 38.0% 37.7% Bull trout Rearing All year 

Mean high 9,840 16.2% 16.2% 

The results of this analysis indicated that withdrawing water from the Dryden fishway and 

discharging it into Peshastin Creek would generally have a positive effect on ESA listed fish in 

Peshastin Creek and little to no effect on those in the Wenatchee River. The effects will be 

limited to the impact reach and the magnitude will depend on the amount of water involved. 

Fish passage at the mouth of Peshastin Creek has been identified as being limited by low flow 

conditions in the late summer and early fall (Andonaegui 2001, NPCC 2004). Discharge of 

hatchery water into the creek during these periods could improve hydraulic conditions for 

returning adults. 

4.1.1.2 Chikamin Site 

Chikamin Creek is a tributary of the Chiwawa River which accounts for 44% of the Chinook, 

12% of the steelhead, and 78% of the bull trout spawning redds counted in the Wenatchee 

Subbasin (see Appendix 9 of the EIS for more information). Chinook spawning has not been 

documented in Chikamin Creek although summer steelhead and bull trout have been documented 

spawning in the stream. Chikamin Creek on average represents 3% of the subyearling Chinook, 

8% of the subyearling and 5% of the yearling rainbow/steelhead abundance estimated in the 

Chiwawa drainage. Chikamin Creek also represented 13% of the juvenile bull trout abundance in 

the Chiwawa drainage in 2007, but the survey does not include many upper tributaries where bull 

trout likely reside (Hillman et al. 2008). A new pond is proposed to be constructed next to 

Chikamin Creek and would be fed with surface water from the creek. The affected reach would 
Appendix 10⏐Water Withdrawal Effects

12 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010

include Chikamin Creek from the intake downstream about 450 feet of channel to the discharge 

pipe (Figure 6). 

Model inputs for the Chikamin analysis (Table 4) were based on onsite topographic survey and 

data from a stream gage located immediately downstream of the site. Topographic data from the 

affected reach of the creek (Figure 6) was collected during the fall of 2009. A second survey was 

conducted on April 27, 2010 to gather additional flow and channel data. 

Table 4. Topographic survey dates and model inputs used in the River2D model to evaluate surface water 

withdrawal impacts to listed fish. 

 Chikamin Napeequa 

Channel topography survey dates Oct. 19-20, 2009 Oct. 5 - Nov. 5, 2009 

Date water edge surveyed Oct. 19, 2009 Oct. 7, 2009 

Flow during water edge survey 13.7 34.4 

Date second survey Apr. 27, 2010 Apr. 26-27, 2010 

Flow during second survey 81.6 242 

Minimum withdrawal (cfs) 1.5 1.7 

Maximum withdrawal (cfs) 2.3 2.6 

Withdrawal period Mid March to early May Mid-March to early May 

Mean flow range (cfs) 20-68 109-372 

Extreme low flow (cfs) 8.5 47 

Surface water is proposed to be withdrawn from Chikamin Creek from mid March through early 

May to provide water to the acclimation pond. A minimum flow of 1.5 cfs is required for coho 

acclimation at this site (Appendix 2 of the EIS) and assumed withdrawals 50% greater (2.3 cfs) 

for modeling purposes. Juvenile Chinook salmon, and adult and juvenile steelhead and juvenile 

and adult bull trout are expected to be present in Chikamin Creek during this time (Appendix 9 

of the EIS). Daily flows typically start to increase around mid March and peak between mid May 

and early June (Figure 7). Mean flows during the acclimation period ranged between 20 and 68 

cfs between 2000 and 2008, with the 10th percentile flows as low as 8.5 cfs and 90th percentile as 

high as 105 cfs. 

The model results indicated that the amount of habitat in the affected reach of Chikamin Creek 

would generally increase with flow during the spring acclimation period (Figure 8). However, 

the amount of WUA of habitat for all species was very small (0.1% or less) compared to the 

wetted channel area (Table 5). This is due primarily to a lack of finer substrate (gravel and small 

cobbles) in this reach. As a result, the model did not predict any WUA for steelhead spawning in 

the affected reach at any flow levels (Table 5). Because WUA generally increased with flow, the 

modeled water withdrawal of 2.3 cfs tended to reduce the WUA of habitat for all species. The 

reduction due to the withdrawal was less than one square foot of habitat for all species. Thus, the 

maximum amount of water proposed for withdrawal would result in a very small reduction in 

WUA for all species. 
Appendix 10⏐Wa

13 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010

Intake

(approx.)

Outlet

(approx.)

Figure 6. Chikamin Creek channel topography of the affected reach. 
Appendix 10⏐Water Withdrawal Effects

14 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

10/1

10/15

10/29

11/12

11/2

6

12/10

12/2

4

1/7

1/21

2/4

2/18

3/4

3/18

4/1

4/15

4/29

5/13

5/2

7

6/10

6/2

4

7/8

7/2

2

8/5

8/19

9/2

9/16

9/3

0

Stream flow (cfs)

10th percentile

mean

90th percentile

Figure 7. Chikamin Creek stream gage data collected by the US Forest Service, 2000 – 2008. 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

WUA (ft2) of habitat

Stream flow (cfs)

Chinook rearing

Steelhead rearing

Bull trout juvenile/adult

Figure 8. Estimated weighted useable area (WUA) of habitat as a function of stream flow in the affected reach 

of Chikamin Creek. 
Appendix 10⏐Water Withdrawal Effects

15 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010

Table 5. Modeled weighted useable area (WUA) of habitat in the affected reach of Chikamin Creek for 

expected flow values during the spring acclimation period and with a maximum withdrawal of 2.3 cfs. 

 Water Wetted Weighted usable area (ft2) 

Flow Model Flow surface surface Chinook Steelhead Bull trout 

type type (cfs) elevation (ft) area (ft2) rearing spawning rearing juvenile/adult 

Extreme -2.3 cfs 6.2 2,425.5 6,056 0.8 0 0.7 3.4 

low normal 8.5 2,425.0 7,194 1.0 0 1.0 3.7 

Mean -2.3 cfs 17.7 2,425.8 9,045 2.9 0 2.1 3.8 

low normal 20.0 2,425.8 9,373 3.5 0 2.4 3.7 

Mean -2.3 cfs 65.7 2,426.3 12,848 6.2 0 7.3 3.5 

high normal 68.0 2,426.4 12,909 7.1 0 7.9 3.7 

4.1.1.3 Tall Timber Site 

The proposed Tall Timber acclimation site is located adjacent to the glacially fed Napeequa 

River, a tributary of the White River. The White River watershed represents 6% of the Chinook, 

1% of the steelhead, and 10% of the bull trout spawning redds counted in the Wenatchee 

Subbasin (see Appendix 9 of the EIS for further details). The White River drainage still 

maintains high quality, complex habitat with refuge and rearing habitat for multiple life stages 

and life histories (NPCC 2004). Both Chinook and steelhead have been observed spawning in the 

Napeequa River but few redds have been counted there in recent years (Hillman et al. 2008). No 

bull trout have been documented spawning in Napeequa River. A portion of the surface water 

from the Napeequa River is proposed to be diverted into disconnected side channel for 

acclimating coho salmon. The affected environment would include the Napeequa River from the 

intake downstream about 1,800 feet of channel to the outlet culvert (Figure 9). 

Model inputs for the Tall Timber (Napeequa) analysis (Table 4) were based on onsite 

topographic survey and a combination of onsite discharge measurements and White River stream 

gage data. Topographic data from the affected reach of the river (Figure 9) was collected during 

the fall of 2009. A second survey was conducted on April 26 and 27, 2010 to gather additional 

flow and channel data. 
Appendix 10⏐Wa

16 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010

Intake

(approx.)

Exit cul

Figure 9. Napeequa River channel topography of the affected reach. 
Appendix 10⏐Water Withdrawal Effects

17 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010

Surface water is proposed to be withdrawn from the Napeequa River from mid March through 

early May. A minimum flow of 1.7 cfs is required for coho acclimation at this site (Appendix 2 

of the EIS) and withdrawals were assumed to be 50% greater (2.6 cfs) for modeling purposes. 

Juvenile Chinook salmon, and adult and juvenile steelhead and migrant bull trout are assumed to 

be present in Napeequa River during this time (note that steelhead are uncommon in the White 

River drainage, see Appendix 9 of the EIS). Stream gage data is not available for the Napeequa 

River. However, a stream gage was operated on the White River at about river mile 6.5 between 

1955 and 1983 (Figure 10) by the US Geological Survey (USGS). Washington Department of 

Ecology has operated a stream gage at the same site beginning in 2002. Daily flows in the White 

River typically start to increase around the end of March and peak in June (Figure 10). We 

compared seven flow measurements collected by the USGS between September 1975 and 

October 2001 (provided by John Clemens, USGS, Tacoma, Washington) and one collected by 

Cramer Fish Sciences in October 2009, with corresponding White River stream gage data 

(Figure 11). Flows from the two rivers were highly correlated (R2

 = 0.94). This is not surprising 

because they are both glacially fed rivers, and the Napeequa is the largest tributary in the White 

River Watershed (NPCC 2004). Based on the regression on the White River stream gage, we 

estimated that mean flows in the Napeequa River during the acclimation period will range 

between 109 and 372 cfs with the 10th percentile as low as 47 cfs and the 90th as high as 732 cfs. 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

10/1

10/1510/2911/1211/2612/1012/24

1/7

1/21

2/4

2/18

3/4

3/18

4/1

4/154/295/135/276/106/24

7/8

7/22

8/5

8/19

9/2

9/169/30

Stream flow (1,000 cfs)

10th percentile

Mean

90th percentile

Figure 10. White River stream gage data collected by the US Geological survey, 1955-1983 (Data source: 

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/wa/nwis/inventory/?site_no=12454000&agency_cd=USGS&). 
Appendix 10⏐Water Withdrawal Effects

18 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010

y = 0.327x

R2

 = 0.940

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

White River flow (cfs)

Napeequa River flow (cfs)

Figure 11. Relationship between Napeequa and White River flows. 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

3/15 3/20 3/25 3/30 4/4 4/9 4/14 4/19 4/24 4/29

Stream flow (cfs)

10th percentile

Mean

90th percentile

Figure 12. Estimated Napeequa River flows during the spring acclimation period based on the regression on 

White River gage data. 

The modeled effect of flow on WUA of habitat in the affected reach of the Napeequa River 

varied with the species and lifestage during the spring acclimation period (Figure 13). The 

substrate in the affected reach was dominated by gravel and therefore was more suitable habitat 

for all species than was modeled for the affected reach of Chikamin Creek. The amount of 

steelhead spawning WUA peaked at about 13,000 ft2 at 242 cfs and then decreased with 

increased flow (Table 6). The WUA of Chinook rearing habitat generally decreased with flow 
Appendix 10⏐Water Withdrawal Effects

19 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010

until about 180 cfs and then increased slightly. The modeled water withdrawal of 2.6 cfs tended 

to reduce the WUA of habitat for most species except at the highest flows which showed a slight 

increase for all species except bull trout which decreased by 3% (Table 6). The withdrawal 

generally increased WUA for Chinook salmon rearing. The change in WUA due to the water 

withdrawal was typically 1% or less for each modeled flow type except for the extreme low 

flow. The modeled 2.6 cfs withdrawal at the extreme low flow resulted in a 3% increase in 

Chinook rearing, a 5% decrease in steelhead spawning, a 2% reduction in steelhead rearing, and 

less than 1% decrease in bull trout WUA. Thus, the maximum proposed withdrawal at this site 

would generally decrease WUA for most species at extreme low flows by a small amount, and 

slightly increase WUA at higher flows. 

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

WUA (ft2) of habitat

Stream flow (cfs)

Chinook rearing

Steelhead spawning

Steelhead rearing

Bull trout (juvenile/adult)

Figure 13. Estimated weighted useable area (WUA) of habitat as a function of stream flow in the affected 

reach of Napeequa River. 

Table 6. Modeled weighted useable area (WUA) of habitat in the affected reach of the Napeequa River for 

expected flow values and a maximum withdrawal of 2.6 cfs. 

 Water Wetted Weighted usable area (ft2) 

Flow Model Flow surface surface Chinook Steelhead Bull trout 

type type (cfs) elevation (ft) area (ft2) rear spawn rear juvenile/adult 

Extreme -2.6 cfs 44.4 1,927.9 81,388 2,858 4,514 2,199 1,414

low normal 47.0 1,927.9 81,949 2,781 4,741 2,245 1,416

Mean -2.6 cfs 106.4 1,928.4 96,432 2,472 9,013 3,154 1,209

low normal 109.0 1,928.5 96,753 2,445 9,134 3,164 1,204

Mean -2.6 cfs 369.4 1,930.8 131,228 2,692 12,218 3,963 3,098

high normal 372.0 1,930.8 132,520 2,674 12,168 3,925 3,196
Appendix 10⏐Water Withdrawal Effects

20 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010

The design of the Tall Timber site allows use of the side channel by other species during coho 

acclimation (see Appendix 2 of EIS). Diverting flow into the system may increase off-channel 

habitat. 

4.1.1.4 George (backup hatchery site) 

The George hatchery site offers a potential alternative to the Dryden hatchery site. Located 

approximately 1.25 miles downstream of Lake Wenatchee, the George hatchery would be 

positioned just south of the Wenatchee River main stem. The Wenatchee River provides 

spawning and/or rearing habitat for ESA listed spring Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout 

(Appendix 9 of the EIS). We evaluated potential impacts of hatchery surface water withdrawals 

on microhabitat availability for ESA listed fish using the PHABSIM methodology. This 

approach was chosen to enable direct comparison to flow effects quantified for the Dryden 

hatchery site. 

Wenatchee River mean discharge below Lake Wenatchee ranges between 200 cfs and 8,000 cfs 

annually (Figure 14). A total of 8 cfs of water would be supplied to the George hatchery via 

ground and surface water sources. Surface water, approximately 4.7 cfs, would be withdrawn 

from the Wenatchee River and piped to the hatchery. Hatchery discharge would be returned to 

the river 3,800 feet downstream of the withdrawal via a historic side channel that maintains 

hyporheic (subsurface) connectivity to the main stem. Discharged hatchery water would travel 

5,600 feet before reaching the main stem, and some water would likely be lost to the ground 

depending on the river’s flow stage. For simplicity, we assumed that returned flows would be 

equivalent to the amount of surface flow withdrawn; thus, our study reach was defined by the 

upstream withdrawal and downstream discharge locations (Figure 15). 

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

10/111/112/1

1/12/13/14/15/16/17/18/19/1

River Flow (cfs)

Mean

10th percentile

90th percentile

Figure 14. Wenatchee River discharge below Lake Wenatchee, water years 2005-2010. Washington 

Department of Ecology stream gage 45A240. 
Appendix 10⏐Water Withdrawal Effects

21 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010

Figure 15. Map of the study reach adjacent to the George hatchery site. The reach was defined by the 

locations of surface water withdrawal and discharge. Locations of data collection transects are provided for 

reference. 
Appendix 10⏐Water Withdrawal Effects

22 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010

The majority of the study reach was comprised of glide habitat (~60%), followed by pool 

(~30%) and riffle (~10%) habitat types. Stream substrate in pools was composed of equal 

proportions of fines, gravel, and cobble with a small amount of boulder. Riffles had primarily 

gravel and cobble substrate. Glides were composed of near equal parts of fines, gravel and 

cobble. In-stream wood complexity was judged to be fair throughout the reach, and a total of 69 

pieces of large wood were counted. Following completion of the stream habitat survey, five 

transects were selected in locations representative of the observed habitat composition within the 

study reach (Figure 15). Channel profile and water velocity data were collected at each transect 

in October 2010 and used to define the hydraulic characteristics of the study reach at base flows. 

Field data was used to parameterize the IFG4 hydraulic model following the “one-velocity” 

method described by Milhous (1984). Habitat Suitability Criteria recommended by the State of 

Washington (WDFW and WDOE 2004) for steelhead, spring Chinook salmon and bull trout 

were coupled with IFG4 program output to simulate relative changes in microhabitat availability 

across a range of flows. Figure 16 provides PHABSIM results across the range of flows 

simulated. Note that simulations were not completed for flows above 450 cfs and, therefore, our 

analysis was limited to low flow periods. The effect of flow withdrawals on WUA was expected 

to be greatest during the low flow season. Results of comparisons between the no-withdrawal 

and 4.7 cfs withdrawal scenarios are presented in Table 7. We caution readers not to overuse the 

absolute values presented in Table 7 because the difference in flow between the two scenarios is 

small and PHABSIM analyses are most useful for evaluating a broad range of flows. Specific 

values are provided in Table 7 to demonstrate that the relative change in weighted useable area 

(WUA) was extremely small (less than 1.5%) for all species and life-stages. Thus, a 4.7 cfs flow 

change during low and extreme low flows in the Wenatchee River had negligible effects on 

WUA simulated for spring Chinook, steelhead and bull trout. 

A secondary discharge location just downstream of the withdrawal site is being considered for 

the George hatchery (see Appendix 1 of the EIS). The close proximity of “Discharge 2” to the 

intake leads us to conclude that if this option is chosen there would be no measurable effect on 

fish habitat in the Wenatchee River. 
Appendix 10⏐Water Withdrawal Effects

23 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010

Figure 16. Estimated weighted useable area for spawning and rearing habitat as a function of fall stream flow 

in the Wenatchee River study reach. 

Table 7. Estimated percent of weighted usable area for ESA listed species in the Wenatchee River study reach 

under low flow and extreme low flow conditions. Low flows for the study reach were calculated from 

available WDOE stream gauge data. Values are provided for current conditions and conditions expected if 

flows are reduced by 4.7 cfs. 

 - 4.7cfs 

Species Lifestage Timing Flow type Flow (cfs) % of WUA % of WUA 

Extreme low 136 13.2% 12.1% Spawning Aug-Sep Mean low 263 37.5% 36.7% 

Extreme low 136 44.8% 43.4% 

Chinook 

Rearing All year Mean low 263 62.4% 62.0% 

Extreme low 136 3.2% 2.9% Spawning Mar-May Mean low 263 11.0% 10.7% 

Extreme low 136 18.5% 18.0% 

Steelhead 

Rearing All year Mean low 263 30.1% 29.6% 

Extreme low 136 28.2% 28.6% Bull trout Rearing All year Mean low 263 22.1% 22.2% 
Appendix 10⏐Water Withdrawal Effects

24 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010

4.1.2 Methow Subbasin 

4.1.2.1 Twisp Weir 

The proposed Twisp Weir acclimation site is located adjacent to an existing spring Chinook 

salmon acclimation site operated by WDFW on the Twisp River (see Appendix 3 of the EIS). 

Mean discharge downstream of the Twisp Weir near Twisp, WA ranges between 60 cfs and 

2,000 cfs annually (Figure 17). The new coho acclimation pond would be fed by a combination 

of ground and surface water sources. In total, the site requires 1.7 cfs of water: 0.5 cfs of ground 

water and 1.2 cfs of surface water withdrawn from the Twisp River. Withdrawals would be 

discharged back into the river approximately 450 feet downstream of the acclimation pond 

intake. Water would be diverted from the Twisp River to the acclimation pond from 

approximately December 1 through early May. The Twisp River provides spawning and/or 

rearing habitat for ESA listed spring Chinook salmon, steelhead, and bull trout (Appendix 9 of 

the EIS). We evaluated potential impacts of surface water withdrawals on relative changes in 

microhabitat availability for ESA listed fish using PHABSIM. 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

10/111/112/1

1/12/13/14/15/16/17/18/19/1

River Flow (cfs)

Mean

10th percentile

90th percentile

Figure 17. Twisp River discharge near Twisp, WA, water years 2005-2010. USGS stream gage 12448998. 
Appendix 10⏐Water Withdrawal Effects

25 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010

Figure 18. Map of the study reach adjacent to the Twisp Weir acclimation site. The reach was defined by the 

locations of surface water withdrawal and discharge. Locations of data collection transects are provided for 

reference. 
Appendix 10⏐Water Withdrawal Effects

26 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010

Mesohabitat composition within the study reach was ~70% riffle and ~30% glide habitat types. 

Stream substrate was composed primarily of cobble and boulders with a small amount of gravel 

and fines. In-stream wood complexity was judged to be low, with a total of two pieces of large 

wood counted. After completion of the habitat survey, two transects were selected in 

representative locations within the study reach (Figure 18), one upstream and one downstream of 

the Twisp Valley Power and Irrigation District Diversion. Channel profile and water velocity 

data were collected at each transect in October 2010 and used to define the hydraulic 

characteristics of the study reach at base flows. Since the location of withdrawal occurred in a 

portion of the river with multiple side channels, our data collection and analysis focused 

exclusively on the side channel that would be affected by the withdrawal. 

Field data was used to parameterize the IFG4 hydraulic model following the “one-velocity” 

method described by Milhous (1984). Habitat Suitability Criteria recommended by the State of 

Washington (WDFW and WDOE 2004) for steelhead, spring Chinook salmon and bull trout 

were coupled with IFG4 program output to simulate microhabitat availability across a range of 

flows in the affected side channel. Figure 19 provides PHABSIM results across the range of 

flows simulated. Note that simulations were not completed for flows above 40 cfs in the study 

reach and, therefore, our analysis is limited to the low flow period when juvenile coho would be 

held overwinter. The effect of flow withdrawals on WUA was expected to be greatest during the 

low flow period when the proportion of flow diverted from the side channel would be highest. 

Results of comparisons between the no-withdrawal and 1.2 cfs withdrawal scenarios are 

presented in 

Table 8. We caution readers not to overuse the absolute values presented in 

Table 8 because the difference in flow between the two scenarios is small and PHABSIM 

analyses are most useful for evaluating a broad range of flows. Specific values are provided to 

demonstrate that the relative change in WUA was small, 1.5% or less, for all species and lifestages. Therefore, a 1.2 cfs flow change during low and extreme low flows in the Twisp River 

had negligible effects on WUA simulated for spring Chinook, steelhead and bull trout. 
Appendix 10⏐Water Withdrawal Effects

27 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010

Figure 19. Estimated weighted useable area for spawning and rearing habitat as a function of fall stream flow 

in the Twisp River study reach. 

Table 8. Estimated percent of weighted usable area for ESA listed species in the Twisp River study reach 

under low flow and extreme low flow conditions. Low flows for the study reach were calculated from 

available USGS stream gauge data. Values are provided for current conditions and conditions expected if 

flows are reduced by 1.2 cfs. 

 -1.2cfs 

Species Lifestage Timing Flow type Flow (cfs) % of WUA % of WUA 

Extreme low 12 18.7% 17.0% Spawning Aug-Sep Mean low 22 35.3% 33.8% 

Extreme low 12 10.3% 9.7% 

Chinook 

Rearing All year Mean low 22 15.1% 14.8% 

Extreme low 12 5.3% 4.6% Spawning Mar-May Mean low 22 13.3% 12.4% 

Extreme low 12 7.1% 6.6% 

Steelhead 

Rearing All year Mean low 22 11.3% 10.9% 

Extreme low 12 4.5% 4.3% Bull trout Rearing All year Mean low 22 7.2% 7.0% 
Appendix 10⏐Water Withdrawal Effects

28 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010

4.1.2.2 Newby (backup acclimation site) 

Newby Creek is a non-fish bearing, high gradient, small tributary to the Twisp River (Appendix 

9 of the EIS). The proposed backup acclimation site, including the proposed water intake and 

discharge sites, would be located adjacent to Newby Creek above a series of cascades, which 

makes the site inaccessible to migratory fish. We estimated flow to be less than 1 cfs in October 

2010 based on depth and velocity measurements taken at three sites within the creek. The 

accuracy of the flow estimate is questionable due to the fact that it was difficult to find locations 

deep enough to fully submerge the flow meter. A habitat survey revealed that there were natural 

fish passage barriers throughout the stream and the substrate was comprised mostly of fines. 

Based on these facts we conclude that a diversion of flow from Newby Creek into an acclimation 

pond and return of water to Newby Creek would have no adverse affects on ESA listed spring 

Chinook salmon, steelhead or bull trout. 

4.2 Groundwater Impacts 

A complete analysis of the effect of groundwater withdrawals on surface water can be found in 

the Groundwater Withdrawal Impact Report (Appendix 11 of the EIS). The following section 

discusses the potential impacts to listed fish due to groundwater withdrawals. 

4.2.1 Wenatchee Subbasin 

4.2.1.1 Butcher 

A new well is proposed for this site to facilitate overwinter rearing of coho. A pump would draw 

225 gpm from the well to provide an additional 0.5 cfs of flow to the pond. The well will likely 

be less than 250 feet? deep and is expected to be in hydraulic continuity with Nason Creek. 

There may be localized impacts to stream flow that will be completely offset by return flows 

from the acclimation pond. The magnitude of this localized impact cannot be estimated until the 

well has been dug and tested. Because of the water-balance neutrality of the proposed 

withdrawal of groundwater from an aquifer in hydraulic continuity with the stream and discharge 

of the groundwater back into the stream, there will be no regional impacts to stream flow within 

the Wenatchee Subbasin. Thus, there are likely to be little to no impacts to fish from the 

groundwater withdrawal at this site. 

4.2.1.2 Dryden Hatchery 

A small hatchery is proposed to be developed at this site. A combination of surface and 

groundwater sources is being explored to supply of up to 2,775 gpm (6.2 cfs) to the site. 

Potential groundwater sources include an infiltration gallery or production wells. Groundwater 

levels are shallow and expected to be in hydraulic continuity with the Wenatchee River and 

Peshastin Creek. The effect of groundwater withdrawals on surface water will depend on the 

percentage of the demand supplied by wells and on the discharge site. As discussed in section 

4.1.1, if return water is discharged upstream in Peshastin Creek there will be a small increase in 

flow from the discharge site to the Dryden fishway. This is expected to provide some benefits to 

ESA listed fish in the affected reach of Peshastin Creek but little to no impact to those in the 

Wenatchee River. If return water is discharged at the Dryden fishway, the impacts to surface 
Appendix 10⏐Water Withdrawal Effects

29 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010

water from groundwater withdrawals are expected to be localized and completely offset by 

return flows from the facility. Therefore, there are likely to be little to no negative impacts to fish 

from groundwater withdrawals at this site. 

4.2.1.3 Backup Sites 

4.2.1.3. SQUADRONI

A new well would be developed to provide 1.6 cfs needed for overwinter rearing if this site is 

needed. It is anticipated that 720 gpm will be drawn from the aquifer to meet this demand. The 

wells are likely to be in hydraulic continuity with Nason and Gill Creeks. There may be localized 

impacts to stream flow that will be completely offset by return flows from the acclimation pond. 

The magnitude of this localized impact cannot be estimated until the wells have been dug and 

tested. Because of the water-balance neutrality of the proposed withdrawal of groundwater from 

an aquifer in hydraulic continuity with the stream and discharge of the groundwater back into the 

stream, there will be no regional impacts to stream flow within the Wenatchee Subbasin. Thus, 

there are likely to be little to no impacts to fish from the groundwater withdrawals at this site. 

4.2.2 Methow Subbasin 

4.2.2.1 Lincoln 

Two wells will likely to be needed to provide 2.6 cfs needed for overwinter rearing at this site. It 

is anticipated that 1,170 gpm will be drawn from the aquifer to meet this demand. The wells are 

in hydraulic continuity with the Twisp River. There may be localized impacts to stream flow 

which will be completely offset by return flows from the acclimation pond. The magnitude of the 

localized impact cannot be estimated until the wells have been dug and tested. Because of the 

water-balance neutrality of the proposed withdrawal of groundwater from an aquifer in hydraulic 

continuity with the stream and discharge of the groundwater back into the stream, there will be 

no regional impacts to stream flow within the Methow Subbasin. Thus, there are likely to be 

little to no impacts to fish from the groundwater withdrawals at this site. 

4.2.2.2 Lower Twisp 

An existing well is proposed to be used at this site to facilitate overwinter rearing of coho. A 

pump would draw 225 gpm from the well to provide an additional 0.5 cfs of flow to the pond. 

The well is likely in hydraulic continuity with the Twisp River. There may be localized impacts 

to stream flow that will be completely offset by return flows from the acclimation pond. The 

magnitude of this localized impact cannot be estimated until the well has been dug and tested. 

Because of the water-balance neutrality of the proposed withdrawal of groundwater from an 

aquifer in hydraulic continuity with the stream and discharge of the groundwater back into the 

stream, there will be no regional impacts to stream flow within the Methow Subbasin. Thus, 

there are likely to be little to no impacts to fish from the groundwater withdrawal at this site. 

4.2.2.3 Mason 

A new well may be needed at this site to facilitate overwinter rearing of coho. A pump would 

draw 225 gpm from the well to provide an additional 0.5 cfs of flow to the pond. The well is 

likely in hydraulic continuity with Eight Mile Creek and possibly the Chewuch River. There may 

be localized impacts to stream flow (perhaps a few gallons per day) which will be completely 
Appendix 10⏐Water Withdrawal Effects

30 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010

offset by return flows from the acclimation ponds. Because of the water-balance neutrality of the 

proposed withdrawal of groundwater from an aquifer in hydraulic continuity with the stream and 

discharge of the groundwater back into the stream, there will be no regional impacts to stream 

flow within the Methow Subbasin. Thus, there are likely to be little to no impacts to fish from the 

groundwater withdrawal at this site. 

4.2.2.4 MSWA Eight Mile 

A new well is proposed at this site to facilitate overwinter rearing of coho. An estimated 800 

gpm would be drawn from the aquifer to provide 1.8 cfs of flow to the existing side channel. The 

aquifer is likely in hydraulic continuity with the Chewuch River. There may be localized impacts 

to stream flow (perhaps a few gallons per day) which will be completely offset by return flows 

from the acclimation ponds. Because of the water-balance neutrality of the proposed withdrawal 

of groundwater from an aquifer in hydraulic continuity with the stream and discharge of the 

groundwater back into the stream, there will be no regional impacts to stream flow within the 

Methow Subbasin. Thus, there are likely to be little to no impacts to fish from the groundwater 

withdrawal at this site. 

4.2.2.5 Backup Sites 

4.2.2.5. MSRF CHEWUCH

An existing well and likely one or more additional wells will be required to provide 1.9 cfs for 

overwinter rearing if this site is needed. It is anticipated that 850 gpm will be drawn from the 

aquifer to meet this demand. The well(s) are likely to be in hydraulic continuity with the 

Chewuch River. There may be localized impacts to stream flow (perhaps hundreds of gallons per 

day) which will be completely offset by return flows from the acclimation pond. Because of the 

water-balance neutrality of the proposed withdrawal of groundwater from an aquifer in hydraulic 

continuity with the stream and discharge of the groundwater back into the stream, there will be 

no regional impacts to stream flow within the Methow Subbasin. Thus, there are likely to be 

little to no impacts to fish from the groundwater withdrawals at this site. 

4.3 Combined Impacts 

4.3.1 Proposed Alternative 

The impact of the proposed alternative on surface waters is expected to be small. The combined 

surface water withdrawals at the primary sites proposed for the Wenatchee River Subbasin total 

4.0 to 11.1 cfs, and 1.2 cfs for the Methow Subbasin. An additional 7 cfs of groundwater is 

proposed to be withdrawn at primary sites in the Wenatchee Subbasin, and 5.4 cfs at primary 

sites in the Methow River Subbasin (see Appendix 11 of the EIS). The effect on surface water 

from these groundwater withdrawals is expected to be minor. Because withdrawn water will be 

returned to the stream, there will be no regional impacts to flow. There will be localized impacts 

to stream flow but impacts to listed fish are expected to be small and seasonal. 

Depending on the final design for the Dryden hatchery, impacts could range from increased 

spawning and rearing habitat during low flows in a 200 ft section of lower Peshastin Creek, to 

undetectable changes in a 650 ft section of the Wenatchee River. The proposed water withdrawal 

at the Chikamin site would result in small decreases in available WUA (generally less than 1 ft2

) 
Appendix 10⏐Water Withdrawal Effects

31 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010

for all species. The proposed surface water withdrawal for the Tall Timber site would generally 

decrease the amount of available WUA of habitat for most species at the extreme low flow and 

increase WUA of habitat at higher flows. The proposed surface water withdrawal at the Twisp 

Weir site was projected to generally decrease the WUA of habitat for most species during low 

flows by a small amount. These effects would occur between mid-March through early May at 

the Chikamin and Tall Timber sites, and between December and early May at the Twisp Weir 

site. The effects at the Dryden site would occur year-round but vary seasonally. 

4.3.2 No Action 

The No Action Alternative is described in the EIS. It includes operation of fewer of the same 

sites described for the Proposed Alternative. Because fewer sites would be operated and no new 

construction is involved, the combined effects would be less than those of the Proposed 

Alternative. 

4.4 Cumulative Impacts 

The EIS defines cumulative impacts as the impact on the environment that results from the 

incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other 

actions. Past and present water rights exist in the Wenatchee and Methow Subbasins for 

industrial, irrigation, and domestic uses. In general, the lower portions of the subbasins are more 

affected by withdrawals for irrigation, commercial, industrial, municipal and domestic uses, and 

other activities (Montgomery Water Group et al. 1995, MBPU 2004). Streamflows in the upper 

portions of the subbasins are relatively unaffected by anthropogenic actions because these areas 

are largely mountainous and undeveloped. 

Substantial water use rights exist in both subbasins. Within the Wenatchee Subbasin, users have 

420 cfs in water rights permits and certificates (357 cfs surface water, 63cfs ground water) 

(NPCC 2004). The largest user is the Wenatchee Reclamation District, which serves over 9,000 

users by diverting up to 200 cfs at Dryden Dam. In the Methow Subbasin, total irrigation 

deliveries are estimated to be on the order of 200 – 250 cfs (MBPU 2004). Of the irrigation 

water withdrawn, approximately 30 60% of this use is consumptive (not water-balance neutral) 

and the remaining 40% returns to the aquifer as groundwater (MBPU 2004). Additional 

quantities of water are diverted from the Wenatchee River for consumptive use outside of the 

watershed (NPCC 2004). 

Irrigation water uses constitute the majority of withdrawals in the Wenatchee and Methow 

Subbasins (NPCC 2004, MBPU 2004). Irrigation use is greatest during the summer months 

exacerbating natural low flow conditions during July, August, and especially September 

(Andonaegui 2000, Andonaegui 2001). Other proposed groundwater withdrawals or surface 

water diversions, if consumptive, could impact the stream flows in the two basins. 

Water withdrawals due to proposed MCCRP activities would occur between December and early 

May when irrigation use is low. In addition, the water would be returned to the river near the 

point of withdrawal so that the affects will be localized and negated by the return flow. Thus, the 

impacts from the proposed water withdrawals would not be additive to cumulative effects 

because anthropogenic withdrawals occur at different time periods. 
Appendix 10⏐Water Withdrawal Effects

32 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010

4.4.1 Proposed Alternative 

The amount of habitat reduced through water withdrawals under the proposed alternative is not 

likely to have a measureable impact compared to past and current impacts and those likely to 

occur. In addition, the proposed water withdrawals would occur primarily during the winter and 

spring (with the exception of the Dryden hatchery which would occur year-round and result in a 

slight increase in flow) not during the low flow summer and early fall period. 

4.4.2 No Action 

The No Action Alternative is described in the EIS. It includes operation of fewer of the same 

sites described for the Proposed Alternative. Because fewer sites would be operated and no new 

construction is involved, the combined effects would be less than those of the Proposed 

Alternative; consequently, the impacts of the combined projects are considered to be less than 

those of the Proposed Alternative. 

5.0 IMPACT AVOIDANCE OR MITIGATION 

Potential negative impacts to ESA listed fish will be avoided or minimized by: 

• Using existing sites wherever possible. 

• Minimizing the distance between surface water withdrawals and returns. 

• Returning ground water to surface streams at locations that minimize pumping impacts. 

• Constructing and operating intakes that meet guidelines for fish screens. 

6.0 REFERENCES 

Andonaegui, C. 2000. Salmon, steelhead, and bull trout habitat limiting factors for the Methow 

subbasin (Water Resource Inventory Area 45) and Portions of WRIA 48. Final draft 

report. WSCC. 

Andonaegui, C. 2001. Salmon, steelhead, and bull trout habitat limiting factors for the 

Wenatchee subbasin (Water Resource Inventory Area 45) and Portions of WRIA 40 

within Chelan County (Squilchuck, Stemilt and Colockum drainages). Final draft report. 

WSCC. 

Bovee, K. D. 1982. A guide to stream habitat analysis using the Instream Flow Incremental 

Methodology. Instream Flow Information Paper No. 12. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

FWS/OBS-82/26. 

EES Consulting. 2005. Lower Wenatchee River PHABSIM studies. Final Technical Report. 

Prepared for Chelan County Natural Resources Department and WRIA 45 Watershed 

Planning Unit. EES Consulting, Inc., Bellingham, WA. 
Appendix 10⏐Water Withdrawal Effects

33 ⏐ NOVEMBER 2010

Gard, M. 2009a. Comparison of spawning habitat predictions of PHABSIM and River2D 

models. International Journal of River Basin Management, 7:55-71. 

Gard, M. 2009b. Demonstration flow assessment and 2-D modeling: Perspectives based on 

instream flow studies and evaluation of restoration projects. AFS, Fisheries Magazine, 

34:320-329. 

Hillman, T., M. Miller, C. Peven, M. Tonseth, T. Miller, K. Truscott, and A. Murdoch. 2008. 

Monitoring and evaluation of the Chelan County PUD hatchery programs. 2007 Annual 

Report. Prepared for the HCP Hatchery Committee, Wenatchee, WA. 

Methow Basin Planning Unit (MBPU). 2004. Methow Basin (WRIA 48) watershed plan. Draft 

report approved by the Okanogan County Board of County Commissioners June 20, 2005. 

Available at: 

http://www.okanogancounty.org/water/Documents%20on%20Site/Methow%20Basin%2

0plan%20text.pdf 

Milhous, R.T. 1984. Technical Note No. 4: the use of one velocity calibration data set with IFG4. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 6 pp. 

Montgomery Water Group, Inc, Adolfson Associates, Inc., Hong West & Associates, Inc., R2 

Resource Consultants, Inc., Marshall and Associates, Inc., and Washington Department 

of Ecology. 1995. Initial watershed assessment: Water resources inventory area 45, 

Wenatchee River Watershed. Open file Report 95-12. 

Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC). 2004. “Wenatchee Subbasin Plan.” In 

Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Portland, Oregon, 2005. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996. Juvenile fish screen criteria for pump intakes. 

Developed by National Marine Fisheries Service Environmental & Technical Services 

Division Portland, Oregon May 9, 1996. Available at: 

http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/pumpcrit.htm 

Steffler, P. and Blackburn, J. 2002. River2D, Two-dimensional depth averaged model of river 

hydrodynamics and fish habitat, Introduction to depth averaged modeling and user’s manual. 

University of Alberta. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and Washington Department of Ecology 

(WDOE). 2004. Instream flow guidelines: Technical and habitat suitability issues including 

fish preference curves. Error correction update 2/12/2008. Olympia WA. 
Appendix 11 — Climate Change Adaptation 

Overview 

As described in Chapter 2 of the EIS, project changes might become necessary to address 

potential effects from regional climate change in the coming years. Global changes in 

climate, specifically temperature, have occurred naturally throughout history; however, 

there has been a significant increase over the last 100 years (Brekke et al. 2009), and 

“human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases” have been identified as the primary 

contributors to this increase (Karl et al. 2009). Water resources and ecosystems have been 

identified as specific sectors that are and will be affected by changes in climate. In the 

Pacific Northwest, these sectors include salmon habitat. Specific issues that could affect 

salmon stem from changes in summertime stream temperature, seasonal low flows, and 

flooding frequency and magnitude (Mantua et al. 2009). 

The University of Washington (UW) Climate Impacts Group has developed two regional 

climate change models based on two greenhouse gas emission scenarios (A1B and B1), 

as recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The B1 scenario 

depicts a lower emissions scenario than the A1B scenario, based partly on the projected 

development of cleaner and more efficient technologies with B1. However, as shown in 

Figure 1, both models predict significant state-wide increases in August water 

temperatures beginning in about 10 years and continuing into the future (Mantua et al. 

2009). 

Water temperature is a critical component of salmon habitat (Mantua et al. 2009). When 

temperatures rise too high, aspects of the salmonid life cycle such as migration, 

spawning, and population distributions can be affected. High temperatures can also result 

in an increased risk of disease and even death. The maximum upper temperature within 

which fish can survive varies among salmonid species. Based on the best available 

evidence, for coho salmon the upper limit of water temperature is 74.1 ̊ F (23.4 ̊ C) 

(Eaton and Scheller 1996). However, even water temperatures as low as 59 ̊ F (15 ̊ C) 

can subject salmon to increased predation and an inability to compete with warm-water 

species. Table 1 describes EPA recommended temperature thresholds during different life 

history phases for Pacific salmonid species. Based on this data, the temperature increases 

predicted by the climate change models described above would likely result in more 

frequent and persistent thermal migration barriers and thermally stressed waters for 

salmon. Summer water temperatures are also predicted to start earlier and last longer 

(Mantua et al. 2009). These higher temperatures would likely have the most severe 

impacts on summertime fish migrations. 
Figure 1. Future climate scenarios for several decades including the 2020s, 2040s, and 2080s are 

provided based on both climate scenarios (A1B and B1). Circles represent water temperatures 

(Figure from Mantua et al. 2009, pg 228). 
Table 1. Recommended temperature thresholds for Pacific salmon by life history phase. 

Salmonid Life History Phase 

Terminology

EPA-Based Recommended Temperature Thresholds to Protect 

Salmon and Trout1

Adult migration <68°F (<20°C) for salmon and trout migration

Incubation <55°F (<13°C) for salmon and trout spawning, egg incubation, and fry 

emergence 

Juvenile rearing (early year) <61°F (<16°C) for salmon “core” juvenile rearing

Smoltification <59°F (<15°C) for salmon smoltification 

<57°F (<14°C) for steelhead smoltification 

Juvenile rearing (late year) <64°F (<18°C) for juvenile salmon and steelhead migration 

1The EPA identified temperature unit is: Seven day average of the daily maximum water temperature.

Source: EPA 2003. 

Climate change is also predicted to affect seasonal stream flows and flooding frequency 

and magnitude through changes to the watershed. Both the Wenatchee and Methow 

basins currently are snowmelt-dominant watersheds. Model predictions suggest that the 

those watersheds will become largely transient–runoff (transition) dominant in the future, 

with the change occurring sooner in the Wenatchee basin than in the Methow (see 

Figure 2 below). 

There are several repercussions to this change in watersheds. Flooding, both frequency 

and magnitude, is predicted to increase in December and January in transient–runoff 

watersheds. In transient–runoff dominant watersheds, the size of summer low flows is 

predicted to decrease, while their duration is expected to increase (Mantua et al. 2009). 

These watershed changes could result in changes to groundwater recharge rates and in the 

availability of water from local springs, further exacerbating water temperature issues. 

Changes in stream flows could also result in increased erosion rates, which could lead to 

increased sedimentation and further temperature changes. 

In order to put this in context, the UW Climate Center developed a graphic illustrating the 

potential climate-related impacts on freshwater habitat for both steelhead and salmon. 

This illustration is re-created in Figure 3. All of these potential changes could affect 

acclimation sites and hatchery infrastructure, operations, and production as water 

temperature and hydrology change from current conditions. 
Figure 2. Watershed classification maps for simulated runoff in the historic period (1970-99), 

2020s, 2040s, and 2080s. Simulations both climate scenarios (A1B and B1; Figure from Mantua et 

al. 2009, pg 234).
Figure 3. Potential climate change impacts of increased flooding, summer temperatures, and reduced 

summer low flow in freshwater habitat for salmon and steelhead. Example life history stages are shown for 

adult river entry (broken arrows), spawning (solid lines), and egg incubation and rearing periods (dotted 

lines) for generalized stocks. Tan shading highlights periods of increased flooding, brown shading indicates 

periods with reduced summer/fall low flows, and red shading indicates periods with increased thermal 

stress (Mantua et al. 2009, pg. 239).
Potential Future Responses 

The reduction in habitat for naturally spawning coho and thermal exceedances that 

migrating fish could experience downstream of the facilities as a result of climate change 

are largely outside of the project’s control. However, some actions might be necessary in 

the future to ensure that project operations can be maintained if environmental conditions 

change before the project’s proposed conclusion in 2028. As described in Chapter 2, 

these actions would likely require additional environmental review and permitting, but 

are described here to illustrate changes that might be necessary in the future. 

Infrastructure changes 

Water Intake—Water intake structures and pumps may need to be modified (e.g., 

extended deeper, relocated, etc.) as seasonal changes in stream flows and lower flows are 

experienced, especially in summer months. 

Water Intake—Water intakes may need to be modified (e.g., installation of filters, settling 

pools, etc.) as sedimentation increases to reduce turbidity levels in hatchery water. 

Adult ladders—Adult fish ladder entrances may need to be modified (e.g., extensions 

added, flows changed, etc.) to address changes in seasonal flows. 

Flood protection—Additional measures may be required to reduce the risk of flood 

damage to the hatchery facilities. 

Spring Intake—Intake and pumps may need to be modified to ensure necessary water 

supply over time. 

Water Discharge—Water discharges may need to be carefully monitored and 

manipulated to ensure the proper temperature is maintained for hatchery water discharges 

as stream temperatures increase over time. 

Operation and Production changes 

Acclimation Areas—Areas for acclimating fish may need to be re-evaluated to ensure 

appropriate water temperatures. 

Acclimation Timing—Timing for fish acclimation and releases may need to shift as a 

result of changes in stream flow and temperature. 

Hatchery Water Use—Depending on the air temperature and water temperatures, changes 

in the mixing ratios for water used in the hatchery and raceways may need to be 

modified. 

Monitoring 

Future monitoring of climate change will rest primarily with experts in the region. Project 

staff will be able to review monitoring data as it becomes available and use it to assist 

them in making changes to infrastructure, operations, and production. Using the updated 
monitoring data will allow staff to compare predictions to actual changes in the local 

environment and allow them to better meet changing conditions through time. 

References 

Brekke, L.D., Kiang, J.E., Olsen, J.R., Pulwarty, R.S., Raff, D.A., Turnipseed, D.P, 

Webb, R.S., and Whire, K.D.

2009 Climate change and water resources management—A federal perspective. 

U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1331, 65p. (also available at 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1331/).

Eaton, J.G., & R.M. Sheller 

1996 Effects of climate warming on fish thermal habitat in streams of the United 

States. Limnol Oceanogr 41:1109-1115. 

Karl, Thomas R., Jerry M. Melillo, and Thomas C. Peterson, (eds.) 

2009 Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, Cambridge University 

Press. 

Mantua et al. 

2009 Impacts of climate changes on key aspects of freshwater salmon habitat in 

Washington State. Pgs 217-253. In The Washington Climate Change 

Impacts Assessment, M. McGuire Elsner, J. Littell, and L Whitely Binder 

(eds). Center for Science in the Earth System, Joint Institute for the Study of 

the Atmosphere and Oceans, University of Washington, Seattle, 

Washington. (Available at: 

http://www.cses.washington.edu/db/pdf/wacciareport681.pdf).
BONNEVILLE POW ER ADMINISTRATION

DOE/BP-4307 ▪ June 2011