Attach_13_-_USFWS-Klamath-Falls-NFH-Final-EA_0001.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Final Environmental Assessment

Klamath Falls National Fish Hatchery

October 2020

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

911 NE 11th Avenue

Portland, Oregon 97232-4181

Estimated Lead Agency Total Costs Associated with Developing and Producing this Environmental Assessment

$234,000 http://www.doi.gov/

USFWS Klamath Falls National Fish Hatchery

Final Environmental Assessment Page i October 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE, AND NEED

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Background

1.3 Purpose and Need

1.4 Project Area

SECTION 2 SCOPING

2.1 Scoping Goals and Objectives

2.2 Scoping Meeting and Resource Concerns

SECTION 3 ALTERNATIVES

3.1 Formulation Process

3.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail

3.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

SECTION 4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Physical Environment

4.3 Biological Environment

4.4 Human Environment

4.5 Cumulative Impacts

SECTION 5 CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

5.1 Consultation and Coordination

5.2 Public Involvement

SECTION 6 LIST OF PREPARERS

6.1 List of Preparers

SECTION 7 REFERENCES

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1. Scoping Resource Concerns Summary

Table 4-1. Physical Setting Summary

Table 4-2. Noxious, Invasive, and Non-Native Plant Species Observed

Table 6-1. List of Preparers

Final Environmental Assessment Page ii October 2020

APPENDICES

Appendix A Consultation and Coordination

Draft EA Comment-Response Matrix

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)

Tribal

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

State of Oregon

Stakeholders

Appendix B Project Maps

Map 1 – Vicinity Map

Map 2 – USFWS Lease Parcels

Map 3 – Existing Conditions

Map 4 – Full Hatchery Build-out Alternative

Map 5 – Soils

Map 6 – Surface Water Drainage

Map 7 – Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands

Map 8 – Wildlife Habitat

Appendix C Supporting Information

Project Area Photographs

Summary of Special Status Species Table

Scoping Meeting Minutes

Draft EA Notice of Availability Materials

Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands Delineation Report

Final Environmental Assessment Page 1 October 2020

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE, AND NEED

1.1 Introduction

The primary goal of this document is to analyze impacts to the natural and human environment from the construction and operations of the Klamath Falls National Fish Hatchery (also known as the Klamath Basin Sucker Assisted Rearing Program [KBSARP]) and will be herein referred to as “Project”. This Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and its implementing regulations, which are set forth in the Council on Environmental Quality regulations 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508. The EA assists the USFWS in determining whether the alternatives for the Project would have a significant impact on the quality of the natural and human environment and if preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required. This EA has been prepared in accordance with the 2018 USFWS NEPA Draft Reference Handbook (USFWS 2018a).

The USFWS is the lead federal agency and must decide on an alternative that best meets the purpose and need for the Project. The USFWS must also decide if the preferred alternative would or would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the natural and human environment. If the USFWS Responsible Official determines that the preferred alternative would not significantly affect the quality of the natural and human environment, they would prepare and sign a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), and the project may proceed. If the USFWS Responsible Official determines that the preferred alternative would significantly affect the quality of the natural and human environment, an EIS and a Record of Decision (ROD) must be prepared and signed before the project can proceed.

1.2 Background

The shortnose sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris) and the Lost River sucker (Deltistes luxatus) were listed by the USFWS as endangered in 1988 (USFWS 1988). These species are long-lived freshwater fish that are endemic to very few lakes in the upper Klamath Basin of southern Oregon and northern California. The species have declined from 75 to 60 percent since 2001. The recovery plan for both species (USFWS 2013) calls for the development of a controlled propagation program once the species reaches a population decline threshold to prevent extinction. A species status assessment was completed in 2019 (USFWS 2019a) and notes the probable extinction of the shortnose sucker within 30 to 40 years without recovery efforts, and critically low numbers of the Lost River sucker at 50 years. It also indicates that the shortnose sucker has reached a critical population threshold and the Lost River sucker is close behind. This has prompted the USFWS to initiate the artificial propagation action called out in the recovery plan.

In 2016, a partnership was established between the USFWS and the landowner of a fish-rearing site (Gone Fishing Hatchery) to establish the current KBSARP on the property using the existing facility’s water source, ponds, and some hatchery infrastructure. From 2016 to the present, shortnose suckers and Lost River suckers have been successfully propagated, and hatchery and rearing operations are determined to be an effective recovery tool. Therefore, the USFWS is interested in developing a hatchery facility to support the culture and release of these species in sufficient quantities to support existing wild populations at levels

Final Environmental Assessment Page 2 October 2020 that are viable and self-sustaining. This EA describes the evaluation of potential sites and alternatives in the Klamath Basin for development of a hatchery facility.

1.3 Purpose and Need

1.3.1 Purpose and Need Statement

The purpose of this Project is to develop a fish hatchery for rearing and release of up to 60,000 combined shortnose suckers and Lost River suckers per year to support existing wild populations of these species.

There is a need to enhance long term redundancy1 and resiliency2 through controlled propagation of both species to arrest the decline and enhance shortnose sucker and Lost River sucker populations so that Endangered Species Act (ESA) protection is no longer necessary.

1.3.2 Support for Purpose and Need

The shortnose sucker and the Lost River sucker were listed by the USFWS as endangered in 1988 (USFWS 1988). A recovery plan was developed in 1993 (USFWS 1993) and revised in 2013 (USFWS 2013) to develop actions required to recover and protect both species. The recovery goal described in the 2013 revised plan is to “arrest the decline and enhance Lost River sucker and shortnose sucker populations so that Endangered Species Act (ESA) protection is no longer necessary” (USFWS 2013). Factors contributing to the population decline of both species have been attributed to degradation and loss of spawning, rearing, and adult habitats (only approximately 25 percent of the original habitat remains) (USFWS 2013). There are high larvae and juvenile mortality rates due to reduced rearing habitat, entrainment in water management structures, poor water quality, and negative interactions with introduced species (USFWS 2013).

The steady decline of shortnose suckers and Lost River suckers has continued since development of the recovery plans. The revised recovery plan provides recommendations for controlled propagation of the species to prevent extinction when other measures employed to maintain or improve a listed species have proven insufficient, as indicated by continued population declines (USFWS 2013). Development of a hatchery facility is needed to support controlled propagation of these fish species. The goals of the hatchery facility for meeting adequate culture and release numbers viable for self-propagating, mitigating reliance on wild-capture larvae, and other operational goals to arrest the decline and enhance shortnose sucker and Lost River sucker populations so that Endangered Species Act (ESA) protection is no longer necessary are described below.

Recruitment

Based on a population viability study (Rasmussen and Childress 2018) and a species status assessment (USFWS 2019a), the USFWS has determined that culturing and releasing 60,000 shortnose suckers and Lost River suckers of 200 to 300 millimeters (mm) in length per year is needed to maintain the currently existing, independent, and wild populations of the species at levels that are viable and self-sustaining. To

1 Redundancy is the ability of a species to withstand catastrophic events, which is related to the number, distribution, and resilience of populations.

2 Resiliency is the ability of the species to withstand stochastic disturbance events, which is associated with population size, growth rate, and habitat quality.

Final Environmental Assessment Page 3 October 2020 achieve this, the proposed hatchery facility should be capable of supporting the incubation of 100,000 sucker larvae, have stock pond capacity for successful rearing and larval development, and ensure adequate culture conditions for consistent growth and wellbeing until the target-release fingerling size is achieved.

Captive Breeding

Declining populations of shortnose suckers and Lost River suckers indicate that natural spawning in the wild has not been sufficient to support healthy populations; thus, captive breeding is necessary to improve sucker numbers and to mitigate the reliance on wild-captured larvae for hatchery operations. The hatchery should be capable of maintaining a captive broodstock population of males and females (1:1 male/female ratio) in holding ponds of 500 individuals of each species. This would reduce the reliance on the natural spawning population and provide an option for producing larvae if there comes a time when larvae are not produced in the wild.

Salvage Fish

Another threat to the health of shortnose sucker and Lost River sucker populations is the entrainment of individual fish in canals, ditches, and impoundments within the Klamath Basin. These fish face overwinter isolation from their natural habitat, desiccation, inability to spawn, starvation, poor water quality conditions, or likely predation. Hatchery operations that include facilities to hold salvage3 and extended salvage4 fish for periods of time to supplement their strength and size is needed. This would add to the number of fish that could be successfully released back into the wild.

1.4 Project Area

1.4.1 Location

The Project area is located at 3875 Lower Klamath Lake Road, near the town of Merrill, approximately 3.2 miles north of the Oregon-California State line and 10 miles south of Klamath Falls in Klamath County, Oregon (Appendix B-Map 1). It consists of approximately 25.5 acres of land within the existing larger parcel that is privately owned. The USFWS is in the process of establishing a lease agreement for three parcels within the private property that make up the Project area (Appendix B-Map 2).

1.4.2 Existing KBSARP Hatchery

The Project area is currently developed with the privately owned hatchery, which has been in operation since the late 1990s. The facility was used for commercial production of cichlids and tilapia until 2016, when the USFWS established a partnership with the landowner for operations of the KBSARP. From 2016 to the present, the USFWS have successfully propagated5 shortnose suckers and Lost River suckers at the hatchery using the existing hatchery water source, ponds, and infrastructure. The existing hatchery features

3 Salvage fish are fish rescued from entrainments that are kept at the hatchery facility for short periods of time until an appropriate time to release them back into the wild.

4 Extended salvage fish are fish rescued from entrainments that are kept at the hatchery facility for long periods of time until they reach a mature size that will reduce the chance for mortality when released back into the wild.

5 Propagate is the collection of wild larvae and juvenile suckers and culture them to the desired survival length.

Final Environmental Assessment Page 4 October 2020 within the approximately 25.5-acre Project area are listed below and depicted in Appendix B-Map 3.

Photographs of the Project area are provided in Appendix C.

• Geothermal well and pump house: The water source for the hatchery is a permitted geothermal well that provides water at approximately 190° F. The well is housed in a small pumphouse near the southern Project area boundary. The water right for the well is 0.89 cubic feet per second (cfs) (i.e., 399 gallons per minute [gpm]).

• Holding tank: Water from the well is pumped into a holding tank adjoining the well. The holding tank discharges water through a piping system into the downstream influent retention ponds.

• Influent retention ponds: There are three influent retention ponds that cool the geothermal well water down to approximately 16° to 19° C (61° to 66° F) before use in aquaculture activities.

• Rearing ponds: There are 46 0.034-acre ponds (24 on Parcel 1 and 22 on Parcel 2) and four 0.25-acre ponds, all of which are currently used for rearing suckers.

• Hatchery greenhouse: A 3,000 sq-ft hatchery greenhouse provides a protected area that serves as the larval incubation lab, as well as a quarantine area for tanks that hold salvage fish during rehabilitation. The building is not currently equipped with restroom facilities or potable water.

• Effluent retention ponds: Effluent from the rearing ponds is drained into the two effluent retention ponds for passive solid settling before discharging downstream and offsite.

• Aeration and water distribution piping (not shown on Map 3): The facility has a piping system that delivers geothermal well water and low-pressure air to facility ponds and the hatchery greenhouse.

• Access roads: The facility has two gravel/dirt access roads that lead to the southern and northern portions of the Project area. Access from Lower Klamath Lake Road to the Project area (Parcel 3) is shared with the privately owned residence on the property (outside of the Project area).

1.4.3 Existing KBSARP Hatchery NEPA Compliance

USFWS has successfully propagated shortnose suckers and Lost River suckers at the hatchery since 2016.

The installation and operation of these features are covered under the following existing NEPA compliance documents:

• Klamath Basin Sucker Rearing Program (USFWS 2018b and 2019c)

• Lease Gone Fishing Property (USFWS 2019d)

• Net Pen Grow-Out for Suckers (USFWS 2020f, g)

• Stocking Lost River and Shortnose Suckers into Upper Klamath Lake (USFWS 2020h, i)

• Environmental Action Statement for the Proposed Klamath Falls National Fish Hatchery (USFWS 2020j)

Final Environmental Assessment Page 5 October 2020

SECTION 2

SCOPING

2.1 Scoping Goals and Objectives

Scoping is used to identify the resource concerns for a project, to determine potential opportunities, obstacles, controversy, and opposition, and to identify and discuss alternatives to meet the project’s purpose and need. The scoping process for this Project is described below.

2.2 Scoping Meeting and Resource Concerns

An internal scoping meeting was held on May 14, 2020. Attendance of personnel includes representatives from the USFWS, McMillen Jacobs Associates, and Water, Civil, and Environmental Inc. (WCE). The meeting provided opportunity for USFWS and Project personnel to discuss Project alternatives, identify alternatives considered in detail (Section 3.2), express any specific concerns and their relevance to the alternatives considered in detail, and review applicable resource concerns. A copy of the Scoping Meeting Minutes is provided in Appendix C. A summary of resource concerns discussed and their relevancy to the alternatives considered in detail is provided in Table 2-1 below. Resource items determined to not be relevant to the alternatives considered in detail were eliminated from detailed study and are not discussed any further in this EA. Relevant resource items pertaining to the alternatives considered in detail are discussed in Section 4.0.

Table 2-1. Scoping Resource Concerns Summary

Item/Concern

Relevant to the Alternatives

Considered in Detail?

Rationale

Yes No

Physical Environment

Prime and Unique Farmland X The Project area only contains farmland of statewide importance and not prime or unique farmland according to the soil survey (U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS] 2019).

Geology / Mineral Resources X Diatomite is found within the Project area. There are no other geologic features or mineral resources that would be impacted by Project actions.

Soil and Erosion X Construction disturbance would increase erosion potential at the Project area.

Surface/Ground Water Quality X Construction ground disturbance and site operations have the potential to impact surface water quality at the Project area.

Surface/Groundwater Quantity and Water Rights X Project actions do not change the amount of water to be pumped from the existing water right but may require replacement of the existing well.

Waters of the U.S. X Waters of the U.S. may be present in the Project area.

Wetlands X Wetlands may be present in the Project area.

Regional Water Mgt. Plans and Coastal Zone Management Areas

X The Project area is not located within a Regional Water Management Plan or Coastal Zone Management Area.

Final Environmental Assessment Page 6 October 2020

Item/Concern

Relevant to the Alternatives

Considered in Detail?

Rationale

Yes No

Floodplain Management X Project actions would not change flood conditions or impact floodplain management within the Project area.

Wild and Scenic Rivers X There are none in or near the Project area according to National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS) Map (NWSRS 2020).

Sole Source Aquifers X There are none in or near the Project area according to the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Sole Source Aquifer Program Map (EPA 2020).

Air Quality X Construction activities produce emissions and fugitive dust.

Clean Air Act X Permits would not be required.

Greenhouse Gases / Climate Change X The Project would have no measurable impact to greenhouse gases or climate change.

Biological Environment

Special Status Plant Species (Federal and State listed) X

There are no ESA or state-listed plant species, or suitable habitat located within the Project area. An Intra-Service Biological Assessment (BA) will be completed.

Forest Resources X There are no forested areas within or near the Project area.

Noxious Weeds and Invasive Plant Species X Construction disturbance increases risk of invasive species becoming established within the Project area.

Natural Areas / Conservation Areas X There are no Natural Areas or Conservation Areas located within or adjacent to the Project area.

Riparian Areas X There are no riparian areas within the Project area.

Essential Fish Habitat X There is no essential fish habitat located within or near the Project area.

National Wildlife Refuges / Wilderness Areas X

No National Wildlife Refuges or Wilderness Areas are located in or near the Project area according to the Wilderness Areas map (National Wilderness Preservation System (Wilderness Connect 2020) and Wildlife Refuge Map (USFWS 2020a).

Wildlife Habitat X Disturbance to general wildlife and wildlife habitat during construction near the Project area.

Coral Reefs X There are no coral reefs within or adjacent to the Project area.

Special Status Animal Species (Federal and State listed) X

There may be ESA species located within the Project area. An Intra- Service Biological Assessment (BA) will be completed. State listed animal species also have the potential to occur in the Project area.

Invasive Animal Species X There is potential for introduction of invasive aquatic animal species from hatchery operations within the Project area.

Migratory Birds / Bald and Golden Eagles X Migratory birds, bald and golden eagles, and associated habitat are present within the Project area.

Livestock Grazing X There is no livestock grazing within the Project area.

Human Environment

Socioeconomics X There are no communities in or near the Project area that would be measurably affected socially or economically from the Project actions.

Historic Properties / Cultural Resources X A cultural resource survey will be conducted in the Project area.

Hazardous Materials X Equipment, fuels, and other hazardous substances used in hatchery operations may be stored and used in the Project area.

Final Environmental Assessment Page 7 October 2020

Item/Concern

Relevant to the Alternatives

Considered in Detail?

Rationale

Yes No

Environmental Justice and Civil Rights X No concerns as no area populations would be impacted by Project actions.

Public Health and Safety X There would be no change to public health and safety. The Project is on private land and public access is not permitted.

Recreation X The Project area is on private lands where public recreation is not permitted and recreation activities are not performed.

Land Use / Public Access X Land use as a hatchery would remain the same and the Project area is on private property where public access is not permitted.

Visual Resources X The Project area is disturbed and developed with a fish hatchery facility and there are no visual resources, scenic views, high vantage points, scenic overlooks, or scenic driving routes present.

National Scenic and Historic Trails X

No National Scenic and Historic Trails located in or near Project area according to a National Trails System Map (National Park Service [NPS] 2020).

Natural Areas and Parklands X The site is located on private land and there are no natural areas or parks located within or near the Project area.

Transportation Infrastructure X There would be no modification or impacts to transportation infrastructure.

Noise X Temporary construction-related noise is expected within the Project area.

National Landmarks, Monuments, and Historical Sites

X None located in or near Project area based on National Natural Landmarks Map (NPS 2016), National Parks Map (NPS 2020b), and National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) data (NPS 2020c).

Scientific Resources X There are no scientific resources in the Project area.

Final Environmental Assessment Page 8 October 2020

SECTION 3

ALTERNATIVES

3.1 Formulation Process

Numerous alternatives were developed by the Project team based on the ability to address the purpose and need of the Project and were formulated in consideration of four criteria: completeness, effectiveness, efficiency, and acceptability. In accordance with NEPA (40 CFR 1502.14), some of these initial alternatives were eliminated from further analysis due to high cost or other critical factors.

Eight sites were identified, geographically extending from the upper Klamath Basin to the Lower Klamath Lake area6 (USFWS 2015a, b) as potential hatchery development sites. USFWS evaluated each site for feasibility of meeting the hatchery facility goals for adequate culture and release numbers viable for self-propagating, mitigating reliance on wild-capture larvae, and other facility operational goals, as identified in Section 1.3.2. Seven of the eight sites were found to not meet the required goals for the hatchery facility and were eliminated from further study (see Section 3.3). One site (Gone Fishing Hatchery) was determined to be adequate to meet the facility goals, and two development strategies for this site were explored (McMillen Jacobs Associates 2020a): 1) modifications of the existing hatchery while staying within the existing developed footprint of the facility; and 2) modifications of the existing hatchery and expanded development outside of the existing developed facility footprint. Further evaluation found that the hatchery facility goals could not be met by staying within the existing developed facility footprint, and this option was eliminated from further study (see Section 3.3).

3.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail

Alternative analysis is required to determine feasible methods that can meet the purpose and need of the project. The No Action Alternative must also be considered. The alternatives studied in detail include the No Action Alternative and the Full Hatchery Build-out Alternative (Preferred Alternative). A description of the measures that would be implemented for each of the alternatives is provided in Sections 3.2.1 and

3.2.2 below.

3.2.1 No Action

The No Action Alternative would continue the currently permitted activities with the same facility configuration at the Gone Fishing Hatchery site as described in Section 1.4.2 Existing KBSARP Hatchery (McMillen Jacobs Associates 2020a).

6 The Shortnose Sucker Conservation Aquaculture Facility and Site Feasibility Assessment Volumes I and II discuss in detail the revised recovery plan for shortnose suckers and Lost River suckers, the biological criteria and operations schedules required for any hatchery established for these species, the eight sites selected for further evaluation, the criteria established for determining the feasibility of each site, and the costs associated with the proposed project. This information is incorporated by reference in this document; please refer to the Site Feasibility Assessment documents for more information.

Final Environmental Assessment Page 9 October 2020

3.2.2 Full Hatchery Build-Out Alternative (Preferred Alternative)

The Full Hatchery Build-out Alternative includes reconfiguring the existing site layout and expanding the hatchery facility to meet the Project goals and provide a more reliable, safe, and efficiently operated site (McMillen Jacobs Associates 2020a and KPFF 2020). The alternative measures are listed below and are also depicted in Appendix B-Map 4.

Ponds

Additional ponds would be constructed in areas outside of the existing hatchery footprint. Approximately 12 acres of ponds would be constructed ranging in size from 0.007 to 1.12 acres in size with a maximum combined volume of 1,821,000 cubic feet (42 acre-feet) to support the annual production of 60,000 shortnose suckers and Lost River suckers.

Water Distribution System

A new geothermal well would be installed (location to be determined) as a backup to the existing well and a new pump house would be constructed around the well. Only one well would be running at time and pumped water volumes would stay within the existing water rights. The holding tank would be replaced in the same general vicinity to accommodate improved groundwater tempering and water distribution across the site. The water piping distribution system and aeration system and equipment would be replaced for the new site layout.

Hatchery Building

A new hatchery building (4,000 to 7,000 sq-ft) would be constructed near the site entrance to replace the existing hatchery greenhouse. The new hatchery building would provide capacity for egg incubation, larval rearing, and salvage quarantine. It would also be equipped with restrooms, a breakroom, storage, and wet labs for water quality testing. The existing hatchery building would be demolished following the completion of the new hatchery building.

Other Buildings

A new maintenance shed (4,000 to 7,000 sq-ft) would be constructed near the new hatchery building. A new, smaller maintenance shed and a new chemical storage shed would be constructed at the southern end of the site.

Equipment and Monitoring

The mechanical and Supervisory Control, Automation, and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system supporting the site would be upgraded to stabilize the program, add reliability to the infrastructure, and mitigate any risk of mechanical failure. Video monitoring systems, including remote monitors and alarms, would be installed to reduce the risk of vandalism, personnel hazards, and water quality issues.

Site Access

A perimeter fence would be constructed around the facility and egress gates installed at select locations through the perimeter fence for personnel, as well as emergency vehicle turnaround access and accessibility

Final Environmental Assessment Page 10 October 2020 around the hatchery buildings. Vehicle access into the facility would remain the same as it is currently, from the existing access driveway off Lower Klamath Lake Road.

Production Capacity

The hatchery site would be modified to increase the rearing capacity, improving the production of shortnose suckers and Lost River suckers. The capacity for extended salvage fish would increase from 510 to 2,250, capacity for broodstock would increase from 255 to 1,750, capacity for larvae incubation would increase from 40,000 to 100,000, and capacity for salvage fish from 1,500 to 2,500. The current production of juvenile rearing (2- and 3-year-old fish) would increase from 21,055 annually to 66,250 annually. The full hatchery build-out would include propagation capabilities for both culture of collection wild larvae and juvenile suckers as well as fertilization of eggs with milt.

Construction Timing and Sequencing

Construction measures for the full hatchery build-out would be based on available USFWS funding and could be implemented over the course of 30 years. Initial phasing is expected to be completed according to the sequencing listed below.

Phase 1 (implemented within the first 5 years for initial hatchery startup)

• Pond construction and new water distribution system installation.

o Influent Retention Pond o 1st Tier Ponds: B1, C1 – C8

• Site access roads, gates and security.

Phase 2 (implemented after Phase 1 is complete)

• New geothermal well and pump house installation.

• Pond construction and additional water distribution system installation.

o 2nd Tier Ponds: C9 – C14, D1 – D9 o Broodstock Ponds: A1 – A6 o Extended Salvage: A7 – A8 o Effluent Retention Ponds: D10 – D12 o Raceways: three

• Construction of hatchery building, solar panels, transformers and backup generators, septic system, maintenance sheds, and chemical storage shed.

• Various mechanical upgrades.

• Site access roads, gates and security.

Final Environmental Assessment Page 11 October 2020

Long Term Operations and Maintenance

A long term operations and maintenance plan would be developed for the Project during the final design stage of the Project and would be finalized prior to the start of construction activities. It would specifically describe how the hatchery constructed in Phases 1 and 2 would be operated and maintained within the Project area. Typical operations and maintenance activities expected during the 30-year lease agreement which are analyzed in this EA include (but not limited to) water quality monitoring, feeding, draining, and cleaning of ponds; pond infrastructure maintenance and repair; pond netting maintenance and repair; water distribution system maintenance and repair; road maintenance and repair; routine invasive weed species removal; and tagging and stocking fish. As new components are constructed at the hatchery, USFWS would update the long term operations and maintenance plan to reflect these changes. This plan would be developed and coordinated with Project partners for review, as appropriate, prior to the start of hatchery operations.

3.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

The following alternatives were investigated for development of a hatchery facility but were ultimately found to be inadequate, as they did not fully meet the purpose and need for the Project (USFWS 2015a, b and McMillen Jacobs Associates 2020a).

3.3.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office Site

This approximately 2-acre site is on a paved cul de sac across the street from the local offices of the USFWS, within the city of Klamath Falls, Oregon. The site is developed with one- and two-story office and shop-type buildings and large asphalt parking areas. This site was eliminated from detailed study because an evaluation determined that there is not enough space at the site or on adjacent undeveloped land to support a hatchery facility of the size required to meet the purpose and need. In addition, there are no groundwater rights or supply associated with the site and none could be developed due to state restrictions. Therefore, this site was eliminated from further study.

3.3.2 Agency Barnes Ranch, Upper Klamath National Wildlife Refuge Site

The Agency Barnes site is located due north of Upper Klamath Lake and borders the Upper Klamath National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). Construction of a hatchery facility at this site would require extensive road modifications for three to four miles of roadway in addition to replacement of bridges for road widening. The site is located in a floodplain and is flooded periodically. No groundwater or surface water rights currently exist for this site, and a water right would need to be acquired. The site is also being investigated for a habitat conservation project. Based on the high project cost for road modifications and floodplain development requirements, low likelihood of obtaining a water right, and possible use as a habitat conservation site, this site was eliminated from further study.

3.3.3 Stearns Pond, Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge Site

The Stearns Ponds site is an approximately 50,000-acre refuge located within the Lower Klamath NWR, just south of the Oregon-California border in Siskiyou County, California. It is located within the Bureau of Reclamation’s Klamath Project (irrigation project). Lands at this site that are suitable for construction of

Final Environmental Assessment Page 12 October 2020 a hatchery facility consist of large parcels that are farmed by individuals under lease or share-crop arrangements with the USFWS, and availability is dependent upon expiration of the individual land use agreements. There is limited water supply at this site, and it is unknown if a sufficient water supply is present without additional investigations. Because site availability is limited based upon expiration of land use agreements and sufficient water supply is unknown, this site was eliminated from further study.

3.3.4 Otey Island, Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge Site

This site is located on the Lower Klamath NWR in California, a few miles northwest of the Stearns Pond site described in Section 3.3.3. It is owned and managed by the USFWS, with private property abutting two sides. There is a high-capacity well capable of producing 10 cfs (i.e., approximately 4,488 gpm) of high-quality groundwater near the western edge of this site; however, the site can only be used for temporary, unoccupied facilities and no permanent facilities are allowed. Therefore, this site was eliminated from further study.

3.3.5 Gone Fishing Site Partial Hatchery Build-out Alternative

This site is the same location as described for the Gone Fishing Site Full Hatchery Build-out Alternative described in Section 3.2.2. This alternative consists of reworking the 46 0.034-acre ponds into fewer, larger ponds within the current developed facility footprint, as well as servicing and/or upgrading various facilities related to hatchery operations. Even though this alternative improves the production of shortnose suckers and Lost River suckers, the estimated annual fish production still falls short of the production goal by more than 50 percent. Thus, this alternative does not meet the purpose and need for the project and was eliminated from detailed study.

3.3.6 Fort Klamath Ranch Hatchery Site

The privately owned Fort Klamath Ranch site is in the upper Klamath Basin due north of Agency Lake on Fort Creek in Oregon. The property includes an abandoned anadromous fish hatchery that was operated as a commercial salmon hatchery from 1984 through 1991, several acres of open pasture, and a large forested area. This site is privately operated and is not available to USFWS. This site was eliminated from detailed study because the land area available at this site would not readily accommodate the generic hatchery design presented in Section 4 of the 2015 Feasibility Study (USFWS 2015a, b) and is currently being privately operated.

3.3.7 Coleman National Fish Hatchery Site

The Coleman National Fish Hatchery is funded by the Bureau of Reclamation and operated by the USFWS.

It occupies 75 acres adjacent to Battle Creek, a tributary to the Sacramento River, about 20 miles southeast of Redding, California. An associated facility called Livingston Stone is a short distance downstream and occupies 0.4 acres. Both sites are accessible by a well-maintained highway network. This site was eliminated from detailed study because there is inadequate space for the necessary facilities, water supply is unavailable, and program fish would have to be transported more than 200 miles from collection and release sites to this out-of-basin location.

Final Environmental Assessment Page 13 October 2020

3.3.8 Williamson River Delta TNC Preserve Site

There are three parcels (E-4 Field, Tulana Ag Field, and Goose Bay parcels) owned and managed by The Nature Conservancy along the Williamson River Delta north of Klamath Lake in Oregon. All three parcels lack groundwater rights but are being farmed and supplied water for irrigation through surface water flow.

Irrigation water is provided seasonally and does not flow year-round; a year-round water supply would be needed to maintain hatchery operations. A surface water right transfer would be necessary to use surface irrigation water. Extensive water treatment measures likely would be needed to filter and disinfect the irrigation surface water. There are currently no available groundwater rights on the Williamson River Delta Preserve, and it is unlikely that a new groundwater right could be obtained. Based on the lack of year-round water supply, uncertainty of success for transfer of surface water rights, required surface water treatment, and complications of obtaining groundwater rights, this site was eliminated from further study.

Final Environmental Assessment Page 14 October 2020

SECTION 4

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSEQUENCES

4.1 Introduction

The environmental analysis process has been conducted in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. The resources described in this section were determined during the scoping process to be relevant to the alternatives actions. Resources determined to not be relevant to the alternatives actions have been eliminated from detailed study. Refer to Section 2.0 for a complete list of resources and rationale for including or eliminating them from detailed study.

4.1.1 Affected Environment

The affected environment describes the existing area that could be affected by the alternatives, including the areas of physical, biological and human environment resources, and defines the context in which the impacts could occur.

The Project area is identified in the existing conditions map (Appendix B-Map 3) and encompasses the construction disturbance limits for alternative measures. The Project area covers approximately 25.5 acres of land and Table 4-1 summarizes the physical setting of the Project area.

Table 4-1. Physical Setting Summary

Physical Setting Information Information Source

Location

Location 3875 Lower Klamath Lake Road, Klamath Falls, Klamath County, Oregon. N/A

Topography

Elevation Approximately 4130 to 4160 feet North American Vertical Datum 1988 (NAVD88).

Lost River Oregon- California 7.5’

Quadrangle (U.S.

Geologic Survey

[USGS] 2020)

General Topographic Gradient

Sloping southwest

Geology Geologic Units

Sedimentary rocks (Tms), Silica-cemented sandstone deposits (Tss) Preliminary Geologic

Map of the Hamaker Mountain, Worden, and Lost River 7.5’

Quadrangles, Klamath County, Oregon (Hladky and Jenks 2007)

Unit Description

Tms (Pliocene and Miocene) – Tan, white, brown, and grey, soft but consolidated, tuffaceous mudstone, with subordinate claystone and sandstone. These sedimentary rocks are found throughout the mapped area, both as interbeds between the basalt and basaltic andesite lava flows and as thick, laterally extensive deposits. Thickness varies widely with some exposures having only a thin amount of sediments and others 30 meters or more of sediments.

Final Environmental Assessment Page 15 October 2020

Physical Setting Information Information Source Tss (Pliocene and Miocene) – Silica-cemented, light tan to grey, fine to medium grained, well-rounded sand to pebble deposit that appears to be associated with the principal valley-forming faults. Silica-cementation is likely the result of hydrothermal deposition. Sandstone layers are thinly bedded and some are cross-bedded often containing rounded rip-up clasts of the underlying white claystone/siltstone layers. The sandstone layers form prominent capping benches. Exposed sections range from 3.5 to 5 meters in thickness, but the entire cemented and uncemented sandstone layers may be thicker.

Soil Characteristics

Soil Type Capona loam, 5 to 15% slopes (9C) – See Section 4.2.2 for soil description.

Web Soil Survey

(NRCS 2019)

4.1.2 Environmental Consequences

USFWS has the responsibility under NEPA to identify and address effects on the environment that may result from the Project alternatives. These alternatives include the No Action Alternative and the Full Hatchery Build-out Alternative (Preferred Alternative) (Appendix B-Map 4). Potential impacts to the natural and human environment are described in terms of their duration, level of intensity, and type. The following lists the specific terminology used to describe impacts associated with project actions.

Duration

• Short Term – Impacts that last during the duration of construction and shortly after (0 to 2 years).

• Long Term – Impacts that last during and/or after construction, and operations and maintenance activities (2 to 30 years).

Level of Intensity

• No Impact – Resource conditions would not change.

• Negligible – Resource condition changes would be so slight there would no measurable or perceptible consequence to the resource.

• Minor – A small measurable effect to the resource, but localized, small, and of little consequence to the resource. Mitigation measures, if needed to offset adverse effects, would be easily implemented and successful based on knowledge and experience.

• Moderate – A measurable effect to the resource from the alternative actions. Mitigation measures would likely be needed to offset adverse effects and could be extensive, moderately complicated to implement, and probably successful based on knowledge and experience.

• Substantial – A large, measurable effect to the resource from the alternative actions. Mitigation measures would be needed to offset adverse effects and could be extensive and complicated to implement.

Final Environmental Assessment Page 16 October 2020

4.2 Physical Environment

4.2.1 Mineral Resources

Affected Environment

Klamath County is classified as having a low mineral resource potential, and there are no mining claims in or near the Project area (Madin et al. 2016); however, the mineral diatomite has been identified on-site.

Diatomite, also known as diatomaceous earth, is the fossilized remains of single-celled aquatic algae (diatoms) and is a friable, porous, light-colored sedimentary rock with high concentrations of silica. The mineral is mined and used as a filter media, functional additive, absorbent, soil amendment, abrasive, and natural insecticide. Diatomite is a bulk product which, to be produced economically, must be available in large deposits that can be mined, processed, and transported to market at low unit cost (Peterson and McIntyre 1970). The mineral is abundant across much of Klamath County, with a 240- to 400-foot exposure near Klamath Falls, massive beds up to 250 feet thick separated by thin lenses of tuffaceous siltstone near the town of Sprague River, and other large exposed outcrops at Olene Gap, Poe Valley, Wolff Ranch, and Prague River valley (Peterson and McIntyre 1970). The extent and thickness of the diatomite deposit on the Project site is unknown. There are no current or future plans to mine diatomite within the Project area.

Additionally, the approximate 25.5-acre Project area does not provide a sizable area that would be economically feasible to mine.

Environmental Consequences

No Action Alternative: There would be no new construction or ground-disturbing activities; therefore, there would be no impact to mineral resources for this alternative over the short or long term.

Full Hatchery Build-out Alternative: Approximately 10 acres of the Project area is already developed with a hatchery facility. There is no mining of diatomite proposed, but it would be excavated and transported throughout the site as part of new hatchery construction. Diatomite is abundant across much of Klamath County, and development of the remaining approximately 10.5 acres of this site is expected to be negligible over the short and long term with regard to availability of diatomite mineral resources in the area.

4.2.2 Soil and Erosion

Affected Environment

Soil information presented in this section has been summarized from NRCS Web Soil Survey data (NRCS 2019) and a soil map is included in Appendix B – Map 5. The Project area is composed entirely of Capona loam (5 to 15 percent slopes) soils, which consist of alluvium and residuum derived from tuff, diatomite, and basalt that deposited on structural benches. Bedrock exists 20 to 40 inches below the ground surface, and a typical soil profile may include loam from 0 to 11 inches, gravelly sandy clay loam from 11 to 25 inches, and unweathered bedrock at 25 to 35 inches. The erosion hazard rating of this soil is slight, which indicates that erosion is unlikely under ordinary climatic conditions after disturbance to the soil surface has occurred. Soils having a slight erosion hazard rating are in areas that are nearly level or have a low angle grade, resulting in low water velocities.

Final Environmental Assessment Page 17 October 2020

Approximately 10 acres of the Project area is developed with a hatchery facility, and an additional 8.8 acres of soil has been disturbed and displaced from grading activities. Therefore, there is approximately 6.7 acres of undisturbed or undeveloped Capona soils remaining on-site.

Environmental Consequences

No Action Alternative: There would be no new construction or ground-disturbing activities; therefore, there would be no impact to soils for this alternative over the short or long term. The recently disturbed portions of the site are susceptible to erosion during precipitation events, and minor impacts are expected during the short term. Once vegetation has become established in the disturbed areas, impacts are expected to be negligible over the long term.

Full Hatchery Build-out Alternative: Approximately 6.7 acres of the remaining Capona soils on the site would be permanently altered for development of the hatchery (Appendix B – Map 5). Grounds disturbed during construction would temporarily have an increased potential for erosion, but proper Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be installed during and after construction to prevent and control soil erosion. After construction completion, disturbed areas would be developed with hatchery ponds, buildings, etc., and any disturbed grounds stabilized. Therefore, minor impacts in the form of increased erosion potential during construction are expected during the short term but would be mitigated based on construction timing and the implementation of BMPs. Erosion potential of soils would be negligible over the long term due to soils being stabilized by development of hatchery infrastructure. Minor short term and long term impacts would occur to Capona soils from permanent disturbance to the remaining 6.7 acres of undisturbed/undeveloped soils on-site.

4.2.3 Surface/Groundwater Water Quality

Affected Environment

There are no natural surface water bodies or streams located within the Project area. The existing hatchery facility maintains several constructed ponds that are supplied water through a geothermal groundwater well.

Effluent from the ponds is conveyed into two excavated on-site ponds for passive solid settling before discharging off-site into another solid settling pond. Water discharged off-site is conveyed generally south through a pipe into a downstream private pond adjoining the greenhouses. Water in the private pond is used for irrigation at the greenhouse facility and overflow from the pond is conveyed downstream through a ditch generally south into S Canal (Appendix B – Map 6). The S Canal flows generally northwest, feeding water to agricultural lands and eventually drains into the Klamath River. This hydraulic connection between the Project and the Klamath River may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) waste discharge permit unless they meet Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) exclusion criteria below (ODEQ 2002).

Final Environmental Assessment Page 18 October 2020

Facilities which produce less than 20,000 pounds of fish per year and feed less than 5000 pounds of food during the month of maximum feeding or facilities that hold fish, including fish monitoring or fish acclimation, do not require a NPDES permit unless required by the Department on a case-by-case basis.

Currently the hatchery facility produces approximately 2,250 pounds of fish per year and feeds approximately 500 pounds of food during the month of maximum feeding. Therefore, an NPDES waste discharge permit is not necessary.

USFWS and ODEQ collected water testing samples from the geothermal well and ponds at the existing hatchery facility in 2019 and 2020. McMillen Jacobs Associates summarized the water testing results (McMillen Jacobs Associates 2020c), and the following constituents were identified outside of the EPA tapwater and ODEQ human health criteria for consumption industry standard limits from the geothermal well: aluminum, arsenic, copper, lithium, sodium, fluoride, sulfate, and pH. Arsenic was identified outside of the EPA dermal industry standard limit from the geothermal well.

Environmental Consequences

No Action…