CCDFP_EA_4-16-2024_508.pdf

U.S. Department of the Interior April 2024

Final Environmental Assessment Clear Creek Dam Fish Passage Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project Yakima County, Washington Columbia-Cascades Area Office Columbia-Pacific Northwest Region

Final Environmental Assessment April 2024

Mission Statements The U.S. Department of the Interior protects and manages the Nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and other information about those resources; and honors its trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated Island Communities.

The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public.

Cover photograph: view of Clear Creek Dam and Clear Lake, Washington (Reclamation photo)

Draft Environmental Assessment Clear Creek Dam Fish Passage

Proposed Action Reclamation proposes to construct a new fish ladder and appurtenant structures that would enable upstream fish passage around Clear Creek Dam for bull trout and existing resident fish (e.g., rainbow and cutthroat trout, mountain whitefish).

Lead Agency Bureau of Reclamation, Columbia-Cascades Area Office, Columbia-Pacific Northwest Region 9

Responsible Official

Wylie C. Duke, Area Office Manager, Bureau of Reclamation, Columbia-Cascades Area Office, Columbia-Pacific Northwest Region 9

Cooperating Agencies U.S. Forest Service Washington State Department of Ecology Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation

Contact for Further Information Elizabeth Heether Bureau of Reclamation, Columbia-Cascades Area Office 1917 Marsh Road Yakima, WA 98908

(509) 573-8023 bor-sha-clearcreekcomments@usbr.gov mailto:bor-sha-clearcreekcomments@usbr.gov

This page intentionally left blank.

i

Frontispiece

Overview of Clear Creek Dam Fish Passage Project ii

This page intentionally left blank.

iii

Table of Contents Frontispiece ........................................................................................................................ i Acronyms and Abbreviations .......................................................................................... vi Chapter 1 Purpose of and Need for Action

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Location/Action Area

1.3 Proposed Action

1.4 Purpose of and Need for Action

1.5 Background

1.5.2 Clear Creek Dam Fish Passage History

1.6 Legal Authority

1.7 Decisions to be Made

1.8 Lead, Cooperating, and Participating Agencies

1.9 Public Involvement

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Description of the Alternatives

2.2.1 Alternative A – No Action

2.2.2 Alternative B – Proposed Action

2.3 Alternatives and Alternative Elements Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

2.3.1 Continue Transport Project

2.3.2 Different Intake Structure Options

2.3.3 Different Fish Ladder Options

2.3.4 Construction Options

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Threatened and Endangered Species

3.2.1 Affected Environment

3.2.2 Environmental Consequences

3.3 Recreation

3.3.1 Affected Environment

3.3.2 Environmental Consequences

iv

3.4 Water Resources

3.4.1 Affected Environment

3.4.2 Environmental Consequences

3.5 Transportation, Traffic, and Public Safety

3.5.1 Affected Environment

3.5.2 Environmental Consequences

3.6 Air Quality and Climate

3.6.1 Affected Environment

3.6.2 Environmental Consequences

3.7 Vegetation, including Special Status Species, and Wetlands

3.7.1 Affected Environment

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences

3.8 Cultural Resources

3.8.1 Affected Environment

3.8.2 Environmental Consequences

3.9 Wildlife and Fish

3.9.1 Affected Environment

3.9.2 Environmental Consequences

Chapter 4 Consultation and Coordination

4.1 Introduction

4.2 Consultations

4.2.1 National Environmental Policy Act

4.2.2 Endangered Species Act

4.2.3 National Historic Preservation Act

4.2.4 State Environmental Policy Act

4.2.5 Permits and Authorizations Needed

4.3 Coordination

Chapter 5 Glossary

Chapter 6 References

Appendices

Appendix A – Environmental Commitments and Best Management Practices Appendix B – Revegetation Plan v

List of Figures Figure 1. Close-up of the project area, where a new access road and the new fish ladder would be constructed on the north side of Clear Creek Dam

Figure 2. Surface disturbance at construction site of new access roads and fish ladder

Figure 3. Proposed Clear Creek fish ladder and road configuration

Figure 4. Isometric view of the fish ladder

Figure 5. Reservoir drawdown of 12 feet, depicted by dashed line, from normal WSE of 3011.3 23

Figure 6. Federal Action Area for bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), including Clear Creek and the North Fork Tieton River upstream of Clear Creek Dam and Rimrock Reservoir (to Tieton Dam), inclusive of the South Fork Tieton River and Indian Creeks downstream of Clear Creek Dam

Figure 7. Action Areas A-D for the northern spotted owl

Figure 8. Plan view of the project area with illustration and location of the new access road, disturbed areas, and constructed fish ladder. Tree removal would occur in the highlighted area to facilitate road and fish ladder construction and to provide areas for contractor staging of equipment. Green circles are trees that would remain on-site and would be undisturbed throughout project implementation

Figure 9. Calculated discharge (cfs) statistics (average, median, minimum and maximum) coming into Clear Lake for the years 2015-2023

Figure 10. Monthly time series values for Yakima County near Rimrock Lake from 2012-2021 (http://prism.oregonstate.edu)

List of Tables Table 1. Trees to be removed for the CCDFP Project. Data from September 2, 2023, field survey (Reclamation 2023a)

Table 2. Resources eliminated from analysis

Table 3. Clear Lake Recreation Area facilities

Table 4. Visitor days for CLRA sites

Table 5. Visitor fees collected at CLRA sites

Table 6. National and Washington Ambient Air Quality Standards

Table 7. Estimated equipment-related emissions by proposed work component

Table 8. Permits and other approvals expected to be required for the CCDFP Project vi

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Acronym or Abbreviation

Definition

APE Area of potential effect

BA Biological Assessment

BMPs Best management practices

CCA Climate Commitment Act

CCDFP Clear Creek Dam Fish Passage

CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs Cubic feet per second

CIP Cast-in-place

CLRA Clear Lake Recreational Area

Core Team Storage Dam Fish Passage Core Team

CUA Contractor Use Area

CY Cubic yard

DAHP Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation

DBH Diameter at breast height

DPS Distinct Population Segment

EA Environmental Assessment

Ecology Department of Ecology

EDNA Environmental designation for noise abatement

ESA Endangered Species Act

FIN Freshwater Information Network

FMO Foraging, migration, and overwintering

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

GHG Greenhouse gas

IDP Inadvertent Discovery Plan

Integrated Plan Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan

IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation

ITA Indian Trust Asset

LF Linear feet

MAF Million acre-feet

MALAA May affect, and is likely to adversely affect vii

Acronym or Abbreviation

Definition

MCR Middle Columbia River

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NF National Forest

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NLAA May affect, but is not likely to adversely affect

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NSO Northern spotted owl

OHV Off-road vehicle

OHWM Ordinary high-water mark

P Phosphate/phosphorus

PAOT Persons at one time

PCE Primary Constituent Element

PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

PIT Passive integrated transponder

PM Particulate matter

Project Yakima Project

RCW Revised Code of Washington

Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation

Recovery Plan Recovery Plan for the Coterminous United States Population of Bull Trout

ROD Record of Decision

ROS Recreational Opportunity Spectrum

RST Restoration Services Team

RUP Road use permit

SEPA State Environmental Policy Act

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

SR State Route

TCP Traditional cultural place

Transport Project North Fork Tieton Transport Project

TSC Technical Service Center

U.S.C. U.S. Code

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service viii

Acronym or Abbreviation

Definition

WAC Washington Administrative Code

WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

WRCC Western Regional Climate Center

WSDOT Washington State Department of Transportation

WSE Water surface elevation

Yakama Nation Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation

YFO Yakima Field Office

YRBWEP Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project

Chapter 1 Purpose of and Need for Action

1.1 Introduction

The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) prepared this draft Environmental Assessment (EA) consistent with the purpose and goals of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality’s implementing NEPA regulations at 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508. Additionally, this EA was prepared consistent with the Department of the Interior NEPA regulations (43 CFR Part 46); longstanding federal judicial and regulatory interpretations; and Administration priorities and policies, including Secretary’s Order No. 3399 requiring bureaus and offices to use “the same application or level of NEPA that would have been applied to a proposed action before the 2020 Rule went into effect.”

Reclamation has prepared this EA for the Clear Creek Dam Fish Passage (CCDFP) Project. The frontispiece at the beginning of this document provides a general overview of the Clear Creek Dam area. In this EA, Reclamation evaluates the impacts of the CCDFP Project on the natural and human environment1 that could result from Reclamation’s implementation of the conservation action to provide upstream resident fish passage, and future anadromous2 fish passage, at Clear Creek Dam, approximately 30 miles west of Naches, Washington. Should a determination be made that the CCDFP Project would not result in significant environmental impacts, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) would be prepared to document that determination and provide a rationale for approving the selected alternative. If not, then a decision would be made to either select the No Action alternative or issue a notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

1.2 Location/Action Area

On the east side of Washington’s Cascade Mountain Range, about 30 miles southwest of Naches and 48 miles west of Yakima, Clear Creek Dam creates a reservoir (Clear Lake) with an active capacity of 5,300 acre-feet with a constant pool (lake) elevation of approximately 3011.3 feet over a surface area of approximately 260 acres. The project location is on federal lands, managed by Reclamation and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest, in Township 13N, Range 12E, Sections 11 and 12.

1 Reclamation designed the CCDFP Project with an expected service life of 50 years. This is often exceeded but is used as a baseline for how long the designers expect the feature to be operating.

2 Anadromous is the term used for fish born in freshwater, who spend most of their lives in saltwater (ocean) and return to freshwater to spawn (eggs and sperm released into water by aquatic animals). Anadromous fish include salmon and some species of sturgeon.

The 1963 Memorandum of Agreement for Clear Lake and the 1987 Master Interagency Agreement between Reclamation and the USFS outline applicable considerations for Reclamation projects located on or affecting lands and resources administered by USFS.

Item 15 of the 1963 Memorandum of Agreement establishes the following understanding:

“The dam, including the spillway structure, outlet works, and channels associated therewith, and the land up on which those facilities are located or which in the opinion of the Regional Direct, Bureau of Reclamation, is necessary for their operation and maintenance, shall continue to be under the primary jurisdiction of and controlled by the Bureau; and the [Forest] Service shall not be obligated in any way for the maintenance thereof…”

The 1987 Master Agreement distinguishes between “project area” and “area of project influence.”

The “project area” is considered the area of an authorized project “within which Federal ownership or control is necessary” and for which “[T]he Bureau of Reclamation retains control for construction, operation, maintenance, and protection of the project…” and “may include lands where the project uses, such as transmission lines, canals, ditches, laterals, and drains, require Reclamation’s jurisdiction” (Section III, Item F).

The “area of project influence” is defined as “Lands outside the project area remaining in Service jurisdiction but requiring special consideration to ensure that management actions will minimize adverse effects on or enhance the operation and maintenance of the project” (Section III, Item J).

Regarding management, the 1987 Master Agreement states “Within a project area, use authorizations from the Service are not required for project activities, including construction, operation, and maintenance” (Section IV, item B).

1.3 Proposed Action

Reclamation proposes to implement its conservation action for Salvelinus confluentus3 (bull trout), included as part of the proposed action in the 2019 Updated Proposed Action for Reclamation’s Yakima Irrigation Project Operations and Maintenance Consultation, USFWS Supplement to the April 2015 Biological

3 In 1999, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed all U.S. populations of bull trout as a threatened species under the ESA (64 Federal Register 58910, November 1, 1999). The 1999 listing applied to one distinct population segment of bull trout within the U.S. by including bull trout in the Coastal-Puget Sound populations and Saint Mary- Belly River populations, with previous listings of three separate distinct population segments in the Columbia River, Klamath River, and Jarbidge River basins (63 Federal Register 31647, June 10, 1998; 64 Federal Register 17110, April 8, 1999). In recognition of available scientific information relating to their uniqueness and significance, six segments of the United States population of the bull trout are considered essential to the survival and recovery of this species and are identified as recovery units: Coastal, Klamath, Mid-Columbia, Columbia Headwaters, Saint Mary, and Upper Snake.

The Project area is in the Mid-Columbia recovery unit for bull trout. Please see Section 3.2 for more information on bull trout.

Assessment for Yakima Project Operations and Maintenance4 (Reclamation 2019), to provide upstream fish passage at Clear Creek Dam, specifically for bull trout, but other fish species could benefit as well.

This proposal includes actions to construct a new fish ladder to meet National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 2022 fish passage design criteria5 and utilize colder water for fish ladder attraction flows.

1.4 Purpose of and Need for Action

The purpose of the CCDFP Project is to improve the long-term viability of the North Fork Tieton bull trout population by allowing bull trout to move freely between spawning and rearing habitat areas. Improvements in the long-term viability of bull trout in the CCDFP Project area would be accomplished through the following actions:

• Implementation of fish passage that complies with current regulatory criteria

• Reduction in take

An additional benefit of providing upstream resident fish passage at Clear Creek Dam includes the ability to expand habitat access for anadromous fish once fish passage is installed at Tieton Dam and anadromous fish are reintroduced into Rimrock Lake.

The need for the proposed action is the existing Clear Creek Dam fishway, which has been identified as impeding upstream passage of bull trout to the upper reaches of North Fork Tieton River and its tributaries. The Clear Creek Dam fishway consists of two separate fish ladders constructed to provide fish passage over a section of bedrock cascades that also serves as the dam spillway.

Difficulties associated with fish passage at the dam’s spillway include:

• Sedimentation and gravel accumulation in the lower fish ladder

• High water temperatures in the spillway during key migration periods

• Cool water released from Clear Creek Dam falsely attracts migrating fish into Clear Creek

Dam stilling basin6

4 The 2015 Yakima Project BA is considered the primary consultation document for the ongoing Yakima Project consultation with the Services; however, Reclamation has submitted Biological Assessment (BA) Supplements to the original 2015 Yakima Project BA that described new project information that was not previously described and to provide updated information on changes that have occurred to Yakima Project operation and maintenance (O&M) activities that were not previously included. These included new actions proposed for implementation as part of Reclamation’s future operation of the Yakima Project, as well as actions that have occurred under the environmental baseline prior to April 2015, while also providing the most updated status of the species within the Yakima River basin. Supplements were submitted to USFWS in 2018 and NMFS in 2019. Additionally, the proposed action was included in the 2012 FPEIS and associated ESA consultation.

5 Effective fish passage requires the integration of numerous scientific and engineering disciplines; it is for this reason that the NMFS issues fish passage design guidance. The NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region Anadromous Salmonid Passage Design Manual was issued in June 2022, and an addendum was issued February 22, 2023. The document is intended to assist with improving conditions for salmonids that must migrate past barriers to complete their life cycle.

6 The stilling basin is directly below the dam, away from the spillway and existing fish ladders.

1.5 Background

1.5.1 Yakima Project and Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project The Yakima Project’s (Project) authorization and water rights, issued under Washington State water law and the 1945 Consent Decree, are statutory constraints for water resources. Reclamation must operate the Yakima Project Divisions and storage facilities in a manner that avoids injury to water users within this framework. Legislation in 1994 provided that an additional purpose of the Yakima Project shall be for fish, wildlife, and recreation, but that this additional purpose “shall not impair the operation of the Yakima Project to provide water for irrigation purposes nor impact existing contracts.” Since April 1995, the Project has been operated as required by the 1994 legislation to maintain target streamflows downstream from Sunnyside Diversion Dam as measured at the Yakima River near the Parker stream gage.

Hydroelectric power is produced coincidentally to other Project purposes. Reservoir storage releases are not made to meet hydroelectric power demand; sometimes incidental power generation at Project facilities is subordinated to meet instream flow requirements. Recreational needs are considered but are incidental to other Project purposes. Maximizing flood control, irrigation water delivery, and meeting streamflow needs requires continuous water management adjustments and includes many system operation considerations.

The Project provides irrigation water for a narrow strip of fertile land that extends for 175 miles on both sides of the Yakima River in south-central Washington. Storage dams and reservoirs on the project are Bumping Lake, Clear Creek (Clear Lake), Tieton (Rimrock Lake), Cle Elum, Kachess, and Keechelus. The total storage of the five major reservoirs (Clear Lake is a minor reservoir managed for recreation) is a little over 1 million acre-feet (MAF), but the total yearly runoff passing through the storage reservoir system averages 1.71 MAF.

The majority of spring/summer runoff is from snowmelt; therefore, snowpack is often considered the “sixth reservoir.” Because only 30 percent of the average annual total natural runoff can be stored in the storage system, the Project is very dependent upon the timing of spring/summer runoff (snowmelt and rainfall). The early spring/summer natural flow is used to supply most river basin demands through June in an average year. In most years, the five major reservoirs are operated so that storage peaks in June (average mid-June, period of record 1940-1999), about the same time the major natural runoff ends.

The historical lakes and tributaries upstream from these dams formerly supported runs of anadromous salmonids and resident species of fish. Varying amounts and quality of potential spawning and rearing habitat suitable for anadromous salmon and steelhead trout still exist above the dams. Two species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) — bull trout and Middle Columbia River (MCR) steelhead — would likely benefit from passage at the dams.

Providing fish migration past these dams would: increase anadromous species abundance and spatial distribution; also likely benefit Chinook salmon and might allow reintroduction of extirpated sockeye and coho salmon; and provide for genetic interchange for listed bull trout and other native fish. This would also help fish cope with potential future climate change impacts by providing access to high-quality habitat at higher elevations if lower elevation habitat is no longer suitable for supporting fish life stages at certain times of year.

Many tributary streams in the Yakima River basin were disconnected from the Yakima River and made inaccessible to migratory fishes (including salmon and steelhead) over the past century.

Congress passed the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project (YRBWEP) legislation in 1994 to help improve fish and wildlife habitat, including provisions to enhance Yakima River basin tributary streams affected by irrigation development.

The YRBWEP Workgroup (sponsored by Reclamation, the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation (Yakama Nation), and including Yakima Project irrigators, federal and state agencies, local governments, and environmental groups) collaboratively developed the Yakima River Basin Integrated Water Resource Management Plan (Integrated Plan). The Integrated Plan represents a comprehensive approach to water management and ecosystem restoration in the Yakima River basin.

The CCDFP Project is part of the Integrated Plan Reservoir Fish Passage Element evaluated in the Integrated Plan Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS; Reclamation and Ecology 2012) and the preferred alternative, as outlined in the Record of Decision, July 2013. Pursuing the CCDFP Project is essential to fulfill requirements of the 2002 Mitigation Agreement that Reclamation entered with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and to meet stipulations in the 2006 Settlement Agreement with the Yakama Nation to resolve litigation; both agreements stem from issues that arose with the Keechelus Dam Safety of Dams Modification project in 2002. More information can be found in the PEIS located on the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan webpage (https://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/yrbwep/2011integratedplan/index.html).

1.5.2 Clear Creek Dam Fish Passage History

Clear Creek Dam was built in 1914 without fish passage. When Clear Creek Dam was rebuilt in 1992, two fish ladders were added to the bedrock spillway of Clear Creek Dam. These ladders are in the upper and lower section of the spillway. The lower ladder is a series of four Denil ladders interspaced with resting pools located on the right bank of the spillway. The upper ladder is a pool-and-weir design constructed on the left side of the spillway channel. The Denil ladder is considered too steep for successful passage and easily becomes clogged with sediment and gravels. As a result of studies conducted in 2012 through 2014, it was determined that there is no evidence that fish successfully migrated upstream through the fish ladder, and the fish ladder was all but abandoned (i.e., the fish ladder is still there but maintenance has ceased).

The North Fork Tieton River flows into Clear Lake and continues below the dam; it is designated critical habitat for bull trout. A population of bull trout spawns in the North Fork Tieton River above the dam, but studies have found this population of bull trout is disconnected by the dam.

Many North Fork Tieton fish migrate downstream from the dam, where they find favorable rearing, foraging, and overwintering habitat in Rimrock Lake. During the summer, adult bull trout return to the North Fork Tieton to spawn, congregating in the stilling basin below Clear Creek Dam, where they are attracted to the cold water flowing through the outlet works. These fish are unable to migrate upstream because there is no upstream passage at the fishway that is in the spillway channel.

https://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/yrbwep/2011integratedplan/index.html

In addition, the strong homing instinct of these fish prevents them from seeking spawning habitat elsewhere. As a result, these adult North Fork Tieton River fish remain in the Clear Creek Dam stilling basin and do not contribute to the North Fork Tieton spawning population.

New fish passage at Clear Creek Dam has been under consideration since 2005 when a pre-design memorandum was written exploring alternative methods of fish passage at the site. Due to funding limitations and uncertainties about the ability of adult bull trout to pass through the spillway at that time, the fish passage project at Clear Creek Dam was put on hold.

A study was initiated to determine if passage through the spillway was effective. Results of the study found that bull trout were not successful at passing upstream via the ladder. The study also found that some bull trout attempted to go upstream using the spillway and fish ladder, but none were successful (USFWS and Reclamation 2013, 2014, and 2015; Thomas and Monk 2016). A combination of factors affects the ability of bull trout to migrate successfully up the spillway channel. High water temperatures in the spillway during key migration periods deter spillway use;

also, cool water released from Clear Creek Dam, through the outlet, falsely attracts migrating fish into Clear Creek Dam stilling basin away from the spillway and existing fish ladders.

The number of North Fork Tieton River bull trout currently isolated below Clear Creek Dam is significant, perhaps equaling or exceeding the number that currently spawn above it (Thomas and Monk 2016). The study confirmed that ineffective passage over the spillway for bull trout that migrate downstream from Clear Lake causes a significant threat to the North Fork Tieton River population.

Due to information from the Clear Creek Dam Fish Passage Assessment study that was conducted by the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Reclamation in 2015 (USFWS and Reclamation 2015) and the trap and haul study that was conducted by the USFWS between 2016 and 2018 at Clear Creek Dam (USFWS 2017 and 2018), it has become clear that adult bull trout are not using the existing fish passage structures at the dam spillway. Because the North Fork Tieton River bull trout population is an important local spawning population, Reclamation reinitiated the Clear Creek Dam fish passage design work and is committed to finding a solution to the fish passage barrier problem at the dam.

In the meantime, since there is no volitional fish passage at Clear Creek Dam, the USFWS captures bull trout from below Clear Creek Dam and transports genetically identified North Fork Tieton River fish around the dam so they can reach spawning habitat in the North Fork Tieton River (this process in general is known as trap and haul). Fish capture and transport has been conducted annually by USFWS since 2016. As of July 2023, 152 adult bull trout have been transported above the dam by the USFWS’s North Fork Tieton Transport Project (Transport Project). An additional 88 bull trout identified as South Fork Tieton or Indian Creek fish that also migrated to the base of the dam were released downstream of the stilling basin. Reclamation funds, and will continue to fund, the Transport Project until fish passage is constructed at Clear Lake Dam.

Reclamation completed an appraisal level design for fish passage in September 2018. The design consists of a traditional pool-and-weir-style fishway with a steel bulkhead at the upstream end that would draw cool water from deeper in the reservoir. Situated along the left abutment of the dam, fish would enter the fishway in the stilling basin and exit in the reservoir pool. The bulkhead would be deep enough to maintain suitable water temperature in the fishway for bull trout.

Bull trout population recovery is a nationwide focus and is extremely important to the Yakima basin.

The Yakima Bull Trout Action Plan was written in 2012 by Yakima basin fish biologists and included information on bull trout population status, trend and distribution, and habitat, along with a detailed analysis of threats by life stage for each population and specific monitoring and restoration actions that address those threats (Reiss et al. 2012). Installation of fish passage at Clear Creek Dam is considered among the highest priority actions for bull trout recovery in the Yakima River basin. The USFWS issued the Recovery Plan for the Coterminous United States Population of Bull Trout (Recovery Plan) in 2015 (USFWS 2015). Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to recover and protect listed species. In the Recovery Plan, recovery actions for bull trout included “minimize demographic threats to bull trout by restoring connectivity or populations where appropriate to promote diverse life history strategies and conserve genetic diversity” (USFWS 2015) and the proposed upstream fish passage would restore the connectivity of the North Fork Tieton bull trout population.

In accordance with the Yakama Nation Settlement Agreement, Reclamation is continuing to coordinate with the Storage Dam Fish Passage Core Team7 (Core Team) and others to implement fish passage at Clear Creek Dam. The Core Team and its partners met with basin biologists to define the range of species targeted for passage and provide input for designers regarding ladder geometry.

1.6 Legal Authority

The YRBWEP was authorized in 1979 in response to a severe drought and a surface water right adjudication that began in 1977. The various project components have evolved since then under the following authorities:

• P. L. 96-162 Feasibility Study, December 28, 1979

• P. L. 98-381 Section 109 of Hoover Power Plant Act of 1984

• P. L. 103-434 Title XII Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project, October 31, 1994, as amended by PL 105-62, October 13, 1997, and PL 106-372, October 27, 2000

• P. L. 116-9, The John Dingell Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act, March 12, 7 The Core Team is composed of biologists, engineers, and other specialists from the Yakama Nation, National Marine Fisheries Service, USFWS, WDFW, Bonneville Power Administration (BPA), City of Yakima, North Yakima Conservation District, Tri-County Water Resources Agency, USFS, Washington Department of Agriculture, Ecology, Wenatchee National Forest, Yakima Basin Joint Board, Yakima River Basin Commodity Coalition, and Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District.

1.7 Decisions to be Made

This EA complies with the NEPA by supporting federal decisions related to the CCDFP Project. It provides necessary information for approving, modifying, or denying a proposal. Based on the analysis in this EA, Reclamation would decide whether to construct a new fish ladder and appurtenant structures and facilities at Clear Creek Dam.

The USFS would consider under a separate decision, a joint USFS and Yakama Nation project that would improve instream habitat using trees removed from the CCDFP Project area.

Ecology has been a full partner with Reclamation on the Integrated Plan, and this project was included in the FPEIS Preferred Alternative selected in the FPEIS Record of Decision (ROD).

Ecology has provided funding for Reclamation to study and design the CCDFP Project and to USFS to assist with the preparation of this EA. Ecology would utilize this EA to conduct its environmental review process under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA; Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 43.21C, Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 197-11).

Ecology would continue in their role as a partner, assisting with the implementation of the CCDFP Project, should the project be approved by Reclamation and Ecology.

Additional federal decisions would be made as part of permitting and consultation processes, including those required under Section 7 of the ESA and under the Clean Water Act. Other state jurisdiction decisions would be made as part of permitting processes as discussed in Section 4.2.5.

1.8 Lead, Cooperating, and Participating Agencies

Reclamation is the lead agency in charge of preparing this EA. The USFS, Yakama Nation, and Ecology are cooperating agencies for this EA, and Ecology is a full partner with Reclamation under the Integrated Plan.

As described elsewhere in this document, the USFS, Ecology, and the Yakama Nation will help Reclamation implement the CCDFP Project as part of the continued implementation of the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan.

1.9 Public Involvement

The draft EA was made available for public review on Reclamation’s website (https://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/clearcreek/index.html) for 15 days, from January 2 through January 17, 2024. Reclamation used the NEPA public review process to meet its public participation requirements under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as provided in 36 CFR

800.8. All comments received were in the form of emails or emails with attachments. Reclamation received 32 emails during the 15-day public comment period; 29 emails were from the public and 3 emails were from agencies.

https://www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/clearcreek/index.html

Reclamation received comments that could be divided into two categories: substantive and non-substantive. The following definitions were used to categorize emailed comments.

Substantive comments on NEPA do one or more of the following:

• Question, with reasonable basis, the accuracy of information in the EA/EIS

• Question, with reasonable basis, the adequacy of, methodology for, or assumptions used for the environmental analysis

• Present new information relevant to the analysis

• Present reasonable alternatives other than those analyzed

• Provide information which would cause changes or revisions of the alternative(s)

Non-substantive comments on NEPA are comments:

• In favor of or against the proposed action or alternatives without reasoning that meets the above criteria

• That only agree or disagree with policy or resource decisions without justification or supporting data that meets the above criteria

• That don’t pertain to the project area or the project

• That take the form of vague and/or open-ended questions

• Directed at the Administration or President of the United States

The comments received from the public were non-substantive and primarily focused on the closure of the Cold Creek Sno-Park, with most emails requesting that the OHV Play Area be used instead.

The Cold Creek Sno-Park and the OHV Play Area operate under USFS special use permits.

Reclamation has determined the combined area of the Cold Creek Sno-Park and the OHV Play Area, proposed as Contractor Use Area (CUA) 4, is necessary due to the volume of material that will be handled and processed, and the proximity to the construction site. Since the release of the draft EA to the public, USFS and Reclamation have continued to coordinate on the use of these areas.

Independent of the emails received, and as part of the continued coordination, it has been determined that a portion of the excess soils and gravels (collectively, spoils) from excavation of the fish ladder would be used to raise the elevation of the Cold Creek Sno-Park parking lot to improve drainage over the area. A 6-inch topcoat of gravel would improve the driving surface of the parking lot. Between now and the start of construction, Reclamation will continue working with USFS to notify the public of the temporary closure of the Cold Creek Sno-Park and OHV Play Area.

The Washington State Department of Transportation – Aviation Department (WSDOT), Ecology, and WDFW provided comments on the draft EA during the public comment period. Comments from WSDOT and Ecology were to remind Reclamation of coordination and permitting requirements. The WDFW’s comments were seeking clarification of the design and operations of the fish ladder and providing specific species-related edit requests or clarifications. All agency comments were non-substantive. Even though edits were made within the analysis sections because of the comments, these were considered non-substantive edits as they did not meet the criteria of a substantive comment.

Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.1 Introduction

The No Action alternative and one action alternative are described in detail in this chapter (see Section 2.2). A summary of the alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study is provided in Section 2.3.

2.2 Description of the Alternatives

Two alternatives are analyzed in this EA: Alternative A – No Action, and Alternative B – Proposed Action. The No Action alternative for an existing and ongoing federal project considers what would happen if the federal agency continued to operate and maintain the authorized project with no changes to current operations and maintenance. Therefore, the No Action alternative represents a continuation of the existing conditions and provides a comparative baseline for evaluating changes and impacts of the Proposed Action alternative.

2.2.1 Alternative A – No Action

Operations and Maintenance

Reclamation would continue to operate and maintain Clear Creek Dam consistent with current practices, and dam safety inspections would continue as scheduled. Reclamation manages the water discharge to maintain a nearly constant water surface elevation (WSE) of Clear Lake at 3011.3 feet, despite the dam crest being at elevation 3016. This pool elevation is held constant both for recreation and to maintain 0.3 feet of water above the spillway crest (elevation 3011.0) so there is continual flow into the spillway to provide downstream passage for bull trout. Water exceeding the target elevation would continue to be released via the outlet works and over the spillway.

Flood flows, most often caused by snow melt or rain-on-snow events, would continue to flow into the spillway and over the top of the dam. Clear Creek Dam itself was designed to operate as an uncontrolled spillway. The WSE is monitored closely by Reclamation’s Yakima Field Office (YFO).

At elevation 3013, water overtops the spillway abutments. A WSE over elevation 3015 requires closing the gates on the dam and allowing water to overtop the dam. It is critical to shut the gates at elevation 3015 because access becomes limited and unsafe, and protection of the facility is paramount. Once the air intakes are inundated, the outlet conduit does not take in oxygen to keep the dam from cavitating, which could result in catastrophic dam failure.

While Reclamation holds Clear Lake at elevation 3011.3, it is important to note that Clear Lake is still a reservoir. Reclamation has set a minimum pool elevation in Clear Lake at elevation 2995. This minimum pool elevation is maintained for the resident trout fishery and to use as an emergency holding area for kokanee during drought years. The minimum pool elevation also allows up to 3,000 acre-feet of water to be released after September 15 to meet late season irrigation demands, when needed. If necessary, when the water surface elevation is below the spillway crest, flows could be released from the 48-inch outlet.

Reclamation’s YFO maintenance staff conduct routine site visits to check the dam and appurtenant facilities. These visits occur a minimum of once a week but may be daily, or involve 24-hour monitoring, if flood conditions are present. Maintenance activities are limited to areas currently disturbed by periodic access or maintenance needs. Vegetation clearing to maintain these areas is expected to primarily target smaller diameter trees (less than 14 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH), shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation. Occasionally, larger hazard trees may be removed.

Reclamation personnel remove debris and large wood that accumulates on the upstream face of the dams as well as on the crest of the spillway channels. While the amount of debris loading varies between years, clearing activities are generally required at each site on an annual basis. Wood may be moved from the dam face or riprapped areas by the dam by boom truck, small boat, or backhoe.

When possible, spillway releases are used to move woody debris downstream. Material that is not relocated downstream would be collected and disposed of through burning, as conditions allow.

Formal facility review dam inspections are conducted under Reclamation’s Review of Operation and Maintenance Program. Annually, field office personnel conduct local inspections to evaluate structural integrity and assess the need for repairs. Electrical, hydraulic, and mechanical systems are inspected during these reviews. External inspections, either by Reclamation’s Regional Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Program or Reclamation’s Technical Service Center (TSC), occur at least every 4 years.

When conducting facility inspections, Reclamation sets and maintains established instream flows downstream of the dams and manages reservoir releases to ensure no substantial flow fluctuations occur. Reclamation’s YFO maintenance staff coordinates with staff hydrologists and biologist to confirm appropriate elevations and flows to ensure proper test timing. Reclamation typically solicits input from the Systems Operation Advisory Committee regarding inspection timing, flow conditions, and project duration. During spillway tests, Reclamation coordinates reservoir outflow by decreasing outlet releases at commensurate levels as spillway releases increase to dampen flow fluctuations below each reservoir when water is being released down the spillway. Due to the small size of Clear Lake, the reservoir reacts within 30 minutes of a gate adjustment and the change is visible on the staff gage.

Reclamation has identified that a full gate inspection is needed and the TSC is working on the timing and logistics. The gates, conduit, stems, and guide carriers have not been inspected since they were installed in 1992 during the dam rehabilitation project. Divers have inspected the gates, but a full inspection is not possible without a reservoir drawdown to elevation 2958, which would lower the reservoir 53.3 feet from its current level. It is anticipated that the elevation of 2958 would need to be held for 2 weeks to conduct the full gate inspection. During this time, Reclamation would conduct other inspections and mapping of the facility for record-keeping and tracking purposes.

Bull Trout Passage at Clear Creek Dam

In 2007, Reclamation changed Clear Creek Dam operations so that the dam outlet works were used to regulate discharge, instead of using the spillway. Regulating the discharge with the outlet works maintains a more stable WSE in Clear Lake and spillway discharge. These conditions were believed to be more conducive for bull trout passage up the spillway channel than if there were more varied discharge. Reclamation currently targets a reservoir elevation of 3011.3 to 3011.4 to optimize passage conditions on the spillway. Maintaining the WSE at those levels keeps 0.3 to 0.4 feet of water in the spillway to provide downstream passage; however, downstream fish passage is greater over the spillway during high flow events.

Upstream fish passage via the existing pool and weir fish ladder, which was constructed in 1992, is not functional due to a suite of factors. YFO staff continue to inspect the fish ladder and remove large woody material, as needed. When the upper weirs are plugged, they can be dewatered to facilitate maintenance actions to remove large woody material. The lower section of the fish ladder is maintained in an ad hoc manner, but this maintenance has been mostly abandoned since upstream fish passage through the ladders was determined to be not viable in studies conducted in 2012 through 2014.

Since there is no volitional fish passage at Clear Creek Dam, Reclamation would continue to fund the Transport Project under the No Action alternative. Under the Transport Project, USFWS would continue to implement the following activities:

• Capture adult bull trout in the stilling basin directly below Clear Creek Dam, primarily by hook-and-line and tangle netting

• Surgically implant a passive integrated transponder (PIT) tag in captured bull trout and obtain tissue samples for genetic analysis

• Transport tagged North Fork Tieton River fish above the dam and release them into Clear Lake

• Release South Fork Tieton or Indian Creek fish downstream of the stilling basin

• Monitor the movement of tagged fish from established PIT tag interrogation sites established on the North Fork Tieton River, South Fork Tieton River, and Indian Creek

• Assess the spawning success of transported fish

• Euthanize genetically-identified brook trout/bull trout hybrids

2.2.2 Alternative B – Proposed Action

Reclamation proposes to construct a pool and weir fish ladder to provide upstream fish passage at Clear Creek Dam. The ladder entrance would be located immediately downstream of a rock outcrop along the left dam abutment to take advantage of an eddy created from dam releases, providing attraction flow to the entrance. The ladder alignment would climb the left dam abutment and rise over 50 feet to reach the reservoir. Design parameters for the fish ladder focused on adult bull trout but also considered other fish species, including sockeye, coho, and Chinook salmon as well as steelhead. The design also provides safe human access points for O&M of the facility, which will be important in the project’s long-term success.

Implementation of the CCDFP Project would include construction of the cast-in-place (CIP) concrete fish ladder, miscellaneous metalwork, and fencing. Mechanical features to be installed include pump, false weir, valving, slide gates and piping; electrical features to be installed include lighting, security cameras and receptacles, and other ancillary items; and site development to be completed includes a generator building and resurfacing access roads.

Construction of the fish ladder would involve the following activities: creating staging areas; clearing and grubbing of vegetation; construction of a new access road; excavation and backfill of material;

forming and placement of CIP concrete; installation of fencing; a seasonal 12-foot reservoir drawdown; and cofferdam placement and removal in the North Fork Tieton River and, possibly, in the reservoir.

The primary construction area is shown in Figure 1. All fish ladder and road construction, including modifications to the existing Dam Access Road, would occur within this area. Secondary construction areas include the CUAs.

Figure 1. Close-up of the project area, where a new access road and the new fish ladder would be constructed on the north side of Clear Creek Dam

Alternative B would result in approximately 8.5 acres of total surface disturbance. Of this, approximately 7 acres of CUAs would be disturbed temporarily and would later be restored to pre-construction conditions. At the construction site, approximately 1.75 acres would be disturbed (see Figure 2); this includes areas of tree removal (1.25 acres), along with areas where excavation would occur to construct features (in the river and for access roads). Within the construction site, 0.28 acres would be temporarily disturbed and returned to pre-project conditions (e.g., existing gravel surfacing left as a gravel road, structures left as-is; and dirt/earth without vegetation left without vegetation due to terrain). Of the 1.25 acres where trees would be removed, 0.8 acres would be revegetated post-construction (0.51 acres seeded and 0.29 acres initially seeded and then planted).

Approximately 0.46 acres would be permanently disturbed. This includes: those areas where structures and gravel would be placed where none existed pre-project; those areas where successful revegetation is not probable (e.g., exposed bedrock, steep slopes, etc.); and areas within the footprint of permanent CCDFP Project components that would not be restored to pre-construction conditions.

Figure 2. Surface disturbance at construction site of new access roads and fish ladder

Key Elements of the Project

The following sections provide more specific information about the components of the CCDFP Project.

Fish Ladder

The proposed fish ladder would be on the left abutment of the dam and would be approximately 750 feet long, 6 feet wide, and 10.5 feet deep. The ladder consists of a river structure located at the river elevation, a reservoir structure located at the lake elevation, and a series of pools/weirs between the two ends (See Figure 3 and Figure 4)

Figure 3. Proposed Clear Creek fish ladder and road configuration

Figure 4. Isometric view of the fish ladder

River Structure

The river structure serves as the fish ladder entrance and water outlet. The fish ladder entrance is located at a rock outcrop downstream of the dam, in a protected area where an eddy forms and velocities are relatively low. The fish would likely be able to locate the fish ladder, even with the lower attraction flows, because of the cool water being pulled through the fish ladder from a reservoir depth of approximately 30 feet.

The structure is CIP concrete with two fish ladder entrances, on adjacent walls.