Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-2002-021 Mandated 2000 Wastewater Facilities PlanRESOLUTION NO. R-2002- 21 A RESOLUTION Adopting the Mandated 2000 Wastewater Facilities Plan for the City of Yakima, Washington. WHEREAS, the Mandated Draft 2000 Wastewater Facilities Plan looks to the .capital and operations and maintenance requirements (including staffing) of the wastewater system to serve the area for the next 20 years; and WHEREAS, submittal of a Council adopted Plan to Ecology is mandated under WAC 173-240; and WHEREAS, approval by Ecology is required to allow the City to be eligible to compete for any Federal or State funding options; and WHEREAS, the City Council has complied with statutory requirements for Public Hearings on the findings of the Plan; and BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA: The document entitled City of Yakima Wastewater Facilities Plan, dated October 2000, as updated in March 2001, a true copy of which Plan is on file in the City Clerk's Office and is incorporated by reference herein, is hereby adopted by the City of Yakima. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 5th day of March 2002 ATTEST: CthJ� 4 City Clerk TRANSMITTAL February 28, 2002 To: Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council From: Dick Zais, City Manager Doug Mayo, Wastewater Manager Glenn Rice, Assistant City Manager Subject: Transmittal of Further Information related to the Mandated 2000 Wastewater Facilities Plan The Department of Ecology required that the City file a State Environmental Review Process (SERP) Environmental Report for the 2000 Facilities Plan. This is a new requirement that allows an additional level of environmental review of projects and planning documents. Enclosed is a copy of the SERP Report, our transmittal letter to various agencies, and comments received (3). Ecology has verbally accepted our report as revised, written acceptance has not yet arrived. SERP Transmittal page 1 2/28/02 SERP ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT —...1417011,10svamosla.%10°1—.0:0"-' CI IY OF YAKIMA 2000 WASTEWATER FAMITIES PLAN Executive Summary 1.0 Purpose and Need of Project 1.1 Project Description (Proposed Action or Proposed Project) 1.2 Purpose and Need of Project 2.0 Alternatives to the Proposed Action 3.0 Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences 3.1 Land Use/Important Farmland/Formally Classified Lands 3.1.1 Affected Environment* 3.1.2 Environmental Consequences* 3.1.3 Mitigation* 3.2 Floodplains 3.3 Wetlands 3.4 Cultural Resources 3.5 Biological Resources 3.6 Water Quality Issues 3.7 Coastal Resources 3.8 Socio-Economic/Environmental Justice Issues 3.9 Miscellaneous Issues * Sections repeated through all Section 3.0 subsections. 4.0 Summary of Mitigation 5.0 Correspondence 6.0 Exhibits/Maps CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED The source of all information in this chapter is the City of Yakima Wastewater Facilities Plan, October, 2000, as amended April, 2001. Additionally, a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) was also filed for this document on October 3, 2000. 1.1 Project Description (Proposed Action or Proposed Project) The City of Yakima has operated a progressive sewer utility serving the needs of the community since 1936. The City of Yakima has prepared a long-term wastewater strategy, known as the Wastewater Facilities Plan. This document is mandated by the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) and by the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A), for the Yakima sewage collection system and the Yakima Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. It identifies wastewater facility improvements needed to support the Metropolitan Area's economic development goals; comply with federal/state laws, rules, and regulation; and maintain economical and reliable wastewater service. In keeping with the mandate for a periodic facilities plan, the most current analysis for future upgrades and expansion for the Yakima wastewater facility is now complete. This facilities plan is the focus of this State Environmental Review Plan (SERP). The Wastewater Facilities Plan is a planning -level document. It therefore does not provide project -level detail for specific facility improvements. Such detail will be developed and analyzed during the design and permitting process for each specific improvement. Similarly, this Environmental Report provides analysis of potential environmental effects commensurate with the plan -level information available at this time. Project -level analysis of specific facility improvements and their potential environmental effects will be developed as improvements are designed and permitted. As appropriate, this will include further, review under both the State and National Environmental Policy Acts (SEPA and NEPA). 1.2 Purpose and Need of Project The Wastewater Facilities Plan describes the planning, findings, and recommendations for the City of Yakima collection system and the Yakima Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant that are necessary to maintain system reliability; provide adequate capacity to meet the needs of the Service Area; and comply with regulatory laws, rules, regulations, and requirements by federal and state government and agencies. CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 2.0 Alternatives to the Project Action The source of all information in this chapter is the City of Yakima Wastewater Facilities Plan, October, 2000, as amended April, 2001. Additionally, a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) was also filed for this document on October 3, 2000. Alternative 1 Do Nothing It is always an option to maintain the present situation in lieu of any project. If this action were the preferred alternative, the wastewater plant and its supplying collection system could function for the short term. The treatment and hydraulic capacity of the aggregate system has the potential to handle the increase in flow and sewage strength for approximately 5-10 years. After this point in time, the projected regional growth and the accompanying increases in flow and strength of their waste would exceed the existing wastewater infrastructure. This unreasonable alternative would not be in the best interest for the citizens or the City of Yakima and the region served by the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, as it does nothing to meet the challenge of future growth. Alternative 2 Construction of a New Facility The second alternative is the construction of a new wastewater plant. This option would require acquisition of new land parcels with designs that incorporated the existing collection system within the City of Yakima. This alternative would be very complex to design, construct and administer. General estimates for cost would run at least $100 million and might take as long as 3 years to complete. Given that there is no current land available for consideration of this alternative, the expense involved, and the economic and practical unreasonableness of this proposal, no further study is deemed appropriate for this alternative. Alternative 3 Upgrade the Existing Wastewater System The final alternative in this document is the upgrading of the existing plant. This continual improvement and modernization effort has been the preferred alternative for many years. The past 10 years have seen three major construction efforts to improve wastewater systems at critical points in the wastewater treatment processes. This alternative has allowed the City to proactively plan for future growth and capacity without unreasonable costs, land acquisitions, endangering the environment or denying the best service to the citizenry. It is our conclusion that this alternative best meets all critical aspects for quality wastewater treatment for the environment, responsible handling of our fiscal obligations, and effective treatment of the wastewater generated from our region. Given that alternative 3 is the only practicable and reasonable course, a wide range of options for expanding the Yakima Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant to meet future capacity and regulatory effluent quality requirements is discussed within the Wastewater Facilities Plan. The following provides a brief description of the recommended alternative for each process area for the 20 -year planning period. Septage Handling If the City is mandated to construct a septage handling facility for Yakima County by the Washington Department of Ecology, a new septage receiving facility located along the west frontage road is recommended. The new facility would include a completely enclosed drive-through building with air emission controls, screening equipment, septage storage tankage, and pumping systems to deliver septage to the primary dige_CterC and provisions sampling and delivered load septage. -.-�•.•••••,-, _ -- provisions for ��;;:�•a;:;� r•;a� monitoring of each delivered load of 3c:.�..°°Lal�.'a:. The construction of this upgraded facility might entail mitigation on groundwater and stormwater runoff and traffic flow issues. The estimated cost by engineering consultants for the Septage Handling facility is $2,079,300. Headworks/Pretreatment Upgrades and improvements are needed to the existing grit storage system in the Headworks Building. Repair of the existing storage hopper with an enhanced vibratory system is recommended. Since any upgrade of this kind would be contained within existing structures, it is unlikely that mitigation for any environmental issues would pertain to this project. The estimated cost by engineering consultants for the Headworks/Pretreatment facility is $312,100. Primary Treatment Alternatives To provide improved control for distribution of flows and solids to the primary clarifiers, a new primary clarifier flow split structure is recommended. This undertaking will require consideration of storm and ground water runoff. The estimated cost by engineering consultants for this facility is $870,500. Trickling Filters The trickling filter process includes three recommendations: 1) replace the existing distributors; 2) replace the existing rock media with plastic media, and; 3) enhance forced ventilation in the trickling filters. Each recommendation is intended to increase the biological capacity of the trickling filters. The benefits and timing of enhanced trickling filter performance were weighed in conjunction with process expansion alternatives for the activated sludge system. The replacement of the existing distributors for each trickling filter was recommended in all alternatives evaluated and has been shown as a key feature project. Since any upgrade of this kind would be contained within existing structures, it is unlikely that mitigation for any environmental issues would pertain to this project. The estimated cost by engineering consultants for replacement of the existing trickling filter mechanisms is $782,500. The estimated cost by engineering consultants for the plastic media is $1,699,100, and the estimated cost by engineering consultants for the enhanced forced ventilation is $1,066,100. Return Activated Sludge (RAS) 1 Waste Activated Sludge (WAS) Pumping A new RAS/WAS pumping station, constructed concurrently with a new secondary clarifier, is recommended. The RAS/WAS pumping station would provide service to the existing aeration basins and a future aeration basin, and both the existing and new secondary clarifiers. The new RAS/WAS pumping station would be compatible with the proposed configuration of aeration basins, and the rehabilitation of the existing secondary clarifiers (and new clarifier to current technology standards). Mitigation for this upgrade could include storm and ground water runoff planning, soil erosion concerns and air emission considerations from construction equipment. The estimated cost by engineering consultants for the new RAS/WAS pumping station is $1,669,400. Secondary Clarifier A third secondary clarifier is required to meet maximum month average daily flow conditions of greater than 18.0 MGD which are anticipated to occur within the next 5 years. The third secondary clarifier is also currently needed to meet reliability standards of the Washington Department of Ecology to provide settlement for 75 percent of the design flow with one unit off-line. Currently, the treatment capacity of one secondary clarifier is calculated at 12.3 MGD. This is a major undertaking and would entail storm and ground water runoff planning, soil erosion planning, and an air emission evaluation of construction vehicles. The estimated cost by engineering consultants for the new secondary clarifier is $3,277,800. Aeration Basins Construction of a future 2.1 million gallon aeration basin, and retrofit of the existing two aeration basins of equivalent volume of 2.1 million gallons each, is recommended. An anoxic selector basin would be constructed ahead of each aeration basin (existing and future) for improved operation and control of the activated sludge process. This is a major undertaking and would entail storm and ground water runoff planning, soil erosion planning, and an air emission evaluation of construction vehicles. For the new influent and effluent flow split structure with anoxic selector cells for each basin, the estimated cost by engineering consultants is $2,480,000. The estimated cost by engineering consultants for the future 2.1 million gallon aeration basin with anoxic selector cell and appurtenances is $4,366,600. An additional blower would be added in the future with an estimated cost by engineering consultants of $547,800. Disinfection Although maintaining the existing gaseous chlorine chlorination and gaseous sulfur dioxide dechlorination systems provided the least costly alternative for disinfection of the wastewater, the non -economic factors, such as potential safety risks to the operations staff and the public, resulted in a recommendation to provide either low pressure or medium pressure ultraviolet disinfection. Potential mitigation on environmental issues would be non-existent for this upgrade. The estimated cost by engineering consultants for the ultraviolet disinfection system is $3,931,100. Waste Activated Sludge To provide for increased waste activated sludge flows in the future, and to provide an effective long-term solution for waste activated sludge -thickening redundancy, a pre - manufactured rectangular dissolved air flotation thickener is recommended. The thickener would be constructed concurrently with the expansion of the Solids Handling Building This upgrade could result in mitigation for storm and ground water runoff. The estimated cost by engineering consultants for the rectangular dissolved air flotation thickener and associated support equipment is $1,338,600. Tririding Filter C!arifcr The long dormant and unused trickling filter clarifier is now needed for advanced treatment by the division. Food processing water was treated through the plant in 2000 for the first time. A pilot project tested the viability of this concept and the results indicate that the plant is capable of treating this waste and the process needs this clarifier. The potential impacts to the environment are non-existent due to the lack of any real construction effort for this upgrade. This endeavor would require simple refurbishing with no mitigation needed. The clarifier needs rehabilitation to maximize its treatment efficiency. The estimated cost by staff for rehabilitation and associated support equipment is $80,000. CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT/ ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.0 Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences The source of all information in this chapter is the City of Yakima Wastewater Facilities Plan, October, 2000, as amended April, 2001. Additionally. a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) was also filed for this document on October 3, 2000. 3.1 Land Use/Important Farmland/Formally Classified Lands 3.1.1 Affected Environment A. Existing and Adjacent Land Use The City of Yakima Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant sets upon a parcel of land that has definite boundaries. To the West is Interstate 82, running the entire length of the parcel. To the South is a parcel of land that is state owned. The Yakima River constitutes the Eastern boundary, while the North has State Road 24 and two commercial businesses, K -Mart and Woodpecker Truck of Washington, adjoining the City's property. Those portions of the Wastewater Facilities Plan that involve improvements, upgrades or installation of sewer collection pipes all fall within the boundaries of the Urban Reserve area that forecasts urban buildout. The collection system will extend into these areas as development continues. B. Important Farmland/Affected Environment The Wastewater Facilities Plan would affect the land that is currently owned by the City of Yakima. Most of the proposed additions and upgrades utilize the existing land currently occupied by wastewater systems. On those projects where alternate land is needed for expansion, the now abandoned industrial waste �nro��o1.�J �h..+exists to the East of,.�_ _�__. (90 spay „G,d that the plant acres, City -owned) is available for these purposes. It is unknown at this time what, if any, effects will be to land where sewer collection upgrades or installations will be. C. Formally Classified Lands/Affected Environment Formally classified lands include certain properties that are either administered by Federal, State, or local agencies or have been accorded special protection through formal legislative designations. There are no lands involved that meet this classification near the wastewater plant. It is unknown if any future sewer collection pipes will pass through any such designated lands. 3.1.2 Environmental Consequences No significant adverse effects are anticipated at this time. As specific projects are funded, designed and permitted, any environmental consequences will be fully evaluated under applicable laws, including SEPA and NEPA. 3.1.3 Mitigation No mitigation is offered at this time. As specific projects are funded, designed and permitted, the potential need for mitigation will be fully evaluated under applicable laws. 3.2 Floodplain The outfall for the plant effluent lies within the 100 -year floodplain. The remainder of the plant has been constructed above the 100 -year floodplain. Reference has been made to a 500 -year floodplain study for the purposes of this report. Utilizing the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the City of Yakima as distributed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Community -Panel Number 530311 0008 B, map revision date March 2, 1998, the Yakima Wastewater Plant and the surrounding area falls outside the 500 -year floodplain. 3.2.1 Affected Environment Approximately half of the land available East of the treatment plant falls under the 100 -year floodplain designation. However, upgrades and improvements over the next 20 years, as outlined in the Wastewater Facilities Plan, have sufficient land space available outside of the 100 -year floodplain to accommodate any planned construction effort. It is difficult to predict all future sewer collection pipe installation. All attempts will be made to ensure proper environmental protocol when dealing with any trans - floodplain crossings. 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences No significant adverse effects are anticipated at this time. As specific projects are funded, designed and permitted, any environmental consequences will be fully evaluated under applicable laws, including SEPA and NEPA. 3.2.3 Mitigation No mitigation is offered at this time. As specific projects are funded, designed and permitted, the potential need for mitigation will be fully evaluated under applicable laws. 3.3 Wetlands 3.3.1 Affected Environment There are wetland areas along the Yakima River and to the South of the treatment plant lands. However, there will be no impact to these areas as they hnrriar the periphery of the City's parral Any construction nr improvement far .��•• ... , �••p-••�•3 ... ...�. ... ... y.. .ys.._5.�__.y_. _e improvement is see removed from these areas. It is difficult to predict all future sewer collection pipe installation. All attempts will be made to ensure proper environmental protocol when dealing with any wetland crossings. 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences There will be no alteration to or affect on the wetland areas due to facility upgrades at the wastewater treatment plant. Further, no significant adverse effects are anticipated at this time due to sewer collection pipe construction. As specific projects are funded, designed and permitted, any environmental consequences will be fully evaluated under applicable laws, including SEPA, NE'A and the ...leaf i 'v"vvater Act. 3.3.3 Mitigation No mitigation is offered at this time. As specific projects are funded, designed and permitted, the potential need for mitigation will be fully evaluated under annlirahlc mule 3.4Cultural Resources 3.4.1 Affected Environment A. Historical Properties The site of any improvements to the wastewater treatment plant has no known historical resources where cultural impacts could occur. The plant has existed at the present location since 1936, and in that time, has uncovered no evidence of culturally significant resources. It is difficult to predict all future sewer collection pipe installation. All attempts will be made to ensure proper cultural resources protocol when dealing with collector construction. B. Visual Aesthetics The wastewater treatment plant is on the edge of the boundary of the City limits. The 4 phases as outlined in the Wastewater Facilities Plan add new buildings, equipment and collections piping. None of these improvements should add or detract from the current level of aesthetics at the wastewater plant. The tallest buildings that are in existence now at the plant are roughly 35 feet high. None of the new additions will be any higher than current structures. 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences The location of the plant in relation to the river would suggest that no historical properties exist or are known at this time at the wastewater treatment plant site. Further, no significant adverse effects are anticipated at this time due to sewer collection pipe construction. Finally, no significant adverse effects to visual aesthetics are anticipated at this time. As specific projects are funded, designed and permitted, any environmental consequences will be fully evaluated under applicable laws, including SEPA, NEPA and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). 3.4.3 Mitigation. No mitigation is offered at this time. As specific projects are funded, designed and permitted, the potential need for mitigation will be fully evaluated under applicable laws. 3.5 Biological Resources 3.5.1 Affected Environment A. Threatened and Endangered Species The following threatened or endangered fish and wildlife species may have habitat near the wastewater plant: Bald Eagle Ferruginous Hawk Golden Eagle Great Blue Heron Prairie Falcon Ring Neck Snake Salmon Steelhead The following threatened or endangered vegetation species may also be of concern on or near the plant: Columbia milk -vetch Clustered lady's-slipper Basalt Daisy Kalm's lobelia Hoover's desert -parsley Pale blue-eyed grass Hoover's tauschia Information available at this time does not indicate significant adverse effects to threatened or endangered fish, wildlife or vegetation. However, additional information will ll be collected to evaluate and address any potential project- specific effects to threatened or endangered species, and, as appropriate, consultation with the relevant agencies will be undertaken. B. Fish and Wildlife Near the wastewater plant, there are many birds, mammals and fish. The hawk, heron, eagle, various songbirds, ducks and pheasants have all been observed in this locale. Also present are deer, beaver, skunks and coyote. Trout, Bass and Salmon complete a list of fish near the plant. C. Vegetation There are many types of flora near the wastewater plant. Both deciduous and evergreen trees are within the plant environ along with grass, scrubs, and other vegetation. Water plants such as the water lily and milfoi! are present as well as wet soil plants like the cattail and buttercup. 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences No significant adverse effects are anticipated at this time. As specific projects are funded, designed and permitted, any environmental consequences will be fully evaluated under applicable laws, including SEPA and NEPA. Additionally, where required by the Endangered Species Act (ESA), relevant federal and state agencies will be consulted regarding any potential effects to threatened or endangered species. 3.5.3 Mitigation No mitigation is offered at this time. As specific projects are funded, designed and permitted, the potential need for mitigation will be fully evaluated under applicable laws. 3.6 Water Quality 3.6.1 Affected Environment The treatment plant is located approximately 500 feet from the Yakima River. Any effects from this facilities plan will be temporary with no long-term effects expected. In regard to the discharge of wastewater to the environment, the improvements described in the Plan are intended to maintain or improve effluent quality while still accommodating increased population in the region served by the facility. 3.6.2 Environmental Consequences None of the specific facilities projects discussed in the Plan are expected to degrade water quality. The Plant's effluent will continue meet Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) standards pursuant to provisions of its NPDES permit issued by the Washington Dept. of Ecology. However, as specific projects are funded, designed and permitted, any environmental consequences will be fully evaluated under applicable laws, including SEPA, NEPA and the CWA. 3.6.3 Mitigation No mitigation is offered at this time. However, these specific projects may require mitigation: Septage Handling, Primary Treatment Alternatives, Return Activated Sludge / Waste Activated Sludge Pumping, Secondary Clarifier, Aeration Basins, and Waste Activated Sludge. As these specific projects are funded, designed and permitted, the potential need for mitigation will be fully evaluated under applicable laws. 3.7 Coastal Lands The Wastewater Facility Plan upgrades are located approximately 200 miles inland and do not fall under the purview of the Washington Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), which applies to the 15 coastal counties in the state of Washington. 3.8 Socioeconomic/Environmental Justice 3.8.1 Affected Environment As with any wastewater treatment plant, operations, if not controlled, could have limited effects on the plant site, the Yakima River and neighboring properties. 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences No significant adverse effects are anticipated at this time. Likewise, no disproportionate effects on low-income populations, minority populations or Indian tribes are anticipated at this time. As specific projects are funded, designed and permitted, any environmental consequences and related effects will be fully evaluated under all applicable laws and regulations, including SEPA and NEPA. 3.8.3 Mitigation Mitigation for plant operations has included, and will continue to include, ..i.r n..l: n..nww .. .ii{n alt •Far An. n 4a irw,rawwiw w.J L...-........ •.. ..12C1. v. -ma 3032663p66a:3663aa 3 3:66 063 30U06 60a41.323 03330332.0 3323 3566-023.0 23I 11.70%.40, au:6a.t w's 33ma:. E3.° a`s 3133.3 a;.33:. limitations for discharges to the Yakima River, and odor control systems and practices that ensure that the plant does not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring properties. Accordingly, no additional mitigation is offered at this time. However, as specific projects are funded, designed and permitted, the potential need for mitigation will be fully evaluated under all applicable laws and regulations. 3.9 Miscellaneous Issues 3.9.1.1 Air Quality - Affected Environment As with any wastewater treatment plant, construction and operation activities, if not controlled, could result in limited air emissions on the plant site and to neighboring properties. 3.9.1.2 Air Quality -Environmental Consequences No significant adverse effects are anticipated at this time. Potential on-site air emissions, if not controlled, would be temporary, including dust and fuel emissions associated with construction activities and odors from plant operations. Potential off-site air emissions, if not controlled, would likewise be temporary, including odors from plant operations. Additionally, as specific projects are funded, designed and permitted, any environmental consequences will be fully evaluated under applicable laws, including SEPA and NEPA. 3.9.1.3 Air Quality - Mitigation Mitigation for any potential off-site air impacts has included, and will continue to include, odor control systems and practices that ensure that the plant does not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring properties. Accordingly, no additional mitigation is offered at this time. However, as specific projects are funded, designed and permitted, the potential need for mitigation will be fully evaluated under applicable laws. For example, any designs considered will minimize air emissions. Further, as a routine matter, building permit conditions include watering as the primary dust control measure for construction activity. These specific projects may require mitigation: Return Activated Sludge / Waste Activated Sludge Pumping, Secondary Clarifier, and Aeration Basins. 3.9.2.1 Transportation Affected Environment There is one route to the wastewater treatment facility. A construction project to enlarge Highway 24 and change the access route to the plant is waiting for Washington Department of Transportation final approval. The proposed facility improvements might generate more transportation needs than the current road infrastructure. One possible increase might be from trucks accessing the planned septage handling facility. However, the completion of the Highway 24 expansion should be able to accommodate this influx. 3.9.2.2 Transportation — Environmental Consequences No significant adverse effects are anticipated at this time. As specific projects are funded, designed and permitted, any environmental consequences will be fully evaluated under applicable laws, including SEPA and NEPA. 3.9.2.3 Transportation — Mitigation No mitigation is offered at this time. As specific projects are funded, designed and permitted, the potential need for mitigation will be fully evaluated under applicable laws. However, in anticipation of potential mitigation, the Septage Handling alternative project may need discussion under this SERP section. 3.9.3.1 Noise — Affected Environment Our wastewater treatment plant generates little noise. Because the facility is located in an area where interstate traffic is regularly operating, the impact of short-term construction noise will be negligible. 3.9.3.2 Noise — Environmental Consequences No significant adverse effects are anticipated at this time. As specific projects are funded, designed and permitted, any environmental consequences will be fully evaluated under applicable laws, including SEPA and NEPA. 3.9.3.3 Noise — Mitigation No mitigation is offered at this time. As specific projects are funded, designed and permitted, the potential need for mitigation will be fully evaluated under applicable laws. 4.0 Summary of Mitigation Because this Environmental Report concludes that no significant adverse environmental effects are anticipated as a result of approval of the Wastewater Facilities Plan, no additional mitigation measures are planned at this time beyond those already in place for the existing facility and operations. As specific projects identified in the Plan are funded, designed and permitted, the potential need for mitigation will be fully evaluated under all appropriate laws and regulations. We will include any letters or correspondence that relate to the submission to and review by SEPA lead agency of the SEPA checklist, correspondence relating to submission to DOE of the Facilities Plan, and any other correspondence relating to coordination of environmental review with state or federal agencies. 6.0 Exhibits City of Yakima Mandatory Wastewater Facilities Plan, State Environmental Policy Act October 3, 2000. Correspondence from the State of Washington Office of A•rchaeology and I"l•••••• ric Preservation, September 24, 2001. Correspondence from the Yakima Clean Air Authority, October 5, 2001. STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 1063 S. Capitol Way•Suite 106 • PO Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 • (360) 586-3065 Fax Number (360) 586-3067 September 24, 2001 Mr. Scott Stockton Wastewater Division Department of City Management 2220 East Viola Yakima, Washington 98901 Log No.: 091101 -15 -RD Re: Yakima Regina WWF Dear Mr. Stockton: We have reviewed the materials forwarded to our office for the above referenced project. A search of our records indicates the area has the potential for unrecorded archaeological resources. We recommend you conduct a professional archaeological survey of the identified project impact areas. We also recommend consultation with the concerned tribe regarding cultural resource issues. If federal funds or permits are involved Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations must be followed. These comments are based on the information available at the time of this review and on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer. Should additional information become available, our assessment may be revised. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. Sincerely, Robert G. Whitlam, Ph.D. State Archaeologist (360) 586-3080 Email: robw@cted.wa.gov akima Regional Clean Air Authority October 5, 2001 Six South 2nd Street, Suite 1016, Yakima, WA 98901 Mr. Scott Stockton, Assistant Manager nity of Yakima Department of the City Management, Wastewater Division 2220 E. Viola Yakima, WA 98901 Dear Mr. Stockton; (509) 574-1410 • Fax: (509) 574-1411 This letter is in response to your letter of September 13, 2001 requesting comments on the 2000 Wastewater Facilities Plan. The Authority has the following comments: Section 1.1 - Project Description - The Authority requests air quality modeling for the NEPA and / or SEPA review for the air quality for the project design phase analysis. Section 3.9.1 - Air Quality • If the capacity of the Yakima Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant is expanded a new source review will be needed as required by YRCAA Regulation 1, Section 4.02. • If the processes are changed at the treatment plant a new source review, as required by YRCAA Regulation 1 §4.02, may also be required. • This project is Targe enough and may present enough public concern, that air quality dispersion modeling may be needed. Please contact Tom Silva, Senior Engineer, at 574-1410 to determine applicability of the new source review and any other air quality analysis work that may be needed. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the plan. Sincerely, Les Ornelas AirAir PnIIt itinn nr,ntrnl rlffiner ........ vve.e,e ve veeevve cc: Tom Silva, YRCAA !chasm/wpfiles/permitting/SEPA/City_of_Yakima/wastewater_pian_03octO1 Page 1 of 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 15 West Yakima Avenue, Suite 200 • Yakima, Washington 98902-3452 • (509) 575-2490 January 7, 2002 Scott Stockton City of Yakima — Wastewater Division 2220 E. Viola Yakima, WA 98901 RE: Wastewater Facility Plan SERP Environmental Report Dear Mr. Stockton: Your address is in the Lower Yakima watershed Ecology has received your Wastewater Facility Plan State Environmental Review Process (SERP) Environmental Report. In response to the SERP, Ecology has the following comments regarding environmental impacts of the proposed improvements. 1. Ecology concurs with the assessment of the Environmental Report that the net impact of the proposed improvements will be to protect water quality in the Yakima River by providing adequate treatment wastewater discharge. However the construction activities have the potential to generate adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, to mitigate these impacts: The design and construction documents prepared for this project will include standard construction mitigation measures to control temporary impacts on transportation, earth, air quality, water quality, and noise. If you have any questions regarding this letter or any other water quality concerns, please feel free to contact me at (509) 454-7846. Water Quality Program DD:wv 02-0107-1 e agralo 18 CITY OF YAKIMA WASTEWATER DIVISION 2220 East Viola Yakima, Washington 98901 Phone: 575-6077 • Fax (509) 575-6116 February 14, 2002 State of Washington Department of Ecology 15 West Yakima Avenue, Suite 200 Yakima Washington 98902-3452 Attn: Mr. David Dunn RE: Finalization of SERP Responses to Yakima's Mandated 2000 Wastewater Facility Plan In an attempt to demonstrate a good faith effort in obtaining comments from all potentially interested government agencies concerning the our State Environmental Review Process (SERP) on our Wastewater Facility Plan, the following list is submitted with explanations: Yakama Nation Mailed SERP using certified mail. Follow-up phone call No response to mailing or phone call. NRCS Mailed SERP. Follow-up phone call with Mr Allan Faulk No concerns or problems with the SERP document. NOAA National Marine Fisheries Mailed SERP. Follow-up phone call. No response to eithe w buubr 11114lurGO. Yakima Clean Air Authority Mailed SERP. Response letter from Les Omelas dated Oct. 5, 2001. Comments consisted of a request for air quality monitoring for the project design phase, call for air quality review and source review if the plant capacity changes from this project, air quality dispersion modeling may be needed if the project is large enough or if enough public concern is present. Washington State Office of Archaeology & Historic Preservation Mailed SERP using certified mad. Response letter from Dr. Robert Whitlam dated September 24, 2001. Comments related the possible need for a professional archeological survey of the proposed project area. In addition, a recommendation for consultation with local tribes about the project was indicated. Washington State Dept. of Ecology, Yakima Mailed SERP. Response letter from David Dunn dated January 7, 2002. Comments specify project must include standard construction mitigation measures to control temporary impact to transportation, earth, air quality, water quality and noise. Washington State Dept. of Ecology, Olympia Marled SERP. No response. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle Mailed SERP. Follow-up phone call. No response to either inquiries. Washington State Department of Wildlife Mailed SERP. Follow up phone call. No response to either inquiries. This completes the list of mailings and contact attempt toward this process. at 575-6077 if questions arise concerning this issue. Very truly yours, Assistant Wastewater Manager Contact me BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. 11 For Meeting Of March 5, 2002 ITEM TITLE: Request for Council Action on the 2000 Wastewater Facilities Pian and the 2001 Wastewater Cost of Service and Rate Study SUBMITTED BY: Dick Zais; City Manager Glenn Rice; Assistant City Manager Rita Anson; Finance Director Doug Mayo; Wastewater Manager CONTACT PERSON/TELEPHONE: Doug Mayo 575-6077 SUMMARY EXPLANATION: The Mandated Wastewater Facilities Plan was the subject of a Council Study Session in November 2000. A second study session was held January 15, 2002 on both the 2000 Mandated Wastewater Facilities Plan (Facilities Plan) and the 2001 Cost pf Service and Rate Study (COS). These Studies analyze the financial condition, needs, requirements, and mandates of the wastewater operating and capital funds and recommend actions and new wastewater rates to meet those conditions. (continued) Resolution 2 Ordinance 1 Other (Specify) Contract Mail to (name and address): Funding Source All wastewater Gust r Masses APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: a `s >' City Manager Phone STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff respectfully requests City Council to: 1) adopt, by resolution, the 2000 Wastewater Facilities Plan; and 2) adopt, by resolution, the 2001 Wastewater Cost of Service and rate Study; and 3) enact, by ordinance, the 2001 Wastewater Cost of Service recommendations as approved by Council. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: COUNCIL ACTION: 2001 COS agenda 2/28/02 (Continued from front page) An open record Public Hearing on the 2000 Mandated Wastewater Facilities Pian and the 2001 Cost of Service and Rate Study was conducted on February 5, 2002. This Public Hearing was continued on February 19, 2002. After receiving Public Testimony_ Council deliberated the recommendations of the 2001 Cost of Service and Rate Study and made appropriate amendments. These recommendations as amended included: o Pretreatment - Section 6 The COS recommended that approval be given to hire additional staff and purchase equipment, when needed, to perform the mandated duties as outlined in this section. This may include one permit writer and two field personnel. The COS would initiate a Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) reduction program as part of the pretreatment program as staff and equipment become available. This Ordinance establishes fees for sampling, testing and other related services as shown on Table 6-3 and 6-6 of the COS. These rates would be charged for required testing of Significant industrial Users (SIU's), requested testing and testing done for entities outside the City. However, businesses within the City limits would be charged only 75% shown for in-house services. The balance is included within the proposed City retail rate. The rates in the ordinance were set at 2002 levels and adjusted 3% for inflation for each subsequent year. The COS continues a cost to conduct the Minor Industrial User (MIU) program as outlined Table 6-2 of the COS. Businesses within the City limits would be charged only 75% of the full cost rate. The balance is included within the proposed City retail rate. The adopted rates adjustment for MIU's was: • n...,+...-,.,+.w,.e„,„4. _ Celt-+inn6 ( i irifiv city (includes 25% cost share) Current Rate: $35.70 $27.00 Proposed Rate: $60.00 $45.00 Increase % 68% 67% • Non -Owner Domestic Retail (County) - Section 7 The adopted rate adjustment was: Ready to Serve Volume/OUC Increase @ 10 UOC Existing: $16.01 $2.86 $44.61 Proposed Rate: $18.25 $3.26 $50.85 Increase %: 14% 14% 14% • Non -Owner Retail Strong Waste - Section 8: Rates remained unchanged: BOD/Ib. (decrease) Existing: TSS/Ib. (decrease) $0.502 $0.493 • Septage Waste - Section 81 The adopted rate adjustment was: $/Gallon Septage Increase/1,000 Gallons Existing: $0.284 $284.00 Proposed Rate: $0.316 $316.00 Increase %: 11.27% $32.00 These adjustments create a "full cost" rate with no direct subsidy by city retail ratepayers. • Municipal Wholesale Customers - Section 9: No Council action required in this section. Rates are governed by a 4 -Party Agreement and subsequent written clarifications. • Food Processing Wastewater/Industrial Waste Customers - Section 10: This customer class no longer exists. Therefore, these rates are deleted from the ordinance. • City Strong Waste Retail Customers - Section 11: The adopted rate adjustment was: BOD/Ib. (% increase) Existing: $0.230 Phase 1(2002): $0.244 Phase 2(2003): $0.259 Phase 3(2004): $0.275 Phase 4(2005): $0.293 6.1 % 6.1 % 6.2% 6.5% TSS/Ib. (%increase) $0.150 $0.178 $0.212 $0.252 $0.299 18.7% 19.1% 18.9% 18.7% Council elected to implement this rate adjustment in four equal annual increases. When complete, these adjustments create a "full cost" rate with no direct subsidy by city retail ratepayers. 2001 COS agenda 2Al2 City Retail Customers — Section 12: The adopted rate adjustment was: Ready to Serve Volume/OUC Increase @1O UOC Existing: $ 8.33 $1.49 $23.23 * 2% for PWTF * $ 8.50 $1.49 $23.40 Adopted Rate: $11.48 $2.01 $31.58 This Increase %: 35.1% 34.9% 35 0% * Total increase %:* 37.8% 34.9% 35.9% * By resolution R-2000-66, Council previously obligated a 2% increase in the Ready -to - Serve charge for debt service on a PWTF loan that assisted financing of Phase 1 of the Fruitvale Neighborhood Sewer -Water Project. The 2% increase is included in this adjustment. The proposed ordinance also includes some minor language adjustments for clarification and compatibility with other City ordinances. 2001 COS agenda 2t28/02