Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-2004-112 Washington State Department of Transportation Settlement AgreementRESOLUTION NO. R-2004- 112 A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to execute a Lead Agency Agreement and Settlement Agreement with the Washington State Department of Transportation involving the environmental review process for the SR -24 Bridge Project. WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) have proposed a project on I-82 and SR 24 within the City of Yakima and Yakima County, including a new bridge on SR 24; and WHEREAS, the City had concerns about how the new SR 24 bridge project and some associated work on nearby levees would affect the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant; and WHEREAS, the City and WSDOT each sought lead agency status under SEPA concerning the SR 24 bridge project; and WHEREAS, the City and WSDOT believe that it would be in the interests of the entire community to work jointly to resolve environmental review issues related to the SR 24 bridge project; and WHEREAS, the City and WSDOT have agreed to share lead agency status under SEPA concerning the bridge project; and WHEREAS, the City and WSDOT have also agreed that if the bridge project negatively impacts the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant, WSDOT and other agencies, including the City of Yakima, will each pay a "fair share" of the cost of fixing any problems; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems this agreement to be in the best interest of the City of Yakima, now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA: The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute the attached and incorporated Lead Agency and Settlement Agreement. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 20th day of July, 2004. AI LEST: Paul P. George, 3 r Karen S. Roberts, City Clerk LEAD AGENCY AGREEMENT AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Between the Washington State Department of Transportation and the City of Yakima I. Nature of Agreement. This agreement serves two purposes. First, it is a lead agency agreement under the State Environmental Policy Act, by which the City of Yakima (hereinafter "the City" or "Yakima") and the Washington State Department of Transportation (hereinafter "WSDOT") agree to act as joint lead agencies for the proposed State Route 24 project. Second, this agreement is a binding and enforceable settlement agreement by which the City and WSDOT resolve and settle their differences with regard to application of the State Environmental Policy Act to the SR 24 project and other related and foreseeable actions. II. Background A. WSDOT has proposed a transportation capacity, congestion relief, and safety project on I-82 and SR 24 within the City of Yakima and Yakima County. The scope of the construction elements for the project include but are not limited to widening SR 24 from two lanes to four lanes along the existing alignment, replacement of the SR 24 bridge over the Yakima River, a new overpass structure over I-82, ramp widening, bicycle/pedestrian facilities, intersection upgrades, and access modifications. B. This proposal was redesigned to facilitate a Yakima County proposal to relocate flood control levees in the vicinity of the proposed SR 24 bridge. In the environmental documents prepared by WSDOT for the SR 24 project, including the recently produced Conceptual Mitigation Plan, WSDOT states that the SR 24 project has the ability to facilitate floodplain restoration, flood risk reduction, water quality enhancement and habitat restoration associated with levee relocation. WSDOT further states that levee relocation is "reasonable and foreseeable." The cumulative impacts of the bridge and relocating the levees, however, may be significantly adverse to the flood control levee adjacent to the City's wastewater treatment plant and/or the wastewater treatment plant outfall. C. On April 9, 2004, WSDOT issued a Determination of Nonsignificance for the SR 24 project. The City commented on the DNS, asserting, among other things, that the DNS was inadequate and inappropriate. The City's primary concern was with the scope of the DNS and its failure to discuss and evaluate the possible impact on the City's wastewater treatment plant from the bridge and relocating the levees. D. On April 23, 2004, the City notified WSDOT that it had assumed "lead agency" status for the SR 24 project under WAC 197-11-948 and thereafter issued a Determination of Significance for the SR 24 project. E. On May 7, 2004, WSDOT filed a petition with the Department of Ecology disputing the City's assumption of lead agency status and asking that Ecology determine the appropriate lead agency for the SR 24 project. This petition was filed pursuant to WAC 197-11-946. The City responded with comments on the Petition filed on May 17, 2004. Lead Agency Agreement and Settlement Agreement WSDOT and City of Yakima Page 1 of 4 F. Thereafter, the parties have engaged in discussions attempting to resolve the dispute. The parties entered into a Standstill Agreement on May 19, 2004, by which they jointly asked that the Department of Ecology refrain from issuing a lead agency determination in response to WSDOT's lead agency petition while the parties engaged in settlement discussions. G. With this Agreement, as discussed below, the City and WSDOT (hereinafter "the Parties") agree to share lead agency status for the SR 24 project. The Parties have agreed to several mitigation conditions identified here and have determined that, if these conditions are satisfied, the proposal will not cause significant adverse impacts on the environment. III. Lead Agency Status A. WSDOT and Yakima hereby agree that this Agreement shall constitute, in part, a "Lead Agency Agreement" under WAC 197-11-944, by which lead agency status shall be shared between WSDOT and the City. WSDOT shall be the "nominal" lead agency responsible for complying with the duties of the lead agency under the SEPA rules. However, both parties agree that no threshold determination or other SEPA document shall be issued for the SR 24 project without agreement and consent of the co -lead agencies. B. Yakima's withdrawal of its Assumption of Lead Agency Status set forth in ¶ II(D) above shall be ineffective and this Lead Agency Agreement shall be void if an agency with jurisdiction objects to the City and WSDOT's sharing lead agency status. IV. Issuance of Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance A. Attached to this Agreement as Exhibit 1 is a Mitigated Determination of Nonsignficance (MDNS). The City and WSDOT agree that this MDNS shall be issued by WSDOT as the nominal lead agency without any changes or amendments except those agreed to by the City. If either party proposes to make any changes to the MDNS, it shall present such proposed changes to the other party and obtain agreement to the change(s) prior to issuing the MDNS. B. Issuance of the attached MDNS shall rescind the Notice of Assumption of Lead Agency Status issued by the City on April 23, 2004, and the Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice issued by the City on May 7, 2004. C. Issuance of the attached MDNS shall rescind the Determination of Nonsignificance issued by WSDOT on April 9, 2004, and the Lead Agency Petition it filed with the Department of Ecology on May 7, 2004. V. Other Provisions A. The City has incurred significant costs in commenting on environmental documents prepared for SR 24 and in assuming lead agency status for the project. WSDOT agrees to negotiate with the City and to pay a reasonable portion of these costs through execution of this agreement. Lead Agency Agreement and Settlement Agreement WSDOT and City of Yakima Page 2 of 4 B. WSDOT and the City agree that the SR 24 project requires a number of City permits prior to construction. These include but are not limited to shoreline permit(s) and a critical areas permit. In such permits, the City shall include the conditions in the MDNS attached as Exhibit 1 to this Agreement. WSDOT acknowledges this intent and agrees not to object to the permits based on these conditions. Nothing herein limits the City's authority to impose additional conditions it deems necessary and that are not addressed in this agreement and MDNS. VI. Dispute Resolution and Enforcement. In the event that any dispute arises between the Parties regarding the interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement, including but not limited to the terms of the MDNS, such dispute shall be resolved between the Parties as follows: A. The Parties shall first attempt to resolve such dispute by good faith negotiations. Good faith negotiations shall include but not be limited to discussions between key WSDOT and City representatives and, if unsuccessful, face-to-face discussions between the Secretary of Transportation and the City Manager. If any dispute cannot be resolved by direct negotiations within twenty-one (21) days or such longer time as is mutually agreed by the Parties, the Parties shall then attempt in good faith to resolve such dispute through mediation. B. The Parties shall jointly select a mediator within fifteen (15) days after receipt of either Party's request for mediation. The Parties and the mediator may adopt any procedures and timeframe appropriate for promptly resolving the dispute, though this process may not continue beyond thirty (30) days without the consent of both Parties. The contents of all communications made in the course of the mediation shall be confidential and shall not be discoverable or admissible in any subsequent court proceeding. The mediator's fees and expenses shall be divided equally between the Parties. C. In the event the Parties are unable to reach a resolution through the services of the mediator, either Party may bring an action in Yakima County. ,Supeyior Court to resolve the dispute and/or enforce the terms of this Agreement. VII. Miscellaneous Provisions. A. Governing Law. This Agreement and the obligations of the Parties hereto shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. B. Construction. This Agreement shall not be construed against the Party preparing it, but will be construed as if prepared jointly by the Parties. This Agreement was freely and jointly negotiated by both Parties. C. Entire Agreement. This Agreement and its attachments contain the entire understanding among the Parties relating to the lead agency status of the SR 24 project. It supersedes any prior negotiations or representations, whether oral or written, relating to these issues. Lead Agency Agreement and Settlement Agreement WSDOT and City of Yakima Page 3 of 4 D. Authority of Signing Parties. Each person signing this Agreement represents and warrants that he or she is duly authorized to enter into this Agreement by the entity on whose behalf the person is signing. E. Multiple Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. The effective date of this Agreement shall be the date upon which both parties have executed the document. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have read all of this Agreement, fully understand it, and have caused this Agreement to be duly executed. Executed this O day of July, 2004 By Don Whitehouse, P.E. SCR Regional Administrator Washington State Department of Transportation Executed this AN'�e�, day of July, 2004 By R. A. Zais, Jr. City Manager City of Yakima erax raw _on`IlAft Lead Agency Agreement and Settlement Agreement WSDOT and City of Yakima Page 4 of 4 WASHINGTON STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE AND ADOPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS FOR SR 24 I-82 TO KEYS ROAD Description of current proposal: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) have proposed a transportation capacity, congestion relief, and safety project on I-82 and SR 24 within the City of Yakima and Yakima County. The scope of the construction elements for the project include, but are not limited to: widening SR 24 from two lanes to four lanes along the existing alignment, the replacement of the SR 24 bridge over the Yakima River, a new overpass structure over I-82, ramp widening, bicycle / pedestrian facilities, intersection upgrades, and access modifications. This proposal was redesigned to facilitate a Yakima County proposal to relocate flood control levees in the vicinity of the proposed SR 24 bridge. In the environmental documents prepared by WSDOT for the SR 24 project, including the recently produced Conceptual Mitigation Plan, WSDOT states that the SR 24 project has the ability to facilitate floodplain restoration, flood risk reduction, water quality enhancement and habitat restoration associated with levee relocation. WSDOT further states that levee relocation is "reasonable, and foreseeable." The cumulative impacts of the bridge and relocating the levees, however, may be significantly adverse to the flood control levee adjacent to the City's wastewater treatment plant and/or the wastewater treatment plant outfall. By separate agreement, the City and WSDOT (hereinafter "the Parties") have agreed to share lead agency status for the SR 24 project. The Parties have identified several mitigation conditions, identified here, and have determined that if these conditions are satisfied the proposal will not cause significant adverse impacts to the environment. Proponents: The Washington State Department of Transportation SEPA lead agency(ies): The Washington State Department of Transportation City of Yakima Location of current proposal, including street address if any: The proposed project starts within the City of Yakima (MP -0.15) along its western boundary and continues east to approximately Riverside Road (MP 1.53) within unincorporated Yakima County, Sections 28 and 29, Township 14N, Range 19E, W.M., Yakima County, Washington. Environmental information considered: The NEPA EA and FONSI and the SEPA documents prepared by WSDOT for the SR 24, I-82 to Keys Road project, including all referenced analyses, studies and reports and all comments thereon are hereby incorporated by reference. 1 The documents are available to be read at (place/time): The Yakima Valley Regional Library, City of Yakima Branch, 102 North Third Street. Please call (509) 452-8541 for their regular business hours. The documents are also available at the Washington State Department of Transportation South Central Region in Union Gap, Washington. Please call ahead to reserve a time to review documents at (509) 577-1600 or (509) 577-1715. The documents can also be reviewed at the City of Yakima, 129 N. Second Street, Yakima, WA 98901. Effect of issuance of MDNS: Issuance of this MDNS shall rescind several previously issued environmental documents issued under SEPA for the SR 24 project. These documents are the Notice of Assumption of Lead Agency Status issued by the City on April 23, 2004, the Determination of Significance and Scoping Notice issued by the City on May 7, 2004, the Determination of Nonsignificance issued by WSDOT on April 3, 2004, and the Petition for Lead Agency Determination submitted by WSDOT to Ecology on May 7, 2004. Findings: The responsible officials for the lead agencies find that the above-described proposal will not have probable significant adverse impacts on the environment, provided that the specified mitigation measures (listed below) are incorporated into the proposal and are applied as conditions of required permits consistent with WAC 197-11-350. Required mitigation measures are as follows: 1. WSDOT shall develop a monitoring plan by which WSDOT will monitor the impact of the new bridge, including but not limited to removal of the old bridge and construction and operation of the new bridge, on the downstream, west bank flood control levee from the new bridge to a point adjacent to the City of Yakima Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), and on the WWTP outfall. WSDOT shall submit the monitoring plan to the City for review and approval and shall implement the approved monitoring plan and provide monitoring results to the City on a periodic basis. Prior to construction, WSDOT will conduct monitoring to establish existing conditions. Monitoring will be conducted for 10 years after bridge construction is complete. 2. If monitoring identifies adverse impacts to the flood control levee or WWTP outfall that are caused exclusively by the bridge, including but not limited to removal of the existing bridge and construction and operation of the new bridge, WSDOT shall be responsible for all necessary mitigation. 3. If monitoring identifies adverse impacts to the flood control levee or WWTP outfall caused by the bridge and other related and foreseeable actions, WSDOT shall enter into an inter- agency agreement by which it will pay its "fair share" of mitigation costs based on proportionate impacts, with remaining costs to be shared with other responsible agencies, which may include the United States Bureau of Reclamation, the Federal Highway Administration, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Yakima County, the City of Yakima, the Flood Hazard Control District and various diking districts. WSDOT's obligation to pay its fair share of these mitigation costs is subject to legislative appropriation of adequate funds for this purpose. WSDOT agrees to work in good faith and use best efforts to obtain the necessary appropriation(s). "Best efforts" includes but is not limited to including these costs in any transportation budget submitted to the Office of Financial Management and/or to 2 legislative committees with jurisdiction. If at any point in the legislative or administrative process the required funds are deleted from the budget or the funding is reduced, WSDOT shall immediately notify the City and take all reasonable additional steps to ensure that the required funds are restored. The City of Yakima shall cooperate with and assist WSDOT in its efforts to obtain necessary funding. 4. WSDOT shall submit additional information required to complete applications for shoreline and critical areas. This MDNS is issued under WAC 197-11-350. The lead agencies will not act on the proposal for 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by August 3, 2004. Name of agency adopting document: The Washington State Department of Transportation City of Yakima Contact person and phone number: Gary Beeman, Environmental Program Manager South Central Region, WSDOT (509) 577-1750 and Bill Cook, Director, Community and Economic Development City of Yakima (509) 575-6040 Responsible official: Don Whitehouse, P.E., SCR Regional Administrator, WSDOT R. A. Zais, Jr., City Manager, City Of Yakima Signature/date: Don Whitehouse, P.E., SCR Regional Administrator, WSDOT R. A. Zais, Jr., City Manager, City of Yakima 129 North Second Street Yakima, WA 98901 car CONTRACT MO: a©6L1-1S iteso UTIOM MO: - v 3 BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. 2-0 For Meeting of July 20. 2004 ITEM TITLE: Consideration of Resolution Authorizing Execution of Lead Agency Agreement and Settlement Agreement with Washington State Department of Transportation SUBMITTED BY: Dick Zais, City Manager, and Raymond L. Paolella, City Attorney CONTACT PERSON/TELEPHONE: Dick Zais, City Manager (575-6040) and Raymond L. Paolella, City Attorney (575-6030) Pr SUMMARY EXPLANATION: The City of Yakima and the Washington State Department of Transportation ("WSDOT") have agreed to a settlement regarding the environmental review process for the SR -24 Bridge Project. The City had concerns about how the new bridge project and some associated work on nearby levees would affect the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant. The attached settlement agreement provides for joint lead agency status by the City and WSDOT. A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance has been issued by the City and WSDOT. Under the MDNS, WSDOT agrees to monitor the effects of the bridge project and levee relocation on the City's "outfall" and on the levee that keeps flood waters from getting to the Treatment Plant. Under the MDNS, if either the outfall or the flood control levee is negatively impacted, WSDOT and other agencies, including the City of Yakima, will each la ir_ a:f i share of the costs of fixing any problems. Now that the environment review issues have been resolved, WSDOT will next work with City staff to process all the necessary permits for the project. Once all the permits are issued, the way will be cleared for actual construction work on the new bridge to begin. Resolution X Ordinance Contract X Other (Specify) Funding Source APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: a City Manager STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution authorizing execution of settlement agreement. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: COUNCIL ACTION: Resolution adopted. RESOLUTION NO. R-2004-112. Jolitzt 1%Te7izsws Release City of Yakima & Washington State Dept. of Transportation Subject: SR -24/I-82 to Keys Road Project Agreement Contact: Yakima City Manager Dick Zais - 575-6040 WSDOT South Central Regional Administrator Don Whitehouse - 577-1620 Release Date: July 20th, 2004 City and WSDOT Reach Agreement on SR -24/I-82 to Keys Road Proiect The City of Yakima and the Washington State Dept. of Transportation ("WSDOT") have agreed to joint lead agency status in the environmental review of the SR -24/I-82 to Keys Road project to build a new interchange at 1-82 and Nob Hill Boulevard and a new bridge over the Yakima River. The new bridge will be located just south of the existing bridge. "The City had concerns about how the new bridge project and some potential future work on nearby levees would affect the City's wastewater treatment plant's "outfall" and the existing levee that protects the plant from flooding," said Yakima City Manager Dick Zais. The "outfall" is the point at which clean, treated water from the plant is reintroduced to the river. "Through negotiations, I'm confident we've been able to protect the interests of wastewater rate payers while keeping this vital project on track." By sharing lead agency status, the City and WSDOT were able to issue a Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance ("MDNS"), which states the proposal will not cause significant adverse impacts to the environment. "The hydraulics report, submitted by WSDOT, determined that the new bridge would have no significant impacts on the flood -control levee or the waste water treatment plant's 'outfall'," said WSDOT South Central Region Administrator Don Whitehouse. An agreement was reached Friday, under which WSDOT will implement a ten-year monitoring plan that will watch for impacts caused by the new bridge. If adverse effects do occur, WSDOT, the City, and other responsible agencies will pay a "fair share" of the cost of fixing the problems. "We were able to come to an agreement to keep this vital project moving ahead," said Whitehouse. "This project is going to improve the safety and capacity of SR -24 by eliminating traffic back-ups and replacing an old bridge that is subject to erosion," Whitehouse said. The SR 24/1-82 to Keys Road project is funded through completion with "nickel funds" that came out of the 2003 Legislative Transportation Funding Package. Now that environmental review process issues have been resolved, WSDOT will resume work with City staff to process all of the necessary permits for the project. Once all of the permits are issued, the way will be cleared for construction work. Design and property acquisition are on schedule for construction to begin in the spring of 2005. - end - State Route 24, I-82 to Keys Road YAKIMA COUNTY, WASHINGTON WSDOT PROJECT NUMBER OL -3549 FEDERAL AID NUMBER HP -0024(019) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NOVEMBER 2003 fial U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration IIW Wi"Washington State Department of Transportation ADT BA BO RMP BOR CAA CEA CEQ CFR cfs CWA dBA EA EB EIS EPA ESA FEMA FHWA ft GMA HAC' HAC2 HTRW LOS MP mph NAAQS NEPA NOAA NPDES ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Average Daily Traffic Biological Assessment Biological Opinion Best Management Practice U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Clean Air Act Cumulative Effects Analysis Counsel on Environmental Quality Code of Federal Regulation cubic feet per second Clean Water Act decibels Environmental Assessment East Bound Environmental Impact Statement Environmental Protection Agency Endangered Species Act Federal Emergency Management Administration Federal Highway Administration feet Growth Management Act Hydraulic Engineering Circulars `FHWAI High Accident Corridor Hazardous, Toxic, and Radiological Wastes Level of Service Mile post Miles per hour National Ambient Air Quality Standards National Environmental Policy Act National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRHP National Register of Historic Places OCD nuWM PM,o ROW RPM's SCR SEPA SMA SHPO SPPP SSP TDM TEST; TSM UGA USACE UTSFWS WB WDFW WDNR WSDOE WSDOT CFHMP YCFCZD Office of Community Development, Washington State Ordinary High Water Mark Particulate Matter of 10 microns Right of Way Reasonable and Prudent Measures South Central Region State Environmental Policy Act Shoreline Management Act State Historic Preservation Office Spill Prevention Pollution Plan Stormwater Site Plan Transportation Demand Management Erosion and Sediment Temporary n� Gsion �.,..r.=.�--� Control Plan Transportation System Management Urban Growth Area United States Army Corps of Engineers United States Fish and Wildlife Service West Bound Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife Washington Department of Natural Resources Washington State Department of Ecology Washington State Department of Transportation Yakima County Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan Yakima County Flood Control Zone District State Route 24, 1-82 to Keys Road YAKIMA COUNTY, WASHINGTON WSDOT PROJECT NUMBER OL -3549 FEDERAL AID NUMBER HP -0024(019) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2)(c) by the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION and the WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION e�U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 01-703 Date of Approval Date of Approval Washington State 01. Department of Transportation Mega ite, P.E. Direct T nvironmental Services Office Washington State Department of Transportation Michael A. Kulbacki, P.E. Transportation and Environmental Area Engineer Federal Highway Administration The following persons may be contacted for additional information: Michael A. Kulbacki, P.E. FHWA Area Engineer 711 So. Capital Way 501 Evergreen Plaza Olympia, WA. 98501 (360) 753-9556 Megan White, P.E. Director, Environmental Services Office Washington State Department of Transportation P.O. Box 47331 Olympia, WA 98504-7331 (360) 705-7480 Abstract: This document addresses the environmental consequences of a proposal to expand SR 24 from two to four lanes between milepost - 0.15 within the City of Yakima to approximant milepost 1.53 within Rural Yakima County. The document describes and compares the affects of the proposal onto the surrounding environment. A No -Action (No -Build) alternative and two build alternatives are analyzed in this document. Both build alternatives propose adding two additional lanes following the existing corridor. The primary difference between the two build alternatives is the length of the new Yakima River Bridge as it relates to foreseeable floodplain restoration actions in the area. Comments should be returned to either address no later than: December 19, 2003 SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ii Information Access for those with Disabilities Persons with disabilities may request this information be prepared and supplied in alternate forms by calling collect (206) 664-9009 or the WSDOT ADA Accommodations Hotline (collect) at (206) 389-2839. Persons with hearing impairments may access Washington State Telecommunications Relay Service (TTY) at 1-800-833-6388; Tele -Braille at 1-800-833-6385; or Voice at 1-800-833- 6384 and ask to be connected to (360) 705-7097. Civil Rights —Title VI Assurance The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) hereby gives public notice that it is the policy of the department to assure full compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, Executive Order 12898, and the related statutes and regulations in all programs and activities. Title VI requires that no person in the United States of America shall, on the grounds of race, color, sex, national origin, or low income, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity for which WSDOT receives federal financial assistance. Project Information Additional copies of this document are available for review at the Yakima Regional Library or may be purchased from: Washington Department of Transportation South Central Region 2809 Rudkin Road Yakima, WA 98909-2560 Additional information about this project can be found on the WSDOT project web page at: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/I82KeysRd/ SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT iii Executive Summary The enclosed National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared as per criteria found in 40 CFR 1500 and 23 CFR 771.119 and represents a record of the evaluation process used to address the potential environmental consequences of the proposed action. The potential environmental consequences of the proposed action were fully evaluated in the EA based on best available sciences and in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. Throughout the development of this proposed action, design and planning methods were used to avoid and / or minimize potentially negative affects to the surrounding environment. Avoidance and minimization methods in the design of the proposed action included, but was not limited to, reviewing different highway alignments which would produce the lowest possible affects to the natural and manmade environment, reviewing bridge design elements such as bridge pier location and the quantity of piers needed, and reducing fill and vegetation impacts to the proposed action area. It was determined based on this research, analysis, and evaluation that the proposed action will not have a substantial impact on resources, ecosystems, or human communities. However, of the two build alternatives analyzed within the EA, Alternative 3, the South Raised Profile Alignment, would allow the Yakima County Flood Control Zone District the greatest flexibility in implementing foreseeable floodplain restoration and flood hazard reduction in the proposed project area. Purpose of the Proposed Action The purpose of this proposed action is to maintain a safe and efficient public transportation route on SR 24 by alleviating traffic congestion, improving public safety, and eliminating the existing Yakima River Bridge scour conditions while avoiding or minimizing adverse impacts to the human and natural environments in the project area. Need for the Proposed Action Existing and predicted traffic congestion, traffic safety, design deficiencies, and critical -scour bridge conditions have generated the need for the project. The need for this proposed project is further defined below: Transportation Demand and Capacity — The transportation network in this subject area has several factors that limit the capacity of traffic movement. The existing two -lanes on the SR 24 Yakima River Bridge constrict east / west traffic movement. Heavy a.m. and p.m. peak period traffic volumes primarily draw vehicles from rural Yakima County in the east into the City of Yakima and I-82 on and off ramps while the p.m. peak period reverses traffic patterns back across the Yakima River Bridge to the east. Traffic volumes on SR 24 are estimated to increase 4.8% per year. Current traffic movement is 18,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day on SR 24 near I-82. Approximately 4000 vehicles enter or exit SR 24 between South 22nd Street (K -Mart / Arboretum area) and Riverside Road daily. An additional 3,500 vehicles enter or exit SR 24 at Birchfield Road just east of the project limits and about 9,500 vehicles are generated to and from the City of Moxee. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT iv Current traffic volumes exceed the highway design capacity during peak travel periods. These problems strand motorists and freight resulting in substantial safety hazards to the traveling public, travel delays and impacts to the local economy. These impacts to the traveling public and movement of goods remains at risk as long as these problems exist. These problems are expected to increase proportionate to future predicted traffic growth. The WSDOT has determined that level of service (LOS) standards that fall below level "C" in unincorporated Yakima County and LOS level "D", within the City of Yakima, are strong indicators of deficient traffic conditions for the traveling public. At several intersections throughout the SR 24 project limits LOS levels are currently at LOS "D" and predicted 2025 congestion, without change, will fall to LOS level "F". Public Safety — An eight-year traffic accident record (1994 to 2001) on SR 24 showed approximately 179 accidents on this stretch of highway, of which 131 were intersection related and 48, were mainline highway related. The project area falls within the definition of a High Accident Corridor (HAC) for the years 1994, 2000, and 2002. In addition, a three- year traffic accident report (1999 to 2001) showed approximately 69 accidents occurred on the I-82 on / off ramps with 61 of these related to intersections. Design Deficiencies — The following design deficiencies exist on SR 24 and the I-82 interchange in the project area: > Does not meet current state standards of one -mile intersection spacing between Keys Road and Riverside Road. > Existing uphill grades are deficient for truck traffic entering SR 24 from southbound (SB) Keys Road to appropriately accelerate to traffic speeds on SR 24. > Does not meet current state standards for turning radii, taper distances, and storage lengths of intersections throughout the project limits. > The spacing, capacity, and traffic volumes between South 18th Street and South 22nd Street, in the area over the 1-82 interchange, are the major cause of the congestion during peak periods. > The existing horizontal and vertical alignments do not meet the State standards for sight distance. > The existing bridge width, with 12 -foot lanes and 4 -foot shoulders, does not meet current state standards (State standards are 12 -foot lanes and 8 -foot shoulders). Bridge Scour — The current bridge structure has inherent design deficiencies that are aggravated by shallow bridge footings bearing on alluvium' in the Yakima River channel. The shallow bridge footings built on alluvium streambed materials are inadequate to support the bridge considering the natural dynamics in Yakima River flows and recent flood events in this stretch of the river. The impacts related to natural and artificial changes related to river morphology in the Yakima River flow patterns coupled with the existing SR 24 Yakima River Bridge's pier design have increased flow constrictions and energy at the bridge, further exacerbating the scour conditions on the bridge footings. The WSDOT has placed protective riprap around the bridge footings several times between 1994 and 1999 in an attempt to slow 1 Loose sedimentary materials deposited by flowing water, as in a riverbed or delta. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT v the Yakima River's undercutting effects on the existing bridge pier foundations. The existing bridge footings have the potential to wash out in a major flood event and the existing bridge is classified by the WSDOT as "scour critical". Agency and Public Coordination Due to the urban to rural connection of the SR 24 corridor, potentially sensitive environmental issues, and the desire of the Washington State Legislature to streamline the environmental permitting process, the SR 24 project was selected as the "urban / rural pilot" transportation project in May 2001 by the Transportation Permit Efficiency and Accountability Committee (TPEAC), under the auspices of the Environmental Permit Streamlining Act, RCW 47.06. As part of the process of integrating NEPA and TPEAC into the environmental analysis of the proposed SR 24 action, an Inter -Disciplinary Team (IDT) was established, comprised of resource agency stakeholders, local jurisdictional entities, regulatory agencies, and WSDOT staff. The teams purpose was to determine the relevant environmental issues the project would likely encounter and begin early coordination and scoping efforts to produce specific project permits. Agencies invited to participate on the IDT included the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA), the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Yakima County, City of Yakima, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), the Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE), the Yakama Nation, Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Yakima Greenway Foundation. Coordination of the proposed project with the general public, local area businesses, utility companies, and other interested parties has been promoted. Two open houses, 1999 and 2000 respectively, and one design access hearing in 2001 have been completed for this proposed action. Public notifications of these meetings utilized U.S. Mail, newspaper legal notices and articles, notices hung at local businesses, and hand delivery to residents in the project area. In addition, the WSDOT has communicated with local radio, television stations, and newspapers on the project status and scope several times within the last four years. These coordination efforts are part of an on-going public involvement process that will continue until the proposed project is complete. In 2003 a group of local business leaders, elected officials and local jurisdictions in the Yakima area called the TRANSACTION committee developed a prioritized list of long range transportation strategies and identified the SR 24 project as one of the three highest priorities for the greater Yakima area. Alternative Analysis In order to ensure that the purpose, needs, and scope of the proposed action could be met, course -screening criteria was developed. This course screening was used to evaluate each preliminary alternative so that only "prudent and reasonable" alternatives were carried forward into further evaluation. This course screen consisted of the three following objectives: D Objective 1: Meet the purpose and needs of the proposed action. D. Objective 2: Consistent with regional long-range transportation plans. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT vi ➢ Objective 3: Avoid and / or minimize the proposed action's effect on relevant environmental resources in the area. All preliminary alternatives were reviewed under the screening objectives with a North Alignment and a TDM/TSM Stand Alone Alternative being eliminated from further consideration clue to them not being able to meet the projects purpose and deed Of that other alternatives' being considered were able to better avoid and / or minimize impacts to the human and natural environments in the area. The two remaining Build Alternatives and the No -Action Alternative have been formally analyzed within the Environmental Assessment. The "No -Action" alternative establishes baseline conditions against which the environmental effects of an "action" alternative can be measured. The "No -Action" alternative would not sufficiently address she highway capacity and the related safely issues that have driven the need for improvements on this stretch of SR 24. In addition, the critical -bridge scour would still need to be addressed under the No -Action Alternative. Two Build Alternatives, the South Low Profile Alignment and South Raised Profile Alignment, utilize the existing right-of-way, meet the project's purpose and need, and reduce or eliminate the negative affects of the project on both the manmade and natural communities in the area. The fundamental difference between the two Build Alternatives focus on the range of Yakima River floodplain restoration that the proposed action is able to facilitate. Best management practices (BMP's) and perfoniiance measurements have been incorporated into the project's environmental analysis and design that will further avoid and / or minimize the potentially negative environmental affects of the propose project. When avoidance and / or minimization methods were not enough to completely eliminate impacts, compensatory mitigation is proposed. Temporary and permanent mitigation measures, including the use of Best Management Practices (BMP's), are proposed to offset the unavoidable construction and / or potentially long-term operational affects of the proposed project. Temporary and permanent mitigation measures include, but are not limited to, the following elements: air quality, noise, water quality, fish / wildlife / ESA, floodplains, wetlands, non -motorized and multi -model transportation, vegetation, visual quality, land use and human communities, traffic and public safety, storm water and impervious surfaces, utilities and right-of-way, and cultural resources. The proposed project was developed using avoidance / minimization strategies. These strategies and elements were developed based on input from federal, state, and local agencies, in addition to the public. While several of the environmental elements analyzed for this proposed action may experience minor impacts or temporary losses until mitigation plans are completed, other environmental elements are expected to provide positive cumulative effects to the area. The overall cumulative impacts associated with the proposed action are not expected to substantially impact the surrounding area in a negative manner. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT vii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 THE PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.2 DECISIONS TO BE MADE 1 1.3 LOCATION, HISTORY AND CURRENT CONDITIONS 2 1.3.1 Project Location 2 1.3.2 Project History 2 1.3.3 Current Conditions 2 1.4 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) AND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT (TSM) 4 1.5 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION 5 1.6 PURPOSE FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 5 1.7 NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 5 1.7.1 Transportation Demand and Capacity 5 1.7.2 Public Safety 7 1.7.3 Current Design Deficiencies 7 1.7.4 Bridge Scour 7 1.8 ANTICIPATED PROJECT APPROVALS AND PERMITS 8 1.9 SCOPE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 9 2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION 10 2.1 RATIONALE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF PRUDENT AND REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES10 2.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY 10 2.2.1 TDM/TSM Stand Alone Alternative 11 2.2.2 North Alignment Alternative 12 2.3 ALI'.RNATIVES CONSIDERED AND ADVANCED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 14 2.3.1 Alternative 1 - No Action 14 2.3.2 Alternative 2, South Low Profile Alignment 15 2.3.3 Alternative 3, South Raised Profile Alignment 19 3.0 THE ENVIRONMENT AND CONSEQUENCES OF ACTION 22 3.1 INTRODUCTION 22 3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS NOT RELEVANT TO THE ACTION 22 3.3 CULTURAL & HISTORIC RESOURCES 23 3.4 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC 24 3.5 RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES 28 3.6 LAND USE PLANNING 30 3.7 PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES 35 3.8 SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 36 3.9 RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION AND HIGHWAY ACCESS 42 3.10 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 44 3.11 FLOODPLAINS 47 3.12 FISH / WILDLIFE / ESA / VEGETATION 53 3.13 WETLANDS 62 3.14 WAFER QUALITY 70 3.15 VISUAL QUALITY 74 3.16 Am QUALITY 77 SR24 PRE -FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT viii 3.17 NOISE 81 3.18 COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES 90 4.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS 91 INTRODUCTION 91 4.1 4.2 4.3 PACT PRESENT AND REASONARI V F(IRESBEABT F FUTURE AcTIoNC Al CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS MATRIX 97 4.4 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS SUMMARY 98 V1V1V Lt1 L1YL SUMMARY 1 1\1 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B - APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E - APPENDIX F - APPENDIX G APPENDIX II APPENDICES - TERMS AND DEFINITIONS DISCIPLINE STUDIES AND REFERENCES - EA DISTRIBUTION LIST - AGENCY COORDINATION/PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE CONCURRENCE NOAA BIOLOGICAL OPINION - USFWS CONCURRENCE LETTER - CITY OF Y A1SI A PARD ,LAND CONCURRENCE LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: ANTICIPATED PROJECT APPROVALS AND PERMITS 8 TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF SCREENING EVALUATION FOR ALL PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVES 10 TABLE 3: LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) STANDARD DEFINITIONS 25 TABLE 4: SPECIES LIS TED AS THREATENED AND ENDANGERED IN THE PROJECT AREA. 54 � TABLE 5: EFH, SPECIES OF FISHES, AND LIF58 LII -7E -STAGES IN THE ACTION AREA TABLE 6: JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED ACTION. 65 TABLE 7: SELECTED 2002 WATER QUALITY READINGS AT SR24 AND THE YAKIMA RIVER 71 TABLE 8: COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES RELATED TO WATER QUALITY ISSUES. 73 TABLE 9: AVERAGE VISUAL QUALITY RATING 76 TABLE 10: EXISTING AND PREDICTED NOISE READINGS OF THE RECEIVER LOCATIONS 82 86 87 TABLE 1.1: NOISE IMPACT AREA 1 - ALLOWABLE ABATEMENT COSTS FOR NOISE BARRIER TABLE 12: NOISE IMPACT AREA 3 - ALLOWABLE ABATEMENT COSTS FOR NOISE BARRIER TABLE 13: NOISE _IMPACT AREA 4 - ALLOWABLE ABATEMENT COSTS FOR NOISE BARRMR 88 TABLE 14: COMPARISON OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL AFFECTS. 90 TABLE 15: CUMULATIVE EFFECTS MATRIX 97 SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ix LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: SR 24 VICINITY MAP. 3 FIGURE 2: AFFEC IED ROADWAY MAP. 6 FIGURE 3: NORTH ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED 13 FIGURE 4: CONCEPTUAL REPRESENTATION OF ALTERNATIVE 2 AND 3 NEAR I-82. 15 FIGURE 5: CONCEPTUAL CROSS-SECTION NEAR THE YAKIMA ARBORETUM AND K -MART. 15 FIGURE 6: CONCEPTUAL CROSS-SECTION OF NEW YAKIMA RIVER BRIDGE. 16 FIGURE 7: ALTERNATIVE 2, CONCEPTUAL CROSS-SECTION NEAR KEYS ROAD. 17 FIGURE 8: ALTERNATIVE 2, CONCEPTUAL CROSS-SECTION NEAR RIVERSIDE ROAD. 17 FIGURE 9: ALTERNATIVE 2 MAP- SOUTH LOW PROFILE ALIGNMENT. 18 FIGURE 10: ALTERNATIVE 3, CONCEPTUAL REPRESENTATION OF YAKIMA RIVER BRIDGE. 19 FIGURE 11: ALTERNATIVE 3, CONCEPTUAL CROSS-SECTION NEAR KEYS ROAD. 20 FIGURE 12: ALTERNATIVE 3, CONCEPTUAL CROSS-SECTION NEAR RIVERSIDE ROAD. 20 FIGURE 13: ALTERNATIVE 3 MAP- SOUTH RAISED PROFILE ALIGNMENT. 21 FIGURE 14: TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, NON -MOTORIZED ROUTES, AND PARKS. 27 FIGURE 15: LAND USE, ZONING AND EXISTING UTILITIES. 32 FIGURE 16: RESIDENTIAL TAKE WEST SIDE OF PROPOSED ACTION. 40 FIGURE 17: RESIDENTIAL TAKES EAST SIDE OF PROPOSED ACTION. 41 FIGURE 18: YAKIMA RIVER FLOODPLAIN MAP. 47 FIGURE 19: JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS AFFEC I'ED BY THE PROPOSED ACTION 65 FIGURE 20: POTENTIAL IMPACTS (RED OVERLAY AREA) TO WETLAND WL1. 66 FIGURE 21: POTENTIAL IMPACTS (RED OVERLAY AREA) TO WETLAND WL2 AND WL3. 67 FIGURE 22: ALTERNATIVE 2, PREDICTED VISUAL QUALITY CONDITIONS 75 FIGURE 23: ALTERNATIVE 3, PREDICTED VISUAL QUALITY CONDITIONS 76 FIGURE 24: YAKIMA MPO WITH PMI0, CO, AND SR 24 PROJECT LOCATIONS. 79 FIGURE 25: NOISE ANALYSIS AND POTENTIAL ABATEMENT AREAS. 84 FIGURE 26: SR 24 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS TIMELINE CONTINUUM. 91 FIGURE 27: CONCEPTUAL LAND USE BUILD OUT POTENTIAL IN THE SR 24 AREA 95 FIGURE 28: REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE LAND USE ACTION MAP. 96 SR24 PRE -FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT x 1.0 THE PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 Introduction Chapter 1 addresses the decisions that must be made for this proposed action. The chapter proceeds with the proposed project's location, history, and current conditions. This chapter concludes with a summary of the proposed project, purpose and need for action, likely required federal, state, and local permits, and the scope of the environmental analysis. 1.2 Decisions to be Made The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) have identified the need to address transportation capacity and safety on a portion of State Route (SR) 24 between South 18th Street in the City of Yakima and Riverside Road in Yakima County, Washington. The following Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the potential consequences and unavoidable impacts of the proposed action on both the natural and human environments within the project area. This EA is the public record of the environmental evaluation process required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), per 23 CFR 771.119 and 40 CFR 1501.6. The proposed actions in this EA do not include permanent take of Section 4(0 properties and therefore the proposed action does not require formal analysis under Section 4(0 of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, 49 U.S.C. 303 and 23 CFR 771.135(a). The FHWA will consider whether the project qualifies for a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) 30 -days after announcing the public availability of the EA. If FHWA, the lead agency for the NEPA process, issues a FONSI, it will represent the decision document for the proposed project and the selection of a "preferred alternative", allowing for the allocation of federal funds for the construction of the project. This NEPA EA will be used as the background analysis of the project's environmental evaluation under Washington's State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), per WAC 197-11-600 and WAC 197-11-630. If a NEPA FONSI is issued, the WSDOT anticipates adopting the existing environmental documentation for the proposed action and issuing a SEPA Determination of Non -significance (DNS) concurrently and incorporated into the FONSI. In addition, the information and analysis found in this document may be used, in part or whole, in the application for required environmental permits, including but not limited to, Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA), Shoreline Management, Critical Areas, Floodplain Development, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Nationwide Permit (NWP), and Washington Department of Ecology (WSDOE) Water Quality permit with a request for a temporary modification to water quality standards (WAC 173-201A). SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 1 1.3 Location, History and Current Conditions 1.3.1 Project Location The proposed project starts within the City of Yakima, Yakima County Washington, along it's eastern boundary and continues east to approximate mile post (MP) 1.53 within unincorporated Yakima County, Sections 28 & 29, Township 14N, Range 19E, W.M. Refer to Figure 1, SR 24 Vicinity Map, for additional detail on the project location. 1.3.2 Project History SR 24, first known as Secondary State Highway (SSH) 11A, was first added to the state highway system in 1937, beginning at what is known today as US 395 in Connell Washington to the east and ending at 1-82 (US 97). SR 24 was constructed as a two-lane highway with 4 -foot shoulders and no turning lanes. When the Hanford Nuclear Reservation was created during World War II the portion of SR 24 that crossed into the reservation was closed to the public. In 19 l i bridge the 1 7 co with ane:: bridge r�5o the existing that crossed over Yakima River was replaced ,,,�a. that shifted the alignment to the south approximately 1000 feet to its current location. In 1967 SR 240 (SSH 11C) was completed connecting SR 24 with Richland and the Tri -city urban area south of the Hanford area. Employees and contractors working at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, in addition to citizens, truckers, and tourists use SR 24 extensively as a commuter and destination route. 1.3.3 Current Conditions ,• _rc�_, .,t..l�, onn Today SR 24 is a two-lane highway that begins at the City emits of Yakima approximately 800 feet east of the intersection of Nob Hill Boulevard / South 18th Street in the City of Yakima. SR 24 then proceeds east over 1-82 with a three -lane overpass to South 22 Street, tapers to a 2 -lane highway to cross over the Yakima River bridge, then continues into Benton County (two -lanes) to the Hanford Nuclear Reservation at the intersection of SR 24 / SR 240 (MP38.71). SR 24 continues east of clti�ello Adams county where it ends at the intersection of SR 26, to the City vuil.v in Adams � SR 24 is the only state owned highway that crosses over the Yakima River and connects the City of Yakima and I-82 traffic with the City of Moxee, rural Yakima County, and the Hanford Nuclear Reservation to the east. SR 24 is functionally classified as a Principal Arterial between MP —0.15 to MP 0.85 (I-82 and Yakima River Bridge area) and a Minor Arterial east of MP 0.85 to the end of the project area. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2 i i Vicinity Map SR 24 / 1-82 to Keys Road Environmental Assessment WSDOT - South Central Region November, 2003 Figure 1 Page (This page intentionally left blank) ) 1.4 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Transportation System Management (TSM) Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Transportation Systems Management (TSM) strategies focus on either reducing / changing travel demand or improving operational efficiencies on transportation infrastructure instead of increasing transportation supply (new highway lanes). TDM strategies include, but are not limited to, improving transit / pedestrian / bicycle routes, providing incentives / disincentives to single occupancy vehicles (SOV), and providing park and ride lots. TSM strategies include, but are not limited to, optimizing traffic signal coordination, designated turning lanes, access improvements, and /or enhanced signage or markings. SR 24 is a designated pedestrian and bicycle route. However, no physical pathway or route exists on this highway. Recreational activities and properties in the area have increased pedestrian and bicycle traffic in and around SR 24 and the Yakima River. Pedestrians use the shoulder of SR 24 to access the Yakima Greenway and Roberson Landing pathways. The Yakima Greenway pathway crosses under the west side of the SR 24 Yakima River Bridge and proceeds south to the City of Union Gap. The Yakima Greenway Foundation has expressed interest in connecting their pathway system to the east side of the Yakima River. Currently the WSDOT has this section of SR 24 (MP 0.00 to MP 0.85) listed within the Washington State Highway System Plan as a mobility objective for bicycle use. There is an unofficial Park and Ride lot, used by carpool participants, within the K -Mart parking lot southeast of I-82. Usage of this area averages about 25 to 35 vehicles per day. Discussions between Yakima County and WSDOT have identified the need to provide an official Park & Ride lot in the vicinity of the Riverside Road and SR 24 intersection. Yakima Transit has a bus stop in the vicinity of the K -Mart Store on South 22nd Avenue and the Arboretum Foundation has expressed an interest in having a bus stop at the Arboretum. The northwest radius of the current South 22nd Street (W. Birchfield) / SR 24 intersection is inadequate for buses turning from the Arboretum onto westbound SR 24. There are four (4) traffic signals between the South 18th Street and South 22nd Street intersections. The WSDOT has been working closely with the City of Yakima to improve TSM efficiencies in the project area. This includes traffic signal coordination between the South 18th Street and South 22nd Street intersections. In 1999 the WSDOT, in consultation with the City of Yakima, installed new traffic control equipment in this area that allowed better management and coordination of traffic flow. Due to the congestion and capacity deficiencies found in the project area, ongoing improvements to the traffic signal coordination have occurred approximately twice a year. Signal coordination within the project limits has been maximized. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 4 1.5 Summary of Proposed Action The WSDOT proposes widening SR 24 from two -lanes to four -lanes between the intersection of South 18th Street / Nob Hill Boulevard (MP - 0.15) within the City of Yakima and the intersection of Riverside Road (South 33`d Street) / SR 24 (MP 1.53) in Yakima County. The scope of the construction elements for the project include, but are not limited to, the replacement of the Yakima River Bridge 24/5, a new overpass structure over I-82, and the addition of bicycle / pedestrian facilities. Due to safety and design standards access to several residential properties would be eliminated, the property acquired and residents relocated, as required. Access to several other residential, commercial and public properties would be relocated and brought up to current design standards. On and off ramps to the I-82 overpass would be improved and reconfigured to increase highway capacity efficiencies. Figure 2 provides a map of the affected roadways and properties in the project area. 1 6 Purpose for Prnnnsetl .� ctinn A o69 S A Y ViJW SVA the A. d V�d VeJ.v+,a <r.v Fav na The purpose of this proposed action is to maintain a safe and efficient public transportation route on SR 24 by reducing traffic congestion, improving public safety, and eliminating the existing Yakima River Bridge scour conditions while avoiding or minimizing adverse impacts to the human and natural environments in the project area. 1.7 Need for the Proposed Action Existing highway capacity and projected traffic volumes, public safety, existing design deficiencies, and the scour -critical bridge conditions have generated the need for the project. The need for this proposed project is further defined below: 1.7.1 Transportation Demand and Capacity The transportation network in this area has several factors that limit the capacity of traffic movement. The existing two -lanes on the SR 24 Yakima River Bridge restrict east / west traffic movement. Heavy a.m. peak period reflects heavy traffic patterns from rural Yakima County in the east into the City of Yakima and onto 1-82 on and off ramps. The p.m. peak period reverses these traffic patterns back across the Yakima River Bridge to the east. Traffic volumes on SR 24 are estimated to increase 4.8% per year. Current traffic movement is 18,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day on SR 24 near I-82. Approximately 4000 vehicles enter or exit SR 24 between South 22nd Street (K -Mart / Arboretum area) and Riverside Road daily. An additional 3,500 vehicles enter or exit SR 24 at Birchfield Road just east of the project limits and about 9,500 vehicles are generated to and from the City of Moxee. Current traffic volumes exceed highway capacity during peak travel periods restricting motorist and freight movement and resulting in substantial safety hazards and travel delays that impact the local economy. These conditions will remain in effect as long as nothing is done to improve them and will become proportionately worse with projected traffic growth. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 5 Project location: Yakima County, Washington N W E S Affected Roads Map Legend Proposed Roadway Improvements Existing Roadway Alignment Flood Levees SR 24 / 1-82 to Keys Road Environmental Assessment Washington State Department of Transportation WSDOT - South Central Region November, 2003 Figure 2 Page 6 The WSDOT has adopted an established qualitative measurement called "Level of Service'" (LOS) that grades transportation efficiency through the collective factors of speed, travel time, traffic interruptions, and freedom to maneuver. The WSDOT has determined that LOS that falls below "C" within unincorporated Yakima County and LOS "D" within the City of Yakima are strong indicators of deficient traffic conditions for the traveling public. Several intersections throughout the SR 24 project limits are currently at LOS "D" and predicted 2025 congestion, without change, will fall to LOS "F". 1.7.2 Public Safety An eight-year traffic accident record (1994 to 2001) on SR 24 showed approximately 179 accidents on this section of highway. One hundred thirty one were intersection related and 48, were mainline highway related. The project area falls within the definition of a High Accident Corridor (HAC) for the years 1994, 2000, and 2002. In addition, a three-year traffic accident report (1999 to 2001) showed approximately 69 accidents occurred on the I-82 on / off ramps with 61 of these related to intersections. 1.7.3 Current Design Deficiencies The following design deficiencies exist on SR 24 and the I-82 interchange of the project: > Does not meet current state standards of one -mile spacing between Keys Road and Riverside Road. > Existing uphill grades and truck traffic entering SR 24 from southbound (SB) Keys Road are not sufficient to appropriately accelerate to the speed of existing traffic on SR 24. ➢ Does not meet current state standards for turning radii, taper distances, and storage lengths of intersections throughout the project limits. ➢ The spacing between intersections, capacity of the mainline (number of lanes), and traffic volumes between South 18th Street and South 22nd Street, through the area of the I-82 interchange, are all contributing factors for the congestion during peak periods ➢ The existing horizontal and vertical alignments do not meet the State standards for sight distance. > The existing bridge width with 12 -foot lanes and 4 -foot shoulders does not meet current state standards (State standards are 12 -foot lanes and 8 -foot shoulders). 1.7.4 Bridge Scour The current bridge has inherent design deficiencies aggravated by shallow bridge footings bearing on alluvium3 in the Yakima River channel. The shallow bridge footings on alluvium streambed materials do not support the natural changes in Yakima River flows or past / future flood events in this stretch of the river. The natural changes (river morphology) in the Yakima River flow patterns coupled with the existing SR 24 Yakima River Bridge's pier design have increased flow restrictions and back water in this area of the river. As the river continues to 2 See current WSDOT Highway Capacity Manual. 3 Loose sedimentary materials deposited by flowing water, as in a riverbed or delta. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 7 aggrade at this location the river exerts more energy against of bridge piers / footings and further exacerbates the scour critical bridge conditions. The WSDOT has had to place protective riprap around the bridge footings several times between 1994 and 1999 to slow the Yakima River's undercutting effects on the existing bridge pier foundations. The existing bridge footings have the potential to wash out in a major flood event. 1.8 Anticipated Project Approvals and Permits The following approvals and permits in Table 1 are anticipated to he required for construction of the proposed project action. Table 1: Anticipated Project Approvals and Permits Approval or Permit Agency Phase of Approval Federal Level National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Finding of No -significant Impact (FONSI) Section 7, Endangered Species Act (ESA) Right -of -Way Acquisition and Displacement Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act e Federal Clean Water Act, Section 404 FHWA FHWA NOAA Fisheries / USFWS FHWA FHWA / SHPO / Affected Tribes USACE Documentation Documentation Documentation Documentation Documentation Permitting State Level State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Determination_ of Non -Significance (DNS) Regulated Wetlands of the State Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) Use Authorization Permit Clean Water Act, Section 402 Water Quality, Section 401 (WAC 173-201A) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for construction activities WSDOT WSDOE WDFW WDNR WSDOE WSDOE WSDOE Documentation Documentation Permitting Permitting Permitting Permitting Permitting Local Level Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) Critical Areas Flood Plain Development Permit Yakima County & City of Yakima Permitting Permitting Permitting SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 8 City of Yakima s Comments on SR 24, I-82 to Keys Road Environmental Assessment First of all we have a couple general comments. We see no analysis of a cost benefit ratio for either alternative of the short or long bridge. It is hard to place where this should go because of the benefits of moving the levees/dikes. Is this in the Gap to Gap vision, YCFCZD or CFHMP. These would surely drive what alternative to take, but we have not seen these numbers to know where the best value is. The possible impacts to the WWTP from these combined projects could have tremendous influence on the outcome of the overall project costs. The City of Yakima wants to be a team player not an obstacle to be hurtled when discovered at the 11th hour. These impacts need to be figured out and considered in detail. They should not wait until this overall project is underway and expenditures have been put in place that cannot be reversed or controlled. Page 4, third paragraph — What about the 40 to 60 or more trips/day into the WWTP? Page 9, last paragraph — Should note that YCFCZD and CFHMP has identified those impacts to other infrastructures that could be very significant also. Page 34, under Consequences, 1st paragraph, Temporary, There is no mention of temporary disruption to sewer service from construction activities. Page 34, under Consequences, 3rd paragraph, Direct, A very big consequence of the overall project that was not mentioned is the potential impacts to the WWTP. Even minor disturbances to levees or dikes from the bridge project alone could be significant. Page 35, under Findings, 4th paragraph, Nothing is mentioned about the collection lines that cross from the west side of the freeway to the WWTP. Then under Direct Consequences, page 36, nothing is again mentioned about these lines and possible impacts to them. Page 45, under Findings, 1St paragraph, the term hazardous waste is used. The term to use should be hazardous materials. To our knowledge the WWTP is not a Hazardous waste site! They are referred to as hazardous material sites later in the section. Page 46, 5th paragraph, Groundwater, The WWTP staff have not been asked to date about assisting with receiving or treating dewatered ground water during construction, but will gladly help out to the best of or capabilities. One possibility, with Ecology approval, would be to discharge to the old spray field. Page 49, last paragraph, it mentions that the CFHMP amendment document and SEPA Checklist is currently under review. The City of Yakima was not aware of this. Page 50-53, talks about consequences of flood plain restoration but nothing is mentioned about the possible significant impacts to the WWTP. Page 53-74, from an overall project view point Sections 3.12 thru 3.14 do not mention what impacts moving the WWTP discharge may have to fish, wetlands, or water quality could have?? These are additional consequences that need to be addressed by someone. Whether it is in this assessment or some other environmental assessment with the other related projects it needs to be done up front and should have been hand in hand with moving the levees from the get go. Page 70, 4th paragraph, it should be noted that the section of the Yakima River in which the WWTP discharges to is not listed on the current 303(d) list of impaired water bodies. Page 71, Table 7: Whose Data? Are these readings from the WSDOE Internet site? Page 94, 4t'' paragraph, again whichever alternative is chosen the impacts to the WWTP need to be considered as a major part of the overall project scope. Page 95, the SR 24 Industrial Corridor and possible WWTP collection system expansion is not mentioned. Page 97, Table 15 does not show any impacts to the environment from Utilities and Public services except during construction. If the point of discharge from the WWTP is changed there will be environmental issues to assess. Seems like that would fit into the Foreseeable Future Actions column Washington State Department of Transportation Douglas B. MacDonald Secretary of Transportation November 13, 2003 City of Yakima Attn: Mary Place, Max Linden, Doug Mayo, Kay Wendell 129 North 2nd Street Yakima, WA 98901 SUBJECT: SR 24, I-82 to Keys Road Environmental Assessaiiu itgency Keview Transmitted for your review is the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) for the subject project. The Environmental Assessment is a record of the evaluation process required under NEPA, as per 23 CFR 771.119 of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 and 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c). In addition, the WSDOT anticipates adopting the enclosed NEPA EA under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) as per WAC 197-11-600 and WAC 197-11-630 with an anticipated Determination of Non -significance (DNS). The proposed project is located on SR 24, between MP —0.15 and MP 1.53; Township 13 North, Range 19 East, Willamette Meridian; within Yakima County, Washington. The Environmental Assessment is now subject to a 30 -day public comment period, which terminates on December 19, 2003. Please submit all written comments on the proposed project no later than the public comment termination date. After the review period has elapsed, all comments received will be evaluated and the Environmental Assessment will be retained, modified, or withdrawn as required as per NEPA regulations. A public meeting is scheduled on December 2, 2003 from 4:OOpm to 7:OOpm at the Yakima Area Arboretum, 1401 Arboretum Drive, Yakima, Washington. If you have any questions concerning the proposed project, please feel free to contact Sheri Neuenschwander at the Washington State Department of Transportation South Central Region Environmental Office, at 509-577-1753 (fax 509-577-1740). Sincerely, Don Whitehouse, P.E. South Central Region Administrator By: Gary R. Beeman South Central Region Environmental Program Manager GRB: mrr: 1.9 Scope of the Proposed Action Due to the urban to rural connection of this SR 24 corridor, potentially sensitive environmental issues, and the desire of the Washington State Legislature to streamline the environmental permitting process, the SR 24 project was selected as a "pilot" transportation project in May 2001 by the Transportation Permit Efficiency and Accountability Committee (TPEAC), under the auspices of the Environmental Permit Streamlining Act RCW 47.06. As part of the process of applying RCW 47.06 to the SR 24 project, an Inter -Disciplinary Team (IDT) was established that included resource agency stakeholders, local jurisdictional entities, regulatory agencies, and WSDOT staff. Agencies invited to attend and sit on the IDT included the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA), the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service, Yakima County, the City of Yakima, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), the Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE), the Yakama Nation, and the Yakima Greenway Foundation. The fundamental purpose of the IDT was to determine what relevant environmental issues the project would likely encounter and to begin early coordination and scoping for project specific permits. During the IDT process the following relevant natural, manmade, and ecologic environmental issues were determined as needing further analysis under NEPA / SEPA: > Cultural and Historic Resources. ➢ Transportation and Traffic plans. > Recreational Opportunities. > Land use -planning consistency. > Socio -Economic and Environmental Justice. > Right-of-way acquisition and highway access. ➢ Hazardous Materials. > Floodplains. > Fish / Wildlife / ESA. ➢ Wetlands and Critical Areas. > Water Quality. > Visual, Air, and Noise Quality. Coordination of the proposed project with the general public, local area businesses, utility companies, and other interested parties was promoted. Two open houses, in 1999 and 2000 respectively, and one design access hearing in 2001 have been completed for this proposed action. Public notifications of these meetings utilized U.S. Mail, notices at local businesses, and hand delivery options. In addition, the WSDOT has communicated with local radio, television, and newspapers on the project status and scope several times within the last four years. These coordination efforts are part of an on-going process that will continue until completion. In 2003, the TRANSACTION committee identified the SR 24 project as one of the three highest priorities for the greater Yakima area. In January 2002, the WSDOT partnered with Yakima County Flood Control Zone District (YCFCZD) and the BOR to re-evaluate potential project alternatives that could facilitate an emerging local vision for better floodplain hazard management on the Yakima River. Issues addressed by the YCFCZD targeted future flood risk to existing public infrastructure, future public investments, loss of life and property, and improving flood storage and restoration. The ability of the alternatives to fulfill this emerging Yakima River floodplain vision is addressed within the Environmental Assessment (EA). SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 9 2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION This chapter describes the process and rationale for the development of prudent and reasonable alternatives that could meet the project's purpose and need found in Chapter 1. This chapter then documents the elimination of preliminary alternatives that could not meet the screening process for "feasible and prudent" alternatives. Chapter 2 concludes with a detailed description of the feasible and prudent alternatives that were carried forward for formal analysis in Chapters 3. 2.1 Rationale for the Development of Prudent and Reasonable Alternatives In order to ensure that the purpose, need, and scope of the proposed action could be met, course - screening criteria was developed. This course screening was used to evaluate each preliminary alternative so that only "prudent and reasonable" alternatives were carried forward into further evaluation. This course screen consisted of the three following objectives: ➢ Objective 1: Meet the purpose and needs of the proposed action. ➢ Objective 2: Consistency with regional long-range transportation plans. ➢ Objective 3: Avoid and / or minimize the proposed action's effect on relevant environmental resources in the area. 2.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study During the initial alternative scoping process the following alternatives were considered: South Low Profile Alignment, South Raised Profile Alignment, North Alignment, a stand alone Transportation Demand Management (TDM) / Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternative, and the No -Action Alternative. All five preliminary alternatives were reviewed under the screening objectives found in section 2.1 above and those not meeting the criteria were eliminated from further consideration. A summary of this screening evaluation is provided in Table 2. Table 2: Summary of Screening Evaluation for all Preliminary Alternatives Screening Objective No- Action South Low South Raised North * TDM /TSM Stand Alone** 1— Meet the purpose and need for the project. No Yes Yes Yes No 2 — Consistency with long- range transportation plans. No Yes Yes Yes No 3 — Avoidance and / or minimization of unavoidable environmental affects. No Yes Yes No Yes * After a detailed evaluation, the North Alignment was eliminated from further consideration dd ue to avoiable impacts to the surrounding natural and manmade environments. ** A stand alone TDM / TSM Alternative does not pass the course screen, however, the practical applications for both TDM and TSM have been incorporated into both build alternatives. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 10 2.2.1 TDM / TSM Stand Alone Alternative As part of determining potential solutions to existing and predicted traffic congestion, the WSDOT has been continually working to improve Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Transportation System Management (TSM) options within the SI( 24 project area. TDM options were found to make important improvements to existing and planned non - motorized transportation routes in the area. However, they would not significantly reduce or relieve current or predicted traffic congestion concerns on this stretch of highway. Improvements to non -motorized routes included providing missing links to existing pedestrian pathways, improving existing pathways, connecting and providing new pathways in areas where state and county agencies have plans for pathways. These pathway improvements were also found to expand access between urban and rural residential districts and established recreational facilities iii the area. Improvements to existing transit stops and routes in the project area would not significantly reduce the capacity and safety deficiencies or the need to replace the critical scour Yakima River Bridge. However, several transit related improvements were identified that would improve the efficiency of existing transit routes in the project area and were integrated into the design of the proposed project. These improvements included the elimination of substandard intersection r ii r r � ,Lada for transit vehicles, improving access to public properties, and providing the opportunity for new bus stops in the area. Similarly, the WSDOT has been working closely with the City of Yakima to improve TSM efficiencies in the project area. This included the coordination of traffic signals between the South 18th Street and South 22nd Street intersections and improved communication with the City of Yakima. In 1999 the WSDOT installed new traffic control equipment in thiSarea that allowed better management and coordination of traffic flow, reduced travel times, and improved air quality conditions. Due to the congestion and capacity issues found in the project area ongoing adjustments of the traffic signal coordination has been occurring approximately twice a year. However, the coordination between existing traffic signals in the project area have been maximized and would not improve existing and future capacity and safety concerns on SR 24. While some TDM / TSM options were found to improve multi -modal opportunities in the project area they would not significantly reduce existing and predicted congestion and capacity needs, nor the known scour critical Yakima River Bridge. A stand alone TDM / TSM Alternative was eliminated from formal consideration as a "feasible and prudent" alternative for the project. However, identified improvements for multi -model options have been incorporated into the design of all of the Build Alternatives considered in this environmental analysis. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 11 2.2.2 North Alignment Alternative The initial list of potential alternatives for the proposed action included a "North Alignment" Alternative. The fundamental objective for the North Alignment Alternative was to provide a new SR 24 alignment that eliminated existing design deficiencies, river constriction, and provided a smoother and more efficient highway for the traveling public. Specifically, the North Alignment was to proceed in an easterly direction from the existing South 22nd Street / K -Mart intersection, then cross over the Yakima River starting approximately 1000' north of the existing SR 24 bridge, then land on the east side of the Yakima River just north of the KOA campgrounds. The North Alignment would then proceed in a east southeast direction until it realigned with the existing SR 24 alignment near the intersection of SR 24 / Birchfield Road (see Figure 3). The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, 404 (b) (1) guidelines under the Clean Water Act, and Section 4(0 of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 all have a common theme that requires the avoidance of environmental impacts if other reasonable alternatives exist that can avoid the impacts to the natural and human environment. It became apparent that the North Alignment would create potentially significant impacts to both the natural and human environments within the project when compared to the other build alternatives. The North Alternative disproportionately affected a number of additional sensitive environmental resources, additional residential communities, and impacted established public recreational sites in the project area. Even with the potential benefits of the North Alignment on Yakima River floodplain restoration efforts it was found that other build alternatives being considered would also allow these floodplain benefits. In addition, the other Build Alternatives under consideration had substantially less or no impacts to the natural and human environments then those compared to the North Alignment. The North Alignment included disproportionately higher impacts on water bodies, the Yakima River floodplain, jurisdictional wetlands, Section 4(0 resource lands, and existing residential properties and neighborhoods in the project area. The North Alignment Alternative required substantially more right of way acquisition and the introduction of new fill materials in the Yakima floodplain compared to other alternatives under consideration. The North Alignment also became increasingly inconsistent with Yakima County, local, and regional planning and transportation efforts, including a planned county project on South 33rd Street. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 12 (This page intentionally left blank) nk) Yakima :0-- " ; Arbotetum 1 ti Hdmane Socety Sherman Park ti h Align ent 1 1 1 1 NOTES: ONEW 1-82 OVERPASS WITH PEDESTRIAN TRAIL. O2 NEW 425 FT. RETAINING WALL. ®NEW PARKING LOT FOR ROBERTSON LANDING. 4OAPPROXIMATE PIER LOCATIONS FOR NORTH ALIGNMNET BRIDGE. n EXISTING BRIDGE TO BE REMOVED. 0 BLUE SLOUGH CROSSING LOCATION. O SIGNAL AT NEW S. 33RD ST./SR 24 INTERSECTION. OS APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TAPER TO TWO LANES. • INCREASE SR 24 FROM 2-12 FT. LANES TO 4-12 FT. LANES. • INCREASES THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA BY 562,000 sq/ft. • REDUCES THE NUMBER OF INTERSECTIONS ALONG THIS SECTION OF SR 24 FROM 5 TO 4. • REQUIRES RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITIONS OF APPROXIMATELY 62 +- ACRES, AFFECTING 44 INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES. • IMPACTS 7.4 ACRES OF WETLANDS. • NORTH ALIGNMENT ACCOMMODATES FUTURE FLOOD PLAIN ENHANCEMENTS. Project location: Yakima County, Washington N W E S North Alignment Alternative Legend Proposed Roadway Improvements Existing Roadway Alignment Flood Levees SR 24 / 1-82 to Keys Road Environmental Assessment WSDOT - South Central Region I%/Washington State November, 2003 Department of Traruportation Figure 3 Page 13 2.3 Alternatives Considered and Advanced for the Proposed Action Two of the three Build Alternatives were advanced for formal analysis within the EA after they were found to meet the "purpose, need, and scope" of the proposed project and avoided and / or minirnized adverse affects on the surrounding environment. These two Build Alternatives were added to the No -Action (environmental baseline) Alternative and analyzed in Chapters 3. They include Alternative 1, No -Action: Alternative 2, South Alignment Low Profile; and Alternative 3, South Raised Profile Alignment. 2.3.1 Alternative 1— No Action The No -Action Alternative provides the baseline conditions for the analysis of the other build alternatives. Under the No -Build Alternative, SR 24 geometrics, alignments, and intersections would remain in their current condition and location. No improvements would be made to relieve congestion, improve safety, or eliminate the scour conditions of the Yakima River Bridge. However, present management activities, including traffic light upgrades, scour maintenance, etc., would continue but would not accomplish the proposed actions "full fix" scenario. Baseline Design Issues of Alternative 1— No Action: ➢ The critical scour problem of the Yakima River Bridge would continue to be a long-term maintenance and safety issue. The WSDOT will still need to fix the critical -scour bridge issue if the No -Action Alternative is selected. This could be accomplished by retrofitting the existing bridge with drilled shafts adjacent to the existing bridge spread footings. ➢ The following substandard alignments and geometrics would remain: • The spacing of Keys Road and Riverside Road Intersections do not meet current State standards of 1 -mile. • The current spacing and uphill grade in the area of Keys Road / SR 24 causes traffic slow down and congestion due to semi -trucks turning right from southbound (SB) Keys Road onto westbound (WB) SR 24 and their inability to appropriately accelerate to the speed of existing traffic on SR 24. • Many of the turning radii, taper distances, storage lengths of the intersections, and off / on ramps from I-82 would not meet predicted 20 -year needs. • The spacing deficiencies and associated interaction between the intersections of South 18th Street, Nob Hill Lane, I 82 Eastbound Ramps, I-82 Westbound Ramps, and South 22nd Street would remain. • The width of the existing Yakima River Bridge (approximately 600 -feet long) would remain in a substandard state with 12 -foot lanes and 4 -foot shoulders (State standards are 12 -foot lanes and 8 -foot shoulders). ➢ Yakima Transit would continue to only access the K -Mart parking lot on South 22nd Street and would not be allowed to access the Yakima Arboretum parking lot as a more effective transit stop due to inadequate turning radii. ➢ No TDM / TSM improvements related to non -motorized or transit related improvements would be made with the No -Build Alternative. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 14 ABOREOUM AND HUMANE SOCIETY FARMING LOT1 205.5 7 N. BIRCHFIELD 12' 1 12' S. 2.3.2 Alternative 2, South Low Profile Alignment Alternative 2, South Alignment Low Profile, is divided into two sections so that the common elements of both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 can be effectively identified. Figure 9 provides an entire proposed action visual representation of Alternative 2, South Alignment Low Profile. From South 18th Street to South 22nd Street. From MP - 0.15 (near South 18th Street) SR 24 would begin to widen to the south to accommodate highway improvements for the eastbound I- 82 on-ramp. Properties that currently access the roadway from Nob Hill Lane (north of SR 24) would be purchased and Nob Hill Lane would be closed. The existing I-82 overpass would be removed and a new I-82 overpass would be built to accommodate both east and westbound lanes and required turning lanes. Figure 4 provides a conceptual representation of the proposed action near I-82 for both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3. Figure 4: Conceptual Representation of Alternative 2 and 3 near I-82. Additional improvements would be made to the I-82 interchange, including left turn lanes to I- 82, longer and wider I-82 off / on -ramps, longer left turn storage, and improved intersection geometrics. A new pedestrian / bicycle pathway separated from traffic by concrete median barrier would be built adjacent to the eastbound lanes. The South 22°d Street intersection would be moved approximately 400 -feet east of its current location and would be extended to the south, for improved access to K -Mart, the Yakima Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility, and other commercial activities in this area. RETAINING NALL JJ5?ING GR905Q 5R 24 VEST SOUND t EAST BOUND 12' 12' 6'16' 12' 12' 12' 12'PATNVAY 0.04',F1 5 FLAT BOTTOM O11CH FL00R ELEV. = 1010.0 VT. Figure 5: Conceptual Cross -Section near the Yakima Arboretum and K -Mart. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 15 To the north South 22"d Street would be improved to ensure continued operation of the Yakima Arboretum and Sherman Park's parking lots and include the addition of a retaining wall between SR 24 and the parking area to avoid impacts to the existing recreational facility. On the northeast side of SR 24 West Birchfield Road would be improved and modified to enhance access to Robertson's Landing and the Yakima Greenway's pathways From South 22nd Street to Riverside Road. From South 22"d Street the two new eastbound lanes for SR 24 would be incorporated with additional fill materials immediately south of the existing highway fill. At the new South 22'd Street intersection the bicycle / pedestrian pathway would move from the south side of SR 24 to the north side. As the pathway nears the Yakima River Bridge a pedestrian access to the Yakima Greenway Pathway would also be constructed. As SR 24 neared the Yakima River, the highway alignment and fill would shift to the south to allow the new bridge 800 to 1,000 feet in length to be built adjacent to the south side of the existing Yakima River Bridge. After the new four -lane Yakima River Bridge (Figure 6) is constructed the existing bridge and its piers will be removed down to riverbed elevations. 86' WEST BOUND Fl 33`1 10' PATHWAY i 8' 12' 12' ` SR 24 q. 1 4' 4' EAST BOUND 12' L. 12' 8' 0.02'/FT A 0.02'/FT BRIDGE DECK BRIDGE 24/5 Figure 6: Conceptual Cross -Section of new Yakima River Bridge. The new bridge would begin from 0 to 200 feet west of the existing bridge abutment on the west side flood levee and extend eastward to an area near the existing east flood control levee on the other side of the Yakima River. The four -lane highway would continue east past this point on new fill materials immediately south of the existing alignment and then begin to move north and be incorporated into the existing SR 24 fill. Existing fill materials would be removed in its entirety or may be left in place based on the needs for balancing long-term floodplain enhancement with short-term flood protection. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 16 91.5' 12' PATHWAY 8' WEST BOUND 12,5' 1? 5' SR 24 4' ; 4' EAST BOUND 1?.5' EXISTING ROADWAY SOUTH ALIGNMENT (LOW) Figure Alternative 23 Conceptual n..7Z-QY4aAin near T8. . Rawl. At an approximate location near the intersection of Keys Road (Figure 7) the alignment for the two new lanes would begin to shift to the north side of the existing SR 24 alignment to facilitate a larger and safer highway radius for traffic to negotiate. Keys Road will be cul-de-sac'ed and access closed to and from SR 24 by Yakima County related to their South 33rd Street Road expansion project. From Keys Road to Riverside Road the new four -lane highway with a bicycle / pedestrian pathway would cross Blue Slough with most of the two new lanes built to the north side of the existing SR 24 alignment. 25. 12'PA18000 8' 5R 29 BEST B01240 t (05,2 SOUND 17.5' 0.5' ,x13TNc g56D1.4 EXISTING ROAC2A,2 SOUTH ALIGNMENT (LOW) ,1 Figure 8: Alternative 2, Conceptual Cross -Section near Riverside Road. The intersection of Riverside Road (South 33rd Street) and SR 24 would be signalized and a dedicated right turning lane from SR24 to South Riverside Road would be added. Access to properties within 300 feet of the Riverside Road intersection would be eliminated through the acquisition process (Figure 8). Alternative 2 would taper into two lanes just after the intersection of South 33rd Street (Riverside Road) at approximately MP 1.53. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 17 Sherman Park Notes: 1ONEW 1-82 OVERPASS WITH PEDESTRIAN TRAIL. O2 NEW 425 FT. RETAINING WALL. ®NEW BRIDGE. (APPROX. 800-1000 FT) @EXISTING BRIDGE TO BE REMOVED. (6>BLUE SLOUGH CROSSING LOCATION. O6 NEW SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION. ()APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TAPER TO TWO LANES. • INCREASE SR 24 FROM 2-12 FT. LANES TO 4-12 FT. LANES. • INCREASES THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA BY APPROXIMATLEY 357,000 sq/ft. • REDUCES THE NUMBER OF INTERSECTIONS ALONG THIS SECTION OF SR 24 FROM 5 TO 4. • REQUIRES RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITIONS OF APPROXIMATELY 32 +- ACRES, AFFECTING 32 INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES. • IMPACTS 0.25-0.50 ACRES OF WETLANDS. • ALTERNATE 2 ACCOMMODATES MINIMUM FLOOD PLAIN ENHANCEMENTS. Project location: Yakima County, Washington N W+E S Alternative 2, South Low Profile Alignment Legend Proposed Roadway Improvements Existing Roadway Alignment Flood Levees SR 24 / 1-82 to Keys Road Environmental Assessment WSDOT - South Central Region 1117/1—, /wa.hat. ' Departmentfaytun sto1 Transporlatio� November, 2003 Figure 9 Page IS 2.3.3 Alternative 3, South Raised Profile Alignment Alternative 3, the South Raised Profile Alignment is divided into two sections so that the common elements of both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 can be effectively identified. Figure 13 provides a visual representation of Alternative 3, South Raised Profile Alignment. From South 18th Street to South 22nd Street — Under Alternative 3, all alignments, geometrics, intersections, and I-82 interchange improvements would remain the same as in Alternative 2 - South Alignment Low Profile, from South 18t Street to the intersection of South 22nd Street. From South 22nd Street to Riverside Road. Alternative 3, South Raised Profile Alignment is identical to Alternative 2, South Alignment Low Profile except that the Yakima River Bridge would be between 1,400 and 1,600 feet long and approximately 15 feet higher in elevation. The new bridge would extend from 0 to 200 feet west of the existing bridge abutment on the west side flood levee to an area near the existing Keys Road intersection. The existing SR 24 Bridge would be demolished as in Alternative 2. Existing fill materials would be removed in its entirety or may be left in place based on the needs for balancing long-term floodplain enhancement with short-term flood protection. The four -lane highway would continue east past this point on new fill materials immediately south of the existing alignment and then begin to move north and be incorporated into the existing SR 24 fill. Figure 10 provides a partial conceptual representation of the 1,400 to 1,600 foot bridge for Alternative 3 — South Raised Profile Alignment. Figure 10: Alternative 3, Conceptual Representation of Yakima River Bridge. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 19 At an approximate location near the intersection of Keys Road (Figure 11) the alignment for the two new lanes would begin to shift to the north side of the existing SR 24 alignment to facilitate a larger and safer highway radius for traffic to negotiate. Keys Road would be cul-de-sac'ed and access closed to and from SR 24. 91.5' 12'PATHVAY 5R 24 2E5T 40050 EAST BOUND SOUTH ALIGNMENT (RAISIED) 28' Figure 11: Alternative 3, Conceptual Cross -Section near Keys Road. From Keys Road to the intersection of Riverside Road (Figure 12) the new four -lane highway with a bicycle / pedestrian pathway would cross Blue Slough and most of the two new lanes would be built on the north side of the existing SR 24 alignment. The intersection of Riverside Road (South 33m Street) and SR 24 would be signalized and a dedicated right turning lane from SR24 to South Riverside Road would be added. Access to properties within 300 feet of the Riverside Road intersection would be eliminated and the properties acquired. Alternative 3 would taper into two lanes just after the intersection of South 33rd Street (Riverside Road) at approximately MP 1.53. 89.5' 12'PATHNAY 8 505T SOUND 12.5' 12.5' 5R 24 4 4 EAST BOUND 17.5' 12.5' 2�Y 0022/150 220.3,040 - ------ __- E%IS IYG R - _ _ _ _ - - ROADWAY SOUTH ALIGNMENT (RAISED) 11 2 Figure 12: Alternative 3, Conceptual Cross -Section near Riverside Road. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL, ASSESSMENT 20 ) 5' 12.5" 4 4 122"~.� 8' ..i.5" t _ .. ...,,FT i 1 I /Il -� SOUTH ALIGNMENT (RAISIED) 28' Figure 11: Alternative 3, Conceptual Cross -Section near Keys Road. From Keys Road to the intersection of Riverside Road (Figure 12) the new four -lane highway with a bicycle / pedestrian pathway would cross Blue Slough and most of the two new lanes would be built on the north side of the existing SR 24 alignment. The intersection of Riverside Road (South 33m Street) and SR 24 would be signalized and a dedicated right turning lane from SR24 to South Riverside Road would be added. Access to properties within 300 feet of the Riverside Road intersection would be eliminated and the properties acquired. Alternative 3 would taper into two lanes just after the intersection of South 33rd Street (Riverside Road) at approximately MP 1.53. 89.5' 12'PATHNAY 8 505T SOUND 12.5' 12.5' 5R 24 4 4 EAST BOUND 17.5' 12.5' 2�Y 0022/150 220.3,040 - ------ __- E%IS IYG R - _ _ _ _ - - ROADWAY SOUTH ALIGNMENT (RAISED) 11 2 Figure 12: Alternative 3, Conceptual Cross -Section near Riverside Road. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL, ASSESSMENT 20 i 1 i 1 1 1 1 I i 1 i K Mart • as •s 46 r =1 ment 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 NOTES: NEW I-82 OVERPASS WITH PEDESTRIAN TRAIL. NEW 425 FT. RETAINING WALL. NEW BRIDGE. (APPROX. 1400-1600 FT) EXISTING BRIDGE TO BE REMOVED. BLUE SLOUGH CROSSING LOCATION. @NEW SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION. ()APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TAPER TO TWO LANES, • INCREASE SR 24 FROM 2-12 FT. LANES TO 4-12 FT. LANES. • INCREASES THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA BY APPROXIMATELY 357,000 sq/ft. • REDUCES THE NUMBER OF INTERSECTIONS ALONG THIS SECTION OF SR 24 FROM 5 TO 4. • REQUIRES RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITIONS OF APPROXIMATELY 42 +- ACRES, AFFECTING 40 INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES. • IMPACTS 0.25-0.50 ACRES OF WETLANDS. • ALTERNATE 3 ACCOMMODATES MODERATE FLOOD PLAIN ENHANCEMENTS. Project location: Yakima County, Washington W E Alternative 3, South Raised Profile Alignment Legend Proposed Roadway Improvements Existing Roadway Alignment Flood Levees SR 24 / 1-82 to Keys Road Environmental Assessment WSDOT - South Central Region Washington State November, 2003 Oepa. enf of Transpo.tat�on Figure 13 Puge 21 3.0 THE ENVIRONMENT AND CONSEQUENCES OF ACTION 3.1 Introduction This chapter first defines the environmental elements not relevant to the proposed action followed by a summary table of the potential risk and phase of avoidance / minimization / mitigation to the relevant environmental elements of the proposed build project. This chapter then describes, in more detail, the sources of the environmental analysis, baseline environmental conditions, consequences of the action onto the surrounding environment, and proposed mitigation. The chapter concludes with a comparison table summarizing the environmental consequences for each of the alternatives being considered. Discipline studies used to analyze relevant environmental elements are listed in Appendix B and are incorporated by reference into this Environmental Assessment. 3.2 Environmental Elements Not Relevant to the Action Throughout the scoping process and development of the EA potential environmental affects to the study area have been reviewed and / or analyzed. Several environmental aspects of the proposed project have been found to not be directly or indirectly affected by any of the proposed alternatives. Wild and Scenic Rivers — There are no congressionally designated Wild and Scenic Rivers in the project area. > Coastal Zone Impacts and Coastal Barriers — The project is not in the Coastal Zone Management Area. > Navigable Waters — There are no navigable waterways in the project area. > Section 4 (f) Properties — Alternatives being considered will not adversely impact existing Section 4 (f) properties in the project area. However, offsite project components will improve existing access and parking facilitates for recreational properties in the project area. Temporary construction impacts and closures of pathways and parking lots would be realized during the construction phase. Access will be maintained and temporary construction impacts coordinated with the Yakima Greenway. Existing facilities and functions will remain unchanged after the proposed project construction. > Geology and Soils — A geotechnical analysis performed for this project concluded that no major faults exist within the project limits and those faults within the region believed to be inactive. The analysis also concluded that the alluvial soils are suitable for supporting the proposed improvements. However, the analysis noted that drilled shafts should be used rather than spread footings to support the bridge structure. > Farmland - According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil surveys there are no prime farmland soils within the project limits. In addition, the May 24, 1999 USDA instructional letter regarding the Farmland Protection Policy Act excludes lands already committed to urban development and where funds have already been committed for widening. The entire project limits are within the City of Yakima's Urban Growth Area (UGA) and funding for the project has been secured through the Washington State Legislature, with additional funds for the proposed project coming from the FHWA. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 22 3.3 Cultural & Historic Resources Background The WSDOT consulted cultural and historic resource surveys with Archaeological and Historic Services at Eastern Washington University. Two surveys were completed for this project. The first set of surveys, completed in 2000, addressed ground disturbing highway activities around the existing SR 24 alignment from I-82 to the Riverside Road intersection. The second survey, completed in 2002, addressed highway related ground -disturbing activities for a new highway alignment to the north of the existing alignment. In addition, the WSDOT has consulted with potentially affected tribal agencies within Eastern Washington including the Yakama Nation, Wanapum Tribe, Confederated tribes of the Colville Reservation, and the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. The history and location of the project area provides an opportunity to find both cultural and historical resources in the project area. Abundant water and riverine resources in the area attracted Native Americans to the Yakima River for thousands of years. These same resources attracted Euro -Americans to this area since about the 1850's, resulting in the agricultural and urban developments currently seen in the project area. The project is located on the Yakama Nation's ceded lands, within the traditional territory of the Sahaptin speaking Yakama people. During the ethnographic period these Native bands lived primarily along the Yakima River and its tributaries, subsisting on fish, game, edible roots, and other vegetal foods. Two ethnographic Yakama villages are recorded approximately 1 to 2 miles southwest of the project area. During the 1840's large numbers of permanent settlers began arriving in the Yakima area, via the Oregon Trail. In 1860 cattle rancher F. Mortimer Thorp and his family arrived in the Moxee Valley, becoming the first Euro -American settler near the project area. In 1865 the federal government recorded four settlers living in a township approximately 0.8 miles south of the current project area. After this time lands in the region were officially opened to Euro -American settlers. The original City of Yakima, situated at the present site of Union Gap, was incorporated in 1883 with a population of 400. The extension of railroads, development of agriculture activities, construction of irrigation systems, and roadways spurred growth and accelerated settlement of the Yakima area. Today, the City of Yakima is the largest city within Yakima County and has a population of approximately 73,000 people just west of the proposed project limits. Findings The subsequent investigation of Cultural and Historic resources concluded that no historic properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Places are within the study area (Archaeological and Historic Services, 1999, 2000, 2002). However, the investigation also concluded that the project area is within the traditional territory of the Yakama Nation, used in both the past and present activities for traditional fishing and gathering. The Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) concurred with the investigation and SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 23 report findings on April 7, 1999, October 30, 2000, and December 2, 2002 under Log numbers 032299-05-FHWA, 102300-11-FHWA, and 120202 -52 -DOT (See Appendix E). Consequences Temporary — No temporary consequences to historic and cultural resources are anticipated. However, the project construction schedule may be temporarily affected if cultural resources are discovered during the construction phase. Permanent — There are no negative consequences to historic or cultural resources with the No - Action Alternative. Under either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 no properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Places were found within the project area. However, both Build Alternatives include earth -disturbing construction related activities. These activities present risk in discovering historic artifacts within the project area. The degree of earth -disturbing activities would directly influence the degree of risk in discovering historic artifacts. The Yakama Nation has requested that earth -disturbing activities be held to a minimum needed to complete the project and that a cultural resource monitoring plan be developed prior to construction (Yakama Nation, 2002). Mitigation Either Build Alternative — Mitigation recommendations for cultural and historic resources for either Build Alternatives will be one of the two following options. In either option, continued consultation would occur between the Yakama Nation, the SHPO and the WSDOT on cultural resources in the project limits. The Yakama Nation will be afforded the opportunity to monitor earth -disturbing activities at their discretion. If cultural or historic resources are discovered during construction activities the work shall cease and the project engineer shall be notified immediately. The engineer would then contact an independent archaeologist who would determine if the materials are to be salvaged. No work in the vicinity of the find would occur until the determination has been completed. > If the potential for the discovery of cultural and historic resources is considered to be likely a cultural resource -monitoring plan would be developed prior to construction and clearing and grubbing activities would be monitored by a qualified archaeologist. 3.4 Transportation and Traffic Background The WSDOT enlisted transportation system professionals to analyzed existing and future Level of Service (LOS) standards on SR 24 and I-82. Coordination with the affected jurisdictions of Yakima County and the City of Yakima has occurred and will continue throughout the life of the proposed project. These coordination efforts include the use of adopted local and regional transportation plans for the area. In addition, historic traffic accident and current highway design SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 24 deficiencies were used as a source in the analysis of transportation and traffic characteristics in the project area. The proposed project is located between an urban metropolitan area with defined public transit routes and rural Yakima County with non-existent public transit opportunities. The project area also contains a vital transportation interchange between I-82 and SR 24 as well as large-scale commercial transportation generator sites. Non -motorized pedestrian and bicycle routes also exist along a scenic and well -used Yakima River recreational area. Transportation systems play an important and integral part in a wide range of quality of life factors for the area and region. These quality of life factors include, but are not limited to, public safety, economic development activities, accident rates, and multi -model transportation options. These quality of life factors can be analyzed through Level of Service (LOS) standards, which quantify highway operational conditions in terms of speed, travel, time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience. LOS conditions range from LOS A (ideal) to LOS F (failure). For SR 24 a LOS standard "D" has been set as the level that justifies the need for improvements to this section of highway. Table 3 defines these LOS standards and provides a description of their meaning. Table 3: Level of Service (LOS) Standard Definitions4 Standard Description LOS A A condition of free flow in which there is little or no restriction on speed or maneuverability caused by the presence of other vehicles. LOS B A condition of stable flow in which operating speed is beginning to be restricted by other traffic. LOS C A condition of stable flow in which the volume and density levels are beginning to restrict drivers in their freedom to select speed, change lanes, or pass. LOS D A condition approaching unstable flow in which tolerable average operating speeds are maintained but are subject to sudden variations. LOS E A condition of unstable flow in which operating speeds are lower with some momentary stoppages. The upper limit of this LOS is the capacity of the facility. LOS F A condition of forced flow in which speed and rate of flow are low with frequent stoppages occurring for short or long periods of time; with density continuing to increase causing the highway to act as a storage area. Findings The project study area includes two major state owned transportation routes (SR 24 and I-82) and several important City of Yakima and Yakima County collector and arterial roads. I-82 is classified as a Highway of Statewide Significance while SR 24 is classified as a Principal Arterial in the current Washington State Highway System Plan. The project area includes several City of Yakima and Yakima County roadways used for the collection and circulation of traffic in the area. Yakima County is currently in the process of completing Phase 2 of their South 33rd Street project from the vicinity of Gun Club Road to West 4 See current WSDOT Highway Capacity Manual SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 25 1 1 1 t t 1 1 1 1 Birchfield Road. Phase 3 of the Yakima County South 33`d Street project would improve South 33rd Street from West Birchfield to SR 24 and is expected to be complete in 2005 or 2006. Figure 14 provides a map depicting state highways and local roadway classifications in the project area. An eight-year traffic accident record (1994 to 2001) on SR 24 showed approximately 179 accidents on this stretch of highway, of which 131 were intersection related and 48, were mainline highway related. The project area falls within the definition of a High Accident Corridor (HAC) for the years 1994, 2000, and 2002. In addition, a three-year traffic accident report (1999 to 2001) showed approximately 69 accidents occurred on the I-82 on / off ramps with 61 of these related to intersections. Traffic volumes on SR 24 are estimated to increase 4.8% per year. Current traffic movement is 18,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day on SR 24 near I-82. Approximately 4000 vehicles enter or exit SR 24 between South 22"d Street (K -Mart / Arboretum area) and Riverside Road daily. An additional 3,500 vehicles enter or exit SR 24 at Birchfield Road just east of the project limits and about 9,500 vehicles are generated to and from the City of Moxee. The WSDOT has determined that level of service (LOS) standards that fall below level "C" in unincorporated Yakima County and LOS level "D", within the City of Yakima, are strong indicators of deficient traffic conditions for the traveling public. At several intersections throughout the SR 24 project limits LOS levels are currently at LOS "D" and predicted 2025 congestion, without change, will fall to LOS level "F" (WSDOT, 2003). Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Transportation System Management (TSM) elements were determined to not meet the purpose and need of the proposed action on their own. TDM / TSM elements related to non -motorized and transit elements have been added to the design of both build alternatives. In addition, the WSDOT has been working closely with the City of Yakima on the coordination (synchronization) of traffic signals between the South 18th Street and South 22nd Street intersections. Today, the coordination between existing traffic signal in the project area has been maximized to the extent possible. Identified TDM improvements for multi -model options have been incorporated into the design of both the Build Alternatives considered in this environmental analysis. Consequences No -Action Alternative — Without improvements, intersections within the project area are predicted to deteriorate to LOS "F" by 2010. Either Build Alternative — Both of the build alternatives under consideration eliminate poor LOS for future traffic conditions (to 2025) within the project area. TDM elements have been incorporated into both build alternatives and would improve non -motorized and transit access in the project area. Specifically, the proposed project adds pedestrian / bicycle pathways, improves multi -model interconnections between the City of Yakima and the Riverside Road intersection and improves transit access to existing recreational and commercial activities in the area. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 26 (This page intentionally left blank) Sportsman State Park Yakima Arboretum Sherman Park Project location: Yakima County, Washington W E Transportation Systems, Non - Motorized Routes, and Parks Legend Interstate Principal Arterial Collector Proposed Road Improvement Yakima Greenway Pathway Proposed Pathway - Unofficial Pathway SR 24 / 1-82 to Keys Road Environmental Assessment WSDOT - South Central Region Washington State Department of Transportation November, 2003 Figure /4 Page 27 Mitigation Temporary — In most cases traffic would be able to operate on the existing highway while the new lanes and bridges are built. When this is not practical, temporary routes would be established to route traffic around work zones. Construction of the project would occur in phases to reduce the affects of the project on the traveling public. Traffic control would also be in place during the construction phase of the project to reduce safety issues and maintain the best traffic flow possible. Permanent — No negative impacts to current and planned transportation systems are anticipated. The WSDOT and regional transportation agencies within the area recommend either of the Build Alternatives to reduce current and future traffic congestion and safety issues in the project area. 3.5 Recreational Opportunities Background The study area contains several existing publicly owned recreational sites, facilities and opportunities. The review and analysis of recreational opportunities and facilities in the project area included discussions with the Yakima Greenway Foundation, City of Yakima, and Yakima County. In addition, the 2002 Washington State Highway System Plan, Yakima County Comprehensive Plan, and current design data for the project were used in the evaluation of recreational opportunities in the proposed action area. Findings SR 24 is a designated (planned) bike / pedestrian route east of the Yakima River (Yakima County 1997 Comp. Plan). This section of SR 24 (MP 0.00 to MP 0.84) is listed within the 2002 Washington State Highway System Plan as having a mobility objective for bicycle use. The recommended solution is to widen the highway shoulders for bicycle use. Currently, bicycles use sidewalks from I-82 west and highway shoulders between I-82 and the Yakima River. No dedicated pathways exist east of the Yakima River. The Yakima Greenway pathway and related parks in the project area are used extensively by walkers, joggers, citizens, and bicyclists for recreational activities. A limited number of people use the existing Yakima Greenway pathways that lay north and south along the Yakima River to commute to work. Ample recreational and commercial activities in the project area have helped to increase pedestrian and bicycle traffic in and around SR 24 / I-82 and the Yakima River. On the west end of the project limits pedestrians currently use the shoulder of the highway and limited sidewalks on the south side to cross over I-82 and access the Greenway pathway, Sherman Park, and Yakima Arboretum, and the Yakima River. Currently, pedestrians must cross from the south side of SR 24 to access recreational sites and the Yakima River to the north. The Yakima Greenway pathway crosses under the west side of the SR 24 Yakima River Bridge and continues to the City of Union Gap south of the project area. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 28 The Yakima Greenway Foundation has a parking lot north of SR 24 near I-82 and pathways along the west side of the Yakima River. The Yakima Greenway Foundation has expressed interest in connecting their pathway system to the east side of the Yakima River. In addition, several unofficial pathways exist on the east side of the Yakima River where current flood levees also serve as pathways near the Washington State Sportsman Park and the KOA site. Existing transit routes in the project are located on the west side of the Yakima River within the City of Yakima with Yakima Transit providing regular stops to the K -Mart site. The Arboretum Foundation (immediately north of K -Mart) has expressed an interest in having a bus stop to the L.... 1 lot TL,. .....1:__,. ......] size f tt. South 22nd t ( 1C 7 L.-: 1,1\ / C' Arboretum parking 101. file radius and J1.Ge of the current Sl UUI .�.G, Street `VY . Birchfield) / JR 24 intersection is inadequate to accommodate buses turning onto or from SR 24 to the Yakima Arboretum parking lot and Robertson's Landing recreational property. The City of Yakima has expressed the need to improve access to the Yakima Arboretum to current design standards to allow public transportation access. To be able to provide this improvement the existing parking lot and West Birchfield Road will need to be reconstructed. Currently part of the existing parking lot is within the parcel of the Yakima Arboretum. To accommodate the needed improvements a lot line adjustment will be made to allow the existing parking lot to reside in what will become City of Yakima right-of-way. The total sum of the 11_x,• �•_--�_ •n lnnn i �n feet). No L___-- r proposed lot line adjustment will equal 0.UL acres 1872 sq. feet). NVo e11111ge of use or characteristics will be made with this improvement. Figure 14 provides additional details on recreational, park, and trail systems in the proposed action area. Consequences No -Action Alternative - The No -Action Alternative would not allow for the inclusion of long- term non -motorized and multi -model transportation integration of SR 24 with established park and recreational properties in the proposed action area. Existing conditions would remain the same as they do currently. Either Build Alternative — No negative consequences to park or recreational properties are anticipated or foreseeable. Both Build Alternatives have incorporated the same long-term improvements to non -motorized and multi -model transportation elements within the project area which include: ➢ Improving transit access into the Yakima Greenway and Yakima Arboretum sites, ➢ Providing pathway connections from SR 24 to the existing Greenway pathways, ➢ Providing improved pedestrian and bicycle facilitates between urban City of Yakima and rural Yakima County, including improved connections with regional pathways, ➢ Providing dedicated pedestrian pathways on SR 24 throughout the project limits, ➢ Providing a dedicated park and ride lot on the northeast corner of SR 24 / Riverside (South 33`d Street) intersection. The current design of the proposed project will require approximately 0.02 acres of existing property owned by the City of Yakima for use at the Yakima Arboretum to be transferred for use SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 29 as right-of-way to meet City of Yakima roadway design standards. This 0.02 -acre sliver of property is already physically part of the existing south parking lot at the Yakima Arboretum. After the proposed improvements are completed the 0.02 acres will remain as they were before the improvements and will be returned back to City of Yakima ownership. The WSDOT has coordinated these design issues with the City of Yakima (see Appendix 11). According to 23 CFR 771.135, Section 4(f) (49 U.S.C. 303) (c) "Consideration under section 4(f) is not required when the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction over a park, recreation area or refuge determine that the entire site is not significant." Mitigation Temporary — Temporary consequences to either Build Alternative include short-terur disruptions to pedestrians and bicyclists using the Yakima Greenway trail under the SR 24 Bridge due to safety concerns during construction activities. The WSDOT will coordinate final design plans with the Yakima Greenway Foundation to further reduce any short -terns impacts to the existing trail system. As needed and coordinated with the Yakima Greenway Foundation, detours and temporary signage will be used to affectively communicate inconveniences with the public. Permanent - Both Build Alternatives have incorporated pedestrian and multi -model elements within the project design. These elements include: > Improving transit access into the Yakima Greenway and Yakima Arboretum sites, > Providing pathway connections from SR 24 to the existing Greenway pathways, > Providing improved pedestrian and bicycle facilitates between urban City of Yakima and rural Yakima County, including improved connections with regional pathways, > Providing dedicated pedestrian pathways on SR 24 throughout the project limits, D Providing a dedicated park and ride lot on the northeast corner of SR 24 / Riverside (South 33rd Street) intersection. > Acquire approximately 0.02 acres of City of Yakima property currently used as a park parking lot, improve the roadway and property to current City of Yakima design standards, and then return the property and new West Birchfield Road to the City of Yakima. 3.6 Land Use Planning Background The Growth Management Act (GMA) calls for local communities to rethink the traditional approach to transportation planning. In part, local and regional transportation plans, and therefore transportation projects, need to be consistent with the community's comprehensive GMA land use plan. In addition, cities, counties, and regions are to agree on a framework for transportation facilities and strategies (OCD, 2003). Communities decide what their vision is for the future and what part transportation plays in that vision, as part of GMA planning. At the countywide level, cities and counties agree on broad transportation facility needs and priorities. At the local level, communities look at how people SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 30 and freight will be moved from place to place, what destinations people will choose, and what types of transportation will be offered (OCD, 2003). Communities also determine level of service standards (LOS) for automobiles, transit, and non - motorized modes such as bicycles and pedestrians. These LOS standards help to support and implement underlying land use zoning district and the future vision for development. LOS standards are an estimate of the expected quality and efficiency of transportation facilities in a community. LOS standards for traffic congestion are often expressed through a letter system from "A" (the best) for the least amount of congestion to "F" (the worst) for the maximum amount of congestion a community is willing to accept. When a community adopts the LOS it is willing to maintain, it also determines how transportation services and systems will be maintained and improved to serve forecasted growth. Communities face tough decisions on how to fund increasing shortfalls for streets, roads, and other transportation needs. New housing, commercial, and industrial projects need to be developed in a manner that assures that the roads and other infrastructure supporting the project are in place or scheduled for completion when the project is complete. This is called concurrency (OCD, 2003). Growth management encourages regional coordination of transportation planning between state, regional and local jurisdictions, recognizing the benefits and cost savings that such cooperation can bring about GMA land use plans exist for the project area that define and regulate land use activities within the project area. The City of Yakima and the Yakima County Comprehensive Plan's were used to determine land use information and regulations for the project area. In addition, the Yakima County Web Page found at http://www.pan.co.yakima.wa.us/gis/ was used in determining parcel size, value, zoning, and current land use. Findings WSDOT as a state agency has a responsibility to coordinate improvements to the state highway infrastructure in coordination with local Growth Management Planning and Transportation Comprehensive Planning efforts. The project area is under land use jurisdiction by Yakima County and the City of Yakima. The Yakima River is the current jurisdictional boundary between the city and county. Zoning districts in the project area are regulated by the City of Yakima west Of the Yakima River and by Yakima County east of the Yakima River. Both Yakima County and the City of Yakima. plait under the 1990 Growth 1 Iailagement Act. The entire project limits are within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) of the City of Yakima. The UGA represents the City of Yakima's expected urban growth boundary for the next 20 -years. Zoning in the area is comprised of three general zoning districts - residential, commercial, and light industrial. These zoning districts represent the city and county's intended and approved land use activities iri the area. Figure 15 provides the current zoning districts in the study area. The proposed action is located between high-density urban land use activities within the City of Yakima and low-density rural land use activities in rural Yakima County. Land use activities SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 31 Sportsman State Park CBDS Yakima Arboretum ‘40. 44, 4444, W. Birchfield Rd. i Robertson Landing ! i 1 Sherman Park City of Yakima 1 loot- / c i CBDS; 1 Yakima Regional Sewage Treatment Facility City of 11, Union Gap 1 ,t KOA Campground (Private) Ten -ace Heights Lift Station Yakima County Yakima County Pit Site American Gas Newland Pit Sites Fiscus Trucking * 444,44, WSDO Pit Site 2411° VR Project location: Yakima County, Washington W E s Land Use, Zoning, & Existing Utilities Legend State Highway City Limits Domestic Water Domestic Sewer Central Business District Support (CBDS) Light Industrial (M1) Residential (R) Valley Rural (VR) *Electric, Natural Gas, Telephone and Cable Utilities are not shown. SR 24 / 1-82 to Keys Road Environmental Assessment Washington State Department o/ Transportation WSDOT - South Central Region November, 2003 Figure 15 Page 32 include a full range of commercial, residential, industrial, recreational, open space, and mining activities. The general project area has been the focus of numerous land use proposals and actions5 for the last several years and has characteristics that resemble a transition from low- density rural land use to higher-level commercial and industrial uses. Land use activities start along the western project limits with urban high-density commercial and residential uses. All property contiguous with the project limits west of I-82 is zoned Central Business District (CBD) Support. Between I-82 and the Yakima River SR 24 enters into large-scale commercial, recreational, and publicly owned land use activities. These activities include, but not limited to, the Yakima Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility, Robertson's Landing, Yakima Arboretum, Yakima Humane Society, Nob Hill Auto Wrecking, K -Mart, Woodpecker Trucking, and the Yakima River. Except for the K -Mart and Woodpecker Trucking properties (zoned Central Business District Support) the entire area is zoned low density Suburban Residential (SR). East of the Yakima River SR 24 enters into recreational, open space, commercial, residential, and mining activities. Specific land use activities include, but are not limited to, American Gas, the Kampgrounds of America (KOA), Fiscus Motor Freight, Sportsman State Park, numerous single family residences, and several material pit sites. All properties within 500 feet of the Yakima River are zoned low density Suburban Residential (SR). From Keys Road east all properties within the project limits are zoned light industrial (M1). As the area nears the eastern boundary of the proposed project limits (MP 1.53) land use activities become low-density residential and agricultural related uses. The east end of the proposed project is all zoned light industrial (Ml) except for a small segment on the south side zoned Valley Rural (VR). The low density Suburban Residential (SR) zoning district near the Yakima River contains most of the study areas' long-term public service properties, including, but not limited to, Sportsman's Park, Robertson's Landing, the Yakima Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility, the Yakima Arboretum, and the Yakima Humane Society. This low density SR zoning district can be found throughout the Yakima River corridor and is consistent with other low density zoning districts near Yakima River floodplain throughout the county. These established low-density zoning districts near the Yakima River support the Yakima County Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan and the reduction of flood risk to structures, citizens, and public infrastructure near floodways. To the west of the Yakima River floodway (Yakima UGA) commercial and industrial zoning districts have been established that support current land use trends and local economic development efforts by both Yakima County and the City of Yakima. These established higher - density commercial and industrial zoning districts are well outside the floodway and at least 500 - feet from the Yakima River. West of I-82 the entire area is within the incorporated boundary of the City of Yakima and contains a diverse mix of higher -density commercial, industrial, public and residential activities. 5 See Chapter 4, Cumulative Effects, for more information. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 33 As part of Growth Management, local jurisdictions also prepare and implement 6 -year transportation improvement plans (TIPs) and capital improvement plans (CIPs) intended to support long-range zoning decisions (GMA) and meet the public service needs for the next twenty -years. Consequences Temporary — Temporary consequences during construction from either of the Build Alternative on land use activities in the project area would include an increase in temporary noise, dust, and traffic congestion, including some temporary impacts to access for businesses and local roadways in the area until the project is complete. Indirect — Both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 indirectly support land use and transportation plans for Yakima County and the City of Yakima. In addition, the two build alternatives indirectly support land use and transportation plans for the City of Moxee. Direct — Both Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 would be consistent with existing long-range land use plans in the project area. Both alternatives would require the conversion of existing residential, industrial, and commercial zoned property into operating highway use. Alternative 2 would require up to 32 acres of new ROW and Alternative 3 would require up to 42 -acres of new K( w. The difference between the twn build alternatives relates to the height anri length of the Yakima River Bridge. However, Alternative 3, the South Raised Profile Alignment, also supports the Yakima County Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan's vision for reduced impacts and risk to the Yakima River floodplain. Access to several commercial or industrial properties would be relocated. These access modifications are expected to improve circulation and access to these properties and no negative affects are anticipated. Neither Build Alternative negatively affect existing land use plans for the area. However, additional review and coordination with American Gas, near the intersection of Keys Road and SR 24, will be needed during the design phase to insure compliance with state, local, and federal law. Up to 17 residential properties may require acquisition and / or relocation (see Socio-economic and Environmental Justice, Section 3.8). All of the residential acquisitions are due to current access control standards for state highways. All of these residential properties and dwellings that require acquisition have been zoned for commercial or light industrial land use. Mitigation Temporary — Mitig-ation wouid-be-the-same found for Transportation and Traffic, Section 3.4 above. Temporary detour connections and staged construction would reduce the temporary negative consequences to existing land use activities as much as possible. In addition, contract and design elements such as the dust abatement, traffic control plan, and on-site flagging personnel would help minimize these impacts to the project area and the traveling public. Early and frequent communication / notices to affected business, public agencies, and residents in the area should reduce the temporary impacts of the project construction on nearby land use SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 34 activities. Public notices should include, but are not limited to, I-82 signage, SR 24 and Nob Hill Boulevard signage, radio and television public service announcements, and local newspapers. Permanent — No permanent mitigation is proposed related to land use activities in the project area. The completion of either Build Alternative would improve traffic flow and access to existing and planning land use activities and improve public safety issues in this area. In addition, both Build Alternatives would support existing land use plans in the project area. 3.7 Public Utilities and Services Background Public utilities and services were analyzed following guidelines found in the Checklist for Social Elements. In addition, the WSDOT existing utility database and Yakima County GIS Web page were used to determine existing utility type and location within the project area. For the purpose of analyzing public services and utilities the definitions found within the Environmental Procedures Manual were used. Findings Physical Utilities: Within the project area electric, cable television, natural gas, domestic water, sanitary sewer, irrigation, and fiber optic utilities exist. These utilities exist within the existing ROW and provide utility service to a variety of public and private landowners in the project area. Domestic water and sanitary sewer service are predominantly along the west side of the project limits, near and in the City of Yakima, and become less accessible as the project moves to the east toward unincorporated Yakima County. Television cable, fiber, sanitary sewer, and telephone are currently hung on the existing SR 24 Yakima River Bridge. The Terrace Heights Sewer District owns and maintains a regional sewer main line that extends from the Terrace Heights neighborhood north of the project limits and runs down to the intersection of Keys Road and SR 24 where the Terrace Heights Sewer District owns a lift station on the northwest side of SR 24. Sewage enters the lift station and is lifted up through pumps into pressurized lines that are hung on the north side of the SR 24 Yakima River Bridge. On the west side of the existing bridge this pressurized sewer line drops under ground and south under the bridge into the Yakima Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility to the south of SR 24. Human Services: Police, fire, and emergency services exist within the study area. The Yakima River defines the boundary between the city and county services. To the west the City of Yakima has jurisdiction for police, fire, and emergency services. To the east Yakima County has jurisdiction. At this time no physical public facilities, such as fire and police stations, exist in the study area. West of the Yakima River police and fire services are provided by the City of Yakima. On the east side of the Yakima River fire and emergency services are provided by Fire District #4 and police services are provided by the Yakima County Sheriff District #1. The closest hospital is Providence Hospital at South loth Ave and Walnut Ave in Yakima. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 35 Consequences Temporary — Consequences to police, fire, and emergency services may be temporarily affected during the construction phase. However, access will be provided throughout the entire construction phase. During the design and construction of either proposed Build Alternative utilities may require temporary disruption and / or relocation due to the project. However, it is anticipated that all of these affects would be temporary in nature and duration. Early and continued communication with affected utility and services providers would be needed to minimize the affects of utility and public service disruptions. Direct — Permanent consequences to public utilities or services are not expected to negatively affect utility customers or providers in the project area and may improve service response times and /or reduce the need for emergency services on the highway. Specifically, the Terrace Heights Sewer District will need to be coordinated with as early as possible to allow them to review and determine what changes will be required for the sewage lift station at the intersection of Keys Road and SR 24. Early and continued coordination with public utility and service providers would be required to insure that potential disruptions of services are minimized. The proposed action also provides an opportunity for positive improvements to utility providers, businesses, and other ratepayers in the area by allowing utility providers to make needed or desired changes to services. Mitigation Temporary — The contractor for any proposed Build Alternative will be required to call for utility locates within the project area in order to reduce the chance of accidental utility disruptions. Permanent — The WSDOT will facilitate the relocation of existing utilities within the project area according to the 1992 WSDOT Utility Accommodation Policy, as amended. 3e8 Socio -Economic and Environmental Justice Background As a recipient of Federal financial assistance through the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Highways Administration (FHWA), WSDOT must ensure nondiscrimination under Title VI, in addition to other laws, regulations, and policies. In order to maintain federal funding, WSDOT is also obligated to adhere to Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 200 and Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 21. These two federal regulations govern WSDOT's federally aided highway programs and activities. They mandate that state departments of transportation have a system of policies and procedures prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, national origin and gender, when providing benefits and services resulting from federally assisted programs and activities. At WSDOT, that system of policies and procedures is known as the Title VI Program. A violation of the Title VI Program by WSDOT may result in a suspension of its FHWA funding. Potentially affected properties were also reviewed under Presidential Executive Order (EO) SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 36 12898 for the identification and avoidance of disproportionately high and adverse effects on minorities and low-income populations. Executive Order 12898 requires federal agencies to determine whether agency actions would have disproportionately high and adverse impact on minorities and/or low-income populations. The US DOT order mirrors that and adds "avoid disproportionately high and adverse human and environmental effects; prevent the denial, reduction, or delay in benefits received by minority and low-income populations and ensure full and fair participation of affected populations in transportation decision making. The WSDOT completed a socio-economic, environmental justice, and relocation discipline report in November 2000. This initial report was reviewed and updated in early 2003 to confirm socio-economic data, population data, and potential impacts in the project area. The background analysis included 1990 and 2000 U.S. Census tract information for minority and low-income populations, land use / tax / structure data from Yakima County, on-site visits, and the public involvement process used in the previously completed Access Hearing and open houses for this proposed project (McKinney, 2003). Findings The Yakima Valley regional economy is heavily dependent on the agriculture, logging, and tourism industries. The primary economic exports are fruits, vegetables, and forest products. The population of the Yakima Valley has been growing steadily over the past three decades increasing at a rate of about 2% per year, that is about 2,500 more people per year on average. Housing — The Yakima Valley's average 2% per year population growth for the past ten years has not accounted for the same growth in increased housing. Total housing increased from 70,852 to 79,174, which was a little more than 1% per year increase. There were 12,859 new houses built between 1990 and March 2000. During that same time, 4,537 housing units built before 1990 were no longer in use as housing. The 2000 Census reported 47,687 owner occupied housing units or 60.23%. Renter occupied housing in 2000 was 39.76% with 31,487 units. Employment — Yakima County employment generally increased over the past decade, but with the downturn of agriculture in the late 1990's and subsequent out migration of population from 223,917 in 1997 to 222,581 reported during the 2000 Census. The unemployment rate averaged over 10 percent during the same period that unemployment in the US fell from 6 percent to 4 percent and the state unemployment ranged from almost 8% to less than 5 percent. During 2002, the Yakima County unemployment rate dropped substantially, from 13.9 percent to 12.1 percent. This 1.8 -percentage points drop in the rate since December 2001 probably overstates the improvement in the local economy. It is apparent that the job growth as indicated in the labor force numbers is not coming from within the Yakima County borders. Many of the 1,000 additional residents estimated to be working in December 2002 commuted to jobs outside of the county, especially to the Tri -Cities where many jobs have been created by a new $4 billion federal environmental clean-up program. Demographic Changes — Yakima County has experienced a significant amount of growth from 1990 to 2000, with the County population increasing in the decade by 33,758 persons, or nearly 18 percent, from 188,823 to 222,581. All of this population growth was fueled by significant increases in minority populations as follows: SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 37 ➢ The Hispanic population exceeds all other racial or ethnic groups in overall population growth, increasing by 34,791 persons (a 77 percent increase) from 45,114 to a 2000 population of 79,905. ➢ The non -Hispanic White population decreased by 6,414 persons (a drop of 5 percent) from 132,147 to 125,733. ➢ This growth in minority population reinforces the trend of the last three decades, which has seen a movement in Yakima County towards a more racially and ethnically diverse population. To ensure that all residents within the project study area were notified of this pending project the WSDOT completed the following notification and public meetings: ➢ A public open house on the project was held on the evening of October 24, 2000 and an Access Hearing was held on December 19, 2001 at the Yakima Arboretum, a well- known, readily available, disability accessible, and centrally located facility within the project area. ➢ Letters were mailed to those property owners of record within the project impact area notifying them of the public open house at least 10 -days prior to the meeting. These notification letters were produced in both the English and Spanish languages. ➢ To ensure that those residents who were renters and those most likely to encounter disruptive impacts or outright displacement were made aware of the proposed project, additional notices were hand delivered to those dwellings in the project area, wherever a personal contact could be made. ➢ Notices of the open house were displayed at local convenience stores and service stations within the neighborhoods most likely affected. ➢ A legal notice was published in the Yakima Herald Republic, the legal newspaper, on November 19 and December 10, 2001 inviting the public to provide input at the Access Hearing. The legal notice included the availability of special accommodations to those with physical disabilities and language barriers. ➢ A public meeting to discuss and review the Environmental Assessment with the public and affected property owners is scheduled for December 2003. Consequences The potentially affected properties were reviewed for the identification and avoidance of disproportionately high and adverse project related impacts on minorities and/or low-income populations as mandated by the Presidential Executive Order (EO) 12898. In addition, the project area and the city and county were also reviewed for comparison purposes. After reviewing a variety of data sources, it was determined that the impacts have been avoided as much as possible and that there are no high and disproportionate adverse impacts on any SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 38 minority or low income populations due to project related actions. In addition, the remaining low-income population receives benefits that offset any impacts. Temporary — Temporary impacts to socio-economic and environmental justice elements will be in the form of temporary construction related nuisances. Temporary detour connections and staged construction will reduce temporary negative impacts to existing land use activities as much as possible. Contract elements such as dust abatement and on-site flagging personnel will minimize impacts to the project area and the traveling public. Direct — The referenced project will require the acquisition and relocation of approximately 17 residential dwelling units within the project area. The potential acquisitions are primarily found in two geographic areas within the project limits. The first area is located just north and south of SR 24 between I-82 and South 18th Street within the City of Yakima. The second area is around the intersection of SR 24 and Riverside Road in rural Yakima County. Area 1A: 1-82 to South 18th Street, City of Yakima — Area 1A (Figure 16) is similar in its socio- economic and ethnic balance as the rest of this southeast Yakima neighborhood. This determination was derived from 2000 U.S. Census block data, Yakima city and county property data and visual surveys of the area. From visual observations, U.S. Census data, and Yakima County property data it can be safely assumed the residents are of low income (McKinney, 2003). Assessed value of the homes and land that will be eliminated in this area range from $25,900 to $54,900 with vacant parcels assessed between $3,900 and $8,600. Nine residential units (eight homes and one mobile home) have sole access to / from SR 24 from Nob Hill Lane. Nob Hill Lane is within 300 feet of the I-82 off -ramps and presents traffic safety and design standard concerns on SR24. Of the nine homes that are anticipated to require acquisition, two are boarded up and vacant. These two units and an additional vacant parcel are owned by an out of state individual for potential investment purposes related to the under lying central business district support (CBDS) zoning classification6 in this area. The majority of the remaining homes are owner occupied or rental properties. The owner occupancy rate, socio-economic, and ethnic characteristics of these nine residential units is reflective of the surrounding neighborhoods. Other homes in this area are similar low- income properties and will not be impacted by this project. There is adequate availability in the area for both rentals and possible home purchases. The City of Yakima currently has Community Development Block Grants to assist low-income individuals with the purchase of residential dwellings. Additionally, the Yakima Housing Authority has programs to assist with the rental needs of low-income persons. Area 1B: 1-82 to South 18th Street, City of Yakima — Area 1B (Figure 16) is located on the south side of SR 24 where minor amounts of new ROW will also be required to complete the proposed action. Many of the homes in this area have either been turned into commercial properties and the entire affected area is zoned Central Business District (CBD) Support. However, three of the properties are currently in residential use and one is in combination commercial / residential use. The combination commercial / residential dwellings (1907 Boggess Lane) contains a business 6 See Figure 15: Land Use, Zoning, and Existing Utilities. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 39 (Wishing Wells) along the backside in a detached building on the property and in close proximity to the SR 24 corridor. While the commercial structure on this property is likely to be acquired for the proposed project the residential dwellings would not be affected. These residential units do not access SR24 and current access to South 18th Street from Boggess Lane will not be affected by the proposed project. None of these homes will require full acquisition or relocation. Full take of nine residential properties due to access control. Acquisition and potential relocation required. Area I A Partial take of four residential properties. Acquisition and relocation not required. Figure 16: Residential take west side of proposed action. Area 2: SR 24 /Riverside Road Intersection, Yakima County — Although the zoning in this area is light industrial, historic use was residential, and remains today throughout much of the area. Due to the required intersection improvements at this location and access limitations within 300 feet of this intersection approximately 8 dwelling units (Figure 17) may likely require acquisition. Four parcels are contained on the northeast side of SR 24 while four are on the southeast side. The first three of these units on the northeast side and closest to SR 24 have been on the market for some time and have been acquired through open sale by Yakima County for the South 33`d Street (Riverside Road) improvement project. One of properties was used as a rental site, which was occupied by likely low-income occupants. The remaining parcel is a home and has an assessed value of $37,600. Of the four parcels southeast of SR 24 anticipated for acquisition (from north to south) the first has a home of fair condition and is owned by a Hispanic family. The second parcel is a vacant lot and is attached to the third lot, which has a home on it of average quality, also owned by a Hispanic family. The second and third parcel from the SR 24 / Riverside Road intersection are currently for sale on the open market. The forth -remaining parcel also has a home on it, and SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 40 although it is listed as a property take required to complete the proposed project, acquisition may not be necessary pending final design of the new SR 24 intersection. The last remaining residential dwelling that is likely to require acquisition is approximately 1,300 feet south west of the Riverside Road / SR 24 intersection. This property contains a mobile home that receives access through an easement south of and adjacent to SR 24 onto Riverside Road, approximately 50 feet south of the intersection. Due to the proposed widening of SR 24, this access point will be eliminated. East project termini Approxi►nately. MP L53 t Residential properties affected by access control. Acquisition and relocation likely required. Figure 17: Residential takes east side of proposed action. According to background data Area 2 has a higher median income than Area 1. Impacts along Riverside Road are balanced and will not have a greater adverse impact on minorities/low income populations in this area due to the current diversity of the neighborhood. There are no "pockets" in this area that are exclusively low income or minority. Socio -Economic — The project will have minimal to no measurable impact, either positive or negative, on the local or regional economy. Employment in the construction trades will benefit during the construction phase of the project. The majority of workers are anticipated to reside in Yakima and the neighboring communities (McCulloch, 2000). Neighborhoods — No neighborhoods or neighborhood sub -areas will be separated from public or private services or retail / service oriented facilities. Unavoidable access modifications along the project limits will be minimal and not anticipated to have a direct impact on current commute or shopping patterns for drivers or non -motorists. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 41 Both Build Alternatives will improve access to both existing commercial and recreational o erties (Section 4(f)) and activities, including multi -model transportation routes, pedestrian properties - pathways, and the Yakima River (McKinney, 2003). Low and Moderate Income Populations — Up to nine of the possible 17 dwellings units that would require relocation are within an area with known low to moderate income or minority populations. These nine dwelling units are located within the City of Yakima between South 18` Street and i-82. These units exist along the outer edge of larger residential neighborhoods as well as in an active commercial and light industrial use area. Both Build Alternatives affects these properties to the same degree. Due to the logical project termini and other physical and design constraints no other reasonable or prudent alternative exists that would not impact this area of Yakima the same or more than the alternatives being considered. The proposed project will not have negative impacts on the livability of the remaining households factor in accelerating the conversion of the remaining residential households nor will it be a factor .� --- �-- --- properties into commercial / light industrial uses, due to access control limitations. However, both Build Alternatives include improved access to multi -model and non -motorized transportation routes in the area (McKinney, 2003). Mitigation - -- a Permanent— As part of either Alternative measures Build Alttithe following mitigation would be - ' implemented: 9 The proposed project would improve access from low / moderate -income neighborhoods to regional non -motorized transportation routes that improve safety and access to the Yakima Greenway pathways, the Yakima River, and other recreational opportunities in the area. Future public meetings and / or hearings for the proposed project will continue public outreach that encourages input from and are accessible to persons with disabilities, language barriers, or income limitations. This may require the continued process of hand delivery to potentially affected properties in the project area. 3.9 Right-of-way Acquisition and Highway Access Background All right of way acquisitions are made under the Federal Law, "Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policy Act of 1970 (84 Stat. 1894; 42 U.S.C. 4601 et. seq.; Pub. L. 91- 646)", and appropriate Washington State Laws and Codes (Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and Washington Administrative Code (WAC). Preliminary right-of-way designs were used to determine the extent and location of possible property or access acquisition within the action area. These right-of-way designs are based on current WSDOT design standards for limited access highways that require, in part, that access within 300 feet of a highway intersection not be allowed. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 42 Findings To complete the proposed action additional right-of-way (ROW) will be required throughout the entire project limits Specifically, additional right-of-way will be required to complete the new Yakima River Bridge, the additional two lanes with associated fill slopes, new intersections, expanded on / off ramps near 1-82, and new stormwater facilities. In addition, current design standards for highway will require limited access control within 300 - feet of intersections on SR 24. Access control issues may affect the acquisition and relocation of up to 17 residential properties in the project area. Alternative 2, South Low Profile Alignment would require an additional 32 acres of new ROW to complete. Alternative 3, South Raised Profile Alignment would require up to 42 acres of new ROW to complete the project. The difference in ROW requirements between Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 relates solely to the length and height of the new Yakima River Bridge. ROW requirements along the east and west termini of the proposed project are identical for both Build Alternatives. Since the proposed action will be using the existing SR 24 corridor ROW both Build Alternatives have similar ROW impacts. However, Alternative 3, South Raised Profile Alignment, will require approximately 5 additional acres of ROW, primarily in the area just east and west of the Yakima River. The difference in ROW requirements between the two Build Alternatives is related to the height of the new Yakima River Bridge and related embankment needs near the new bridge abutments. Retaining walls will be used to reduce minor impacts to public and recreational properties west of the Yakima River. Access from Keys Road at the SR 24 intersection will be eliminated and a cul-de-sac installed by Yakima County. Traffic from this intersection will be routed to Riverside Road approximately 2,500 feet to the east where Yakima County is widening Riverside Road to five lanes. Consequences Temporary — Once the additional ROW has been acquired no temporary consequences are expected from either Build Alternative. Direct — The direct impacts of both Build Alternatives are further defined as follows: Businesses — ROW requirements from existing business properties may affect minor amounts of existing parking spaces. The proposed project will provide off-site improvements that will allow better accessibility to existing businesses, particularly those in and around the K -Mart, Yakima Arboretum, Roberson's Landing, and Yakima Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility. Access to SR 24 from Keys Road will be removed by Yakima County and access to and from businesses on Keys Road will be routed to SR 24 through Riverside and West Birchfield Road, east of the Yakima River. This access modification is not expected to negatively affect businesses along Keys Road. Overall consequences of this project are considered to be positive to the business environment in the project area because they accommodate current land use plans for the area. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 43 Residential Properties — Up to 17 residential dwelling units may be acquired and discontinued by either of the proposed alternatives. Two of these dwellings are boarded up and not in use at this time and one additional dwelling is vacant and up for sale. These planned residential acquisitions and relocations are related to highway access control intersection design standards, and public safety issues. While the WSDOT understands that the these residential properties be a hardship nn the residentC consequences of acquiring properties vl uvJ may .�.. » ++..+.-�- -1- --- ----------- , no other reasonable alternative was found that would avoid these properties access issues. The noise analysis for this project (Section 3.17) also predicted that noise impacts to the residential properties north of SR 24 between I-82 and South 18`h Street would exceed noise abatement criteria (NAC). The noise analysis concluded that noise abatement costs would exceed the allowable cost for per unit noise abatement. Public Use Properties — ROW requirements from public use properties will be required to complete the project. However, all of this new ROW is minor and will not reduce or change •. • _ r +t_ public _ Overall t., and from the nature, availability, or size °o1 these public properties. accessto +.he thelaatuly Yakima Greenway, Yakima Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility, Robertson's Landing, Yakima Humane Society, and the Yakima Arboretum will be improved. Mitigation Temporary — Temporary mitigation is not anticipated for ROW acquisition. Peiiiianent — The acquisition and relocation program will be conducted in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. Relocation resources are available, without discrimination to all eligible residential and business relocatees. 3.10 Hazardous Materials Background The study area contains a number of land uses associated with the handling of hazardous waste materials. Semi -truck and automotive fueling and maintenance sites, auto wrecking, oil / propane / petroleum sites, large commercial sites, and a sewage treatment facility located within the study area all present some level of risk for the proposed action. WSDOT Hazardous Materials Program completed a detailed hazardous material discipline The WSDOT V 1 Materials 1J 1 1V=,1 N discipline in 2000, with a supplemental report in 2002. These reports considered potential regulatory considerations relating to the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA), State Dangerous Waste Regulations, Solid Waste Disposal, Wastewater Discharges to Ground, City of Yakima Pretreatment Pellliit Program, and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The goals of this report were to: ➢ Identify historical or existing property uses within the proposed action's right-of-way (ROW) that have a known or probable contaminant release; identify adjacent property uses that may affect water quality within the actions construction area. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 44 > Identify where relatively common or predictable contaminants are likely to occur; estimate the nature and extent of contamination and potential cleanup costs associated with the proposed project action. > Identify properties outside the proposed action's ROW where the state may inherit a cleanup liability. > Provide options for avoidance or mitigation for areas with a high probability of encountering contamination. > Identify the location of areas that warrant additional investigation to further characterize potential hazardous material in the study area. Findings Evidence of hazardous waste was found to exist within the project area. During the Hazardous Waste analysis 16 potential sites were included in the initial screening process. Eleven of these sites were eliminated from further consideration because they were either located too far downgradient of proposed project right-of-way or did not pose potentially significant risk to the environment or to construction elements (Ray, 2002). The five remaining sites are listed below. > Maid O'Clover — An operating gas station on the corner of South 18th Street and Nob Hill Boulevard (SR 24). ➢ Tiger Oil Corporation — An operating gas station on the corner of South 18th Street and Nob Hill Boulevard (SR 24). > Nob Hill Auto Wrecking — An operating and expansive auto wrecking and auto parts retail outlet north of SR 24 near the Yakima River. > Mobile Fleet Service — A semi -truck truck wash and fueling station on the west side of I- 82 near the Yakima Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility. ➢ Yakima Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility — A publicly owned and operated regional sewage treatment facility south of SR 24 near I-82. Consequences Temporary — Construction and equipment related activities would increase the risk of hazardous material spills during the construction phase of the proposed project. Direct - Each of the hazardous material sites is considered to have reasonably predictable environmental risk. Contaminated soils have the potential to exist within the construction area. Expected contaminants are petroleum products and related soil contamination on or near these sites. Depending on the structures selected to support the new bridge, it is possible that contaminated groundwater could also be encountered. Surface water impacts are not anticipated. However, soil erosion and other uncontrolled releases that may occur during construction could negatively impact surface waters in the area (Ray, 2000). SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 45 Mitigation Temporary — A Spill Prevention, Control and Counter measure (SPCC) Plan will be developed and approved by the construction engineer. In addition, prior to any construction plans showing the location of staging areas, fuel and equipment locations, and emergency procedures will be developed. Permanent — The WSDOT would conduct a preliminary site investigation to confirm or refute suspected environmental conditions in work areas and property to be acquired, refine cost estimates for waste cllalacterizatioIl and disposal, and refine construction specifications for the handling and disposal of contaminated materials. Three (3) potentially contaminated media may require special consideration during construction. These media include soils, groundwater, and surface water. Mitigation recommendations include the following (Ray, 2000/2002): ➢ Petroleum Contaminated Soil (PCS) — A detailed site investigation (level 2) as to whether PCS is a concern at the sites referenced above. ➢ Groundwater — Groundwater impacts could occur if dewatering is a necessary part of construction. Mitigation related to the contaminating of groundwater could be accomplished by minimizing treatment and discharge of dewatering activities. Groundwater issues should be analyzed prior to dewatering activities to determine the appropriate treatment and / or disposal requirements. Depending on the results of this analysis contaminated groundwater may be 1) discharged to the Yakima Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility, 2) treated and discharged to the Yakima Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility, or 3) depending on the circumstances, applied to uplands into an approved dewatering site. ➢ Surface Water — Mitigation to surface waters include a variety of planning and operational elements. This includes the development and management of Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESL) Plan, a ,Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan, and a Contingency Plan. See Section 3.14, Water Quality, for additional discussion and mitigation regarding surface water. ➢ Worker and Public Health and Safety — Any contaminated media or substances should be handled as to minimize exposure or contact to workers and the public. ➢ Demolition Debris — The existing bridge is a concrete structure and not anticipated to contain lead-based paints. Except for bird guano as a fugitive dust it is anticipated that demolition will generate non -hazardous construction debris. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 46 3.11 Floodplains Background The analysis and study of floodplain issues in the project area referenced and used several sources of background information. These sources include; the 1995 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Floodway Map for this area (panel 530217 1055), the Yakima County 1998 Upper Yakima River Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan, 2003 SR 24 Project Floodplain Consistency Report, the WSDOT Flood Management Initiative, and a 2003 WSDOT backwater analysis. The project limits intersect the Yakima River and its associated floodplain from east to west. Approximately 1.28 miles of the 1.68 -mile long project (76%) is within the Yakima River Floodplain. 480000 40 3524 468000 466000 464000 48'34'25-- 952050 460000 12078'32" 1046000 1048000 120'27'33" 1850000 1652000 120 76'34" 1054000 1656000 120'25'35" 1858000 44, • 1840000 1048000 12078'32" 0.6 1850000 1052000 120 77'33" 0 0.6 1054000 1650000 12076'34" 400000 48 36 24" 468000 460000 454000 48.34'25" 462000 450000 1058000 120'2515" 1.2 Miles LEG EN D: State Highways Yakima River 100 -Year Floodplain Boundary (Federal Emergency Management Administration) Figure 18: Yakima River Floodplain Map. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 47 WSDOT owned and managed infrastructures often intersect rivers and their associated floodplains. Flooding activities adversely impact transportation facilities, disrupting services, and interrupting the movement of people and goods. In addition, the construction and maintenance of WSDOT facilities can affect the capacity of floodplain storage and watershed function, and may have a negative impact on natural resources. Therefore, it is generally more cost effective to prevent flood damage than it is to repair flood damage. Local communities also have come to expect that WSDOT will help resolve flood hazard problems when they relate to state highways. In addition, the WSDOT has a Flood Management Initiative (FMT) that recognizes that flooding is: a public safety issue, a transportation issue, an economic issue, a salmon recovery issue, and a watershed issue. One of the fundamental goals of the WSDOT FMI includes working with other agencies, including local floodplain management agencies, to improve coordination and resolution for critical flood issues that face both local agencies and the WSDOT, Findings The 4 -million acre Yakima River Basin is the largest river basin wholly within Washington state and home to its largest band of Indian tribes, the Yakama Nation. The entire Yakima River Floodplain in the project area has been redirected and controlled by land use development and flood control levees. Historic and current development actions, including the construction of existing flood control levees, have constricted the floodplain and substantially degraded floodplain biotic functions. Furtheiniore, the current 600 -foot Yakima River Bridge on SR 24 constricts the river and causes backwater during flood events on properties north of this location. Taken as a unit, the current configuration of the Yakima River levee system and the SR 24 Yakima River Bridge exacerbate the constriction driven aggradation7 of the riverbed with negative implications to both flood safety and wildlife habitat viability by creating a backwater condition that precludes normative floodplain function (Park, 2003). Historically, flooding is common on the Yakima River. The river has exceeded flood stage 45 times since 1R94. Yakima has heen declared a federal disaster area dine to flooding nine times since 1970, most recently in 1995 and 1996. The 1996 Yakima River flood event totaled 56,300 cfs and the Yakima River has an annual noinial high flow of 14,590 cfs (Park, 2003). The flood hazard and avulsion8 risk in this section of the Yakima River is much higher than that of other sections of the Yakima River. The reason for this is that the existing flood control levees downstream from SR 24 provide much lower levels of flood protection than those located upstream of the bridge. Due to their inadequate height and construction materials, levees in this reach have required reinforcement under emergency conditions on numerous occasions (Freudenthal, 2002). The cumulative and indirect effects of these past flood levee actions (both in their location and continued maintenance) have a deteriorating influence on water quality and fish / wildlife habitat within the Yakima River, as referenced in the project's 2003 Biological Assessment. See Section 3.12, Fish / Wildlife / ESA and Section 3.14, Water Quality for additional information. 7 The process of deposition of particles onto the stream bottom that results in a rising of the streambed. 8 A abrupt shift in stream course resulting in the establishment of a new stream channel. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 48 Since 1903, the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) has been managing the majority of the Yakima River Basin's water resources by building multi -dam water storage and delivery projects to help irrigators, particularly during the long seasons of drought the region has endured. As a result, the natural yearly flow pattern of the river has been dramatically altered, with serious negative effects on aquatic species, including anadromous fish, which developed under the pre - development flow regime. It is estimated that up to 80-90% of the basin's water is regularly diverted from rivers (American River Web Page, 2003). In 1994, federal legislation - the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Program (YRBWEP) - authorized federal financing of water conservation measures and changes in the BOR project works and operations in order to improve stream flows for fish and stabilize agricultural water supplies. This legislation gave BOR a new mission to mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife by funding solutions to the inefficient use of water in irrigation districts and BOR project works, the acquisition of water rights and lands exhibiting high aquatic habitat values, the development of an operating plan that takes into consideration biologically -based flows, and scientific research to support these projects. BOR is working with irrigators, the Yakama Nation, fishery agencies, environmentalists and scientists to develop future water resource management plans that balance the demands of the water users in the region and the need to restore the rivers, floodplains and fish populations (American River Web Page, 2003). During the 2001 Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) discussions, local and federal flood management agencies recommended that additional floodplain restoration and flood risk reduction be analyzed within the SR 24 project. The Floodplain Consistency Report found that strong partnering opportunities existed with Yakima County and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) to improve floodplain restoration and reduce flood risk within the Yakima River floodplain. Several properties south of the SR 24 project limits have been purchased by the BOR and the Yakama Nation related to floodplain protection and restoration. The BOR is continuing a program of purchasing floodplain properties in this area. The Upper Yakima Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan (CFHMP) is in the process of being amended by the Yakima County Flood Control Zone District to include elements of preventing degradation of the floodplain and improving the current risks of flooding on people, infrastructure, and land in the upper Yakima County area. The Yakima River near the SR 24 Bridge is currently,(and was previously, the number one ranked area in need of floodplain improvements. The amended CFHMP recommends, as a key component to the implementation of flood protection and flood risk reduction measures in this general area, that the new SR 24 Bridge should be lengthened to approximately the location of the existing intersection of Keys Road (draft amended CFHMP, Chapter 8, page 8-25). The CFHMP amendment document and SEPA Checklist are currently under review by Yakima County with an anticipated SEPA Determination and public comment period in November 2003. The discussed amendment to the CFHMP is anticipated to be adopted in early 2004. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 49 .onsequences �_dz_y - The Yakima River Floodplain Consistency Report (Park, 2003) provided baseline analysis of how bridge length over the Yakima River may facilitate local floodplain restoration and flood risk reduction to this section of the Yakima River. However, the key factor in analyzing bridge length options for floodplain restoration and flood reduction risk is the location of the flood control levees. The final locations of flood control levees are issues directly related to the Yakima County Flood Control Zone District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and not the WSDOT. 'T1.,. F The following analyse..s oil bridge length assume logically determined � --� length uoouut�. 1v�1�.atl.y UG1.G11111i1e(1 locations for new flood control levees based on topographic and geographic features of the floodplain to complete the following preliminary floodplain restoration analysis, as they relate to potential floodplain restoration opportunity. The following f e following summary provides the analysis found within the Floodplain Consistency Report on the alternatives being considered. s,'JnjiUG1GU. Alternative 1, No -Action — This No -Action Alternative provides the existing baseline conditions for the project. The existing bridge is approximately 600 feet in length and extends from roadway fill materials approximately 200 feet west of the existing Yakima River channel to the east bank channel of the Yakima __. River, l )n the southwest side cif the river an existing flood levee is tied into the existing bridge fill slope. This levee is not constructed to PL99 levee standards and extends to the south along the boundary of the Yakima Sewage Treatment Facility. In addition, the west bank of the river under the existing bridge is receding due to the changing and dynamic river morphology at this location, leading to additional risk of bank erosion and stability problems. On the east side of the river the existing roadway fill materials act as a dike between the north and south flood levees that are not parallel to each other. This situation forces the existing SR 24 highway fill to act as a short flood levee that ties the two levees together. SR 24 was not designed to act as a flood control levee. The degraded baseline floodplain conditions that resulted in scour and bank problems at the existing bridge will continue. Repeated attempts to fix the bridge scour problem with riprap have failed and future measures will need to be more intrusive and extensive to alleviate the bridge scour conditions. Opportunities for floodplain restoration would be precluded and bank erosion and scour will likely continue as existing river channel conditions of constriction and aggradation continue (Park, 2003). Alternative 2, South Low Profile Alignment — This alternative would provide a new bridge over the Yakima River that would be between 800 and 1,000 feet in length. The new bridge would extend from the existing east flood control levee approximately 200 -feet east of the current bridge abutment. The west side bridge abutment may he located anywhere from 0 to 200 feet west of the existing bridge abutment. While the shorter Low Profile Alignment would be approximately 200 to 400 feet longer than the existing bridge it would still reinforce the current Yakima River constrictions that have been shown to be a contributing factor on the flood hazard risk in the area. Alternative 2, South Low Profile Alignment would restrict all but minor amounts of restoration and flood risk reduction at the project location. Backwater and scour risk would be less severe, but would be expected to SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 50 continue, as would the disequilibria of river bedload transport processes in the area. Avulsion risk would continue to increase, as existing river conditions remain fundamentally unchanged. All future improvements in flood storage or hyporheic9 functions facilitated by future flood restoration actions would be limited by the shorter bridge. Assuming an existing active channel width of 300 -feet, a new bridge span of 800 to 1,000 feet would provide a channel migration zone approximately 2.6 to 3.1 greater than existing conditions (Park, 2003). These channel width ratios are based on existing conditions assuming levee setback recommendations commensurate with the proposed bridge lengths that were developed in the floodplain analysis (Park, 2003). An elevated short span along the existing alignment offers minimum, if any, potential for floodplain restoration. Most of these potential floodplain restoration options exist along the east bank downstream of the existing alignment. The optimum restoration of existing channel sinuosity that can be attained under Alternative 2 occurs adjacent to the left bank highway abutment where the existing levee may be tapered back from the Yakima River channel. This will help reduce velocities and scour potential at the bridge site. Below the bridge, the levee should taper back along an even sinuous curve to a point where it parallels the highway from this point, the set back should parallel the highway until veering gradually to the South, again following a smooth curve that matches the sinuosity of the river channel. Finally the levee ties in with the proposed setback levee near the western bank of Blue Slough. Due to the potential for increased ecological damage and increased damage risk to infrastructure, if there is restoration of floodplain in this vicinity, detailed (two foot contours) topographic data for both the channel and gravel pit areas must be gathered and analyzed for avulsion risk. Based upon the findings of this data the gravel pit flood elevations should be brought up to within six to eight feet of grade (Park, 2003). Implementation of Alternative 2 would facilitate setting back the existing levees south of SR 24 to accommodate floodplain restoration. In restoring the floodplain in the project area, it may necessitate the acquisition of permanent structures. However, since the existing levees north of SR 24 are assumed to remain in place with Alternative 2, only property south of the highway would be affected. These indirect impacts will be addressed as part of the levee setback planning process, under the jurisdiction of Yakima County and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Alternative 2, the South Low Profile Alignment will add approximately 234,000 cubic yards of new fill materials to the Yakima River floodplain. This estimated fill materials quantity is 66,000 cubic yards more than Alternative 3, the South Raised Profile Alignment. The additional fill quantities relate to the length of the new Yakima River Bridge verses filling that area with materials. In addition, Alternative 2 is predicted to reduce the backwater effects of the existing bridge by 0.30 feet compared to a reduction of 3.30 feet by Alternative 3. The existing highway fill materials would be incorporated into the new highway alignment with an undetermined amount of existing fill materials left in place near the existing flood control levees on a temporarily basis as it relates to the need for balancing long-term floodplain enhancement with short-teiiu flood protection in the area. However, the existing highway fill 9 The area of saturated space beneath the streambed / stream banks and groundwater. This area provides essential biological functions that support a wide range of freshwater aquatic life. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 51 materials along the east bank that act as a connection between the two un -parallel existing flood levees are not designed for flood control and pose risk of failure from future flood events. In addition, the shorter bridge configuration would not allow floodplain restoration above the bridge location and would maintain upstream constrictions and flow characteristics. This un- parallel levee situation leads to the need to address floodplain restoration and levee setbacks to both the north and south sides of SR 24 as to not create an increased flood risk potential in the area on and near the KOA campground. Alternative 3, South Raised Profile Alignment — This alternative would provide a new bridge over the Yakima River that would be between 1,200 and 1,600 feet in length. The west side bridge abutment may be located anywhere from 0 to 200 feet west of the existing bridge abutment. A new bridge span in this range (1,200 to 1,600 feet) would not preclude Yakima County from implementing floodplain restoration and flood risk reduction actions in this area. In teuiis of floodplain function, a longer bridge would allow Yakima County to pursue relocation options for the existing flood control levees. Levee relocation would reduce the existing river constrictions, reduce or eliminate existing backwater effects, improve flood storage capacity, and reduce the risk of life and property loss during future flood events. Assuming an active channel width of 300 -feet, a new bridge span of 1,200 to 1,600 feet would provide a channel migration zone approximately 4 to 5.3 greater than existing conditions (Park, 2003). These channel width ratios are based on existing conditions assuming levee setback recommendations commensurate with the proposed bridge lengths that were developed in the floodplain analysis (Park, 2003). Alternative 3, the South Raised Profile Alignment will add approximately 168,000 cubic yards of new fill materials to the Yakima River floodplain. This estimated fill materials quantity is 66,000 cubic yards less than Alternative 2, the South Low Profile Alignment. The reduction in fill quantities relate to the length of the new Yakima River Bridge verses filling that area with materials. In addition, Alternative 3 is predicted to reduce the backwater effects of the existing bridge by 3.30 feet compared to a reduction of 0.30 feet by Alternative 2. The existing highway fill materials would be incorporated into the new highway alignment with an undeteiinined amount of existing fill materials left in place near the existing flood control levees on a temporarily basis as it relates to the need for balancing long-term floodplain enhancement with short-term flood protection in the area. However, the existing highway fill materials along the east bank that act as a connection between the two un -parallel existing flood levees are not designed for flood control and pose risk of failure from future flood events. This un -parallel levee situation leads to the need to address floodplain restoration and levee setbacks to both the north and south sides of SR 24. Implementation of Alternative 3 would facilitate setting back the existing levees to accommodate floodplain restoration. In restoring the floodplain in the project area, it may necessitate the acquisition of fifteen to twenty permanent structures including permanent residences, and a KOA campground with cabins, tent sites and RV sites. While the extent of the potential levee relocations are not known at the time of this document, most, if not all, of the acquisitions requiring permanent structures would be located north of SR 24 between Keys Road and the existing left bank levee. These indirect impacts will be addressed as part of the levee setback SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 52 planning process, under the jurisdiction of Yakima County and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Park, 2003). A longer bridge provides Yakima County the opportunity to implement floodplain restoration and flood risk reduction in the area that would help provide positive cumulative effects on public infrastructure protection, public safety, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and critical habitat (Park, 2003; McQueary, 2003a). Mitigation Temporary — The existing highway fill materials may be left in place temporarily, in part or whole, based on the need to balance long-teiui floodplain restoration by Yakima County with short-term flood protection to the area. Permanent — A new longer (800 to 1,600 foot) bridge and subsequent design would be coordinated with the Yakima County Flood Control Zone District to be consistent with their Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan, as amended. Mitigation Plan — The WSDOT will develop a compensatory mitigation plan during the permitting phase of the project. This mitigation plan will account for all compensatory mitigation necessary to address the unavoidable impacts and benefits to sensitive resources associated with the project action. Based on the functional assessment within the forthcoming mitigation plan, the project action will also be reviewed and evaluated for potential credit, as well as impacts. One of the potential credit issues in this forthcoming mitigation plan will relate to the longer Yakima River Bridge length and its ability to facilitate floodplain restoration, flood risk reduction, water quality enhancement, and habitat restoration within the Yakima River and its associated floodplain. 3.12 Fish / Wildlife / ESA / Vegetation Background Endangered Species Act (ESA) — Section 7 of the 1973 Endangered Species Act (ESA) outlines procedures for interagency cooperation to conserve and protect federally listed species and designated critical habitats. Section 7(a)(1) requires Federal agencies to use their authorities to further the conservation of listed species. Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to consult with both USFWS and NOAA Fisheries to ensure that they are not undertaking, funding, permitting, or authorizing actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCA) — The MSFCA includes a mandate that NOAA Fisheries must identify Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for federally managed marine fish, and federal agencies must consult with NOAA Fisheries on all activities, or proposed activities, authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect EFH. EFH is defined as "the waters and benthos necessary to a species spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity — its full life cycle" (PFMC 1999). SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 53 The Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC 1999), with the concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce, defines freshwater salmon EFH as "the aquatic component of streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies currently or historically accessible to salmon (except above certain impassable barriers) in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California identified by USGS hydrologic units." Studies and Coordination — To evaluate wildlife and habitat concerns within the SR 24, 182 to Keys Road project area and vicinity the WSDOT and FHWA have consulted with or obtained information from the F„71,...,:...,.. agencies following agencies or sources regarding ESA and Critical Habitat: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), ESA evaluation guidance (USFWS 1998), NOAA Fisheries, Washington State Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Information System, and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), field reviews, scientific literature reviews, and the WSDOT July 2001 Environmental Procedures Manual. In addition, the following references and sources have been incorporated into the PSA Critical Habitat evaluation and into the proposed project design: ➢ WSDOT January 13, 2003 Biological Assessment (BA) to NOAA Fisheries. ➢ July 22, 2003 NOAA Fisheries Biological Opinion (BO) for the proposed project. ➢ July 30, 2003 NOAA Fisheries Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Conservation Measures. ➢ August 14, 2003 Amended BA to USFWS, ➢ September 16, 2003 USFWS Concurrence letter. Findings Federally listed threatened species and Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) species found and addressed in the project BA are contained within Table 4. While some species have limited distribution they were considered due to their history throughout the Columbia Basin. Table 4: Species listed as Threatened and Endangered in the project area. Species Status BA LGI.G1111111d 11V11 Determination Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) MSFCA MEL Steelhead (O. mykiss) T MEL Coho (0. kisutch) MSFCA MEL Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) T MENL Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus) T MENr 1v1L\ L Bull Trout Critical Habitat T= threatened MSFCA — M• • N/A MENL — agnuson Stevens Flsher�es Conservation Act MEL = May effect and likely to adversely affect, MENL = May Effect but not and likely to adversely affect Vegetation — Historically, vegetation throughout the project area was shrub -steppe, with big sagebrush and bunchgrasses the dominant cover. Along rivers and streams, galleries of black cottonwood are still prevalent, however, stand structure and reproductive rates have been greatly reduced due to the current regulated flow regime of the Yakima River. Most of the area to the west of the Yakima River Bridge has been developed and land use is predominantly commercial, with a large retail center between the river and I-82. The eastern portion of the project contains lands that have been converted to agricultural use and have degraded vegetated communities from overgrazing. Much of the plant life is introduced, weedy species along the highway right- SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 54 of -way and extending into the pastures along SR 24. Tree species outside the riparian corridor are predominantly Chinese elm and Russian olive (McQueary, 2003a). Threatened or Endangered Aquatic Species Mid -Columbia Steelhead (May Effect, Likely to Adversely Effect) Mid -Columbia Steelhead are found throughout the Yakima River system year round. Hydropower facilities are located north and south of the project action area, allowing for relatively easy assessment of salmonid stocks within the Yakima Basin. Numerous research projects have been completed or are on-going throughout the basin. In 1989, NOAA Fisheries initiated a radio -telemetry study of the Yakima River Steelhead to determine run timing, passage patterns at irrigation diversions, and morphometric characteristics of different Yakima Basin steelhead sub -stocks (Hockersmith et al. 1995). In the three years of the study, adult Steelhead migrated upstream of the Prosser Dam from September to April, with a bimodal peak in the spring and fall. The Yakima River Steelhead exhibit three stages in upstream migration: migratory phase, a winter holding phase, and a spawning phase (Hockersmith et al. 1995). Adults - Steelhead migrating into the Yakima River during fall and early winter settle into winter holding areas. Upon arrival at winter holding areas, steelhead established small home ranges (average 6.5 miles) from October through February. Winter holding areas were occupied from 28 to 167 days (average 77 days). The majority (62%) of the radio -tagged steelhead wintered between Prosser and Sunnyside Dams. Twenty-eight percent of the radio -tagged steelhead wintered downstream from Prosser Dam. (Hockersmith et al. 1995). Over -wintering habitat was limited to deep, low velocity waters. Upstream migration seems to be specifically linked to water temperatures, with little movement at temperatures below 39.2°F. There is no evidence that Steelhead spawn in the lower reaches of the Yakima River below Chandler Dam. While steelhead spawning has not been documented within the project action area, the entire lower Yakima River is a major over -wintering site for Steelhead (NOAA Project BO, 2002). Juveniles — Young alevins become free swimming from four to seven days after hatching and as they grow, tend to migrate into deeper waters and establish territories. Juvenile steelhead are intimately connected to habitat that provides submerged cover in the form of either rocks or large woody debris. Streamside vegetation provides a food source and reduces summer water temperatures (Pauley et al. 1986). Ruehle and McCutcheon (1990) undertook pit -tag studies at the Chandler Dam facility to establish baseline data for survival rates of juvenile salmonids. The Chandler Dam facility is located at RM 76 of the Yakima River, approximately 40 miles downstream of the project area. Pit -tag data was retrieved from fish downstream of Chandler Dam and at McNary Dam. Of the fish released at Chandler Dam, approximately 7% were detected at McNary Dam. However, downstream recovery rates on the Yakima River after three successive trials yielded a mean of 92%. This indicated that these juveniles were either staying within the system or were suffering high mortality rates prior to migrating past McNary Dam. Ruehle and McCutcheon (1990) felt that steelhead were not migrating out of the system as smolts (juveniles). Juvenile steelhead are likely found in the project action area throughout the year. Steelhead usually remain in freshwater from one to four years before transformation to the smolt stage (Pauley et al. 1986). SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 55 Habitat - Selection of habitat type is controlled by a number of factors, including overhead cover, velocity refuge, proximity to swifter currents, substrate size, and visual isolation of con- specifics (Fausch 1993). Steelhead prefer select feeding stations (territories) with slower currents in close proximity to swifter currents that carry drifting food (Fausch 1993) in an attempt to maximize net energy gain (Fausch 1984, 1993). In an experimental manipulation. Fausch (1993) found steelhead to prefer artificial habitats that provided overhead cover in runs (relatively unbroken surface), although he suggested that this might not have been as important in riffles. in addition, visual isolation and velocity refuge were also important. Winter habitat use and behavior differs from summer. Both steelhead and rainbow ow trout juveniles have been reported to seek shelter during the day in interstitial spaces of the substrate or within macrophytes at water temperatures below 46.4°F (Riehle and Griffith 1993). Various factors combine to affect water quality in the lower Yakima River, Contributing factors include eroded soil carried to the river via irrigation returns or tributaries affected by irrigation runoff, in addition to sand and gravel mining, urban runoff, erosion from construction sites, road building, forestry practices, and natural causes. As a result, the lower Yakima River has been placed on Washington State's 303(d) list for impaired water bodies (NOAA project BO, 2003). See Section 3.14, Water Quality, for additional information on water quality issues. In the project action area several factors combine to adversely affect Steelhead habitat. The project area is located where a system of flood protection levees have significantly constricted the floodplain, resulting in the elimination of important over -bank habitats and degradation of remaining in -stream habitat conditions. Moreover, the current SR 24 Yakima River Bridge pier foundations are being undercut by stream flows, resulting in an ongoing need to place riprap around pier footings to prevent catastrophic failure, and which result in further degradation of in - stream habitat conditions (NOAA project BO, 2003). The "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination is warranted based on the following: ➢ Likely presence of juvenile steelhead year round in the project area. In -water work involving drilled shafts of new bridge. ➢ In -water work involving demolition of existing bridge. ➢ Temporary impacts to riparian areas during construction activities. ➢ Temporary construction impacts to Blue Slough. ➢ An increase in impervious surface. Columbia Basin Bull Trout / Critical Habitat (May Effect, Not Likely to Adversely Effect) The project action area is bounded on all sides by Hydroelectric and irrigation facilities. The Yakima and Columbia River Basins have been well studied and the occurrence and migratory behavior of salmonids well documented. Bull trout in the lower Yakima River system were thought to be extirpated prior to the 1950's (WDFW 1998). However, one individual was encountered during a WDFW survey in 1997. There are no known records of bull trout from fish passage data at McNary, Chandler, Prosser, or Roza Dams. The "Critical Habitat Rule" states that water temperatures that exceed 59°F may limit bull trout. The WSDOE maintains a water quality monitoring station (37A205) at the Yakima River Bridge. In -stream water temperature data for 2001 and 2002 indicate that between June 1 and September 15 water temperatures exceed 59°F (15°C) for most, if not all, of this period. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 56 Based on historic temperature data it is unlikely that bull trout will be found within the Union Gap Reach of the Yakima River between June 1 and September 15 (McQueary, 2003). The presences of juvenile bull trout are not known to occur in the Union Gap reach of the Yakima River and would also be limited by water temperatures during the summer months. Adult bull trout spawning in upper reaches of the Yakima Watershed usually begins in August. Most adults preparing to spawn would have moved through the project action area prior to August (McQueary, 2003a). The environmental baseline for bull trout critical habitat is currently degraded and at risk due to upstream water quality issues in the Yakima River, irrigation withdrawals and previous flood control levee construction. Due to agricultural sediment and pesticide inputs, irrigation diversions and other alterations, many NOAA!USFWS environmental baseline indicators in the proposed action area are at risk, such as water quality, or not in properly functioning condition (McQueary, 2003a). A "may affect" is warranted based on the following: ➢ Possible presence of migratory bull trout year round in the project vicinity. ➢ In -water work that may interfere with migratory behavior. A "not likely to adversely affect" is based on the following: > Water temperature within the stream reach. > Turbidity levels within the stream reach. ➢ Migratory patterns have indicated that bull trout would not likely be in the system during in -water work is likely to occur. Threatened or Endangered Terrestrial Species Bald Eagle (May Effect, Not Likely to Adversely Effect) The current Priority Habitat and Species database indicates that bald eagles have been known to roost and perch in black cottonwood trees southwest of the existing bridge and in the location of the new bridge. Personal observations indicate that there is activity by bald eagles in the area during winter. Bald eagles are common throughout the Naches and Yakima River corridors from approximately October 31 to March 31 each year. The Priority Habitat Species Database entry for the bald eagle is based on a one-time point sighting of a bald eagle in one of the trees within the project action area (McQueary, 2003c). Roosting and perch trees are available throughout the Selah Gap to Union Gap reach of the Yakima River. Current data indicates that clearing and grubbing of the riparian area for the new bridge will eliminate large black cottonwood trees that have been identified as winter roosting and perching habitat. Possible reasons why bald eagles may prefer this location are probably related to food sources. From this location, bald eagles have access to the Yakima River, the SR 24 corridor (road kill) and fields to the west of the river that may provide rodents or waterfowl. The area would provide ample food sources and a good vantage point for foraging opportunities. Typically, snags would provide the best perch and roost trees, followed by large branches that extend out above the river. Of the 27 -to 40 -cottonwood trees to be removed within the project action area less than five trees meet the criteria for bald eagle perch trees (McQueary, 2003c). The "may affect" determination is based on the following: ➢ Removal of large cottonwood trees located in riparian areas of the Yakima River. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 57 i Location of known roosting and perching sites during the winter migration. ➢ The length of time associated with re-establishment of riparian, forested communities. The "not likely to adversely affect" determination is warranted based on the following: ➢ Sighting of bald eagle recorded in the Priority Habitat Species Database is one point in time and cannot lead to a determination that this area is used exclusively by bald eagles during the winter months. ➢ Information from the Yakima Audubon Society indicates that winter bird counts have shown bald eagles to the north of the existing bridge near Buchanan Lake. ➢ Pack cottonwood trees are not a limiting factor within the corridor. ➢ Limited construction activities during winter migration between 10/31 and 3/31. ➢ Re-planting of cottonwood trees in disturbed areas following construction. Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCA) Species Two species of salmon found within the Yakima River watershed, which are covered under the Magnuson -Stevens Fisheries Conservation Act, Coho and Chinook, Table 5 also provides the life stage that these species would be found in within the project action area. The project includes streambed disturbance within the Yakima River and an increase in impervious surface. In addition, the construction of a new bridge over the Yakima River may have temporary and direct impacts to EFH. Table 5: EFH, Species of fishes, and life -stages in the action area. Species Eggs Larvae Young Juvenile Juvenile Adult Spawning Chinook X X X Coho X X X Chinook Salmon (May Effect, Likely to Adversely Effect) Spring and fall Chinook runs are represented in the Yakima River Basin. Although none of the runs are currently listed as threatened or endangered, the Upper Yakima, Naches and American River stocks are considered depressed based on chronically low escapement (McQueary, 2003a). In the Upper Yakima River, spawning occurs above the city of Ellensburg between August and October. Fall Chinook spawn in the lower reaches of the Yakima River, from the confluence of the Columbia upstream about 32 miles. Spawning also occurs in the seventeen miles of the Marion Drain south of the project area. Fall Chinook runs are commonly referred to as Upriver "Brights". This stock is considered to be a native and healthy run based on escapement trends (McQueary, 2003a). In summary, the January 2003 Biological Assessment (BA) concluded the following on the presences of Chinook in the project action area: ➢ Spawning — In -water work for this project will be done during an appropriate fish window, but it is likely that Chinook juveniles may be in the system at all times. ➢ Larvae/Alevins — Most alevins should have emerged from the gravel by the time in - water work is initiated. ➢ Juveniles — The removal of the old bridge and construction of the new bridge should result in a net improvement to the hydrological functions of the river system. However, temporary adverse affects may result during construction. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 58 ➢ Adults — All in water work will be timed to avoid impacts to adult salmon. Long term affects on the Chinook salmon should be minimal. Removal of the current bridge, which is scour prone, should provide a net improvement in the habitat quality of this area of the river. Coho Salmon (May Effect, Likely to Adversely Effect) The Yakima River basin historically contained runs of Coho salmon in excess of 50,000 fish per year. Habitat degradation and high rates of exploitation eliminated the stock by the mid 1980's. In 1987, under the U.S. versus Oregon Columbia River Fish Management Plan (CRFMP), 650,000 Coho smolts were released in the lower Yakima River. Coho salmon have been an important commercial and recreational fishery along the west coast. This species of salmon is highly migratory during each phase of its life cycle and is dependent on high quality habitat for spawning, rearing and migration (McQueary, 2003a). The Yakama Nation has an on going program to re -introduce Coho into the Yakima basin and a limited amount of Coho do spawn in this reach (Freudenthal, 2003). Spawning and rearing of Coho salmon may occur within or near the project action area. In summary, the January 2003 Biological Assessment (BA) concluded the following on the presences of Coho within the project action area: > Spawning — Spawning is not known to occur in the project vicinity. > Larvae/Alevins — In -water work for this project will be done during an appropriate fish window and should have no effect on larvae or alevins. > Juveniles — The effects of this project are likely to include a temporary modification of streambed morphology and hydrology. Long-term impacts to the area are expected to benefit from the old bridge removal. > Adults — It is very unlikely that adult Coho salmon will be in the project vicinity during in -water work. However, the project will temporarily modify hydrology and streambed morphology and may affect riparian areas. Consequences Temporary — Temporary impacts during bridge construction include actual disruption of the river substrate and the introduction of fines during the construction of the drilled shafts of the new bridge. However, the construction of the new bridge will eliminate future maintenance and emergency activities related to the existing scour -critical bridge. These construction activities, including the demolition of the existing bridge may result in increased turbidity downstream of the project area. Carlson et al. (2001) indicated that turbidity is a relatively localized effect. The project associated with that study was channel maintenance with dredging activities, which, by their nature, would produce much larger sediment plumes than the construction of drilled shafts. Turbidity levels were well below the threshold of avoidance response in Coho salmon, which is estimated to be about 37 NTU (Servizi and Martens 1991). Construction activities could temporarily affect endangered / threatened species and essential fish habitat in the project action area (McQueary, 2003a). However the use of the Reasonable and Prudent Measures / Terms and Conditions found in the NOAA Fisheries Biological Opinion SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 59 (BO) for this proposed action, in addition to best management practices (BMP's), Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) Plan, and Spill Prevention Plan (SPP), will avoid, or greatly reduce, the risk of temporary impacts to endangered and threatened species, including those to critical habitat. Construction related noise and associated activities near the Yakima River may temporarily affect the perching of Bald Eagles in the action area during these \Titles. indirect — The addition of sediment to the Yakima River may result in indirect effects to temperature and primary productivity of aquatic species found in the area. These indirect effects may reduce the availability of food for juvenile salmonids directly downstream of the project area. The indirect effects should be localized and temporary in nature (McQueary, 2003a). Highway runoff near the existing Yakima River Bridge currently runs into side slopes / bridge drains and then runs, entreated into the Yakima River, The proposed action is designed to treat 140% (100%0 of the. new surface and 40% of the existing surface) of the highway iunoff. Tn addition, the new bridge has been designed to not allow direct untreated stormwater from entering the Yakima River. The indirect impacts from the new stormwater designs for the proposed action onto aquatic life in the Yakima River and Blue Slough is anticipated to be a net improvement from existing baseline conditions. All areas involving in -water work will incorporate design and construction methods that will minimize or avoid sediment release and alternation of pH levels in waters of the state. For example, when constructing drilled shafts (vs. spread footings), only the initial installation of the outside casing will cause turbidity impacts to waters of the state. Once the outside casing is in place, the work area will be isolated from the flowing waters. The permanent casing for the new piers will then be inserted and a seal placed at the bottom of the shaft. All excess water is then pumped off-site and disposed of at an approved site that will not allow it to reenter surface waters of the state. The actual construction of the concrete shafts is then accomplished in the dry with no additional impacts to the surrounding environment. CT, n VC, A i;.,+o,-➢ 1Jll GGL — 111G 31\ L9 IiIUjGGL Will IJlUV1UG UULli U11 GGL UG11G11LJ a11U 1111paGW W 1.-AJA i1Jwu species and Critical Habitat. The new bridge will be designed to minimize piers within the active channel of the river and will reduce existing backwater effects from the existing bridge (McQueary, 2003a). In addition, Yakima County is currently circulating amendments to their Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan (CHIMP) that recommend, among other flood risk reduction actions and strategies in this area, that the new SR 24 Bridge help alleviate the existing pinch point constriction of the Yakima River at this location (Freudenthal, 2003). The design of Alternative 3, South Raised Profile Alignment, will provide an approximately 1,600 foot bridge span over the Yakima River and its associated floodplain. The construction of the new bridge will also have a long-term beneficial impact with the elimination of the scour -critical bridge and reduced maintenance activities related to installing riprap around the bridge footings (McQueary, 2003a). There is a loss of substrate habitat associated with the drilled shaft construction, but this will be offset by the removal of the existing bridge piers from the flowing waters of the Yakima River. The new bridge has also incorporated pier design that will reduce stream flow restrictions at the SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 60 new bridge. Drilled shafts also have less impact on the hydrological functions of the river system then those of spread footings. The project action will require the removal of large cottonwood trees south of the existing bridge. Between 27 and 40 black cottonwood trees of varying age and size will be required to be removed within the active channel of the Yakima River with less than five trees meeting the criteria for bald eagle perch trees. Another six of these trees are at risk from stream bank erosion along the west bank of the Yakima River. Other suitable locations for roosting and perching exist in the project area (McQueary, 2003c). Roosting and perching trees are not a limiting factor within the Yakima River reach between Union Gap and Selah. Relatively good habitat with ample food sources exists north and south of the project area. Communication with Denny Grandstrand (2003) of the Yakima Chapter of the Audubon Society indicated that bald eagles actively use areas to the north of the existing bridge near the large, human -made Buchanan Lake. Waterfowl are common in this water body in the winter months. Without further studies within this river reach, it is not possible to evaluate whether an adverse impact would be warranted. However, this project should have very little affect on bald eagles and would not adversely impact the ability of wintering eagles to forage and perch along the Yakima River (McQueary, 2003c). Mitigation The WSDOT has incorporated the reasonable and prudent measures (RPM's) and Terms and Conditions found within the July 22, 2003 NOAA Fisheries Biological Opinion (BO) into the environmental assessment (EA) and project design. See Appendix F and G to view the entire NOAA Fisheries BO and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurrence letter. Conditions agreed to by these Services include, but are not limited to, the following to avoid and / or minimize impacts to ESA listed species and Critical Habitat within the project area. Temporary — The WSDOT will also use the following conservation measures to avoid or minimize temporary impacts to the fish / wildlife / ESA species: > The removal of mature native trees (> 8 inch diameter at breast height) will be limited to the minimum project limits as allowed. > All roadway excavation and embankment slopes, including excavation and embankment slopes that are partially completed to grade, will be prepared and seeded during the first available planting period or finished grade. > A Temporary Erosion and Sedimentation Control (TESC) Plan will be developed and maintained throughout the life of the construction phase to minimize the impacts to habitat and species from the project action. > Project clearing limits will be flagged or fenced with temporary construction fencing. > Covering or otherwise protecting slopes will be completed until permanent erosion - control measures are working. > Wetlands and other sensitive areas will be delineated with construction and silt fencing prior to the start of construction. > All excavation will be completed during low -flow periods and in the appropriate WDFW work window as provided in the Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA). SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 61 • Project construction will adhere to WDFW and WSDOE permit conditions designed to minimize impacts to fish, wildlife, and water quality. > Construction and demolition of the bridges will include BMP's designed to isolate work activities and protect waters of the state. ➢ Water pumped from the work isolation area will be discharged into an upland bio- filtration or disposed approved site. L1 UL1V11 area disposed of at an approved Vvu > Discharges of deleterious material into potential fish rearing areas or areas with submerged vegetation will be prohibited. > Water quality monitoring and reporting will be completed to assure compliance with permit requirements during the life of the con stmction phase. Permanent - The following mitigation measures will be used: Replanting, ting at a minimum, 120 cottonwood seedlings with R0% survival rate in the ® i epialALlll�, black ,.uxxxxgv first two years. Replacement of dead seedlings will continue for uf+vev-y,7Pvwperiod . > Surveys through the winter of 2003 and 2004 to confirm occupancy of bald eagles. This will also be helpful in determining distribution of bald eagles within the Yakima River Reach between Selah and Union Gap. Report findings will be forwarded to the USFWS for review and comment. • Construction activities within 500 -ft of the Yakima River Riparian corridor (from the r �- edge of trees or greenway trail) will only take place during the appropriate bald eagle work window (October 31 to March 31). > Use of drilled shafts / bridge foundation instead of spread footing will reduce the area of streambed disturbance and improve the critical scour baseline conditions of the existing Yakima River Bridge. > The WSDOT will consult with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) on the placement of all adequately sized removed woody vegetation from the project limits as fish and wildlife habitat. > All disturbed soil areas will be replanted to contribute to the overall improvement of the baseline conditions within the project area. 3.13 Wetlands Background This section describes the methodology used for preparing the Wetland/Biology Report, including the review of existing information and field investigation procedures. These methods are consistent with current federal, WSDOT, and other state agency requirements. Wetlands were delineated using the Routine Determination Method outlined in the Washington State Wetland Identification and Delineation Manual (Ecology 1997). Wetlands were then classified according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979) and rated using Ecology's 4 -tier wetland rating system (Ecology 1993). Wetlands were also rated according to local wetland ordinances, where applicable, specifically Yakima County. All wetlands located in the project's potential area of impact were delineated and classified. In general, wetland delineation consisted of three main tasks: (1) assessing vegetation, soil, and hydrologic characteristics to identify areas meeting the wetland SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 62 identification criteria, (2) evaluating constructed drainage features to determine if they would be regulated as wetlands, and (3) marking wetland boundaries. Wetlands perfoiiii a variety of biological, chemical (water quality), and physical (hydrologic) functions such as providing food and habitat for wildlife, trapping nutrients and sediments, storing storm water runoff, and recharging/discharging groundwater. Wetland functions were assessed according to the Washington State Department of Transportation functions characterization tool (Null et al., 2000). The Clean Water Act (CWA), Section 404, establishes a program that regulates the discharge of dredged and fill material into water of the United States. One of the goals of the CWA is that no discharge of fill or dredged material may be permitted into waters of the state if a practicable alternative exists that is less damaging to the aquatic and wetland environment. The Yakima County Code provides for protection of critical areas under Title 16A as required pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060 (Growth Management Act), RCW Chapter 90.58 (Shoreline Management Act) and RCW Chapter 43.21C (State Environmental Policy Act). Yakima County has a four -tiered wetland rating system based on the criteria developed by the Washington State Department of Ecology, Eastern Washington Wetland Rating System (2002). The following data sources were reviewed for information on vegetation patterns, topography, drainage, and potential or known wetlands or wildlife habitats in the project vicinity: • National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps • U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute topographic maps • Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soils surveys and county hydric soils lists; • Aerial photographs • NRCS Hydric Soils • Correspondence with Services (USFWS, NOAA Fisheries, WDFW, WDNR — Natural Heritage Program) Findings The NWI shows numerous palustrine open water (POW), forested (PFO) and emergent (PEM) wetlands in the project vicinity associated with riverine habitat along the Yakima River. Several of the palustrine wetlands are reclaimed pit sites. Several palustrine emergent wetlands that were found during field surveys are not listed on the NWI map and are associated with Blue Slough. Blue Slough is currently associated with irrigation returns, but were historically old channels of the Yakima River (McQueary, 2003b). The local soil survey identifies six major soil series groups in or adjacent to the project area, including: Weiiman sandy loam, Weirman fine sandy loam, Weirman fine sandy loam wet, Zillah silt loam, Track loam and Ashue loam (Lenfesty and Reddy 1979). The Weiinran, Track and Zillah soils are listed on the Washington State Hydric Soils List (NRCS 2002). Addition detail on soil classifications can be found within the project's Wetland / Biology Report (McQueary, 2003b). SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 63 The physiographic province is described by Franklin and Dyrness (1973) as the Columbia Basin. This province extends from the foothills of the Cascade Range east to about the Columbia River. Riparian areas are usually well vegetated with Coyote willow, Black cottonwood and a variety of shrub species including Red Osier Dogwood. The project area is heavily impacted by development and the area is likely to continue to grow into the future. Commercial development has occurred throughout the project area and includes several gas stations at the beginning of SR 24 at the I-82 Interchange, a K -Mart, an arboretum, Humane Society, Auto wrecking yard, Sewage treatment plant, propane business and a privately owned Campground and RV Park. The Yakima River contains flood control levees along both banks to prevent flooding of commercial and residential properties. These areas are also heavily grazed and some are currently irrigated, These areas provide relatively little functional value, but may provide opportunities for floodplain restoration and enhancement (McQueary, 2003b). Geologically, the This is located within the historic floodplain of the Yakima River. area was formed by deposition of slack -water flood sediment related to the Lake Missoula flooding (Tri -County xWairr T�)r>J;I(r Agency 9000) On the southeast side of the SR 24 Yakima River Bridge are several pit sites that currently exhibit some wetland characteristics. The two pit sites that may be impacted by this project are owned by Yakima County and are considered active sites. As per U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations (33 CFR 328.3(a)): "Jurisdictional wetlands shall not include water filled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pit sites excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States." The Yakima County Planning Department currently lists this site as a Critical or sensitive area with type 2 wetlands present. A type 2 wetland is defined by Yakima County as a wetland with the following characteristics: 1) Wetlands greater than 1 acre in size; 2) Wetlands equal to or less than one acre in size and with three or more wetland classes present; and 3) Wetlands equal to or less than one acre in size with a forested wetland class present (McQueary 2003b). Additional gravel mining activity in the general vicinity includes two active pits commonly called the Newland Pits operated by Central Pre -Mix Concrete Company. These pits are located between the Yakima River and the Yakima County pits. The Newland Mine site has been in operation since 1991 (David Brown Associates 2000). In addition, impacts to this area are expected to be negligible based on the current project design. The expansion and re -alignment of SR 24 on the east side of the Yakima River will include mostly upland habitat with an approximant fill of less than 0.10 areas within the pit sites. Three wetlands were identified in the project area (Table 6 and Figure 19). One of these wetlands (WL1) is associated with the Yakima River. The two other wetlands are associated with Blue Slough, wetlands WL2 and WL3. The wetlands contain forest, shrub, and emergent plant communities, and generally provide low to moderate levels of biological, chemical, and physical functions. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 64 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Figure 19: Jurisdictional Wetlands Affected by the Proposed Action. Table 6: Jurisdictional Wetlands Affected by the Proposed Action. Name Impact Direct Impact WSDOE Rating Cowardin Class Wetland 1 (WL1) — Yakima River West Bank Indirect 0.10 acres Class II PFO, PSS Wetland 2 (WL2) — Blue Slough North Direct 0.15 acres Class III PSS Wetland 3 (WL3) — Blue Slough South Direct 0.15 acres Class III PSS TOTAL Mixed 0.40 acres Class II / III Mixed Consequences Both Build Alternatives present the same direct consequences to existing wetlands in the project limits. Throughout the design of this proposed project performance methods were utilized to avoid and / or minimize known wetland areas in the project area. Avoidance and minimization methods in the design of the project included reviewing different highway alignments, looking for the lowest possible wetland impacts, reviewing bridge design elements such as bridge pier location, addressing the quantity of piers needed to complete the proposed project, and reducing the amount of fill materials needed in known wetland areas. Long-term positive cumulative affects to overall wetland communities in the area are likely to occur if Alternative 3 was constructed. These positive indirect affects come from improved flood storage, reduced river canalization and velocities, and allowing the river to establish more natural wetland friendly patterns. The likely improved long-term cumulative conditions that Alternative 3 is likely to have to water quality comes from additional natural infiltration SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 65 opportunities and improved fish / wildlife habitat through the likely development of river meandering and potentially long-range oxbows. Wetland 1: Yakima River West Bank — Wetland WL1 (Figure 20) is located to the southwest of the existing SR 24 Bridge and will be impacted by the construction of the new bridge. It is confined below SR 24, between the Yakima River and the Yakima Greenway Trail to the west. It was at one time part of a much larger riparian corridor that has been fragmented by development and levee construction. The area provides some flood flow storage during high flow events and has vegetation sufficient to diffuse some flood energy. Vegetation debris piles and river sediment deposits are evident in this wetland. Songbirds and small wildlife use the area extensively. In addition, the area has been noted as being a location where perching Bald Eagles have been seen. Figure 20: Potential Impacts (red overlay area) to Wetland WL1. Wetland WL1 is apparently supported by the Yakima River and sediment and debris is evident within the area. This wetland is a small fragmented area adjacent to the Yakima River riparian corridor. The classification is based on the lack of a direct connection to the Yakima River. It is a Category II wetland under Ecology's 4 -tier rating system. The area receives floodwaters during over bank events. At the time of field investigation, soils were moist at a depth of four inches, but did not show signs of saturation. The drainage patterns and previous observations at this site indicate that the area has sufficient saturation during the growing season to satisfy the hydrology criterion. A forested community dominates wetland WL1. The dominant tree is black cottonwoods that cover approximately 100% of the wetland area. Shrub habitats are dominated by coyote willow, snowberry and red osier dogwood. Black cottonwood and red osier dogwood are classified as wetland species (Reed 1988 / 1993). The area contains greater than 50% facultative or wetter species and therefore meets the criteria for wetland vegetation. Soils are a sandy loam that matches the description for the mapped soil unit, Weirman series. The soil has hydric characteristics including a low matrix chroma in the upper 12 inches and therefore meets the hydric soils criterion. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 66 Wetland 2: Blue Slough North — Wetland WL2 (Figure 21) is associated with the north side of Blue Slough. The wetland is a narrow band of wetland vegetation that extends north and south of SR 24 along the banks of Blue Slough. Blue Slough is connected to the Yakima River and may have historically been an old channel of the river. Blue Slough is known to contain Mid - Columbia Steelhead during most of the year. The slough is currently used for irrigation purposes and there are several withdrawal locations upstream of SR 24. The area to the south is connected via a culvert under SR 24. The wetland may provide a small amount of flood flow alteration and reduction in energy during floods, but the size and location make it unlikely that it would have much impact. Most floodwaters enter from a downstream location and are the result of backwatering. The wetland is bisected by a gravel frontage road and extends south beyond the project limits. Blue Slough is subject to Yakima County Shoreline regulations as a side channel of the Yakima River. The area periodically receives floodwaters from the Yakima River during over -the -bank events. Other sources of hydrology may be from groundwater and hyporheic flow. Wetland WL2 has sufficient hydrology to meet the criteria for wetlands based on the proximity to Blue Slough and saturated soils at the surface (McQueary, 2003b). The vegetation is dominated by a small band of Coyote willow along the banks of Blue Slough. The actual wetland area is confined to a relatively narrow band that follows Blue Slough north through an area that is currently in pasture. There was no sign of overgrazing or impacts to the stream bank from livestock trampling. Small pockets of Small fruited bulrush are present along the stream bank. Both plants are obligate species. Transition to upland habitat is abrupt with Chinese elm, which is an introduced species that is relatively abundant along the SR 24 corridor to Birchfield Road. The plant community is dominated by species that are FAC or wetter and therefore, this wetland meets the criteria for wetland vegetation (McQueary, 2003b). Through the use of minimization methods in the final design phase of either Build Alternative wetland impacts may be avoided. However, minor wetland impacts no greater than 0.15 acres may be realized due to the proposed action. Figure 21: Potential Impacts (red overlay area) to Wetland WL2 and WL3. Wetland 3: Blue Slough South — Wetland WL3 (Figure 21) is associated with the south side of SR 24 at Blue Slough. The wetland is a narrow band of wetland vegetation that extends north and south of SR 24 along the banks of Blue Slough. Blue Slough is connected to the Yakima SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 67 River and may have historically been an old channel of the river. Blue Slough is known to contain Mid -Columbia Steelhead during most of the year. The slough is currently used for irrigation purposes and there are several withdrawal locations upstream of SR 24. The area to the north is connected via a culvert under SR 24. The wetland may provide a small amount of flood flow alteration and reduction in energy during floods, but the size and location make it unlikely that it would have much impact. Most floodwaters enter from a downstream location and are the result of backwatering. The wetland is bisected by a gravel frontage road and extends south beyond the project limits. Hydrology for the wetland is from Blue Slough, which is connected at an upstream and downstream location,. The area periodically receives floodwaters from the Yakima River during over -the -bank events. Other sources of hydrology may be from groundwater and hyporheic flow. Wetland WL3 has sufficient hydrology tL meet the criteria for wetlands based on the proximity to Blue Slough and saturated soils at the surface. T, •which obligate wetland species. Reed The dominant species is yellow flag iris, is an non-native o� i tl canary grass is also found along the frontage road and areas south, but is not a dominant species. The plant community is dominated by species that are FAC or wetter and therefore, this wetland meets the criteria for wetland vegetation. Soils in this area are silty loam. The soil has hydric characteristics including a low matrix chroma in the upper 12 inches and therefore meets the hydric soils criterion. Wetland WL3 is a small fragmented area associated with Blue Slough on the south side of SR 24. The wetland is divided into two sections by a gravel frontage _road: It is a Category III wetland under Ecology's 4 -tier rating system. Through the use of minimization methods in the final design phase of either Build Alternative wetland impacts may be avoided. However, minor wetland impacts no greater than 0.15 acres may be realized due to the proposed action. Temporary — Construction related activities would be required near or in wetland communities. Identified wetlands would be delineated and protected with fences to the degree possible. There may be times when construction related activities would be required to cross over Class III wetlands. Clearing and grubbing activities are estimated to disturb 0.50 -acre of upland forest vegetation and 0.50 -acre of upland shrub and herbaceous vegetation (McQueary, 2003b). To facilitate the construction of the project near Blue Slough a temporary detour will be required over Blue Slough north of the existing SR 24 / Blue Slough crossing. This temporary detour will require placing a culvert within the slough for a limited period during construction of the proposed action. Once the proposed project has been completed all temporary fill will be removed and all disturbed areas re -vegetated with native grasses and plants. See Appendix F, NOAA Biological Opinion page 6, for additional information on the temporary Blue Slough crossing. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 68 Mitigation Temporary — The following temporary mitigation elements will be completed for the proposed action: ➢ All wetlands will be staked prior to construction of the proposed action and protected during construction by fencing to reduce or avoid un -needed impacts to these wetlands. ➢ The development and implementation of Temporary Erosion Control and Stormwater Site Plans will avoid and /or minimize impacts to wetlands in the action area during the construction phase. BMP's, including but not limited to, temporary revegetation will be used to reduce temporary impacts to wetlands. ➢ All delineated wetlands that are traveled and traversed upon to complete construction of the project will be replanted with native vegetation and reseed with native grasses within the next appropriate planting window following construction. ➢ The temporary detour over Blue Slough north of the existing SR 24 / Blue Slough crossing will use a culvert, approximately the same width as Blue Slough, will be placed in the slough slowly to minimize and avoid disturbance to the streambed. Prior to the placement of the temporary road fill materials over the culvert, geotextile fabric will be placed over the culvert and surrounding ground. In addition, silt fencing will be placed between the temporary fill materials and Blue Slough to avoid and / or minimize erosion of materials into Blue Slough (Appendix F, NOAA Fisheries project BO, 2003). After the temporary detour is removed all disturbed areas will be re -vegetated with native grasses and plants. Pe��rianent — The following permanent mitigation elements will be completed for the proposed action: ➢ Vegetation removal will be minimized to the extent possible to complete the proposed action. ➢ All native trees removed within riparian areas of the project will be replaced at a 4 to 1 ratio. ➢ At the appropriate period all disturbed areas will be revegetated with native grasses and plants. ➢ The WSDOT will consult with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) on the placement of all adequately sized removed woody vegetation from the project limits as fish and wildlife habitat (See Section 3.12, Fish / Wildlife / ESA). ➢ The WSDOT would complete a foliiial compensatory mitigation plan for this project. This compensatory mitigation plan will specifically quantify all wetland impacts and benefits based on the Build Alternative selected for construction. Penuanently lost wetlands will be mitigated appropriately according to forthcoming permit requirements. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 69 3.14 Water Quality Background Existing water quality regulations, in addition to past and present permit requirements were used in the analysis and evaluation of water quality issues for this project. The following sources were used in the analysis of this water quality evaluation; WSDOE 303(d) definitions and listed waters within Washington State, 1998 WSDOE / WSDOT Lmplementing Agreement; 2003 WSDOT Biological Assessment for this proposed action, 2003 WSDOT Floodplain Consistency Report, 2003 SR 24 Wetland / Biology Report, past WSDOT projects involving in -water work, and the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173.201A, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State. Additional information on related issues to water quality can be found in section 3.11, Floodplains: Section 2 17 Fish Wildlife FSA; and .Section 3 1 Wetlands 1 dVVU1JAU111J> Section VAd ✓. L / Wildlife Liva.r.xv / +ova �, uia.. vvr+v�. .i.+.., � �--------• Findings The proposed action is within Yakima County and Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 37 and crosses over and / or affects the Yakima River and Blue Slough. Irrigation diversions / releases, hydroelectric generation, flood levees, and urban development heavily impact the water quality of the Yakima River. It is estimated that up to 80-90% of the basin's water is regularly diverted from Yakima Basin rivers for irrigation and hydroelectric generation purposes (American River Web Page, 2003). These factors contribute to a degraded water quality baseline within the Yakima River (McQueary, 2003a). Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act requires Washington State to periodically prepare a list of all surface waters in the state for which beneficial uses of the water — such as for drinking, recreation, aquatic habitat, and industrial use — are impaired by pollutants. These 303(d) listed waters include estuaries, lakes, and streams that fall short of state surface water city- standards, and are not expected i within two years. Washington quality- to improve the next �rry The Washington -- State Department of Ecology currently has several sections of the Yakima River listed as 303(d) waters. The WSDOE maintains a permanent water quality monitoring station (37A205) on the Yakima River at SR 24 (approximate river mile 111.3). The Yakima River is defined as a "Class A" water with excellent water quality. Parameters established for Class A waters have been exceeded several times within the last six years. These exceeded water quality parameters included pH, temperature, and fecal colifoiiu levels. Parameters established for Class A waters have been exceeded several times within the last few years on the Yakima River at Nob Hill. 'i`relatedYakima River are further defined below: Current water quality characteristics ofthe Temperature - Temperature data from the Yakima River, Nob Hill WSDOE sampling station indicates that in August of 2001, temperature was recorded at 74°F. Loss of riparian vegetation, irrigation withdrawals and overall anthropomorphic impacts to the Yakima River are causes of theiiiial variations within this river reach. The NOAA Fisheries environmental baseline condition for temperature is currently "at risk" within this reach of the Yakima River (McQueary, 2003b). SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 70 Sediment - Spring runoff, winter floods, and other storm events produce visible levels of turbidity in this drainage, and the presence of the bridge does not contribute turbidity or total suspended solids to background levels. Observations of turbid conditions in the Yakima River during storm events and irrigation season suggest the habitat pathway indicator of sediment is functioning at risk. Fine sediment captured at Roza Dam occasionally is flushed out and deposited downstream (McQueary, 2003b). Chemical Contaminants/Nutrients - Clean Water Act 303d designated reaches have been identified for the Yakima River. Several stream reaches directly downstream of the project area have been identified as 303d waters based on the presence of DDT residues. Wide Hollow Creek, a tributary of the Yakima River, downstream of the project area has been listed based on temperature violations. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and heavy metals are typical non -point source contaminants of roadway runoff, urban and agricultural land -use practices that may enter the Yakima River. Based on the matrix of pathways and indicators criteria, baseline conditions for chemical contaminants and nutrients are at risk (McQueary, 2003b). Table 7 below contains 2002 baseline conditions at SR 24 and the Yakima River, as they relate to elements of the proposed action. For additional information on water quality conditions on the Yakima River please visit the WSDOE Internet site10 Table 7: Selected 2002 Water Quality Readings at SR24 and the Yakima River DATE FLOW (CFS) OXYGEN (mg/L) PH TEMP (deg F) TURB (NTU) 10/8/2001 1870 13.63 8.99 55.94 2.3 11/12/2001 1040 13.63 7.82 41.36 1.4 12/3/2001 1380 13.8 7.83 38.66 2.3 1/7/2002 1190 13.26 8.11 39.02 2.1 2/4/2002 1870 14.04 7.89 35.96 1.8 3/4/2002 2500 13.93 8.09 40.82 2.6 4/1/2002 2920 12.5 8.11 46.94 7.6 5/6/2002 4860 12.4 7.73 46.22 5.5 6/10/2002 8370 10.8 7.69 54.32 8.5 7/8/2002 4160 10.19 8.19 61.88 3.2 8/5/2002 3830 10.7 7.98 58.28 2.9 9/9/2002 2830 10.8 8.2 59.18 5.6 Highlighted cells indicate exceeded water quality standards Impervious Surfaces and Fill Materials - Because the only difference between Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 is the length of the Yakima River Bridge, both Build Alternatives provide the same quality in new impervious surfaces that equal approximately 357,000 sq. feet. However, Alternative 2, the South Low Profile Alignment will add approximately 66,000 cubic yards more of fill materials to the Yakima River floodplain than Alternative 3, the South Raised Profile Alignment. Stormwater Treatment - The hydraulic summary defines the various methods that will be used to ensure water quality issues pertaining to this project are developed in accordance with the Washington State Department of Transportation Highway Runoff Manual and / or the 10 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/eap/fw riv/ry mam.html SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 71 forthcoming WCDOE SStorm gter / anagement Manual for Eastern Washington- These requirements state that projects such as the SR 24,1-02 to Keys Road project be developed to meet 303d, impaired water body requirements, Best Management Practices (BMP), and must include a comprehensive Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (TESCP). A stormwater site pian (SSP) will be developed on completion of a design package (McQueary, 2UU3C). The project is located on SR 24, from Iv1P —0.15 to MP 1.53 and will consist of adding two new lanes to SR 24, a new overpass over 1-82, a new bridge over the Yakima River and removal of the exiting bridge. Also included is the relocation. of both the SR 241K -Mart intersection and the SR 24/W. Birchfield/S, 22 St. A new conveyance system for Blue Slough will be installed near the existing Blue Slough crossing. In addition, a temporary detour over Blue Slough will be required during the construction phase of the proposed action. 'Present Drainage — in tangent sections of the project, the drainage 1s distributed based on the crown of the road. Areas of the project with Super Elevations (curves in the roadway) will drain water according to the direction of the curve. Currently SR 24 drains untreated highway stormwater near and on the bridge directly into the Yakima River. Water on the Yakima River Bridge flows to bridge drains over the Yakima River and also the bridge ends and infiltrates into roadway slopes and eventually discharges to the Yakima River. These stormwater discharges allow chemical, contaminants, and nutrients to enter the Yakima River untreated. The project is expected to maintain or slightly improve baseline conditions related to chemical, contaminants, and nutrients levels based on new off-site stormwater treatment facilities that would be constructed to replace the existing direct stormwater discharge into the Yakima River (McQueary, 2003c). Planned Drainage — In accordance with the Highway Run-off Manuel the use of grass swales, filter strips, infiltration ditches and ponds will be used throughout the project to treat the storm water runoff. The treatment systems for this project are being designed and will treat approximately 100% of the new impervious surface or 40% of the existing impervious surface. Storni systems, culverts and roadside ditches are being designed to convey the storm water runoff throughout the project to stor=m water treatment facilities and then to storm water retention facilities. No storm water will be allowed to enter the Yakima River or Blue Slough directly; all storm water that is collected on the bridge and roadway surface near these aquatic features will be conveyed to and placed in storm water treatment and retention facilities. Consequences The primarily focus for water quality issues related to the proposed project will be in maintaining the baseline water quality conditions of the Yakima River and Blue Slough. Temporary — Construction activities pose an increased potential for turbidity and pH increases within the Yakima River and Blue Slough. In addition, there will be an increased risk of petroleum product spills from construction equipment, particularly near open water or sensitive SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 72 areas. With the use of established best management practices (BMP's) these risks can be avoided and / or greatly minimized. The WSDOT will use both design and construction BMP's to reduce or eliminate the risks to water quality from the proposed project. BMP's include, but are not limited to, the installation of temporary work platforms and tarping under the existing and new bridge, outside diameter cylinders around the drilled shafts to protect the water from pH, not allowing dewatered materials from entering the water, the development and implementation of a Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control (TESC) Plan. In addition, the WSDOT will monitor water quality conditions during the construction phase to manage change conditions from the construction activities. Direct — Existing stoauwater outlets from SR 24 into the Yakima River currently present a direct risk to water quality conditions in the Yakima River. However, the project design includes new off-site stomiwater treatment facilities. The proposed project is expected to maintain or slightly improve baseline conditions related to chemical, contaminants, and nutrient levels into the Yakima River based on new off-site stormwater treatment facilities (McQueary, 2003a). To help show the different affects between both Build Alternatives Table 8 has been developed to provide a preliminary comparison of the Build Alternatives as they relate to water quality issues. Table 8: Comparison of the Alternatives related to Water Quality Issues. Preliminary Figures Altern #2 Altern #3 Clearing and Grading in acres 42 42 Wetland Impacts in acres 0.41 0.41 Fill Materials to Floodplain in cubic yards 234,000 168,000 Bridge Backwater Reduction in water surface feet - 0.30' - 3.30' Potential Floodplain Restoration in acres 106 139 Number of Wellhead Protection Zones Crossed 0 0 Length of Shoreline Affected in feet 2000 2000 New Water Crossings 0 0 Existing Water Crossings to be Modified 2 2 Total number of in -water work Areas 3 3 Mitigation Temporary — > The WSDOT currently implements and incorporates a full range of water quality Best Management Practices (BMP's) intended to help in the reduction of water quality impacts during construction activities. BMP's for this project include, but are not limited to, the installation of temporary work platforms and tarping under the existing and new bridge, outside diameter cylinders around the drilled shaft to protect the water from pH, and not allowing dewatering materials from entering surface waters. > The development and implementation of a Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, Stormwater Site Plan, and Spill Prevention and Countermeasure Plan during the SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 73 construction phase of the project. These measures will greatly reduce the risk of the proposed action on water quality impacts in the area. ➢ Water Quality monitoring and reporting would be completed to measure conditions and allow adaptive management techniques to be implemented to help insure project permit conditions are met for the proposed action. Permanent - n Thet' new bridge with drilled shafts would improve the baseline condition by eliminating future maintenance and emergency activities in the Yakima River related to the existing scour -critical bridge. y New off-site stormwater treatment facilities would treat 40% of existing and 100% of the a: p s surfaces in addition to removing the existing direct new im er`JiOLiu ulirlua. .� on the highway stormwater discharges into the Yakima River, 3.15 Visual Quality Background A visual quality evaluation was conducted on SR 24 between 1-82 and Birchfield Road for the existing condition and the proposed actions found in this document. Pictures were taken and rating sheets were filled out in July 2002 by WSDOT personal trained in visual quality analysis. The project links rural, low density, agricultural lands and urban, high density, commercial property within the City of Yakima. Additionally, the project area crosses the Yakima River and its riparian vegetation and wildlife corridors. The Yakima Regional Sewage Treatment Facility and both private and public recreational areas are located near the Yakima River and are used extensively by the general public. These land uses are easily perceived in views from the road and toward the road. The location, design, and/or maintenance of highways may adversely affect visual features of the landscape. Because of the public nature and visual importance of transportation projects, both negative and positive visual aspects are assessed and considered during project development. Visual Study Methodology — Visual quality is inherently subjective; therefore objective descriptions are used to quantify the visual assessment. Three criteria used to perfoiiii an evaluative appraisal of the landscape visual quality are: Vividness, intactness, and unity. Expert evaluation based on the three criteria have proven to be good predictors of the visual quality using the following sample equation: Visual Quality = Vividness + Intactness + Unity 3 Each of the three criteria is independent; each is intended to evaluate one aspect of visual quality. Definitions of these terms are: SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 74 8 7 6- 5- Changes from Existing Conditons for At -Grade South Alternative 4{ Vividness: The memorability of the visual impression received from contrasting landscape elements as they combine to form a striking and distinctive visual pattern. Intactness: The integrity of visual order in the natural and man -built landscape, and the extent to which the landscape is free from visual encroachment. Unity: The degree to which the visual resources of the landscape join together to form a coherent, harmonious visual pattern. Unity refers to the compositional harmony or inter -compatibility between landscape elements. Visual impacts, including aesthetics, light, and glare were considered by evaluating the view from the highway as well as the view of the highway. Findings Either Build Alternative would increase the visibility of the highway within the project area and some of the existing vegetation within the corridor would be removed (Figure 22 & 23). Retaining walls along the north side of SR 24 near the Yakima Arboretum and the higher bridge elevation for Alternative 3, South Raise Profile Alignment, may lower the visual quality of the highway from private properties and recreational users in the area. This can be mitigated through plantings and textured wall treatments in high -visibility locations. However, from the highway, visual quality may be improved from the higher bridge, with better views of the river, riparian vegetation, and recreational facilities (Salisbury, 2002). Total Visual Quality Ratings 3' 2 0 L I 11 iI 1 iI A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 B-3 C-1 C-2 C-3 D-1 D-2 Key Views ■ No Action • Proposed Project - unmitigated O Mitigated Figure 22: Alternative 2, Predicted Visual Quality Conditions. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 75 8 7 Changes from Existing Condition for Raised South Alternative of ziC CO 6 CC 5 o o 4 an • 3 - > 0 ▪ 2 1- 0 A-1 A-2 B-1 B-2 B-3 C-1 C-2 C-3 D -1r D-2 Key Views • No Action ■ Proposed Project - unmitigated p Mitigated Figure 23: Alternative 3, Predicted Visual Quality Conditions. Consequences Below in Table 9 are the averages of all visual quality ratings for the existing condition (no action alternative) and either Build Alternative, with mitigation. Scores are on a 1-10 scale with "1" being very low visual quality and "10" being exceptionally high visual quality. In general, visual quality before and after • the project is rated as "medium." The visual impression received is moderately memorable with some distinctive patterns; moderately defined landscape or landforms are present, including low rolling hills, and smaller water bodies. Vegetation patterns, colors, and textures are less visible, except in riparian locations. Some significant manmade structures are present. Some visual eyesores are present and the view lacks visual order. Table 9: Average Visual Quality Rating Key View Summary Existing Conditions Proposed Action with Mitigation Alternative 2 - South Low Profile 4.80 4.68 Alternative 3 — South Raised Profile 4.80 4.72 The visual analysis concluded that the overall change (average) in visual quality was minimal in both the Build Alternatives. In fact, Alternative 3, the South Raised Profile Alignment, provided the least impact and improved upon the existing visual quality in views from the highway. However, and wider highway and profiles of both Build Alternatives does affect of the proposed highway. The analysis also found that minimizing construction -related impacts and incorporating additional landscaping or wall treatments into the project would meet or exceed existing visual quality in many locations (Salisbury, 2002). SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 76 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Mitigation Temporary — Minimize existing vegetation removal to the extent possible. Peiinanent — The following mitigation measures would be used under either of the Build Alternatives: > Vegetation — The use of vegetation, along with other visual pleasing structural elements, can visually unify the corridor. Vegetation that must be removed from either private or public property should be replaced by trees, native shrubs, and native grasses. These would comply with Treatment Level 2 of the WSDOT Roadside Classification Plan (RCP) (Salisbury, 2002). An appropriate replacement ratio is recommended for all removed trees. > Bridge and Highway Structures — The City of Yakima, WSDOT, and Yakima County should work together and develop cooperative funding to provide decorative treatment on bridge abutments or high visibility wall locations, particularly where the Yakima Greenway Trails pass under the new bridge. Luminaries should be shielded so that the light emitted is directed straight down onto the roadway (Salisbury, 2002). > Cut and Fill Slopes — All new highway slopes would be revegetated in accordance with the WSDOT vegetation policies to help blend the highway with the surrounding area (Salisbury, 2002). 3.16 Air Quality Background In 2000 the WSDOT consulted with Envirometrics, Inc. to complete an Air Quality analysis and evaluate proposed traffic and construction activities in relationship to the proposed project alternatives. During this evaluation, the Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority was also contacted for their recommendations on the impact analysis. The City of Yakima is located in the flattened bottom of a river valley. At this location the Yakima Valley is surrounded on the west by the Cowiche Mountains, on the south by the Ahtanum Ridge, and the Rattlesnake Hills, and on the north by the Yakima Ridge. This valley experiences frequent periods of stable air during the winter months, which lead to a build-up of pollutants in the air. The primary contributors to carbon monoxide (CO) in this valley are emissions from residential woodstoves and motor vehicles (Envirometrics Inc, 2000). Meteorological conditions that most favor the formation of the highest hourly and daily air pollutant concentrations occur during the autumn and winter months. On cool evenings when the sky is clear and the wind is calm, ambient surface air cools more quickly than at several tens of feet above the surface. This creates a temperature inversion, the warm air aloft affectively trapping the cooler air below, including any pollutants emitted from automobiles and smoke from wood stoves. A temperature inversion typically develops after sunset and can persist through the following morning. A few times per year the temperature inversion can last for up to 24 -hours (Envirometrics Inc, 2000). SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 77 Envirometrics used the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) computer model MOBILE5b to X11 Y11 V111V lrivv - ice.. ... ...:._:a.._r..»_ _ _.. Protection _-"-- _ - estimate carbon monoxide (CO) emission rates for vehicles based on the expected vehicle population in the future year. Once the results were obtained from MOBILE5b, the ambient concentrations for CO were estimated using the EPA's CAL3QHC dispersion model (Envirometrics Inc., 2000). In addition, a formal amendment to the 2003 — 2005 Yakima Valley Metropolitan and Regional Transportation improvement Program (MTIP) is currently being processed. The proposed project is included in this amendment and has been modeled for air quality conformity. According to the Federal Air Quality Conformity rules, PMip analysis during transitional periods must complete a budget test and either a build/no build test or a 1990 Base test. The budget year from the WSDOE adopted State Implementation Plan (SIP) is 1994. Emissions from road dust and tailpipe sources were assumed to be linearly related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and were then predicted on showing that reductions in the iJ9i significant sources of DMin emissions can maintain a level less that the 1994 motor vehicle emissions budget of 927 tons per year. This emissions budget is from the August 1992 Supplement to the February 1989 SIP for PMio in Yakima, Washington prepared by the Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority and the WSDOE (Yakima Valley MTIP, 2003). Carbon monoxide analysis for the MTIP was performed based on guidance contained in the 1997 amendments to 40 CFR, Part 51, as published in the Friday, August 15, 1997 Federal Register. The Metropolitan Area Transportation Model and the Mobile5b model were utilized to analysis impacts in build years compared to the 1990 base year network (Yakima Valley MTIP, 2003). Findings Pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed regional and local classifications for each federal criteria pollutant. An area is classified as in "attainment" if pollutant concentrations meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Areas where pollutant concentrations exceed the NAAQS are designated as "non -attainment" for those pollutants (Envirometrics Inc, 2000). The EPA designated the Yakima metropolitan area as being in non -attainment for carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10). The non - attainment for PMio is moderate and CO is not classified. A State Implementation Plan (SIP) for for PM up was approved in 1998. Transportation improvements to reduce suspended dust include paving roads and shoulders of roads. There is no approved SIP for CO and no specific control measures are required (Yakima Valley MTI, 2003). The proposed project lies partially within the PMio maintenance area and also lies in very close proximity to the CO area. Figure 24 shows the non -attainment boundaries (Yakima Valley RTIP, 2003). The project enters into both of these non -attainment areas along the west boundary of the project limits as it nears the City of Yakima limits (Envirometrics Inc, 2000). SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 78 Yakima Valley METROPOLITAN PLANNING AREA MPO Planning Area 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles ® N 1, , SR 24 Projekt Area Figure 24: Yakima MPO with PM,a, CO, and SR 24 project locations. A quantitative analysis of transportation -related PM10 emissions for the 2003 — 2005 MTIP, including the proposed project, reveals the build scenario is less than the 1994 budget of 927 tons per year. Consequently, the MTIP meets the requirements of both state and federal air quality conformity rules (WAC 173-420 and 40 CFR, part 51, respectively) for PM10 (Yakima Valley MTIP, 2003). Analysis of the 2003 — 2005 MTIP reveals that if the road projects listed in this document are developed, CO emissions will be at a lower level than if the projects are not built. The 2005 build scenario shows a 7.3 ton decrease in emissions from the 1990 base year. The SR 24 project is included in the 2005 build scenario (Yakima Valley MTIP, 2003). The projects contained in the amendment to the 2003 — 2005 MTIP, including the proposed project, are in conformity with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 as amended in the 1997 amendments to Conformity Guidelines for PM10 and Carbon Monoxide and 40 CFR, Part 51, and has no adverse impact on air quality (Yakima Valley MTIP, 2003). The proposed improvements on SR 24 will not adversely impact air quality in the Yakima non - attainment region and will likely contribute to improving conditions (Envirometrics Inc., 2000). SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 79 Consequences Temporary — During construction there may be a temporary reduction in air quality associated with construction work. These impacts would be associated with large construction equipment emissions, earth moving activities, and traffic back-ups. These impacts are expected to be temporary in nature. Construction activities associated with this proposed action would comply with the appropriate government permits and approvals that would specify temporary and permanent erosion control measures implemented during and after construction to avoid long- term impacts (Envirometrics Inc, 2000). Indirect — The indirect affects of the proposed project are associated with the relocation of commercial trip generating land use activities. Historically, commercial trip generation was concentrated more in the Yakima downtown area. Over the last several years the trend for large- scale commercial development has moved south, closer to the Valley Mall in Union Gap. This change has also relocated vehicle emissions associated with vehicles traveling to commercial destinations. The proposed project has not directly or indirectly been a cause of these trip generation and air quality changes in the region. The proposed project is expected to help alleviate air quality issues that have been a direct result of commercial development in the area. Direct — The project area has experienced considerable growth, which is anticipated to continue as exemplified by the current trend of commercial development in the area. Industrial uses, which may affect air quality, would be permitted under separate review by jurisdictional agencies. Neither the FHWA nor the WSDOT has that authority. The highway capacity increase associated with the proposed action would allow traffic to move more smoothly through the project area, thereby reducing stagnant emissions. The highway would continue to contribute to air quality degradation due to fossil fuel burning vehicle emissions. No impact above the "attainment" threshold is anticipated from either of the Build Alternatives (Envirometrics Inc, 2000). The primary impact to air quality in this area is attributed to existing traffic congestion found at the I-82 interchange and K -Mart intersection area. Under either Build Alternative air quality would improve in the short term and stay within regulated limits within the 20 -year planning period (Envirometrics Inc, 2000). Mitigation ➢ Continue to work with local and regional air quality authorities on monitoring air quality standards in the region. • Following all local and regional air quality regulations during the construction phase of the project. > The development and implementation of a Dust Control Plan to include control of fugitive dust during the construction phase (Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority, 2002). ➢ During project construction, the contractor will use the contract specifications in conjunction with the "Guide To Handling Fugitive Dust From Construction Projects" (The Associated General Contractors of Washington) to avoid / minimize temporary impacts related to construction activities. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 80 Consequences Temporary — During construction there may be a temporary reduction in air quality associated with construction work. These impacts would be associated with large construction equipment emissions, earth moving activities, and traffic back-ups. These impacts are expected to be temporary in nature. Construction activities associated with this proposed action would comply with the appropriate government permits and approvals that would specify temporary and permanent erosion control measures implemented during and after construction to avoid long- term impacts (Envirometrics Inc, 2000). Indirect — The indirect affects of the proposed project are associated with the relocation of commercial trip generating land use activities, Historically, commercial trip generation was concentrated more in the Yakima downtown area. Over the last several years the trend for large- scale commercial development has moved south, closer to the Valley Mall in Union Gap. This change has also relocated vehicle emissions associated with vehicles traveling to commercial destinations. The proposed project has not directly or indirectly been a cause of these trip generation and air quality changes in the region. The proposed project is expected to help alleviate air quality issues that have been a direct result of commercial development in the area. Direct — The project area has experienced considerable growth, which is anticipated to continue as exemplified by the current trend of commercial development in the area. Industrial uses, which may affect air quality, would be permitted under separate review by jurisdictional agencies. Neither the FHWA nor the WSDOT has that authority. The highway capacity increase associated with the proposed action would allow traffic to move more smoothly through the project area, thereby reducing stagnant emissions. The highway would continue to contribute to air quality degradation due to fossil fuel burning vehicle emissions. No impact above the "attainment" threshold is anticipated from either of the Build Alternatives (Envirometrics Inc, 2000). The primary impact to air quality in this area is attributed to existing traffic congestion found at the I-82 interchange and K -Mart intersection area. Under either Build Alternative air quality would improve in the short term and stay within regulated limits within the 20 -year planning period (Envirometrics Inc, 2000). Mitigation n i'+., L •4l. i,"...1 .1 1 quality' authorities monitoring air quality ® 'Continue to wolfs. whin local uiu regional air lival's ly aul11oll11 s on mons ormg al quality standards in the region. ➢ Following all local and regional air quality regulations during the construction phase of the project. ➢ The development and implementation of a Dust Control Plan to include control of fugitive dust during the construction phase (Yakima Regional Clean Air Authority, 2002). ➢ During project construction, the contractor will use the contract specifications in conjunction with the "Guide To Handling Fugitive Dust From Construction Projects" (The Associated General Contractors of Washington) to avoid / minimize temporary impacts related to construction activities. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 80 3.17 Noise Background A traffic noise analysis is required by law for federally funded type I projects that: 1) involve construction of a new highway, 2) significantly change the horizontal or vertical alignment, or 3) increase the number of through traffic lanes on an existing highway. State policy also requires the review and possible consideration of abatement on projects that substantially alter the ground contours surrounding a state highway. In addition to NEPA and SEPA regulations other applicable statutes and regulations include the 23 CFR 772, procedures for abatement of highway and traffic noise and construction noise; the 1974 Washington State Noise Control Act; the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-58, 173-60, and 173-62; and local noise ordinances. The WSDOT consulted with BRC Acoustics Inc. in 2000, 2002, and 2003 to complete evaluations of the potential noise affects and provide mitigation options for the proposed project. BRC used the FHWA STAMINA 2.0 program based on the FHWA-RD-77-108 traffic noise model and FHWA's newer model, Traffic Noise Model (TNM) 2.0 to evaluate and predict the noise effect of this proposed project. This noise and mitigation analysis was completed consistent with 23 CFR 772 Procedures for Abatement of Highway and Traffic Noise and Construction Noise and the WSDOT Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Procedures. Based on the FHWA guidance, traffic noise impacts occur when the predicted noise levels approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria (NAC) or when predicted traffic noise levels substantially exceed the existing noise level, even though the predicted levels may not exceed the NAC. While the FHWA noise regulations do not define "approach or exceed", typically noise levels that are within one decibel (dBA) of the NAC is said to "approach" the criteria. Based on FHWA and WSDOT policies, project traffic noise is considered a significant impact when either of the following occurs: > Predicted sound levels approach or exceed noise abatement criterion of 67 dBA. A sound level is considered to approach the 67 dBA criterion if it is within 1 dBA (i.e., 66 dBA). D Predicted noise increases are "substantial", i.e., equal to or greater than 10 dBA, according to the WSDOT interpretation of FHWA standards. The noise analysis's evaluated sound levels for the following traffic and roadway conditions: > Year 2005 p.m. -peak traffic on base network (baseline condition). > Year 2025 p.m. -peak traffic on base road network without the project (No -Action). D Year 2025 p.m. -peak traffic with the proposed improvements (Alternative 2 and 3). Traffic growth rates were determined from a combination of actual counts and predictive modeling from WSDOT's Traffic Engineering office. The growth rate varies throughout the corridor, but is generally accepted at an average of 4.8% per year. Field measurements were validated by the FHWA TNM Version 2.0. The model was run based on a 20 -year growth prediction. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 81 Findings The project study area has diverse land use characteristics from rural low-density agricultural lands in the east and high-density urban development as it enters the City of Yakima in the west. The project area is also traversed by the Yakima River that contains recreational and wildlife activitiac QR ')d algin Prnsses over 2nd merges with T -R7 and rnntainc a high degree of commercial and industrial land use activities near I-82. The formal noise report contained noise readings from 20 receiver sites throughout the proposed project location_ Figure 25 provides a vicinity map showing the receiver locations used for the Noise Analysis. The final analysis concluded that, with and without the proposed project, predicted growth on SR 24 would be above the NAC noise threshold levels. This means that with or without the proposed project predicted noise levels would exceed the noise abatement criteria for the 2025 design year. The noise analysis further concluded that predicted future noise +. would most likely along the NE, NW and SW corners SR 24 andd 1-82 _1111111 _Il i! wl)l11A4 occur 1,114. Atl !tl wl tl! of where - A' ' cross (Figure 25). Table 10 below provides the baseline and predicted 2025 noise levels of the 20 receiver locations analyzed in the proposed project area. Existing and Predicted Noise Readings of the Receiver Locations 1 Geographic Location Map 1 Area Receiver 2005 1 Baseline 2025 No -Action 2025 with Project Leq, dBA Leq, dBA Increase over Baseline Leq, dBA Increase over Baseline West of 1-82 / North of SR 24 1 1 68 70 2 70 2 5 65 67 2 67 2 10 63 66 3 65 2 19 59 62 3 62 3 20 57 60 3 60 3 21 57 59 2 59 2 West of 182 / . r 4.Jt vi S -vim . South of SR 24 c. 2 2 ... Ao .... ..... 62 9 �. 62 ..- - 4 59 62 3 62 3 West of I-82 / South of East Viola Ave 3 22 71 75 4 75 4 23 72 75 3 76 4 25 65 68 3 68 3 26 72 75 3 76 4 I-82 to Yakima River I2417 4 6 58 60 2 58 0 7 61 64 3 63 2 9 62 63 1 61 -1 7070 72 2 7373 3 28 66 68 2 69 3 Yakima River to Riverside Road 5 3 64 67 3 65 1 8 51 53 2 54 3 ISound levels shown in italics approach or exceed the FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC). SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 82 Baseline 2005 noise levels at several receivers approach or exceed NAC of 67 Leq. dBA. These affected receivers are located along the northwest, northeast and southwest sections of the interchange of SR 24 and I-82 (BRC, 2003b). Noise Area 1 (receiver locations 1, 5, 10, 19, 20, 21) — This area currently contains eight homes and one mobile home, however, two of the homes have been boarded up and no longer are used as residences. Existing noise levels at the first row of houses on the north side of SR 24 between 18th Street and I-82 currently range between 63 and 68 Leq. dBA, reaching NAC standards. The analysis found that by the 2025 design year, with or without the proposed project action, estimated noise levels could reach 59 to 70 Leq. dBA. Sound levels for the year 2025 under either of the Build Alternatives or the No -Action Alternative would exceed the noise abatement criteria of 67 Leq. dBA (BRC, 2003b). Noise Area 2 (receiver locations 2 & 4) — This area contains a mix of commercial and residential uses with the three existing residential units just south of SR 24 and west of I-82. Baseline noise levels in this area currently range between 59 and 60 Leq. dBA below the noise abatement criteria of 67 Leq. dBA. Projected noise levels in the 2025 design year, with or without the proposed project, are estimated to reach 62 Leq. dBA. Predicted noise levels for the year 2025 under either of the Build Alternatives or the No -Action Alternative would not exceed the noise abatement criteria of 67 Leq. dBA (BRC, 2003b). Noise Area 3 (receiver locations 22, 23, 25, 26) — South of Area 2 and west of the southbound I- 82 on-ramp exists an area primarily lined with commercial and light industrial land use activities. Some residential units still exist in this area primarily behind the commercial and industrial uses. In addition an approximate 25 -unit mobile home park fronts I-82 in this area. Baseline noise levels are between 65 and 72 Leq. dBA, well above the NAC criteria of 67 Leq. dBA. Projected noise levels in the 2025 design year, with or without the proposed project, are estimated to reach 68 to 76 Leq. dBA (BRC, 2003b). According to WSDOT policy receiver 22, 23, and 26 will meet or exceed the definition of a severe noise (Leg. 75 dBA or greater) by 2025, with or without the proposed action. Noise Area 4 (receiver locations 6, 7, 9, 24, 27, 28) — The area east of I-82 and west of the Yakima River is a mix of commercial and recreational / public service land use activities. Noise readings were taken from publicly owned recreational sites (Yakima Arboretum, Sherman Park, and Robertson's Landing) north of SR 24. Baseline noise levels in this area currently range between 58 and 70 Leq. dBA and predicted noise levels for the year 2025 under either of the Build Alternatives or the No -Action Alternative are anticipated to reach between 58 to 73 Leq. dBA with the proposed project (BRC, 2003b). Upon a closer look at the receiver locations all of the locations nearing or exceeded the NAC of 67 Leq. dBA are located near the westbound I-82 on -ramps with all other receiver locations not exceeding 64 Leq. dBA in the design year 2025. Noise Area 5 (receiver locations 3 & 8) — The area east of the Yakima River to Riverside Road is a less dense mix of open areas, farmlands, commercial, industrial, and residential uses. Baseline noise levels are between 51 and 64 Leq. dBA. Projected noise levels in the 2025 design year without the proposed project are estimated to reach 53 to 67 Leq. dBA (BRC, 2003b). However, with the proposed action noise levels in this area are only expected to reach 65 Leq. dBA, a one Leq. dBA over existing baseline conditions. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 83 (Thic mann imtomtimmnlly loft blank) Project location: Yakima County, Washington N W E S Noise Analysis and Potential Abatement Area Legend Proposed Noise Wall Existing Roadway Alignment I Noise Receiver Location SR 24 / 1-82 to Keys Road Environmental Assessment WSDOT - South Central Region Washington State November, 2003 Department of Transportation Figure 25 Page 84 Consequences Temporary — There will be temporary noise impacts during construction due to noise from construction equipment and trucks. Construction noise tends to be intermittent, since equipment is generally not operating continuously throughout the day (BRC, 2003b). Sound from construction is exempt from the provisions of the Washington State Administrative Code Chapter 173-60 during the daytime hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. Direct — The WSDOT guidelines state that where noise abatement is warranted the following types of abatement will be considered. > Traffic management measurements (e.g. traffic control devices and signing for prohibition of certain vehicle types, time use restrictions for certain vehicle types, and modified speed limits) ➢ Change of alignment, either vertical or horizontal. ➢ Construction of Noise Barriers. > Acquisition of property (e.g. buffer zones). In considering the types of abatement types for this proposed project it was found that 1) The proposed project improvements do not cause any changes in the traffic volumes, vehicle classifications, or speed limits and that current traffic management measurements on SR 24 have been maximized. 2) Shifting the horizontal alignment is not likely to be affective for the proposed project given the existing residence and business locations in proximity to the existing transportation network in this area and, consequently, shifting the alignment in one direction moves the roadway closer to receivers on the other side. Lowering the elevation of the proposed project to an extent sufficient to reduce noise levels near receiver 1 would not be feasible because it would result in significant grade differences between SR 24 and existing commercial land uses in the area and the I-82 ramps. In addition, shifting horizontal or vertical alignments would not be applicable to the on -ramps lanes, which are dictated by the I-82 elevation and SR 24 overpass structure. 3) That noise barriers were the most likely abatement measurement to reasonably and foreseeable pursue. And 4), acquisition of property was also a reasonable and foreseeable abatement measurement to pursue (BRC, 2003b). Based on the studies so far accomplished, the WSDOT intends to include noise abatement measures in the foliu of noise barriers where they can be determined to be both reasonable and feasible. In addition, property acquisition, where reasonable and recommended by other elements of the proposed project design, may also be used to, in part, abate noise impacts. If noise abatement measures subsequently develop during final design or conditions substantially change, the abatement measures discussed as likely may not be provided. The final decision on the installation of the noise abatement measure(s) will be made upon completion and approval of the project design. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 85 Discussion on Noise Barriers: Potential noise barriers for this proposed project were designed to reduce predicted 2025 p.m. peak -hour sound levels with the proposed project to 65 Leq. dBA or less at all residential receiver locations in the impacted sections of the study area. An additional criterion for the potential barriers was based on the WSDOT goal of achieving a 10-Leq. dBA noise reduction in noise levels at the first floor of first -row receivers. Where the 10-Leq. dBA noise reduction goal cannot be achieved, the goal is to achieve a minimum 7-Leq. dBA noise reduction to at least one receiver with the majority of first -row receivers attaining a 5-Leq. dBA noise reduction (Noise Abatement Policy and Procedures, WSDOT, November 1997). According to the WSDOT definition, a residence is considered benefited by the barriers it it receives a sound reduction of at least 3 Leq. dBA. The views of the impacted residents will be a major consideration in reaching a decision on the reasonableness of abatement measures to be provided The will and desires of the general public should be an important factor in dealing with the overall problems of highway traffic noise. The WSDOT will incorporate traffic noise considerations in their nn -going activities for public involvement in the highway program. The residents' views on the desirability and acceptability of abatement need to be reexamined periodically during the proposed project's design development. Discussion on Allowable Costs: For design -year traffic noise impacts predicted to be between Leq. 66 - 74 dBA the allowable cost of the barriers ranges from $15,500 to $27,500 per residence receiving a 3-dBA-noise reduction. FHWA regulations suggest that higher costs are allowable for residences experiencing severe noise impacts, those equal to or greater than 75 dBA. The WSDOT implication of this provision is to allow costs of $29,000 per residence experiencing a peak hour Leq, 75 dBA and $30,500 per residence experiencing a peak hour Leq. of 76 dBA (BRC, 2003b). Noise Area 1 (receiver locations 1, 5, 10, 19, 20, 21) — Because the noise analysis found that the proposed action is predicted to approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria of Leq. 67 dBA a noise barrier reasonableness and feasibility analysis was completed following the methodology prescribed in the WSDOT Noise Manual. The reasonableness and feasibility analysis estimated the cost for .,11 approximately 1 non feet 1') feet high .,),] 1.,.. approximately $269 '•)nn L11C: \.VJL lul a iiuisc wall appiuxilila LGly 1,000 -feet 12 -feet 111 �'11 WuuIU be appiuxililawly �7LV 7,LVV and a noise wall 13 to 18 fee high would be $368,100. See Figure 25 for approximate location of noise barrier. This preliminary barrier analysis estimated reductions in noise by 6 to 9 dBA to first row receivers in this area. Based on the total number of residences estimated to receive at least a 3-dBA reduction the maximum total allowable cost for a 12 -foot barrier would be $263,000 and a 13 to 18 foot barrier would be $278,500. The number of residences and allowed cost per household at each level of impact is illustrated in Table 11. Table 11: Noise Impact Area 1 - Allowable Abatement Costs for Noise Barrier Unmitigated Design -Year p,rn peak I eq(h), dRA per Household Cost Number of residences 12 foot barrier Number of residences 13 to 18 foot barrier 66 or less $15,500 11 $170,500 12 $186,000 67 $17,000 2 $34,000 2 $34,000 68 $18,500 2 $37,000 2 $37,000 69 $20,000 70 $21,500 1 $21,500 1 $21,500 Total Allowable Cost $263,000 $278,500 SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 86 Both the estimated 12 -feet and 13 to 18 feet high noise barriers would exceed the WSDOT allowable cost for reasonable and feasible noise abatement. Furthermore, the proposed projects design and public safety standards currently call for removing the road access from Nob Hill Lane and acquiring the first row properties (see Section 3.9, Right -of -Way Acquisition and Highway Access). For these reasons, no noise barrier abatement is recommended for this area of the project. However, if WSDOT makes the decision not to remove and acquire the first -row properties, then sound abatement will be re-evaluated in the design phase of the project, when more accurate details of the project become available (BRC, 2003b). Noise Area 2 (receiver locations 2 & 4) — The noise analysis found that the proposed action would not approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria of Leq. 67 dBA and that the increase for either the No -Action or Build alternative would only increase noise levels by 2 to 3 dBA over baseline conditions. No reasonableness and feasibility analysis regarding abatement was required. Noise Area 3 (receiver locations 22, 23, 25, 26) — Because the noise analysis found that the proposed action would approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria of Leq. 67 dBA a noise barrier reasonableness and feasibility analysis was completed following the methodology prescribed in the WSDOT Noise Manual. The noise study recommended an approximate 1,300 - foot barrier six to 16 feet high with an estimated cost of $468,520. See Figure 25 for approximate location of noise barrier. This preliminary barrier analysis estimated reductions in noise by 8 to 11 dBA to first row receivers in this area. Based on the total number of residences estimated to receive at least a 3-dBA reduction the maximum total allowable cost for this barrier would be $507,000. The number of residences and allowed cost per household at each level of impact is illustrated in Table 12. • Noise Impact Area 3 - Allowable Abatement Costs for Noise Barrier Unmitigated Design -Year p.m. peak Leq(h), dBA Allowed cost per household Number of residences 6 to 16 foot barrier 66 or less $15,500 15 $310,000 67 $17,000 68 $18,500 7 $92,500 69 $20,000 70 $21,500 71 $23,000 72 $24,500 73 $26,000 74 $27,500 2 $55,000 75 $29,000 1 29,000 76 $30,500 2 61,000 Total Allowable Cost $507,000 Based on the studies and designs so far accomplished, the WSDOT intends to further pursue and review constructing an approximate 1,300 linear foot noise barrier south of SR 24 and West of I- 82 (between I-82 MP 35.05 to MP 35.35). The preliminary report anticipates a reduction in noise levels by 10 Leq. dBA for the first row residential receivers in this area and overall noise reduction benefits (at least a 3 dBA) to approximately 27 residences in this area. If new SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 87 inform tion subsequently develops during final conditions change, this .....,....a�.,�.. S.,:�;s:;.i.::,��..� j :.ttitil� tanat design or substantially this abatement measure may not be provided. A final decision of the installation of the abatement measure(s) will be made upon completion of the project design and the public involvement process. Noise Area 4 (receiver locations 6, 7, 9, 24, 27, 28) — Because the noise analysis found that the proposed action would approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria of Leq. 67 dBA a noise barrier reasonableness and feasibility analysis was completed following the methodology prescribed in the WSDOT Noise Manual. The noise study determined that a noise wall approximately 1,8000 -feet and six to 18 feet high would be needed to mitigate highway noise to within the required criteria at an estimated cost of $576,200. According to WSDOT reasonableness criteria, the estimated maximum total allowable cost for noise barriers at this location is $46,000. The number of residences and allowed cost per household at each level of impact is illustrated in Table 13. Table 13: Noise Impact Area 4 - Allowable Abatement Costs for Noise Barrier Unmitigated Design -Year p.m. peak Leq(h), Leq. dBA Allowed cost per household Number of residences Allowable Cost 69 $20,000 1 $20,000 70 $21,500 71 $23,000 72 $24,500 73 $26,000 1 $26,000 Total Allowable Cost $46,000 Based on the studies so far accomplished, the feasibility of constructing a noise barrier would 1) lower predicted design year 2025 noise levels below Leq. 66 dBA, 2) attain a noise reduction of between 5 and 10 dBA, and 3) would not meet the cost criteria required to abate existing and predicted future noise levels in this area. The WSDOT does not intend to include noise abatement measures in this area of the proposed project. if new information subsequently develops during final design or conditions substantially change, the decision of including noise abatement measure may also change. Noise Area 5 (receiver locations 3 & 8) — The noise analysis found that the proposed action would not approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria of Leq. 67 dBA and that the increase for either the No -Action or Build alternative would only increase noise levels by 1 to 3 dBA over baseline conditions. No reasonableness and feasibility analysis regarding abatement was completed for this area of the proposed project. Mitigation The noise analysis concluded with potential mitigation options for noise abatement. The abatement and mitigation analysis found that 1) changes to the vertical or horizontal alignment would not meet the purpose and need for the project, and caused additional access related impacts to other properties in the project area, 2) noise barrier abatement could reduce predicted design year 2025 noise levels by 6 and 11 dBA, 3) noise barrier abatement measures in Area 1 and 4 would exceed the cost per household allowance for WSDOT to pursue, and 4) noise SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 88 mitigation measures in Area 3 are within the allowable cost per household allowance for the WSDOT to further pursue and define within the design of the proposed action. Temporary — All internal combustion engine -powered equipment would be required to have an effective exhaust muffler in good condition. In addition, it is anticipated that construction would only occur during daylight hours. Permanent — Based on the studies so far accomplished, it is reasonable and foreseeable that the proposed project include noise abatement measurements for Area 3. At this time noise abatement is anticipated to be in the folin of an approximately 1,300 linear foot noise barrier south of SR 24 and West of I-82 (approximate I-82 MP 35.05 to MP 35.35). The noise analysis predicts a noise reduction of between eight and 11 dBA for first row receivers. If new infolivation subsequently develops during the design phase or conditions substantially change, the abatement measures may be changed or not be provided. A final decision of the installation of the abatement measure(s) will be made upon completion of the project design and public involvement and input. In regard to noise impacts to Area 1, the current plans to acquire and remove the existing first row of homes in this area due to access and public safety issues also will provide an additional 200 to 250 foot buffer between SR 24 and the second row residences in this area. If the WSDOT makes the decision to not acquire and remove the first -row properties, then the noise abatement process will be re-evaluated in the design phase of the project, when more accurate details of the project design become available. The views of the impacted residents will be a major consideration in reaching a decision on the reasonableness of abatement measures to be provided. The will and desires of the general public should be an important factor in dealing with the overall problems of highway traffic noise. The WSDOT will incorporate traffic noise considerations in their on-going activities for public involvement in the highway program, i.e., the residents' views on the desirability and acceptability of abatement need to be reexamined periodically during project development. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 89 3.18 Comparison of the Alternatives The following matrix (Table 14) compares the effects of the alternatives with the proposed action's purpose and need, human communities, natural environment, and operational / construction abilities found in Chapters 3. Highlighted areas in the table indicate the lowest effects to environmental elements. Table 14: Comparison of the Environmental Affects. Environmental & Design Elements Alternative 1 i No Action Alternative 2 South row Profile vvaa e.la a..v ., Profile Alternative 3 Sout., na•, d Pr_f!,_ vvuwl 1I2llbtl11-to le Meets Purpose/Need No Yes Yes Human Communities Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Monitor Minor Cultural and Historic Resource Impacts Baseline Inconsistent N/A N/A No Consistent / Improves Monitor Minor No Consistent / Improves Transportation and Traffic impacts Recreational Opportunities Baseline N/A Improves N/A Improves N/A Land Use Planning Baseline N/A Consistent N/A Consistent N/A Utilities and Public Service impacts Baseline N/A Coordination Minor Coordination Minor Socio -Economic / Enviro. Justice Impacts No No None N/A None N/A ROW Acquisition / Highway Access None N/A +/- 32 acres N/A +/- 42 acres N/A Hazardous Material Impacts No N/A Not Anticipated BMP's Not Anticipated BMP's Natural Environment Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Floodplain Impacts Constricted baseline N/A Increase channel migration zone by 2.6 to 3.1 N/A Increase channel migration zone by 4 to 5.3 N/A Floodplain Fill 1.3Baa6sce1li11c N/A 234,000 ,uv0 cy N/A 168,0110 cy N/A Backwater Effects Baseline N/A 0.30' reduction N/A 3.30' reduction N/A Fish / Wildlife / ESA Baseline N/A May Affect BMP' s May Affect BMP' s Wetland Impacts Baseline N/A 0.40 acre BMP's 0.40 acre BMP's Water Quality Baseline N/A Treat existing / new stormwater BMP's Treat existing / new stormwater BMP's Visual Quality Baseline Rating 4.80 N/A Decrease of 0.12 to 4.68 BMP's Decrease of 0.08 to 4.72 BMP's Air Quality Baseline N/A Improves BMP's Improves BMP's Noise Impacts Baseline N/A Yes BMP's Yes BMP's Operational Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp WSDOT Standards No N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Constructible N/A N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Maintainable No N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A Permitable N/A Yes Yes N/A Yes N/A SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 90 4.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS 4.1 Introduction The following Cumulative Effects Analysis (CEA) was developed to meet or exceed compliance with NEPA CEQ guidance under 40 CFR 1508.7, which state: "...an impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non -Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time." 4.2 Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions The project area has undergone substantial changes within the last 150 -years that are expected to influence trends and actions into the reasonably near future. These changes were analyzed in relationship to the proposed project with respect to how the affects from the proposed action relate to the past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the project area. SR 24 Cumulative Effects Timeline Continuum, Figure 26 below, provides fundamental past, present, future, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that have, or may affect, the project area of SR 24. 1850's First settlers arrive in Yakima Area 1805 Lewis and Clark visit Yakima Area Cumulative Effects Time Continuum for SR 24 1940 Sportsman State Park Established 1980 Greenway 7 1957 Foundation 1865 First SR Bnd Established Yakima County o9e Existing SR 24 fficially established Constructed Bridge Constructed �l 45 Rood Ocarenoes 1894 I 1 1943 1948 Hanford Established Original Yakima River Levees Constructed 1936 Yakima Regional Sewage Treatment Facility Built 2000 Hanford Reach National Monument Established 1 Future South 33rd Street Extension Anticipated Ammendment to the YCFHMP DeVries Dairy Expansion 1997 GMA Zoning change from Agrkxrtual to Light Industnal Future The Vineyard Resort Konnowac Pass 12050 1967 Future Yakima Arboretum Central Premix Gravel established Mining Site Proposed Protect SR 24 1-82 to Keys Road Highway Widening Future Black Rock Reservoir Figure 26: SR 24 Cumulative Effects Timeline Continuum. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 91 Past Land Use Actions The project area is located along the east side of the City of Yakima metropolitan urban area. This area has been widely used, developed, and altered over the last 150 -years by agricultural, mining, and commercial land use activities, During the 1850's large numbers of permanent settlers began arriving in the Yakima area, via the Oregon Trail. In 1860 cattle rancher F. Mortimer Thorp and his family arrived in the Moxee Valley, becoming the first Euro -American settler near the project area. In 1865 the federal government ,.„a -,. .. (. _.,.7 ,. ,] F,,..�,. settlers L___�,_. ]� ._ township _________:____.__1__!� O ___7l__ ____..1_ _r the gove1r1111e111 recorded foul seLLlels living' 111 i township approximately 0.8 miles south of Lrhe current project area. After this time, lands in the region were officially opened to Euro - American settlers. In 1884 the Northern Pacific Railroad extended their Iron -Horse service to the Yakima Valley. The area's agricultural economic base was realized early in the 1900's with a growing Euro - American presence with the subsequent development and re -development of infrastructure, land use activities, transportation networks, and general population growth of the area. In 1936 the City of Yakima began to construct and develop sewer treatment facilities south of SR 24 near the Yakima River. As the need for services increased the site was developed as a 1 _ facility i r7• rYakima, i � �•� rrr r_ regional sewage treatment facility that began to serve the City of 1 akfima, City of Union Gap, and the Terrace Heights community to the north. SR 24, (SSH 11A), was constructed in 1937 and was used as a route between Yakima and the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, in addition to the Tri -cities area. In the mid -1940's properties along the Yakima River began to be extensively mined for construction related gravels due to the ample supply of mineral resources in these locations. These gravel mines were often located next to rivers with plentiful water supply for gravel processing. Owners and operators typically constructed flood levees between the gravel pits and the river for protection against flooding. These mining related activities had a profound change on the existing environmental baseline conditions as they related to water quality, wetlands and riparian vegetation, river morphology / stream flow characteristics, and fish and wildlife. As agricultural and residential development grew so did the need to divert Yakima River flows to support crops and development. In addition, the demand to faun suitable agricultural soils pushed agricultural and residential activities closer to the river's edge and with it, the construction of flood control levees needed to protect these activities. Large portions of the existing levees found in the project area were construction in the 1947-48 period. As population continued to grow so did the need to improve needed infrastructure (water, sewer, transportation) in and around the project area. In the mid -1960's I-82 (US 12 and SR 97) was constructed in its present location just west of the Yakima River. In addition local and regional transportation agencies improved roadways that helped develop the existing transportation network found in the project area. The construction of I-82 along the west boundary of the Yakima floodplain in the early 1960's played a part in development in and around the action area and at the same time partially reduced the capacity of the floodplain in this area. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 92 Flooding within this stretch of the Yakima River has been common for many years. The river has exceeded flood stage 45 times since 1894. Yakima has been declared a federal disaster area due to flooding nine times since 1970, most recently in 1995 and 1996. The FEMA 100 -year flood flows total 56,300 cfs. The Yakima River has an annual normal high flow of 14,590 cfs (Park, 2003). Since 1903, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) has been managing the majority of the Yakima River Basin's water resources by building multi -dam water storage and delivery projects to help irrigators, particularly during the long seasons of drought the region has endured. As a result, natural yearly flow pattern of the river has been dramatically altered, with serious negative effects on aquatic species, including anadromous fish, which developed under the pre - development flow regime. It is estimated that up to 80-90% of the basin's water is regularly diverted from rivers (American River Web Page, 2003). The entire Yakima River Floodplain in the project area has been redirected and controlled by land use development and flood control levees. Historic and current development actions, including the construction of existing flood control levees, have constricted the floodplain and substantially degraded floodplain biotic functions. Furthermore, the current 600 -foot Yakima River Bridge on SR 24 constricts the river and causes backwater during flood events on properties north of this location. Taken as a unit, the current configuration of the Yakima River levee system and the SR 24 Yakima River Bridge exacerbate the constriction driven aggradation of the riverbed with negative implications to both flood safety and wildlife habitat viability by creating a backwater condition that precludes normative floodplain function (Park, 2003). The flood hazard and avulsion risk in this section of the Yakima River is much higher than that of other sections of the Yakima River. The reason for this is that the existing flood control levees downstream from SR 24 provide much lower levels of flood protection than those located upstream of the bridge. Due to their inadequate height and construction materials, levees in this reach have required reinforcement under emergency conditions on numerous occasions (Freudenthal, 2002). The cumulative and indirect effects of these past flood levee actions (both in their location and continued maintenance) have a deteriorating influence on water quality and fish / wildlife habitat within the Yakima River, as referenced in the project's 2003 Biological Assessment (See Section 3.12, Fish / Wildlife / ESA). Present Land Use and Actions In 1994, federal legislation - the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Program (YRBWEP) - authorized federal financing of water conservation measures and changes in the BOR project works and operations in order to improve stream flows for fish and stabilize agricultural water supplies. This legislation gave BOR a new mission to mitigate and enhance fish and wildlife by funding solutions to the inefficient use of water in irrigation districts and BOR project works, the acquisition of water rights and lands exhibiting high aquatic habitat values, the development of an operating plan that takes into consideration biologically -based flows, and scientific research to support these projects. BOR is working with irrigators, the Yakama Nation, fishery agencies, environmentalists and scientists to develop future water resource management plans that balance the demands of the water users in the region and the need to restore the rivers, floodplains and fish populations (American River Web Page, 2003). SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 93 Several properties south of the SR 24 project limits have been purchased by the BOR and the Yakama Nation related to floodplain protection and restoration. These actions are anticipated to continue (Tuck, 2003). Through the Growth Management Act (GMA) planning efforts initiated in 1990 the area has seen changes in land use policy and activities that have affected the baseline conditions of the project area. In 1996 Urban Growth Areas (UGA) were established and all agricultural zoning districts within the UGA were replaced with higher density urban zoning districts. Today the entire area m tl-»n the project limits i �.itl�ir like City of V..L:.-.-..�'.. TTI=A Zoning districts within 1i11L11 L/ (111JL% YY 1111111 (114.' project 111111%, 1J YY 1111111 L111i till,' of 4 CL1111114 J V Vr,. Zoning 431,1110.1, the project limits fall within three general categories; light industrial, commercial, and residential. The area within the Yakima River floodway is primarily zoned low density reside_n_tial and contains all of the _rec_reational_ properties, Yakima Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility, gravel mining activities, KOA campgrounds, Washington State Sportsman's Park, and the Nob Hill Auto Wrecking Yard. Existing residential use properties in this low- density residential zone are primarily located east of Keys Road. These GMA zoning districts are intended to act as the long-term, twenty-year development plan for the area (Yakima County 2015 Plan, 2003). In 2002 Yakima County approved an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), with required mitigation, under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for the development of a 120 -acres gravel mining operation approximately 3/4 miles south of SR 24 along South Riverside Road. As part of this EIS a traffic analysis concluded that a right hand only turn lane to South Riverside and a traffic signal was needed to mitigate for traffic impacts to the area based on this development. Mitigation measurements for the new gravel mining development includes, but are not limited to, the relocation of existing flood control levees further out of the Yakima River floodway. Currently, Upper Yakima Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan is in the process of being amended by the Yakima County Flood Control Zone District (YCFCZD). Draft rlor.nments inr•inrie r,r-ommenri ations for restoring fiooriniain fimction and lowering floor' risks at and near the SR 24 Bridge (Freudenthal, 2003). These amendments are anticipated to be adopted in early 2004 and currently include recommendations to remove existing constrictions near the Yakima River and set back and improve existing flood levees in the area near the SR 24 Bridge. The decision on the new SR 24 bridge length (Alternative 2 vs. Alternative 3) could either provide a long-term hindrance or benefit to efforts by Yakima County and the YCFCZD to restore floodplain function and reduce flood risks in the action area. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Land Use and Actions The entire project limits is within the UGA of the City of Yakima where land use zoning districts have been established to contain the needed demand of land for future development. As dictated by the GMA most, if not all, future development will occur within the jurisdiction boundaries or within the cities UGA. This will also be true for most of the residential development in the project area. However, new development typically occurs where land is available, cost effective, and transportation routes are accessible. Therefore, it is reasonably foreseeable that most of the development over the next 20 -years will occur within the UGA of the project area and beyond. The area that is most likely to experience future growth is east of the Yakima River. Under the SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 94 current zoning and long range plans in this area additional industrial and commercial development is anticipated to occur with or without the proposed action (Figure 27). Build -out Potential of the SR 24 Project Area *This graph is conceptual in nature and is to show trend only. Project Area with lane expansion 1997 GMA 2003 Present Project Area without lane expansion • • • ■ • ■ • ■ • . • ■ • • ■ 2040 2050 Time Figure 27: Conceptual Land Use Build Out Potential in the SR 24 Area. Several land use activities and proposed development are reasonably foreseeable to occur in or near the project area and include the following: ➢ Central Pre -Mix 120 -acre gravel mining site. > Central Pre -Mix Levee Setback south of SR 24. > Riverside Road (South 33`d Street) road extension from the Terrace Heights community to SR 24 (Phase II and > Upper Yakima Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan amendment by the Yakima County Flood Control Zone District (YCFCZD). > Reconfiguration of the lower USACE levee at Robertson Landing and Nob Hill Auto Wrecking. > The development of an official Park and Ride Lot near the intersection of Riverside Road and SR 24. > Black Rock Reservoir project east between Hanford and the City of Moxee. > The Vineyards, a 350 -acre Master Planned Resort/Community complete with luxury hotel, convention center, and an 18 -hole championship golf course, on Konnowac Pass, south of the project limits. > DeVries Dairy Expansion at approximate MP 15 on SR 24. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 95 •••••••.,- 1112 lie —.0- e. 111. allill*WifliM d I( ' kliMell A . NI • IP ‘74:41:"Z rk., , Mil III._ i.3111V.:2. 6,:-. • "1.'7-.• ‘, " . ,-,or illn • 111111111111E.P.illit i! ! '! .' .. ..i. L- = 1 . \ --1 ''IkE%'11LVUIBIIII. 2,11i11:TLI'l!..-.. ,•11 TA:111,., /0111r.--""gli""0111111"1111i‘Alii:".!. .brii":: ta1111161111M-1111---mmorw 11111121111114 Valley Mall Blvd Extension ill , • ' I-82/South Union Gap Interchange • South 33rd Street Extension 'r 11! 24 11111101111111 1 Ammiiimg, ka____whi,,imm 97 i (12 New Central Premix , 4 Mining Site Project Location : fro,o, EDxepVarniessi oDalry and Resort 2 1111111=12111111111 ilEq81 '11111111111111111L 111 111 IIIMMIIIIIIIIIINMIMlngek& kIIMENNIORMEL Illrid11111111M111111111111111111111 972111E11 141811111111111111 I 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111A1 1•11•1 • ffialll P--) 11 =A) 11414.111114r; 1:::11110.11110.0111aluirill. 7legNice3W1 *Mai (1) el) ••••< 22. rt) co 4.1 • RIM 1)•• cref = ct) cr • • 11111\1111111100 a t" sa) 111. MI . • 11.11 em11111L , 1 The Vineyards I Golf Course •-• "ttolte' E Mil - - . fropert location' Yakima County Washington Proposed '4 1. Black Rock Reservoir lo• - • -.1 174,-•-zeo•- t MatRIPPIORIPIRs • 241 4.3 Cumulative Effects Analysis Matrix The following matrix (Table 15) builds upon the quantitative analysis of the proposed projects' affected environment for the human communities and natural environments. A comparison is made between the construction, operational, and compensatory mitigation of the proposed action with that of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Table 15: Cumulative Effects Matrix Checklist for Identifying Potential Cumulative Effects of a Highway Project Proposed Action Other Actions Potential Impact to Resources Construction Operation Mitigation Past Actions Present Actions Foreseeable Future Actions Cumulative Impacts Cultural & Historic 0 0 0 2 BL 0 0 Transportation and Traffic 1 0 + 2 BL 1 0 Recreational Opportunities 1 0 + 0 BL 0 + Land Use Planning 0 0 0 2 BL 1 0 Utilities and Public Services 1 0 0 0 BL 0 0 Socio- Economic and Environmental Justice 1 0 + 0 BL 0 + ROW Acquisition 1 0 0 0 BL 0 1 Hazardous Materials 1 0 + 2 BL + 0 Floodplains 0 0 + 2 BL + + Fish / Wildlife / ESA 1 + + 2 BL 0 + Wetlands 1 0 + 2 BL 0 0 Water Quality 1 + 1 2 2 0 + Visual Quality 1 0 + 2 BL 0 0 Air Quality 1 + + 1 BL 0 0 Noise Impacts 1 1 + 1 BL 0 1 Key: 0 = No Affects, 1 = Mimmal Affects, 2 = Moderate Affect, 3 = High Affects, + = Beneficial Affects, ? = Unknown Affects, BL = Baseline SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 97 4.4 Cumulative Effects Summary Negative cumulative effects associated with the proposed action were determined to be minimal due to the high level of previous manmade disturbances, current land use plans, and foreseeable future development activities in the project area. Pristina hacplinP pnnrjitinns in the nrniert irea related to lyater nasality fish / cx, lrllife floodplains, wetlands, and visual quality have been degraded and are at risk due to past and present manmade activities. The proposed action would not have negative cumulative affects to these resources. Furthermore, the proposed action will likely have long-term positive cumulative effects as they relate to water quality, fish / wildlife, and the floodplain in the proposed project area. The cumulative effects to environmental elements related to land use planning, transportation and 11a111i, noise, air quality, and utilities / public services would be in the facilitation and X10.=.rt ,.F these existing .,l n,.l;,.;e,. and nl..n,. Then proposed t;,.... .;11 likely have e /iD4_D I. 1. 411 these G/pl,,1411� 14. 1l DDA 1481 1!47I 44..10...1 011144 i)1Cgll1. 1 111. 10(111\D�4,11 action will likely 11C1tl1. a positive cumulative effect on traffic safety, improved non -motorized and multi -model options, access to recreational opportunities, and adopted land use plans in the area. It is possible that the proposed action may facilitate a higher growth rates than those predicted in adopted land use plans and could facilitate their amendment at an earlier stage than previously scheduled. 110 Ydevel, the proposed project is consistent with adopted land use, and transportation 131141110 in the action area. The environmental elements related to cultural and historic resources, socio-economic / environmental justice, ROW acquisition, and hazardous materials are not likely to have negative cumulative effects. However, pedestrian and non -motorized transportation improvements will improve access to pathways and recreational activities in the project area. This is expected to have positive cumulative effect to socio-economic and environmental justice elements in the proposed action area. The proposed project was developed using avoidance / minimization strategies and, as needed, mitigation elements. These strategies and elements were developed based on input from federal, state, and local agencies, in addition to the public. While several of the environmental elements analyzed for this proposed action may experience minor impacts or temporary losses until mitigation plans are completed, other environmental elements are expected to provide positive cumulative effects to the area. The overall cumulative impacts associated with the proposed action are not expected to substantially impact the SuIVUiuU area in a negative iiiaiiiier. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 98 APPENDIX A - TERMS AND DEFINITIONS SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Adverse Noise Impact — A condition that exists if sound levels approach or exceed the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) of 67 decibel (dBA) or a 10 dBA increase in ambient noise levels. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) — The major policy advisor to the Federal government in the field of historic preservation. The 20 members of the Council are appointed by the President and include the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Interior, the Architect of the Capitol, and the chairman of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the president of the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers. Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) — The total yearly traffic volume on a given highway segment divided by the number of days in the year. AADT is expressed in vehicles per day (vpd). Aquifer — Rock or sediment that is saturated with water and sufficiently permeable to transmit economically significant quantities of water to wells and springs. Automatic Traffic Recorder (ATR) - Device that records the number of vehicles that pass over a rubber tube secured across a roadway. Vehicles are recorded based on pneumatic pressure as vehicle weight compresses tube in passing over it. Archaeological Resources — Materials and objects that remain below the ground surface as evidence of the life and culture of historic, prehistoric, or ancient people, such as artifacts, structures, or settlements. Resources of concern are located in areas known or suspected to contain subsurface artifacts of pre -European or post -European settlement populations. Areas of expected moderate to high archaeological sensitivity according to various factors including present and past topography, exposure, slope, distance to water, and availability of food. Arterial Road — Roads with high traffic volumes that provide linkage between major cities and towns and developed areas, capable of attracting travel over long distances. Basically, they provide service to interstate and inter -county travel demand. The arterial system typically provides for high travel speeds and the longest trip movements. The degree of access control on an arterial may range from full control (freeways) to entrance control on, for example, an urban arterial through a densely developed commercial area. At -grade —The intersection of two roads, or a road and a railway, that crosses at the same elevation. Attainment area — A geographic area in which levels of a criteria air pollutant meet the health based primary standard (National Ambient Air Quality Standard) for the pollutant. Attainment areas are defined using federal pollutant limits set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Avian — Refers to all things of, relating to, or derived from birds Best Management Practice (BMP) — A structural and/or management practice employed before, during and after construction to protect receiving water quality. These practices either provide techniques to reduce soil erosion or remove sediment and pollutants from surface runoff. Carbon monoxide (CO) — A colorless, odorless, tasteless gas formed in large part by incomplete combustion of fuel. Full combustion activities (i.e. transportation, industrial processes, space heating, etc.) are the major sources of CO. Cumulative Affects — The affects on the environment that result from the incremental impact of a project when added to other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Critical Rate Factor (CRF) - The CRF is a ratio of the crash rate at a given location compared to the statewide average crash rate for similar types of facilities. Daily traffic volume — The number of vehicles that use a given roadway over a 24-hour period in both directions. dBA —An abbreviation for A -weighted decibel. The decibel is a unit used to describe sound pressure levels on a logarithmic scale. For community noise impact assessment, an A -weighted frequency filter is used to approximate the way humans hear sound. Delay — Additional travel time experienced by a driver, passenger, or pedestrian beyond what would reasonably be desired for a given trip. Demand — Vehicular traffic demand (volume) on a given highway segment, expressed in vehicles per day (vpd). SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT of the U.S., an earthen structure partway n a river for the purpose of maintaining a Dike —iii most areas earthen structure ., built partway r.uj uerosu purpose b navigation channel. In other areas the term is used synonymously with levee. [Glossary of Flood Damage Reduction Terms, USACE, 2002] Direct Affects — The immediate effects on the social, economic, and physical environment caused by the construction and operation of a highway; these impacts are usually experienced within the right-of-way or in the immediate vir,nity of the highway nr other element of the proposed action. Design speed — The maximum safe speed that can be maintained over a specified section of highway when conditions are so favorable that the design features of the highway govern. The design speed should equal or exceed the posted/regulatory speed limit of the facility. Disadvantaged population — A group of people, living in one area, who have a median income below the federal poverty level, or who exhibit other indicators of economic disadvantage. Diverge — A movement in which a single lane of traffic separates into two separate lanes without the aid of traffic control devices. Endangered species — Any species, which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Environmental Justice — Executive Order 12898 requires each federal agency to "make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing... disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impacts on minority populations and low-income populations." Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) — Those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity, as defined by the regional Fishery Management Council. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) — A federal agency that regulates federal actions in floodplains. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) — The branch of the U.S. Department of Transportation responsible for administering the funding of federal -aid highway projects. Floodplain — The level area adjoining a river channel inundated during periods of high flow usually measured in a 100 -year or 500 -year period. Floodway — The channel of a stream, plus any adjacent floodplain areas, that must be kept free of encroachment in order that the 100 -year flood be carried without substantial increases in flood heights. Freeways — The freeway (or interstate) is the highest level of arterial. Full control of access, high design speeds and a high level of driver comfort and safety characterize these highways. Grade — The slope of a road along the direction of travel, normally characterized by the vertical rise per unit of longitudinal distance. Grade separation — The intersection of two roads, or a road and a railway, that cross at different elevations. One roadway overpasses or underpasses the other roadway with a structure(s). High Accident Corridor (HAC) — A High Accident Corridor is a section of roadway where an above average number of collisions occur. The WSDOT list of HACs is ranked by societal cost per mile per year, as well as being divided into locations that require Cost/Benefit analysis. All locations with a B/C of 1.0 or greater are combined with risk solutions for prioritization, and when allocated, programmed for improvement. Historic resources — Properties, structures and districts that are listed in or have been determined to be eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Hourly traffic volume — The number of vehicles that use a given road over a 1 -hour period. Impervious surface — Relating to hydrology. A surface through which precipitation cannot penetrate, causing direct runoff or perching (examples include asphalt paving roofs, and densely compacted gravel). Indirect Affects — Affects of the project that are not directly caused by the proposed action but may later in time or farther removed in distance, still reasonably and foreseeable affect environmental elements in the project area. Indirect affects may include, but are not limited to, project related changes to water quality that, over time, may SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT induce changes to wetland function in the area. Or changes from the proposed action that may cause changes to land use patterns that are not consistent to local or regional land use plans. Interstate — A freeway -type highway that is part of the National Highway System. Interstate Highway System — The network of Interstate Highways established by the Federal - Aid Highway Act of 1956. The statute established a 41,000 -mile network of controlled -access highways (expanded to 42,000 miles by legislation in 1968) intended to connect all metropolitan areas with populations greater than 50,000 and all state capitals. Levee - A structure of earth, stone, or other materials built parallel to a river to protect land from flooding. [Glossary of Flood Damage Reduction Terms, USACE, 2002] Levee System - A flood protection system, which consists of a levee, or levees, and associated structures, such as closure, and drainage devices, which are constructed and operated in accordance with sound engineering practices. [44CFR59.1, Revised 10/1/00] Level of Service — A qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally described in terms of such factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and convenience, and safety. Limited -Access highway — A highway that provides limited points of access and egress. Highways, such as SR 24, are controlled access highways in which access points occur only at interchanges. These highways serve mobility needs, and are designed to accommodate higher travel speeds. Link — A new or existing highway segment between two defined end-points. Local roads and streets — All public roads and streets not classified as arterials or collectors will have a local classification. Local roads and streets are characterized by many points of direct access to adjacent properties and have relatively minor role in accommodating mobility. Speeds and traffic volumes are usually low. Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act — Legislation (16 U.S.C. 1855(b)) governing all fisheries resources within 320 kilometers (200 miles) of the U.S. coast that established regional Fishery Management Councils and required the preparation of Fisheries Management Plans. Merge — A movement in which two separate lanes of traffic combine to form a single lane without the aid of traffic signals or other right-of-way controls. Mitigation — Actions that avoid, minimize, or compensate for potential adverse impacts to the environment. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) — The prescribed level of pollutants in the outside air that cannot be exceeded during a specified time in a specified geographic area. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) — The federal legislation that requires an interdisciplinary approach in planning and decision-making for federal -aid actions. The Act includes requirements for the contents of environmental impact statements that are to accompany every recommendation for major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The interdisciplinary study approach includes the analysis of potential impacts to the natural, social and economic environment. National Register of Historic Places — A list of structures, sites and districts of national historical significance as determined by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation under the National Historic Preservation Act. National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 - Standard reference plain from which elevations are measured. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) — Formerly the Soil Conservation Service, NRCS is a department within the United State Department of Agriculture, which is responsible for administering the Farmland Protection Policy Act. Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) — Nitric oxide (NO) and Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) are collectively referred to as oxides of nitrogen (NOx). NO forms during high temperature combustion process. NO2 forms when NO further reacts in the atmosphere. NOx reacts with the sunlight to form ozone, a colorless gas associated with smog or haze conditions. Ozone is a pollutant regulated by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) — Noise levels measured in decibels that are used as a basis of comparison for evacuating the impact from predicted design year noise and for determining whether noise abatement measures should be considered. Noise Abatement Measures — Actions that reduce traffic noise impacts. Noise abatement measures can be traffic management measures, alteration of horizontal and vertical alignments, acquisition of property rights for construction of noise harrier, construction of noise barriers. acquisition of real property or interest for buffer zones, or noise insulation of public use or nonprofit institutional structures. Noise receptor — Locations that may be affected by noise• sensitive receptors include residences, parks, schools, churches, libraries, hotels, and other public buildings. Ozone — A gas, which is a variety of oxygen. Ozone is a pollutant regulated bythe Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Ground-level ozone is the main component of smog. Ozone is not directly emitted by motor vehicles, but is formed when oxides of nitrogen react with sunlight. Palustrine — The group of vegetated wetlands traditionally called by such names as marsh, swamp, bog, fen, and prairie. Palustrine wetlands may be situated shoreward of lakes, river channels, or estuaries; on river floodplains; In ;enl, tart ratrhmr ntc• nr nn clnnPc Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Wetland — A palustrine wetland dominated by shrubs. Peak hour — The hour of the day when traffic volume on a given roadway is highest. A separate peak hour can be defined for morning and evening periods. Peak hour volume — The traffic volume that occurs during the peak hour, expressed in vehicles per hour (vph). Peak hour volumes are typically 10 to 15 percent of daily volumes. Peak Hour Leq — Represents the noisiest hour of the day/night and usually occurs during peak periods of motor vehicle traffic. The Leq is the equivalent sound level measurement, which means it averages background sound levels with short-term transient sound levels and provides a uniform method for comparing sound levels that vary over time. Relocations — The displacement of a residence, business or other structure from a property owner, for public use, that requires the residents or business to be moved to an alternate location. State Environmental Policy Act - The Washington State Environmental Policy Act provides a way to identify possible environmental impacts that may result from governmental decisions. These decisions may be related to issuing permits for private projects, constructing public facilities, or adopting regulations, policies or plans. State Imp!ementatinn Plan (SIP) — A pian created under The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) that establishes emission reduction requirements for ozone and carbon monoxide non-attainment areas. Proposed projects must demonstrate that the impacts of their emissions are consistent with the appropriate SIP. Stormwater runoff — That portion of precipitation that does not naturally percolate into the ground or evaporate, but flows via overland flow, interflow, channels or pipes into defined surface waters or a constructed infiltration facility. Threatened Species — Any species, which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Traffic generator — Any business, government office, or place of employment or destination that generates or attracts traffic. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) — TDM focuses on alleviating traffic problems or deficiencies through improved management of vehicle trip demand as opposed to adding new highway lanes or segments, thereby increasing the efficiency of the transportation system. TDM strategies, include but are not limited to, modifying travel behavior using measures which either eliminate trip making, change the time of day trips are made, or accommodate person trips in fewer vehicles. TDM measures may include incentives, disincentives, provision or enhancement of non -single occupancy vehicles (SOV), improving non-motorized transportation options, and encouraging employer-based programs. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) — A staged multiyear (typically 6 -year) plan for prioritized transportation projects that Washington State county and city jurisdictions adopt and use to implement transportation improvements within their jurisdiction. Transportation Systems Management (TSM) — Relatively low cost measures to increase capacity and/or provide safety improvements on the existing transportation system. These measures typically include traffic signal timing or phasing adjustments, designation of turning lanes at specific intersection or driveways, access management improvements, and enhanced signage or markings. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE) — A federal agency that administers Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act; its regulatory programs address wetlands and waterways protection. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — A federal agency responsible for administering programs that address environmental issues. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) — A federal agency responsible for addressing the protection of fish and wildlife including rare, threatened, or endangered species. The USFWS plays an advisory role in the Section 404 regulatory program administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Urban — An urban community is defined as an area with: 1) a population greater than 7,500 persons or; 2) a population between 2,500 and 7,500 persons and a worker -to -resident worker ratio greater than 1.0. v/c ratio — The ratio of demand flow rate to capacity for a traffic facility. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) — Colorless gaseous compounds originating, in part, from the evaporation and incomplete combustion of fuels. In the presence of sunlight VOCs react to form ozone, a pollutant regulated by the Clean Air Act Amendments. Watershed — A region or area that contains all land ultimately draining to a water course, body of water, or aquifer. Weaving area — A length of highway over which traffic streams cross each other's path without the aid of traffic signals over a length of highway, doing so through lane -changing maneuvers; formed between merge and diverge points, as well as between on -ramps and off -ramps on limited access facilities. Wetland — Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT APPENDIX B - DISCIPLINE STUDIES AND REFERENCES SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Discipline Studies Air Quality Envirometrics, Inc., Seattle, Washington, "SR 24 Air Quality Study", 2000 Energy Osborn Pacific Group Inc., "SR 24 Energy Technical Report", 2000 Endangered Species, Fish / Wildlife, Critical Habitat Patricia McQueary, WSDOT, Yakima, Washington, "SR 24 South Alignment Low Profile Biological Assessment", 2000 Patricia McQueary, WSDOT, Yakima, Washington, "SR 24 North Alignment Biological Assessment", (2002a) Patricia McQueary, WSDOT, Yakima, Washington, " January 13, 2003 SR 24 South Alignment Raised Profile Biological Assessment", (2003a) Patricia McQueary, WSDOT, Yakima, Washington, "July 18, 2003 Amended USFWS SR 24 South Alignment Raised Profile Biological Assessment", (2003c) Floodplains Jim Park, WSDOT, "SR 24 Floodplain Consistency Report", 2003 Bob Tuck, Eco -Northwest, and Chantal Stevens, People for Salmon, DRAFT "The Selah Gap to Union Gap Reach of the Yakima River", 2003 Hazardous Materials Allison Ray, WSDOT, Olympia, Washington, "Hazardous Materials Discipline Study", 2000 Allison Ray, WSDOT, Olympia, Washington, "Hazardous Materials Discipline Study Amendment", 2002 Historic and Cultural Resources Craig Holstine, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, Washington, "SR 24 Archaeological and Historical Services Report", 1999 Craig Holstine, Eastern Washington University, Cheney, Washington, "SR 24 Archaeological and Historical Services Report — Riverside Road Intersection", 2000 Ann Sharley, Stephen Emerson, and Stan Gough, Eastern Washington University Archaeological and Historical Services, Cheney, Washington, "Cultural Resources Survey for the SR 24 North Alignment", 2002 Noise Analysis Ioana Park, BRC Acoustics, Seattle, Washington, "Environmental Sound Analysis — South Low Profile", 2000 Ioana Park, BRC Acoustics, Seattle, Washington, "Environmental Sound Analysis — North Alignment", 2002 Ioana Park, BRC Acoustics, Seattle, Washington, "Environmental Sound Analysis — South Raise Profile", 2003a Ioana Park, BRC Acoustics, Seattle, Washington, "Environmental Sound Analysis — (project update) SR 24; I-82 to Keys Road", 2003b Socio -Economic and Environmental Justice Don McCulloch, WSDOT, Olympia, Washington, "Socio-economic, Environmental Justice, and Relocation Analysis", 2000 SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ::.......»....+ ronmental JusticeKathleen McKinney, WSDOT, Olympia, Xail;ngton, "Sr,nin_nrnnomlic- an-nvi Update", 2003 Traffic and Transportation INCA Engineers, Inc., "SR 24 Traffic Analysis Report", 2000 Jim Mahnah P.P., .CCR WSDOT Yakima_ Washington, "SR 24 Level of Service Analysis", 2003 Visual Quality Osborn Pacific Group Inc., "SR 24 Visual Quality Report", 2000 Sandra L. Salisbury, L.A., .t., OJC 7V7SDOT, Olympia, Washington, "SR 24 Visual Elements Study Discipline Report", WSDOT, 2002 Wetlands Osborn Pacific Group Inc., "Wetlands Technical Report", 2000 Patricia L. McQueary, Biologist, SCR WSDOT, Yakima, Washington "SR 24 North Alignment Wetland / Biology Report", (2002b) Patricia L. McQueary, Biologist, SCR WSDOT, Yakima, Washington, "SR 24 South Alignment Wetland / Biology Report", (2003b) References Les Ornelas, Yakima Regional f lean Air Authority, 2002, Comment Letter on SR 24 Air Quality Study. Yakima Valley Conference of Governments, Yakima, Washington, "Draft Formal Amendment to the 2003-2005 Yakima Valley Metropolitan and Regional Transportation Improvement Program", 2003. Yakima Valley Conference of Governments, Yakima, Washington, "SR 24 On-Ramp Improvements", concurrence letter on 2003-2005 Yakima Valley MTH / RTIP, October 1, 2003. Joel Freudenthal, Yakima County Public Works Department, related to the Yakima County Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan, 2003. Dean Patterson, Yakima County Planning Department, comments on SR 24 Wetland Delineation Report, 2001. Draft amended Chapter R document to the Upper Yakima CFHMP and Draft SEPA Checklist, prepared 10/1/03 by Yakima County. Patricia McQueary, WSDOT SCR Regional Biologist, 2003. WSDOT Web page http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/I82KeysRd/ "SR24 forecasted project benefits". Yakima County Web Page http://www.pan.co.yakima.wa.us/gis/ was used in gathering data on parcel size, value, zoning, services, roadways, and current land use. Washington Office of Community Development, 2003, "GMA and Transportation, GMA links Transportation and Land Use", http://www.ocd.wa.gov/info/Igd/growth/fact sheets/Transnortation.tpl SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT APPENDIX C - EA DISTRIBUTION LIST SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EA DISTRIBUTION LIST Federal Federal Highway Administration U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Federal Emergency Management Agency Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Tribes Yakama Nation Wanapum Tribe Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation State Department of Ecology Department of Community Trade and Economic Development Department of Natural Resources Department of Fish and Wildlife Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation State Library Yakima Sportsman State Park Regional Yakima County Yakima Valley Conference of Governments Yakima County Clean Air Authority Columbia River Intertribal Fish Commission Local City of Yakima City of Union Gap Yakima Regional Library Yakima Greenway Foundation Adjacent Property Owners & Interested Parties (Executive Summary Package) Yakima Arboretum SR 24/Yakima River Interdisciplinary Team Agency Membership Partnerships Northwest Power Planning Council Associated General Contractors Central Premix Eco -Northwest SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT APPENDIX D - AGENCY COORDINATION/PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Agency Coordination Due to the urban to rural connection of the SR 24 corridor, potentially sensitive environmental issues, and the desire of the Washington State Legislature to streamline the environmental permitting process, the SR 24 project was selected as the "urban / rural pilot" transportation project in May 2001 by the Transportation Permit Efficiency and Accountability Committee (TPEAC), under the auspices of the Environmental Permit Streamlining Act RCW 47.06. As part of the process of applying RCW 47.06 to the SR 24 project, an Inter -Disciplinary Team (IDT) was established, comprised of resource agency stakeholders, local jurisdictional entities, regulatory agencies, and WSDOT staff. The teams purpose was to determine the relevant environmental issues the project would likely encounter and begin early coordination and scoping efforts to produce specific project penults. Agencies invited to participate on the IDT included the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA), the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Yakima County, City of Yakima, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), the Washington State Department of Ecology (WSDOE), the Yakama Nation, Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Yakima Greenway Foundation. In addition, communication and coordination on project specifics has occurred between the FHWA, the WSDOT, the Yakama Nation, the Wanapum Tribe, Confederated tribes of the Colville Reservation, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Yakima County, local area businesses, the general public, and other interested parties. These coordination efforts will continue through the completion of the project. Consultation and coordination with the USFWS and NOAA is required under Section 7(c) of the ESA. The FHWA developed a BA to address impacts to species listed as threatened that may be present in the project area. The determination in the BA was that the project "May Effect, but is Not Likely to Adversely Effect"; bald eagles and bull trout, both listed as threatened by the USFWS. On November 2, 200 and September 16, 2003 the USFWS signed concurrence letters for the project BA. These concurrence letters have been incorporated into the Environmental Assessment and project design. The NOAA Fisheries list the Mid -Columbia Steelhead as threatened. The BA for anadromous fish determined the proposed project "May Adversely Effect" this listed species. On July 22, 2003 the NOAA Fisheries signed a Biological Opinion (BO) with terms and conditions related to listed species for the proposed project. This BO has been incorporated into the Environmental Assessment and project design (Appendix F & G). The National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 requires that the Advisory Council on historic preservation be afforded the opportunity to review and comment on federal undertakings prior to the commencement of work. FHWA has notified and consulted with the Advisory Council, tribes, and other interested parties regarding the proposed action, in accordance with 36 CFR, part 800. The concurrence letter from SHPO can be found in Appendix E of this document. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Public Involvement Process The proposed SR 24, 1-82 to Keys Road project has a history that starts in the early 1990's. Study SR 24 from r nn the City ,.FTd,, 1990. Elements of CH2ivi Hill did a Corridor Study 011 1-82 to City of Moxcc in o� this corridor study included two public meetings that were held on August 29 and October 31, 1990. Tams Consultants were hired by the WSDOT in 1991 to complete in-depth analysis on various alternatives to the SR 24 corridor. They produced a Traffic Analysis Report in September 1992, an Environmental Inventory in June 1993, and a Noise Mitigation Report in March 1994. Two public meetings were held on December 12, 1991 and July 14, 1992. i based _ these _lie studies the 93/95 Biennium. 0 WSDOTbegan preliminary designs based on these earlier in the 93 95 1 S draft Design Report was produced in June 1994 and a Final Geotechnical Report was produced in June 1995. No public meetings were held during this period. INCA Engineers was hired by the WSDOT in September 1999 to prepare the Design File and Plans Specification and Estimate (pcRrEI TTNTrA went on to produce a Traffic Analysis Report Plans Specifications L1V11J Estimate vv �. .['- J in September 2000. A public meeting was held on September 27, 1999. In addition to these design and studies two open houses were held in 1999 and 2000 respectively. The WSDOT held a Design Access Hearing in 2001 regarding the proposed project improvements from South 18th Street in the City of Yakima to the Yakima River Bridge. Legal notices were printed in the newspaper on November 19 and December 10, 2001. In addition to the 2001 Access Hearing the WSDOT sent out letters to affected property owners, project description and location flyer were sent out to over 400 interested parties in the area, posters in the project area and description were placed in the windows of businesses near in intersection of South 18th Street and Nob Hill Blvd (SR 24), and project description and location flyers were hand delivered in the area west of I-82 (these flyers were printed out in both the English and Spanish language). Over the last three years the WSDOT has extensively communicated with local radio, television, and newspapers on the scope, location and status of the proposed project. This has generated several newspaper articles on the project status and scope in the Yakima Valley. Additional And Continued Agency and Public Involvement The project was designated as a TPEAC Pilot Project in Fall 2001. An Inter -Disciplinary Team (IDT) was created is assisting in the completion of the documentation and permitting requirements. In 2003 the Yakima area TRANSACTION committee identified the SR 24 project as one of the top three projects in the greater Yakima area. TRANSACTION is a group of local business leaders, elected officials, local jurisdictions, and other community members. TRANSACTION SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT goal is to develop a list of prioritized transportation strategies to meet the long term needs of the greater Yakima area. In addition, the SCR WSDOT annually provides a display at the Central Washington State Fair that presents local / regional projects that are of interest to the general public. In the last several years' information has been available on the proposed SR 24 project so that questions and comments could be appropriately addressed. This year WSDOT showcased the proposed SR 24 action at the 2003 Central Washington State Fair. State 2002 Washington State Fair, Yakima Washington Currently, the WSDOT plans to hold a public meeting and open house on the project in December 2003 at the Yakima Arboretum just north of the K -Mart site. The meeting is scheduled from 4 to 7 p.m. For further information on this scheduled public meeting please contact the WSDOT project manager. Coordination with the public and federal, state, and local agencies will continue until project completion. SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MB MN lin or MI 11•1 In Ili — — IIIIII 11111 NIB MD — — 4 ° • . . . • • s•:•4`, „ •,..„c vi ;,. . • ° A''',% 'n, et.), 'OW 0,..., --_—_::1T---------°i-1--- --, _•-_-_-:--- - D i -----..,!t- Ai • . , i f -Y.--- -1V+11.w.; - iii zz • —11,77--;;'- 11.1 b • IA 1 o I ,e, ' RECEPCION GENERAL ABIERTA AL PUBLICO SR 24 1-82 AL CAMINO KEYS 1 Donde: En el Centro Interpretativo Jewett en el Arboreto 1401 Arboretum Drive Cuando: El Martel 24 de Octubre del 2000 A que bora: De 5:00 p.m. a las 7:00 p.m. )11 DURANTE ESTA RECEPCION GENERAL SE PROYEERA INFORMACION DEL PROYECTO EN SU TOTAL1DAD, Y LOS CAMBIOS. EL FORMATO DE LA RECEPCION SERA INFORMAL, PARA QUE EL PUBLICO ?UEDA REV1SAR LA EXIBICION Y LAS MAQUETAS, Y QUE COMENTE HACERCA DEL PROYECTO. EL PERSONAL DEL DEPARTAMENTO DE TRANSPORTE DEL ESTADO DE WASHINGTON ESTARA PRESENTE PARA RESPONDER CUALQUIER PREGUNTA Y PARA RECIBIR LOS COMENTARIOS. INFORMACION DEL PROYECTO SE ENSANCHARA EL TRAMO DE LA CARRETERA 55 24 DE DOS CARRILES 4 CUATRO, INISIANDOSE EN LA CALLE 18 Y TERMINANDO EN EL CAMINO KEYS SE MOVERA LA INTERSECC1ON DE W BIRCHFIELD AL ESTE APROXIMADAMENTE 400 PIES SE ENSANCHARAN LAS RAMPAS DE ACCESO AL ESTE Y AL OESTE DE LA 1-1) SE CONSTRUIRAN PASOS A PEATONES DESDE LA CALLE 18 HASTA EL CAMINO KEYS CAMBIOS RECIENTES DEL PROYECTO (LOS NUMEROS CORRESPONDEN CON LAS AREAS EN EL NAPA( 1) UN CAMBIO EN LA ALINEACION DEL CAMINO HACIA EL SUR DE LA 55 24 2) CERRAR LA RAMA SUR DE LA INTERSECCION DEL CAMINO RIVERSIDE Y ALINEARLO PARA QUE CONECTE CON LA NUEVA INTERSECCION YA SENALADA EN LA PROPUESTA CALLE 33 3) DERECHO DE ACCESO PARA FUTURO ENSANCHAMIENTO DEL CAMINO RIVERSIDE 4) MITIGACION DEL RUIDO AL. OESTE DE 1.4 142 4111111L TV/Washington State Department of Transportation ....c,•-•-•tleir • • • • • •:37iff "ir • _______ Duracion del Proyecto (aproximado) Enero, 2001 — Diseno completo Enero, 2001- Audiencia del disarm y acceso Primavera del 2001 — Inicio del avaluo de las propiedades y la compra Otono del 2001 — Terminacion del Plan de Contratos Primavera del 2002 — Inicio de la construccion Otono del 2003 — Finalizacion de la construccion Preguntas y Comentarios Comuniquese con Elba Richards. WSDOT. P.O. Box 12560, Yakima WA 98909-2560. 509/952-2661 T Washington State Dept. of Transportation P.O.. Box 12560 Yakima,WA 98909-2560 - IN r r-- i- -- r I N r- r 4 640 1.4 aR PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE SR 24 I-82 TO KEYS ROAD • 111 , 6 9 11, .; . a%-1• n h 6 �'B 1•T IA ' t 1, 4 -KART i•4 • Where: Jewett Interpertative Center at the Arboretum 1401 Arboretum Drive When: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 Time: 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. THIS OPEN HOUSE WILL PROVIDE INFORMATION ON THE ENTIRE PROJECT, AND ON TRE CHANGES. THE FORMAT WILL BE AN INFORMAL ATMOSPHERE FOR THE PUBLIC TO REVIEW EXHIBITS AND DISPLAYS AND COMMENT ON THE PROJECT. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STAFF WILL BE PRESENT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND RECEIVE COMMENTS. PROJECT INFORMATION WIDEN SR 24 FROM TWO TO FOUR LANES BEGINNING AT 18TH STREET AND ENDING AT KEYS ROAD MOVE W. BIRCHFIELD INTERSECTION APPROXIMATELY 400' TO THE EAST WIDEN WESTBOUND AND EASTBOUND 1-82 OFF RAMPS CONSTRUCT PEDESTRIAN PATH FROM 18TH STREET TO KEYS ROAD RECENT CHANGES TO THE PROJECT (NUMBERS CORRESPOND WITH AREAS OM THE HAP) 1) A CHANGE OF THE ROADWAY ALIGNMENT SR 24 TO THE SOUTH 2) CLOSE THE SOUTH LEG OF RIVERSIDE ROAD INTERSECTION AND REALIGN TO CONNECT INTO THE NEW SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION AT PROPOSED S. 33RD STREET 3) RIGHT OF WAY FOR FUTURE WIDENING TO RIVERSIDE ROAD 4) NOISE MITIGATION WEST OF 1-82 ��� Washington State �I/ Department of Transportation CI, Project Timeline (estimated) January, 2001 - Complete Design January, 2001 - Design and Access Hearing Spring 2001 - Begin Property Appraisals & Purchases Fall 2001 - Contract Plans Completed Spring 2002 - Construction Begins Fall 2003 - Construction Completed Questions or Comments? Contact: Kerry Grant, Project Engineer • WSDOT, P.O. Box 12560, Yakima WA 98909-2560 • 509 / 577-1760 T Washington State Dept. of Transportation P.O.. Box 12560 Yakima,WA 98909-2560 • grantk@wsdot.wa.gov SDOT Design and Access ► ,Daring Sign In Sheet December 19, 2001 NAME: .�i/� ' ' ..e&l'!X� ADD /, PHONE:- NAME: ADDRESS: / 6 /9 - PHONE: /77,..3-3 (76-/ s /(D /c/j 47/14 rJ �.g ,SPd/ NAME: ADDRESS: / 9 v ja_0 tr--fi_s- C PHONE: 6,) - 5'6 `,` V d NAME: \C), ADDRESS: `-DQD, \ » , \c --c PHONE: \A�\--\_s�y�\ 96 A NAME: uS . Q ADDRESS: 576 ! PHONE: y -S-% "7 7 -c„, q / NAME: /� � fv-1 c, 0 ADDRESS: PHONE: 775 NAME: -e5 i e O PHONEY ADDRESS: LiC ( („) /()Ltc. , (-Jo n?_?< NAME: S - - Sic L ADDRESS: ZZZO f PHONE: 5/2-r- COQ i SDOT Design and Access k .wring Sign in Sheet December 19, 2001 NAME: lr �� ✓ 4x71e1 PHONE: x/ 5- 3 - g/T' ADDRESS: /?Dj 7'( NAME:()c ADDRESS: 8 c 7)-S C PHONE: 5/S2-2�?:CTh C� C. UJ t C -e 1 NAME: ADDRESS: GC EI o 04/ /47e/ar �1 PHONE: 917-,21/9 NAME: (c),77z,,_ ADDRESS: S "' o 3 GJ, , Jd PHONE: L1 -Sys 2d ,d 7c7/ NAME: ADDRESS:: L'7 /1( PHONE: �--5 7,7 NAME: \ 0 5 � kt\/t, o \p,, vZ. (C�- ADDRESS: PHONE: 50'5- 2-`4-L(o* (6 V V yes NAME es s . 0 „(cQecQ* r (o ADDRESS: 12-Q t� s NAME: PHONE: C6- /--0 L tYl r S,TL' So /C_1 PHONE: `S 3 % U ADDRESS: J7/1/7 �`� k . _ $DOT Design and Access hearing Sign ln--ySheet December 19, 2001 NAME: AD -D -KESS: PHONE:S/ -70/ NW/1E:/ iTh l „. is, �r ADDRESS ( . X a( PHONE: Nc)�xe- OA- a(Pc 6- c r SUq� _ NAME: PSS .��verl 0 - PHONE: � � --1-4- a ADDRESS: eUt,pe�l� (Sc_)r J, 1c 1Ili oroven-,-cnt ►J),-iyict 4 \ 212 1 -c___.). -s Kcc,d qc,,---)--)6 , EA- q oi NAME: PHONE: ADDRESS: NAME: PHONE: ADDRESS: NAME: PHONE: ADDRESS: NAME: PHONE: ADDRESS: NAME: PHONE: ADDRESS: SDOT Design and Access f,.;aring Sign In Sheet December 19, 2001 NAME: --/__)/e '<" ADDRESS: NAME: ('f2 /47') C- AJA 11A- � ,fit' PHONF,5-6:.1,4g7.696) A—? ADDRESS: /Co 17 T 7 z-1._ --1,1 i (OJT c/cf?o/ PHONE: 4/.S J - .SJ ADDRESS:(�2, 2 , 12c -i NAME: 61 / PHONE: ADDRESS: '4 ci ( NAME: /24 PHONE: ADDRESS: NAME: Fk-1IL PHONE: -C-7 -7 - 3- f� ADDRESS: (C r 2 F(.31- spry\ 1 /3-(<f i14/ NAME: ADDRESS: l(( PHONE: vsj.. C.� �5 jam( (v4k. C NAME: ILEI- C C.1 vZ_ t ADDRESS: PHONE: Kt SDOT Design and Access ► .aring Sign In Sheet December 19, 2001 NAME: fflec%r,-- /)L4 /7!4,17 / -(N'�t� c � ADDRESS: 026)9 c� v, -/a /��' PHONE: yJo7-c :)3 NAME: G,f_„_.e.y, ADDRESS: . SD S !-7 PHONE: 96 -5C) ` 7 .UD\ -9 (e' C) NAME: CA1 1 VY1 VA ADDRESS: 1 30 2 ,\ CJS• Vc, ivy\_c._ c,, -Ro NAME: , j A/ c --t- t l 7 D L L O CJ.� J�7 -I-R LL k� ADDRESS: PHONE: ��t53.5 0 c7 9e?,0( NAME: PHONE: ADDRESS: NAME: PHONE: ADDRESS: NAME: PHONE: ADDRESS: vv,Acir Design and Access He,s ing Sign in Sheet December 19, 2001 NAME: Ziwy /740K__ PHONE: X77 -/5/ ADDRESS: NAMF: ADDRESS: PHONE:,S-7y-Z3oD NAME: 7/< Sucre/- ,D s i ilcyc PHONE: ADDRESS: ?/.2, - rS /� 2 NAME: PHONE: 67 3-/cn ADDRESS: y 4 7 NAME: �it�` 01 6 ,4- PHONE: ADDRESS: c"& NAME: PHONE: C7 7- �l ADDRESS: NAME: e,r- ADDRESS: 56 9 PHONE: 17/ z —g/ 3 3 NAME: Da wno, ADDRESS:; 'i PHONE: 2-7-3-2 13 Project Timeline (estimated) Fall 1999 - Environmental Summer2000 Studies & Assessment Spring 2000 Complete Design Spring 2000 Second Public Open House Summer2000 Right of Way Plans Fa112000 Property Appraisals & Purchase Fa112000- Permitting Winter2001 Summer2000- Prepare Spring 2001 Construction Plans Spring2001 Construction Begins Fa112002 Construction Completed Public Reviews Plans at Community Meeting Approximately 65 people attended an open house on September 27 at East Valley High School to review information on theSR-24 project. Comments received at the open house were generally positive — most people are looking forward to the project's completion. A summary of questions and comments follows: Could an additional leg of the Keys Road intersection be built so that trucks from the area gravel pits would not have to use the unsignalized Riverside Drive intersection to access SR -24? A new road would be under the jurisdiction of Yakima County. The County has indicated that they have no plans at this time to add a south leg onto Keys Road. Concerns were expressed about the pedestrian/bicycle path crossing right turn lanes since the plan did not show cross- walks or signals locations. WSDOT will look into the matter further. What about the unsafe intersection on the north side of Nob Hill Road just west of 1-82? Will this project improve that situation? WSDOT will investigate the matter. A "rig ht turn only" restriction may be in order. Will this project affect access to my property? Impacts of this project are generally low, and are being ad- dressed individually by the WSDOT project team. WiII this affect the Terrace Heights pump station at existing Keys Road? No, but it would be wise to check with the County about pos- sible impacts from the County's Keys Road project which in- cludes plans for a cul-de-sac in front of the pump station. Could the designed improvements be raised six inches so that the roadway would act as a dike and protect the area north of it from flooding? The improvements would need to be constructed entirely of asphalt (not gravel), which would make the project more expen- sive. WSDOT will look into the options. If you missed the first open house, a second public meeting will be held in the spring. Design and right-of-way plans will be complete at that time and available for public review. Plans are underway to widen an approximately one mile section of SR -24 from the 1-82/Nnh Hill Boulevard Interchange to Keys Road. Improve- ments will include: D• Widening the roadway from two lanes to four travel lanes with a median, and constructing e = left turn pockets at intersections. ei • Constructing an additional bridge crossing the crlYakima River (adjacent to existing bridge). • Constructing an additional bridge crossing ®1kin 1-82 (adjacent to existing bridge). 4.0 • Addition of a pedestrian/bicycle facility along Ca the south side of the roadway and on both bridges. mac• Reconstruction of a fully signalized intersection that provides access to K -mart and the Arboretum, along with a new access road that will serve the K -Mart and Wastewater Treatment Facility area. r More Info? If you would like to remain on our mailing list for project updates, please complete and return this form. Yes!! want to remain on the sR-24 mailing list: Name: Address: L Please mail your information to: Barbara French Pacific Rim Resources 1109 First Avenue, Suite 300 Seattle,WA 98101 Questions or Comments? Contact:Kerry Grant, Project Manager • WSDOT, P.O. Box 125060,Yakima WA 98909-256n • 509/575-2282 • grantk@wsdot.wa.gov Washington State Dept. of Transportation P.O.. Box 12560 Yakima,WA 98909-2560 Jason Smith WSDOT Environmental 2809 Rudkin Road Gap, WA 98903 Bulk Rate U.S. Postage Paid Seattle, WA Permit No.955 APPENDIX E - STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE CONCURRENCE SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 12/09/02 15:48 FAX 3605706633 Post -it's Fax Note EA0 Point Plaza 7671 Date ipagges� To ive4 tY�JJj,4 i�C From .. 712 �- 7ZZ i[ t ( CoJDep, /f �j Co. Phone 4 J Phone # Fax# Fax# December 02, 2002 SC Region [2 001 ,, ,,,, JF WASHINGTON ENV1R0 OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RLE1V'Eo DE.: 0 `3 2002 NMEKTAI- AF -AIRS POINZ ?IAD% Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 1063 S. Capitol Way, Suite 906- Olympia, Washington 98501 (Mailing Address) PC) Box 48343 - Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 (360) 586-3065 Fax Number (360) 586-3067 Mr. Craig Holstine Cultural Resources Specialist Department of Transportation 310 Maple Park Ave. SE Olympia, WA 98504-7300 In future correspondence please refer to: Log: 120202 -52 -dot Property: SR 24/182 TO KEYS ROAD N. ALIGNMENT PROJECT Re: Determination of Eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places Dear Mr. Holstine: Thank you for contacting the Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP). The above referenced pieject has been reviewed on behalf of the State Historic Preservation Officer under provisions of Section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amen ed) and 36 CFR Part 800. My review is based upon documentation contained in your communication. Research indicates that none of the resources within the above referenced project are not currently listed in the Washington Heritage Register or National Register of Historic Places. I concur that these resources are NOT EL]BTBLE for the National Register of Historic Places. As a result of this finding, further contact with OA.I1P is not necessary. However,. if additional in formation on the property becomes available, or if any archaeological resources are uncovered during construction, please halt work in the area of discovery and contact the appropriate Native American Tribes and OAHP for further consultation. Sincerely, Michael Houser Architectural Historian (360) 586-3076 MichaelH@cted.wa.gov STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 420 Golf Club Road SE, Suite 201, Lacey • PO Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 • (360) 407-0752 Fax Number (360) 407-6217 Ms. Sandie Turner Department of Transportation Transportation Building PO Box 47300 Olympia, Washington 98 5 04-73 00 Dear Ms. Turner, October 30, 2000 RECEIVED NOV 01 2000 Log No.: 102300-1 1-FHWA Re: SR 24 Riverside Road IC We have reviewed the materials forwarded to our office for the above referenced project. We concur with your determination based upon AHS's assessment that no resources included in or eligible for inclusion in National Register of Historic Places will be effected by the proposed undertaking. These comments are based on the infomiation 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. In the event that archaeological or historic materials are discovered during project activities, work in the immediate vicinity should be discontinued, the area secured, and this office notified. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and a copy of these comments should be included in subsequent environmental documents. Sincerely, Robert G. Whitlam, Ph.D. State Archaeologist (360) 407-0771 email: robw@cted.wa.gov STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE Office of Archaeology and 420 Golf Club Road SE, Suite 201, Lacey • PO Box 48343 • Fax Number (360) April 7, 1999 Sandie Turner Washington DOT Transportation Building, P.0 Box 47300 Olympia, WA 98504-7300 RE: 032299-05-FHWA SR 24; I-84 to Keys Rd. Project Dear Ms. Turner: AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Historic Preservation Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 • (360) 407-0752 407-6277 As the State Historic Preservation Officer I have reviewed your project under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) and 36 CFR 800. Based on your letter report date Feb. 15, 1999, DOT99-04;7 I have determined that No Properties will be affected by this undertaking. If you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me at (360) 40/- 0826. You can also reach me by e-mail at allysonb@cted.wa.gov. Your concern for protecting the heritage of our state is appreciated. Sincerely, Allyson Brooks Ph.D. State Historic Preservation Officer Cc: Steve Wells, CTED State of Washington Rob Whitlam, State Archaeologist, OAHP APPENDIX F - NOAA BIOLOGICAL OPINION SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT �i U.S. Department Washington Division Suite 501 Evergreen Plaza of Transportation 711 South Capitol Way Olympia, Washington 98501-1284 Federal Highway (360) 753-9480 Administration (360) 753-9889 (FAX) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/wadiv Mr. Steven Landino National Marine Fisheries Service 510 Desmond Dr. S.E., Suite 103 Lacey, WA 98503-1273 Attention: Diane Driscoll Dear Mr. Landino: July 30, 2003 HFO-WA. 5/HP-0024(019) Essential Fish Habitat Conservation Measures SR 24, I-82 to Keys Road Project Federal Aid No. HP -0024(019) Yakima County, Washington The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) received your letter dated July 22, 2003, which transmitted the Biological Opinion (BO) for the SR 24, I-82 to Keys Road Project. The BO contained conservation recommendations for Essential Fish Habitat required under the Magnuson Stevens Fisheries Conservation Act (MSA) [16 U.S.C. 1855 (b)]. The MSA requires the FHWA to provide a written response to NMFS on EFH Conservation Recommendations. The FHWA and WSDOT recognize the importance of EFH and to the extent possible and practical, intend to conduct future actions to avoid and minimize potential effects. FHWA agrees with all the EFH Conservation Recommendations and will implement the conservation measures. It is our understanding that this concludes the consultation requirements under the Magnuson Stevens Fisheries Conservation Act. Please contact Michael Kulbacki at (360) 753-9556 if you have any additional questions or concerns. Sincerely, DANIEL M. MATHIS, P.E. Division Administrator Michael Kulbacki. By: Michael A. Kulbacki, P.E. Area Engineer cc: Mark Reynolds, WSDOT SC Region Gary Beeman, WSDOT SC Region Patricia McQueary, WSDOT SC Region NMFS Tracking No.: 2001/00064 Mr. Daniel Mathis '711 - U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Suite 501 Evergreen Plaza 711 South Capitol Way Olympia, Washington 98501-1284 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Northwest Region 7600 Sand Point Way N E., Bldg 1 Seattle, VVA 98115 July 22, 2003 Re: Endangered Species Act Section 7 Formal Consultation and Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation for the SR 24, 1-82 to Keys Road Project, Yakima River, WRIA' 37, Yakima ra ^ounty, Washington ington Dear Mr. Mathis: Enclosed is a document containing a biological opinion (Opinion) prepared by NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) on the effects of the proposed the SR 24, I-82 to Keys Road Project, Yakima River, WRIA 37, Yakima County, Washington. In this Opinion, NOAA Fisheries concludes that the proposed action is unlikely to jeopardize the continued existence of Middle -Columbia River (MCR) steelhead. As required by section 7 of the ESA, NOAA Fisheries includes reasonable and prudent measures with nondiscretionary terms and conditions that NOAA Fisheries believes are necessary to minimize the impact of incidental take associated with this action. This document contains a consultation on essential fish habitat (EFH) pursuant to section 305(b) of the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR Part 600). NOAA Fisheries concludes that the proposed action may adversely affect designated EFH for salmon. As required by section 305(b)(4)(A) of the MSA, included are conservation recommendations that NOAA Fisheries believes will avoid, minimize, mitigate, or otherwise offset adverse affects on EFH resulting from the proposed action. As described in the enclosed consultation, 305(b)(4)(B) of the MSA requires that a Federal action agency must provide a detailed response in writing within 30 days of receiving an EFH conservation recommendation. ® Printed on Recycled Paper 2 If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Michael Grady of my staff in the Washington Habitat Branch Office at (206) 526-4645 or michael.grady@noaa.gov. cc: Michael Kulbacki, FHWA Sincerely, l r D. Robert Lohn Regional Administrator Endangered Species Act — Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion and Magnuson—Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Consultation SR 24, I-82 to Keys Road Project, Yakima County, Washington (WRIA 37) NMFS Tracking Number: 2001/00064 Agency: Federal Highway Administration Consultation Conducted 13y: NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service Northwest Region Issued by: ,/7 D. Robert Lohn Regional Administrator Date: July 22, 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background Information and Consultation History 1 1.2 Description of the Proposed Action 1 1.2.1 Clearing and Grading 2 1.2.2 Construction of the Temporary Work Platfolins 2 1.2.3 Construction of the New Yakima River Bridge 3 1.2.4 Demolition of the Existing Yakima River Bridge 5 1.2.5 Blue Slough Crossings 6 1.2.6 Work -area Isolation and Fish Handling 7 1.2.7 Construction of Stormwater Facilities 7 1.9.S' 3ILC RCSLU1 i LSUl: 8 1.2.9 Project Sequence 8 1.3 Description of the Action Area 9 2.0 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT BIOLOGICAL OPINION 9 2.1 evaluating the Effects of Proposed Actions 9 2.1.1 Status of Species 10 2.1.2 Biological Requirements 11 2.1.3 Environmental Baseline 11 2.1.4 Factors AffectingSpecies Environment within the Action Area 12 2.2 Effects of the Proposed Action 14 2.2.1 Direct Effects 14 2.2.2 Indirect Effects 18 2.2.3 Effects of interrelated and Interdependent Actions 21 2.2.4 Population Scale Effects ................... 21 9.2.5 Cumulative QLlvG 1i11GL,LJ G1 2.3 Conclusion 22 2.4 Reinitiation of Consultation 22 2.5 incidental Take Statement 22 2.5.1 Amount or Extent of Take Anticipated 23 2.5.2 Reasonable and Prudent Measures 24 2.5.3 Terms and Conditions 24 3.0 IMMAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT 28 3.1 Background 28 3.2 Identification of EFH 29 3.3 Proposed Actions 29 3.4 Effects of Proposed Actions 30 3.5 Conclusion 30 3.6 EFH Conservation Recommendations 30 3.7 Statutory Response Requirement 31 3.8 Supplemental Consultation 31 4.0 REFERENCES 33 APPENDIX I 36 li 1.0 INTRODUCTION This document transmits NOAA's National Manne Fisheries Service's (NOAA Fisheries) Biological Opinion (Opinion) and Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) consultation based on our review i1\ 9 T Road of a project to improve State Route 24 (SR 24) between interstate 82 (i -8L) and Heys Rad in Yakima County, Washington. The project includes the replacement of the existing SR 24 bridge across the Yakima River, which is a tributary to the Columbia River, The Yakima River is located in the Middle-Col,imbia River (MCR) steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) and is EFH for chinook (0. tshawytscha) and coho (O. kisutch) salmon. 1.1 Background Information and Consultation History The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) concluded that the project proposed by the lead agency, Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT), was likely to adversely affect MCR steelhead. Although this project occurs in designated EFH for salmonids, the FHWA did not include a determination of the effect of the project on EFH. The SR 24, i-82 to Keys Road project extends 1.68 miles from the beginning of SR 24 at mile post (MP) -0.15 near Eighteenth Street, in the City of Ytima, to the end of the project at MA 1.53, 0.55 mules, west of the SR 24 and the Birchfield Road intersection. The purpose of the project is to improve public safety, reduce travel delays and adverse economic impacts, eliminate scour conditions and increase traffic capacity on SR 24 between I-82 and Riverside Road. On January 27, 2003, NOAA Fisheries received a Biological Assessment (BA) and a request for formal consultation from the FHWA, which was subsequently given an internal tracking number of WSB-01-010. On February 11, 2003, NOAA Fisheries sentt!a letter to FHWA requesting ' r March 2003, NOAA Fisheries additional in�orir�atiori related to the proposed project; on r� arch 18, received a letter from FHWA, which provided supplemental project information. Subsequent requests for additional infot ivation were made in electronic mail (e-mails) sent from NOAA Fisheries to FHWA on March 25, April 23, and May 1, 2003. On May 9 and 16, 2003, NOAA Fisheries received e-mails from FHWA which provided the additional information necessary to complete the consultation. This Opinion is based on information provided in the BA, the letter received on March 18, 2003, and e-mails received on May 9 and 16, 2003. Formal consultation was initiated on May 16, 2003. 1.2 Description of the Proposed Action The FHWA proposes to fund, in whole or in part, a construction project by WSDOT. The proposed project involves improvements to SR 24 between MP -0.15 and MP 1.53, including the replacement of the SR 24 bridge crossing of the Yakima River, in Yakima, Washington. Between MP -0.15 and MI' 0.28 the project will include the following construction components: 1. Expansion of SR 24 from two lanes to four lanes with a center left turn lane; 2. Construction of a new I-82 overpass; 1 3. Construction of a ten -foot wide pedestrian overpass across I-82; 4. Expansion and realignment of the I-82 off -ramps; 5. Relocation of the SR 24/South 22nd Street intersection approximately 400 feet east of its current location; and 6. Construction of a 450 -foot retaining wall along the north side of the realigned section of SR 24. Between MP 0.28 and MP 1.53 the project will include the following construction components: 7. Construction of a new SR 24 bridge (with an approximately 800 -foot long span) across the Yakima River; 8. Demolition of the existing SR 24 bridge across the Yakima River; 9. Expansion of SR 24 from two lanes to four lanes to the Riverside Road intersection; 10. Placement of temporary work platforms in the Yakima River to accommodate bridge construction and demolition activities; and 11. Replacement of the existing 5 -foot culvert at Blue Slough with either a bottomless culvert or small bridge. To allow the new bridge to be completed during year one and the old bridge to be demolished in year two, in -water work will be conducted in the Yakima River between June 1 to September 15 and in Blue Slough between June 1 to November 1, periods when juvenile MCR steelhead are likely to be present in the action area. While these are lengthier in -water work windows than NOAA Fisheries would normally prefer, narrower windows likely would extend construction and demolition activities into second years and, consequently, would increase the risk of harming MCR steelhead and other salmonids from (1) the temporary work bridge washing out during winter flows, or (2) the dismantling and reconstructing of the temporary work bridge(s). The potential adverse impacts on salmon and stream habitat from either of these scenarios would be significantly greater than is expected by allowing construction and demolition during the proposed in -water work period. 1.2.1 Clearing and Grading The project will result in approximately 15 acres of clearing and grubbing. Most of this area presently lacks woody vegetation. Permanent impacts to riparian vegetation will be limited to the removal of approximately 20 mature black cottonwood trees south of the existing bridge, and an additional 21 mature cottonwood trees will be removed at other locations outside of the riparian zone of the Yakima River. All large trees removed during construction will be retained and subsequently placed in riparian areas as large woody debris (LWD). 1.2.2 Construction of the Temporary Work Platforms Impact hammer or vibratory pile -driving techniques will be employed to construct two temporary work platforms. One work platfoim is needed for construction of the new bridge and the other for demolition of the existing bridge. WSDOT estimates that up to 290 temporary steel or wood 2 piles, up to 24 inches in diameter, will be needed to support the temporary work platforms. Temporary approach embankments Will be placed in shoreline areas to provide access to equipment and workers. Work bridge constriction will begin on one side of the river by driving piles into place using a pile -driving hammer mounted on a boom crane. After piles are set for a pier, the Contractor will install timber bents and place a section of deck above. The pile -driving hammer will Ihen be moved forward on the bridge deck to drive piles for the next pier. This Will be repeated until the temporary bridges span the Yakima River. 1.2.2.1. Work Plaiform for Con stn wting the New Yakima River Bridge The temporary work platform used during construction of the new Yakima River Bridge will be constructed parallel to the new bridge alignment. The temporary work platform will be built on wood or steel piles and will be wide enough to accommodate the equipment necessary for the construction of the new bridge (24 feet or more wide) and will span the width of the river (approximately 600 feet). Finger piers will be built out perpendicular to the primary work platform and parallel to the location of the new bridge footings. These finger piers also will be wide enough to accommodate the equipment needed for construction (24 feet wide or more) and will be approximately 100 feet long. The work platform for the new bridge will require driving up to 165 12 -inch and 94 -inch diameter piles The work platform will he removed upon completion of construction activities. 1.2.2.2 Work Platform for Removing the Existing Yakima River Bridge The most likely method for removing the superstructure of the existing 600 -foot long bridge will be the use of support platforms. Support platforms would be placed underneath and along the length of the bridge between the existing piers to support the weight of the superstructure. The work platform for demolition of the old bridge will require driving up to 125 piles. The piles will consist of a combination of 12 -inch and 24 -inch diameter steel or wood piles. The platform will be removed upon completion of demolition activities. 1.2.3 Construction of the New Yakima River Bridge 1.2.3.1 Bridge Design WSDOT will construct an 800 -foot long bridge across the Yakima River. The bridge will be constructed between the two existing flood -control levees, immediately downstream (south) of the existing SR 24. WSDOT currently is participating in the on-going Yakima County Flood Hazard Zoning District's floodplain restoration planning effort and has delayed the selection of the final design for the new bridge approaches until the planning effort concludes in late 2003. Depending on the outcome of this planning effort, the bridge approaches either will be constructed on a elevated structure or on compacted fill. 3 1.2.3.2 Shaft Foundations In -water drilled shaft construction will be done from the temporary work platforms installed in the Yakima River. Steel cylinders about eight to nine feet in diameter will be placed at designated shaft locations and lowered into the Yakima River, acting as cofferdams and containment fields once in the water. A four- to five-foot diameter shaft casing will be placed within the outside cylinders and progressively vibrated or rotated through the substrate. As the casing descends, a clamshell or auger will remove the spoils from within the casing and then place the spoils in trucks located on the temporary work platforms. These trucks would then remove the materials to an approved upland location. The shaft casing length will be extended as the depth of the shaft increases. The shaft casings will be vibrated in initially and then advanced with the excavation. When the final depth has been reached, a concrete seal will be placed between the two casings (outside cylinder and shaft casing) to limit water intrusion. A large rebar-reinforced cage will be placed in the excavated shaft space and concrete will be pumped into the bottom of the shaft. As concrete fills the shaft, the casing will be progressively removed or may remain in place and any purged water from the shaft will be pumped and collected in a Baker Tank, then transported and discharged into an approved location or discharged into lined temporary sedimentation ponds located at least 300 feet from any sensitive resource area. Once the drilled shafts have cured, the bridge columns, crossbeams, and abutments will be formed and poured on the foundation shafts. The steel cylinders will remain in place until the in -water work around the drilled shafts is completed, after which time they will be cut with torches and removed by vibrating and pulling with a crane. 1.2.3.3 Superstructure and Bridge Approaches Once the shafts, columns, and other substructure elements are completed, girders will be placed and the bridge deck, approach slabs, and traffic barriers will be poured. In addition, the bridge approaches will be constructed (two design options are described below) and the drainage conveyances will be completed. Final steps will include asphalt paving, placing guardrail, and striping the roadway; since these activities do not involve in -water work, they are not restricted to the in -water work period. No riprap will be placed below the ordinary -high-water mark (OHWM) of the Yakima River. However, riprap will be used to stabilize portions of the road embankment down to the 100 -year flood elevation. Two options are being considered for the bridge approaches: (1) compacted -fill, and (2) raised/elevated structures. If a floodplain restoration plan is developed by the Bureau of Reclamation and Yakima County, WSDOT will move forward with elevated approach structures. However, if agreement on a restoration plan is not achieved by January 2004, WSDOT will construct compacted -fill bridge approaches. Because the new approach structures will be located landward of existing flood -control levees, neither of the designs under consideration will affect the existing baseline conditions of the Yakima River. 4 1.2.4 Demolition of the Existing Yakima River Bridge The Contractor will be required to complete the demolition of the existing bridge in a way that avoids or minimizes bridge pieces or debris from entering the waters of the Yakima River. The Contractor will be allowed to determine the final `Method of Operation" that will define how all but minor amounts of fine sediment and dust will be contained and not enter the Yakima River. WSDOT has developed a typical method that could be used by the Contractor that would include the following actions to protect the Yakima River. A falsework structure could be constructed on (elevated above) the temporary work platform, and directly beneath the existing bridge. The false work structure should be slightly wider than the existing bridge and include solid wooden rails (containment walls) along the outside edge. As pieces of the existing bridge are broken or sawed off (using grapplers and concrete saws), they will fall a short distance onto the false work structure; the pieces then will be placed into tracks and taken to an approved disposal site(s). To further avoid and minimize the risk of demolition debris entering th e Yakima Ri akimaRi ver, a tarp (or similar materials) may be suspended from between the temporary work platform and piers 2, 4, and 5. While there are several established "construction methods" that the Contractor might use to remove the bridge piers, the most likely method involves the use of excavation grapplers, excavation crushers and boom -mounted air hammers. This equipment is used to break the piers down into pieces that can be disposed of offsite. Any remaining rebar that is exposed above the river bottom elevation will be cut off. Alternatively, the piers may be saw -cut into manageable pieces and then removed from the Yakima River using grapplers. Two of the five bridge piers (1 and 3) can be removed without working in the flowing waters of the Yakima River. Pier 1 is completely above the ordinary high water line while pier 3 is on an island within the active Yakima River channel. Demolition equipment will be placed on the island in order to complete demolition and removal of one pier (pier 3). Two additionalrpiers (2 time and J) Will be removed at a tie that approximately half of the pier will be 111 Water. Doth of these piers may require the use of temporary work platforms during the demolition phase. However, the proximity of dry land will aid in their removal. The remaining pier (pier 4) is within the flowing waters of the Yakima River and will require removal utilizing equipment operating off of the temporary work. All of the work on pier removal, except for pier 1, will be done during the appropriate summer fish window (June 1 to September 15). Pier foundations will not be removed because of the large quantity of river substrate disturbance that would occur, and the difficulties that would result from the fast -flowing waters in this portion of the Yakima River channel. At the end of bridge demolition phase, three of the piers (2, 4, and 5) will have been removed as close as possible to the nver bottom. The other two piers (1 and 3) will have been removed in their entirety or to an elevation where they can be covered with native rock substrates. 5 1.2.5 Blue Slough Crossinus During the reconstruction of the new four -lane SR 24 highway, the existing Blue Slough crossing will be closed and traffic routed to a temporary detour road crossing that will be constructed approximately 150 to 200 feet north of the existing SR 24 roadway. The in -water work window for installation of both the temporary and replacement crossings in Blue Slough will be restricted to the period from June 1 to November 1; temporary blockage(s) of Blue Slough will be limited to a 45 -day period sometime between July 1 to November 1. The new Blue Slough crossing structure will replace the existing 68" wide by 96" high arch culvert with either a corrugated metal pipe, bottomless arch pipe, concrete box culverts, or bridge that will be consistent with the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's (WDFW) stream -simulation model. Stream passage will be maintained at all times, except during a maximum 45 -day blockage between July 1 and November 1. To avoid and minimize effects on water quality and resident species within Blue Slough, the following mitigation elements will be incorporated within the design: (1) erosion -prevention techniques, (2) channel -bottom protection, (3) proper in -water work -area isolation and monitoring, and (4) vegetating disturbed areas with native species (additional details provided below). A temporary detour road will be required to cross Blue Slough. A culvert, approximately the same width as Blue Slough, will be placed in the slough slowly to minimize and avoid disturbance to the stream bed. Prior to the placement of the road -fill materials over the culvert, geotextile fabric will be placed over the culvert and surrounding ground. In addition, silt fencing will be installed between the temporary fill materials and Blue Slough to ensure that to avoid and minimize erosion of materials into Blue Slough. Up to 0.41 acre of wetland may be filled for the new crossing structure. The new Blue Slough crossing structure will be either a corrugated metal pipe, bottomless, concrete box culvert, or bridge. The new structure will be constructed in one of the two following manners: (1) After the in -water work area has been isolated from stream flows, the roadway will be excavated and the existing culvert removed. The new Blue Slough crossing structure will then be installed and compacted fill placed and graded for the new roadbed. On or before November 1, gravel fill and revetments will be removed from the stream channel, and stream flows redirected back to the natural channel. (2) A gap will be excavated in the SR 24 road grade adjacent to the existing Blue Slough culvert so that the new crossing structure is constructed in the dry and the existing Blue Slough flows are not disturbed by construction activities. The Blue Slough flows will then be diverted through the new crossing structure, the old culvert removed, and, after isolating the in -water work area and removing fish, the area will be filled with clean road ballast. 6 1.2.6 Work -area Isolation and Fish Handling During the construction of dnlled shafts, the excavation activities and concrete pours will be isolated from flowing water by cylindrical cofferdams that will effectively isolate the work area from the water. While activities leading up to the placement are likely to scare fish out of the area, there is a potential to trap fish inside during placement of the cylinders. If fish are observed within the cofferdam prior to dewatering, they will be netted and placed outside the dewatered area. As dewatering progresses, visual inspections will be made for captured fish. If any are present, the fish will be identified, enumerated, and released (Appendix 1). Additional fish handling potentially will occur in during isolation of the in -water work area pnor to replacement of the Blue Slough crossing. Prior to the removal and placement of crossing structures in Blue Slough, fish removal and salvage will be conducted by WDFW biologists or other qualified fisheries biologists. To isolate the in -water work area(s), block -nets will be installed both upstream and downstream. The mesh size, length, type of material, and depth of block -nets will vary based on site conditions. Generally, the block -net mesh size will be the same as the seine material (approximately one-quarter inch stretched). Biologists will stretch nets across the wetted channel and "herd" fish out of the work area. Any fish remaining in the work area will be removed using approved electro -shocking techniques (NOAA Fisheries 2000). All captured aquatic life will be immediately placed into five -gallon buckets filled with clean stream water. Water temperatures will be frequently monitored to ensure the specimens are not unduly stressed. Fish will be identified, and enumerated (Appendix 1). After each pass, all fish will be released upstream of the work area. The block -nets will be checked at least once daily to ensure that they are functioning to prevent fish from reentering the work area and will be left in place until all in -water work has been completed. 1.2.7 Construction of Stormwater Facilities Grass -lined swales, filter strips, and infiltration ditches and ponds will be used where appropriate to treat stounwater runoff. The treatment systems for this project will treat approximately 100% of the new and approximately 40% of the existing impervious surface. Stoluiwater systems, culverts, and roadside ditches are being designed to convey the stoiniwater runoff throughout the project to stouuiwater treatment facilities and then to stormwater retention facilities. All stormwater that is collected on the bndge and roadway surfaces near aquatic habitats will be conveyed to and placed in stoiiuwater treatment and retention facilities, preventing direct discharges to Blue Slough or the Yakima River. 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r 1 1 1 r 1 1 r 1 1.2.8 Site Restoration 1.2.8.1 Riparian Restoration Upon completion of the project, approximately 0.2 acre of disturbed riparian habitat will be replanted with native grasses and shrubs. In addition, approximately 80 to 100 cottonwood trees will be planted and the trunks and rootwads of salvaged trees (all cut trees greater than six inches diameter at breast height) will be placed as down woody debris in the ripanan areas of the Yakima River. 1.2.8.2 Wetland Restoration The exact amount of wetland fill that will occur is currently uncertain. The extent of wetland impacts could range from none up to 0.48 acre depending on several factors including: (1) the type of crossing structure used at Blue Slough, (2) the bndge-approach option that is selected, and (3) the location of bridge piers. To minimize the adverse effects of the wetland fill, WSDOT will create wetlands at a minimum ratio of two to one (area of wetland creation : area of wetland fill). 1.2.8.3 Streambed Restoration WSDOT will remove riprap (placed during emergency repair work) from approximately 1,182 square feet of Yakima River streambed in the area around three of the existing bridge piers (piers 2, 3, and 4). Because the new bridge will have drilled shaft foundations (unlike the existing bridge which has spread footings), the need for further emergency repair work will be eliminated. 1.2.9 Project Sequence The following table provides a schedule of the major activities associated with the SR 24, I-82 to Keys Road project. Item Event Timing 1 Create access for equipment to enter the work areas Anytime 2 Implement TESC BMPs Throughout In -water work starts On or after 6/1 3 Work platform for new Yakima River Bridge 6/01 to 9/15 4 Blue Slough Crossings 6/01 to 11/1 5 New bridge construction (in water) 6/01 to 9/15 6 Drilled shafts 6/01 to 9/15 7 Bridge columns, crossbeams and abutments 6/01 to 9/15 8 Dismantle in -water work platfoini for new bndge Finish by 9/15 In -water work stops Finish by 9/15 9 Place bndge girders (above water) Anytime 8 10 Construct and pour bridge deck (above water) Anytime 11 Finish miscellaneous bridge items, electrical, utility crossings, etc. Anytime 12 Complete new eastbound lanes (fill and paving) Anytime 13 Use new eastbound lanes for primary east and westbound traffic Anytime 14 I Construct stormwater system(s) (outside of floodway) Anytime 15 I Use existing fill for new westbound SR 24 fill I Anytime 16 Preliminary demolition of existing SR 24/5 bridge (no in -water work) 1 Anytime 17 Finish new SR 24 alignment (outside OHWM of river) Anytime In -water work starts On or after 6/1 18 Build work platfoiui to dismantle existing Yakima River Bridge On or after 6/1 19 Remove existing 24/5 bridge 1 6/01 to 9/15 20 !Dismantle work platfoini and remove from river Finish by 9/1 5 In -water work stops Finish by 9/15 21 I Riparian restoration and wetland mitigation activities ASAP 22 , Other miscellaneous items to finish project as required Anytime 1.3 Description of the Action Area The action area is defined as all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR 402.02). The action area for this project is defined as the stream channel which includes the water, and land (including submerged land) from approximately 1,700 feet upstream of the existing SR 24 Bridge to approximately 5,000 feet downstream from the new SR 24 Bridge. The action area also includes Blue Slough from 1,000 feet upstream of SR 24 downstream to the Yakima River. Moreover, the action area includes the adjacent riparian zone within the construction area, and all staging areas, catch basins, and roadway approaches. 2.0 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT BIOLOGICAL OPINION 2.1 Evaluating the Effects of Proposed Actions The standards for determining jeopardy are set forth in section 7(a)(2) of the ESA as defined by 50 CFR Part 402. NOAA Fisheries must determine whether the action is likely to jeopardize the listed species. This analysis involves the initial steps of defining the biological requirements of the listed species, and evaluating the relevance of the environmental baseline to the species' current status. Subsequently, NOAA Fisheries evaluates whether the action is likely to jeopardize the listed species by determining if the species can be expected to survive with an adequate potential for 9 recovery. In making this determination, NOAA Fisheries must consider the estimated level of mortality attributed to the collective effects of the proposed or continuing action, the environmental baseline, and any cumulative effects. This evaluation must take into account measures for survival and recovery specific to the listed salmon's life stages that occur beyond the action area. 2.1.1 Status of Species Middle Columbia River steelhead were listed as threatened under the ESA in 1999 (64 FR 14517). Steelhead of the Snake River Basin are not included in the MCR ESU. All steelhead in the Columbia River Basin upstream from the Dalles Dam are summer run, inland steelhead (Chapman et al. 1994). Sexually immature steelhead enter fresh water between May and October and their pre -spawning migration can last up to one year. In Washington, steelhead typically spawn between February and June (Busby et al. 1996). Depending on water temperature, steelhead eggs may incubate in redds for 1.5 to 4 months before hatching as alevins. Most MCR steelhead smolt at two years and spend one to two years in saltwater before reentering freshwater. Steelhead require different habitat types during their life history. Spawning generally occurs in the gravel substrates of smaller streams and the side channels of larger rivers (Busby et al. 1994). Rearing juveniles utilize a variety of instream cover, including riffles, mid -channel pools, pocket water, overhanging vegetation, and large woody debris (LWD). Estimates of historical, pre -1960s abundance for the MCR steelhead ESU are only available for the Yakima River. The estimated pre -1960 run size is 100,000 adults (WDF et al. 1993). Using the assumption that other basins had comparable run sizes for their drainage areas, the total historical run size for this ESU may have been in excess of 300,000. The most recent five-year average run size (1989-1993) was 142,000 with a naturally produced component of 39,000. These data indicate that approximately 74% of returning adults in this ESU were of hatchery origin (Busby et al. 1996). Accordingly, the current natural run size for the ESU might be less than 15% of estimated historic levels. The current distribution of Yakima Basin steelhead is much more restricted and spatially variable than it was historically. Current steelhead abundance is only about 1.3 to six percent of historical estimates, averaging 1,256 fish (range equals 505 in 1996 to 2,840 in 1988) over brood years 1985 to 2000 (Berg 2001). Except for 1992, abundance has fluctuated around 1,000 adults since 1989 (op. cit.). It is probable that the historical spawning distribution of summer steelhead included virtually all accessible portions of Yakima Basin, with highest spawning densities occurring in complex, multi -channel reaches of the mainstem Yakima and Naches rivers, and in third and fourth order tributaries with moderate gradients (Berg 2001). 10 While steelhead spawning has not been documented within the action area, the entire lower Yakima is a major overwintering site for steelhead and juvenile spring chinook (Hockersmith et. al. 1995.). 2.1.1.1 Population Trends and Risks For the MCR steelhead ESU as a whole, NOAA Fisheries estimates that the median population growth rate (lambda) over the base penod ranges from 0.88 to 0.75, decreasing as the effectiveness of hatchery fish spawning in the wild increases compared to that of fish of wild origin (McClure et al. 2001). Furthermore, NOAA Fisheries has estimated the risk of absolute extinction for four of the spawning aggregations, using the same range of assumptions about the relative effectiveness of hatchery fish. At the low end, assuming that hatchery fish spawning in the wild have not reproduced (i.e., hatchery effectiveness equals zero), the risk of absolute extinction within 100 years ranges from zero for the Yakima River summer run to 1.00 for the Umatilla River and Deschutes River summer runs (McClure et al. 2001). Assuming that the hatchery fish spawning in the wild have been as productive as wild -origin fish (hatchery effectiveness equals 100%), the risk of absolute extinction within 100 years ranges from zero for the Yakima River summer run to 1.00 for the Deschutes River summer run (McClure et al. '2001 ), 2.1.2 Biological Requirements The relevant biological requirements are those necessary for MCR steelhead to survive and recover to naturally reproducing population levels at which time protection under the ESA would become unnecessary. Adequate population levels must safeguard the genetic diversity of the listed stock, enhance their capacity to adapt to various environmental conditions, and allow them to become self-sustaining in the natural environment. Biological requirements are defined as properly functioning conditions (RFC) of habitat that are relevant to any steelhead life stage. These habitat conditions include all parameters of the matrix of pathways and indicators described by NOAA Fisheries (1996). Information related to biological requirements for MCR steelhead can be found in Busby et al. (1996). Presently, the biological requirements of listed species are not being met under the environmental baseline. The specific biological requirements affected by the proposed action include water quality (i.e., sediment/turbidity) and riparian reserves (i.e., loss of riparian vegetation). 2.1.3 Environmental Baseline The environmental baseline represents the current set of basal conditions to which the effects of the proposed action are then added. Environmental baseline is defined as "the past and present impacts of all Federal, state, and private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone foinial or infolnial section 7 consultation, and the impact of state or private actions 11 which are contemporaneous with the consultation process" (50 CFR 402.02). The teiul "action area" is defined as "all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action." The project area is located partially within the Yakima city limits. Most of the land is currently in private ownership. Commercial development in the vicinity of the project area includes several gas stations, a discount retail store, an arboretum, an animal shelter, an auto wrecking yard, a sewage -treatment plan, and a privately owned campground. A horse riding arena and boarding facility are located on the east side of the Yakima River. Some of the land adjacent to the project area is in agricultural uses. The Yakima River drains an area of 6,155 square miles and contains about 1,900 river miles of perennial streams. Originating near the crest of the Cascade Range above Keechelus Lake, the Yakima River flows 214 miles southeastward to its confluence with the Columbia at river mile 335.2. The Yakima River Basin lies within areas either ceded to the United States by the Yakama Nation or areas reserved for the use of the Yakama Nation. The Yakama Reservation occupies about 15% of the basin (Ecology 1998). Land use in the basin is dominated by irrigated agriculture, cattle grazing, timber harvest, and recreation (op. cit.). The project area is located within the floodplain of the Yakima River. The project area consists of lowland floodplain with Weiinian series soils that are somewhat excessively drained. In the project area, the Yakima River is an incised channel, approximately 20 to 25 feet lower than the surrounding landscape, and has been diked along both sides to prevent flooding of commercial and residential properties in lowland areas (McQueary 2003, Park 2003). 2.1.4 Factors Affecting Species Environment within the Action Area The Yakima River watershed has experienced past disturbance in all areas, including considerable agriculture -related disturbances. The primary reasons for the decline of steelhead in the Yakima River include: (1) construction of four dams on the Columbia River downstream of the Yakima River; (2). timber practices, degraded riparian and in -stream habitat from urbanization and livestock grazing; (3) large irrigation withdrawals; (4) poorly or totally unscreened irrigation diversions; (5).excessive water temperatures, and (6) overfishing. These conditions are greatly magnified in the lower Yakima River, creating unfavorable passage for upstream and downstream migrants as well as degraded rearing conditions for juveniles (WDFW 1992). MCR steelhead have been negatively affected by a combination of habitat alteration and hatchery management practices. The four downstream dams on the Columbia are perhaps the most significant source of habitat degradation for this ESU. The dams act as a partial barrier to passage, kill out -migrating smolts in their turbines, raise temperatures throughout the river system, and have created lentic refugia for salmonid predators. In addition to dams, irrigation 12 systems have hada major negative effect on in -stream flows by diverting large quantities of water, which has resulted 111 the stranding of fish, arid the 111ab111ty of fish to migrate past dewatered areas. Other major habitat degradations have occurred through urbanization and livestock grazing practices (WDF et al. 1993; Busby et al. 1996; NOAA Fisheries 1996; 63 FR 11798). Habitat alterations and differential habitat availability (e.g., fluctuating discharge levels) impose an upper limit on the production of naturally spawning populations of salmon and steelhead. The National Research Council Committee (NRCC) on Protection and Management of Pacific Northwest Anadromous Salmonids identified habitat problems as a primary cause of declines in wild salmon runs (NRCC 1996). Some of the habitat effects identified were the fragmentation and loss of available spawning and rearing habitat, migration delays, degradation of water quality, removal of riparian vegetation, decline of habitat complexity, alteration of streamflows and streamhank and channel morphology, alteration of ambient stream water temperatures, sedimentation, and loss of spawning gravel, pool habitat and large woody debris (NOAA Fisheries 1998, NRCC 1996, Bishop and Morgan 1996). Hatchery management practices are suspected to be a major factor in the decline of the MCR steelhead ESTJ. The genetic contribution of non -indigenous, hatchery stocks may have reduced the fitness of the locally adapted native fish through hybridization and associated reductions in genetic variation or introduction of deleterious (i.e., non -adapted) genes. Hatchery fish have been found to directly displace natural spawning populations, compete for food resources, or engage in agonistic interactions (Campton and Johnston 1985; Waples 1991; NOAA Fisheries 1996; 63 FR 11798). MCR steelhead population sizes are substantially lower than historic levels, and at least two extinctions are known to have occurred 111 the ESU. Prior to the 1960's, it is estimated that the Yakima River had annual run sizes of 100,000 fish, but in 1996 only 505 adults returned to the basin (WDF et al. 1993). The wild fish escapement across the entire ESU has averaged 39,000 and total escapement 142,000 (includes hatchery fish). The large proportion of hatchery fish, concurrent with the decline of wild fish, is a major risk to the MCR steelhead ESU (WDF et al. 1993; Busby et al_ 1996; 63 FR 1179R). Various factors combine to affect water quality in the lower Yakima River. Contributing factors include eroded soil carried to the river via irrigation return or tributanes affected by irrigation runoff, sand and gravel mining, urban runoff, erosion from construction sites, road building, forestry practices, and natural causes (Ecology 1998). As a result, the lower Yakima River has been placed on the State's 303(d) list for impaired water bodies. The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) has determined that turbidity, DDT, DDE, mercury, pH, dissolved oxygen, instream flow, and excessive temperature represent key water quality impaiiiiients in the lower Yakima River. 13 Several factors combine to adversely affect the species habitat within the action area. The project area is located where a system of flood -protection levees has significantly constricted the floodplain, resulting in elimination of important over -bank habitats and degradation of remaining in -stream habitat conditions. Moreover, the current SR 24 Yakima River Bridge pier foundations are being undercut by stream flows, resulting in an ongoing need to place riprap around footings to prevent catastrophic failure, and which results in further degradation of in -stream habitat conditions. 2.2 Effects of the Proposed Action The ESA implementing regulations define "effects of the action" as "the direct and indirect effects of an action on the species together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated or interdependent with that action, that will be added to the environmental baseline." Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed action, are later in time, but are still reasonably certain to occur (CFR 402.02). The proposed project would replace an existing bridge with a new bridge that will facilitate significant improvements in channel dynamics, water flow, and floodplain connectivity. As such, the primary effects of the project are the direct effects of the construction activities required to replace the existing bridges. The proposed SR 24, I-82 to Keys Road Project is likely to adversely affect MCR steelhead (FHWA 2003). The segment of the Yakima River flowing through the action area provides rearing habitat for juvenile steelhead and spring chinook. 2.2.1 Direct Effects Direct effects result from the agency action and include the effects of interrelated and interdependent actions. Future Federal actions that are not direct effects of the action under consideration (and not included in the environmental baseline or treated as indirect effects) are not evaluated. The direct effects of the proposed bridge replacement project activities are discussed below. 2.2.1.1 Fish Handling During the construction of drilled shafts, the excavation activities and concrete pours will be isolated from flowing water by cylindrical cofferdams that will effectively isolate the work area from the water. While activities leading up to cofferdam placement are likely to scare fish out of the area, there is a potential to trap fish inside during placement of the cylinders. If fish are observed within the cofferdam prior to dewatering, they will be netted and placed outside the 14 dewatered area. As dewatering progresses, visual inspections will be made for captured fish. If any are present, the fish will be netted and removed. Timing restrictions reduce the likelihood that listed species will be present during in -water work because outmigration is almost complete and few juvenile steelhead are seen past June 30 (YKFP). Additional fish handling may occur during when the Blue Slough in -water work area is isolated to install the new crossing structure in Blue Slough. To minimize the potential effects, an experienced fishery biologist will supervise work -area isolation and fish -moving operations. 2.2.1.2 Water Quality The project involves several construction activities that can increase the amount of sediment delivered to the river. These activities include, removal of the existing bridge, installation of new piers, and replacement of the Blue Slough crossing structure. To address these issues, the propoCed action includes measures that will reduce or avoid the effects described below. For salmonids, turbidity has been linked to a number of behavioral and physiological responses (e.g., gill flaring, coughing, avoidance, increase in blood sugar levels) which indicate some level of stress (BissonBi 1982,Northcote98 , Servizi and and Bilby Sigler et al. 1984, Berg and i 5 a Martens 1987). The magnitude of the stress responses is generally higher when turbidity is increased and particle size is decreased (Bisson and Bilby 1982, Servizi and Martens 1987, Gregory and Northcote 1993). Although turbidity may cause stress, Gregory and Northcote (1993) have shown that moderate levels of turbidity accelerate foraging rates among juvenile chinook salmon, likely because of reduced vulnerability to predators due to camouflaging. When the particles causing turbidity settle out of the water column, they contribute to sediment on the riverbed (sedimentation). When sedimentation occurs, salmonids may be negatively impacted m the following ways: (1) salmonid eggs may be buried and suffocated; (2) prey habitat may be displaced; and (3) future spawning habitat may be displaced (Spence et al. 1996). The proposed project will cause elevated turbidity levels during the construction (including demolition) period and for several days afterwards. However, the effects of this turbidity on MCR steelhead will be minimized by (1) the installation of silt fences before construction begins, (2) the use of temporary sediment ponds, and (3) constructing new bridge columns within cofferdams. It is also expected that MCR steelhead present during the initial phases of construction would temporarily move to refuges where turbidity can be avoided, thus preventing injury or death. Additionally, the project in -water work window (i.e., June 1 to September 15 for the mainstem Yakima River and June 1 to November 1 for Blue Slough) will capitalize on a time of year when the fewest number of adult and juvenile MCR steelhead are present in the Union Gap sub -basin and when there is the least amount of migratory movement by salmonids. Overall, the increased turbidity and sediment are not expected to influence the environmental baseline over the long teini. 15 2.2.1.3 Streambed Disturbance Project construction includes the installation and removal of piles for a temporary work platfoitns, removal of the old bridge piers, and installation of the new bridge shaft foundations. These activities will disturb the substrate of the Yakima River. In -stream work may harm fish by homogenizing the substrate. Moreover, reducing the diversity of benthic habitat in the river will cause a temporal loss of macroinvertebrate habitat. Aquatic invertebrates serve as an important source of prey for salmonids, and the loss of aquatic invertebrate habitat may reduce foraging opportunities for listed salmonids. Effects associated with the disruption of the streambed are likely to be short-lived as invertebrates tend to rapidly recolonize disturbed areas (Allan 1995). To minimize the disturbance of the river bed, the Contractor will complete all in -water work during the pTeviously described in -water work window. Moreover, WSDOT will improve approximately 1,182 square feet of streambed habitat through the removal of riprap around existing Bridge Piers 2, 3, and 4. NOAA Fisheries expects that the streambed disturbance caused by this action would be short- lived, returning to baseline condition soon after construction is completed. Furtheimore, NOAA Fisheries expects that long-teult impacts would not occur. Other than the short-term impacts mentioned above, this project would not change or add to the existing baseline streambed condition within the lower Yakima River. 2.2.1.4 Loss of Functional Streambed Habitat Between 300 and 500 square feet of streambed habitat will be peimanently lost from the construction of new bridge columns. To minimize the loss of streambed habitat function, WSDOT will restore 1182 square feet of streambed habitat by removing existing riprap from the Yakima River streambed in the areas around existing bridge piers 2, 3, and 4. Moreover, the new bridge will have drilled shaft foundations (as opposed to spread footings of the existing bridge) that will eliminate the need for further emergency repair work. 2.2.1.5 Loss of Functional Riparian Habitat The project includes activities that call for removing existing riparian vegetation. To address the environmental results of removing vegetation, the project includes new riparian plantings in the action area. The peilulanent loss of 0.02 acre of riparian habitat (as a result of constructing bridge columns) and clearing of approximately 20 mature black cottonwood trees within the riparian zone of the Yakima River will negatively affect habitat functions. Riparian zones provide numerous functions essential to the maintenance of habitat conditions conducive to salmonid survival. 16 Riparian areas provide a variety of important hydrologic functions, such as groundwater recharge, baseflow maintenance, and floodwater detention. Moreover, riparian vegetation limits the rate of erosion and sediment delivery, and provides theiiiial moderation. Riparian vegetation also provides a source of large woody debris (LWD) and bank stability that is vital in creating and mamtainina channel rmmnlexity se.rliment'tnraae cite.' large nnnls and rnver Finally riparian vegetation also contributes allochthonous energy inputs, and is an important source of nutrients in many stream systems. Stream -side vegetation contributes to channel stability through root strength and channel roughness and its loss can lead to bank collapse. Riparian trees within one tree height of channel margins are a direct source of LWD to fish habitat. Additional LWD may be recruited to the stream as channels meander across the floodplain, capturing LWD that was previously in the dry. LWD contributes to the foiination of large pools, channel complexity, and cover. Riparian vegetation typically contributes to stream shading, thereby reducing stream temperatures. All areas disturbed during construction will be replanted with native vegetation. All removed trees with a diameter greater than six inches will be replaced with native trees and shrubs representative of riparian habitats in the action area. Moreover, all large cottonwood trees removed during construction will be retained and subsequently placed in riparian areas as large woody debris. As discussed above (section 2.1.3.2.3), .i.3.L.3), more detailed mitigation pians will be developed during the permitting stage. 2.2.1.6 Pile Driving/Percussive Impacts This project will include the installation of up to 290 steel pilings. To rninirr,i7e effects, the project will include timing restrictions, operation of the pile driving equipment in a prudent manner, and the use of hydroacoustic monitoring to determine sound levels. The greatest potential impact from pile driving is from the underwater sound prP38ure waves that originate when an impact pile hammer contacts the top of a steel pile. The impact of the hammer on the top of the pile causes a wave to travel down the pile and causes the pile to resonate radially and longitudinally. Based on the known range of salmonid hearing, pile -driving noise would be expected to be heard by salmonids within 600 meters of the noise source, although salmonids at this range may not exhibit any visible response (Feist et al. 1992). Impact pile driving can generate sound pressure levels in excess of 192 dB (re: 1 /Pa), which is above the 180 dB (re: 1 µPa) shown to damage the inner ear of a non -salmonid fresh -water fish (Hastings et al. 1996). Between /HO and 4,110 meters from an active pile dnving operation, sound pressure levels are predicted to attenuate from 189 dB (re: 1 µPa) to approximately 150 dB (re: 1 µPa), respectively. Within this area, listed salmonids may exhibit temporary abnormal behavior indicative of stress or exhibit a startle response, but not sustain peiiiianent harm or injury. However, there is some uncertainty about the potential for injury to fish from sound pressure levels in this range, because 17 Hastings (cited in NOAA Fisheries 2001) has information that suggests damage to the inner ear may occur at levels greater than 150 dB (re: 1 µPa). Hasting (op. cit.) concludes that 150 dB (re: 1 µPa) is a safe upper limit for relatively short exposures. Adverse effects from pile driving associated with the proposed action are expected to be minimal to adult MCR steelhead because of the timing restrictions imposed for this activity. However, timing restrictions will not minimize impacts to juvenile MCR steelhead, which likely will be rearing within the action area. To minimize the adverse effects of pile driving on juvenile MCR steelhead, onsite monitoring will be conducted dunng the initial pile -driving operations to measure the overpressure readings and submit a report to the regulatory agencies. All instream pile -driving activities will be completed during the instream work window (June 1 to September 15). Vibratory hammers will be used for temporary piling removal and driving of any opened pile when ever possible. 2.2.2 Indirect Effects Indirect effects are caused by or result from the proposed action, are later in time, and are reasonably certain to occur (50 CFR 402.02). Indirect effects include public and private actions and can occur outside of the area directly affected by the action. Indirect effects can include other Federal actions that have not undergone section 7 consultation but will result from the action under consideration. These actions must be reasonably certain to occur, or be a logical extension of the proposed action. The indirect effects of the SR 24, SR 82 to Keys Road Project are discussed below. 2.2.2.1 Loss of Wetlands The project includes activities that will result in the filling of wetlands. To address the environmental consequences of the loss of wetlands, the project will create new wetlands in the action area. Wetlands provide many important functions including water -quality improvement, groundwater recharge, flood desynchronization, stream base -flow augmentation, and food -chain support (Hruby et al. 1999, 2000; Mitsch and Gosselink 2000; Null et al. 2000), which can significantly contribute to proper stream system function. The amount of wetland fill required to construct the project will vary depending upon (1) the bridge -approach option selected, (2) the ultimate location of the bridge piers, and (3) the type of stream crossing over Blue Slough. Under the "worst-case" scenario, up to 0.48 acre of jurisdictional wetlands would be filled. However, if elevated bridge approaches are constructed, piers are located outside of wetlands, and a clear -span bridge is constructed across Blue Slough, 18 no wetland fill will occur_ Approximately n,l acre of the potential wetland fill lies waterward of flood -control levees and, consequently, is accessible to salmonids during high stream flows. The remaining 0.38 acre of potential wetland fill is located landward of flood -control levees and, consequently, is inaccessible to salmonids. To minimize the adverse effects of the wetland fill, WSDOT will create wetlands at a minimum of a ratio of two to one. 2,2.2,2 Floodplain Connectivity Blue Slough is a relict side channel that is maintained as an irrigation delivery canal, which for much of its length provides good rearing habitat. The project will replace an existing five-foot diameter culvert at the Blue Slough crossing with either a large bottomless culvert or a small bridge. Consequently, the project will improve connectivity between Blue Slough and the Yakima River. The new 800 -foot long bridge will maintain the existing baseline condition for floodplain connectivity of the Yakima River. 2.2.2.3 Streambed Scour The removal of the existing bridge will significantly reduce maintenance requirements for this river crossing. The existing bridge has had an on-going scour problem that has required multiple emergency repairs. The new bridge will have drilled shafts instead of spread footings. This should eliminate the almost yearly maintenance activities in the vicinity of this bridge. Although there may be temporary modifications to river hydrology, it is anticipated that the new bridge will create less resistance and eliminate the severity of the scour problem. 2.2.2.4 Stormwater The project will result in an increase in the amount of impervious surface in the action area. To address the environmental effects of impervious surface, the project proposes to treat the runoff generated from the new impervious surface. Several adverse effects are associated with adding impervious surface, such as roads, to a watershed. Those adverse effects are described in further detail below. The extent to which steelhead expenence adverse effects associated with impervious surfaces depends ori several factors. Impervious surfaces can affect steelhead by degrading water quality, water temperature, and/or hydrology of stream habitat. Stoiniwater treatment facilities and other techniques can reduce the adverse effects of those changes if they are incorporated into the project. Impervious surfaces affect the watershed in several ways. The addition of impervious surface will result in increased stonnwater runoff and alteration of existing drainage patterns in the action area. Such effects to hydrology typically include increased frequency and duration of peak flows and the presence of peak flows during penods when none previously existed. Increased 19 impervious area also can shift the hydrologic regime from subsurface to surface runoff and may result in higher and more frequent peak flows even with small storms. In headwater streams, increased peak flows and increased frequency and duration of peak flows can adversely alter steelhead habitat through lateral erosion, bed scour, downcutting, bank de -stabilization, and removal of woody debris. In addition, increased peak flows can lead to reduced groundwater recharge, which, in turn, can result in decreased base flows in smaller stream systems. Decreased base flows may create migration barriers, strand fish in disconnected habitats, and increase stream temperatures. Research indicates a negative relationship between impervious surface and water quality associated with stomiwater runoff (Schueler 1984). In urban areas, roads act as conduits of stomiwater runoff and pollutants from impervious areas directly to streams. May et al. (1997) discussed declines in biological integrity and habitat quantity and quality as the level of impervious surface area increased above five percent. Large rainstomis and subsequent high flows can elevate total suspended solids, turbidity, and nutrient concentrations in urban watersheds. Additionally, chemical water quality generally declines as urbanization increases (May et al. 1997). Increased impervious surface also contributes to water temperature increases in streams (Schueler 1984). The addition of impervious surface to the watershed, including riparian areas, will also result in a permanent loss of opportunity for revegetation in the areas where those surfaces are added. The proposed road project will increase the impervious surface area within the action area by approximately 357,000 square feet. However, the proposed project will avoid or minimize adverse changes in hydrology by creating stoiuiwater treatment facilities designed to treat approximately 140% of the runoff generated from the project. Stormwater systems, culverts, and roadside ditches are being designed to convey the storm water runoff throughout the project to stoirwater treatment and detention facilities. No stormwater will be allowed to enter the Yakima River or Blue Slough directly. While final design and quantities have not been determined, current plans include the use of stormwater detention and/or infiltration systems. Up to two detention/infiltration systems may be needed; one system would be located on the west side of the Yakima River Bridge on the south side of SR24 and one on the east side of the Yakima River Bridge north of SR 24 and east of Keys Road. However, a more sophisticated system, which discharges some of the treated stormwater to the Yakima River, might be investigated as the project design is further developed. However, the effect to water quality would be the same as under the aforementioned system. Presently, there is not a baseflow problem in this stretch Union Gap sub -basin of the Yakima River. From August through October, the period during which baseflow problems could naturally emerge, the river channel within the action area carries much higher than natural flows primanly to satisfy 3,300 cfs worth of irrigation withdrawals four to five miles downstream. The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) supplements natural flows from storage to meet those diversion demands and, depending on water supply, leave 300 to 600 cfs in the river below the lower of the two diversions (Sunnyside Dam). To the extent that baseflows were impacted by a lack of 20 stotniwater retention or wetland fill, the BOR would manage the river to hit the minimum flow below Sunnyside Dam. Consequently, NOAA Fisheries believes that the new impervious surface from the proposed project will have an insignificant and discountable affect on baseflows in the Yakima River. Ln addition, the proposed treatment facilities will avoid and minimize the potential effects of stoimwater on water quality in the Yakima River 2.2.3 Effects of Interrelated and Interdependent Actions The effects of interrelated effects include effects from actions that are a part of the larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification. As a result of the SR 24 project, Yakima County will realign South 33rd Street onto Riverside Road to provide access onto SR 24. Yakima County has prepared a draft BA for the South 33' Street Phase 2 project (South 33' Project). The final BA for the South 33'3 Project will be submitted shortly, and it is anticipated that the BA will have a determination of "No Effect" on ESA -listed species. The effects of these projects will be analyzed in subsequent consultations. The South 33rd Project has been modified so that it is farther away from the Yakima River and does not cross Blue Slough. The SR 24 and the South 33rd Project will be constructed concurrently. No effects from interrelated or interdependent actions are foreseen between the SR 24 project and the Yakima County South 33' project. 2.2.4 Population Scale Effects As discussed previously (section 2.1.1.1), the risk of extinction in the next 100 years of MCR summer -run steelhead in the Yakima River is zero. However, the proposed action will have short-term (construction -related) adverse affects on water quality, in -stream habitat, and riparian reserves. In the long tem', however, the project will result in incremental, beneficial affects on floodplain connectivity and in -stream habitat. Additionally, the timing and duration of in -stream work activities will minimize the affects on MCR steelhead. Therefore, the proposed action is unlikely to influence the pre -project lambda estimates. 2.2.5 Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are defined as "those effects of future state or private activities, not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action ,subject to consultation" (50 CFR 402.02). Cumulative effects to steelhead from the foreseeable future state and local activities affecting the Yakima River and its shoreline area are anticipated to be limited. The Yakima County Flood Hazard Zoning District is currently investigating the feasibility of restoring floodplain along the 21 left (east) bank downstream of the existing SR 24 alignment. The optimum restoration opportunity that could be obtained occurs adjacent to the left bank highway abutment where the existing levee may be set back from the Yakima River channel. At this time, it is uncertain when or if any floodplain restoration projects might occur. 2.3 Conclusion The proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of MCR steelhead. There will be short -teem direct impacts associated with the proposed activities. Demolition and construction activities will result in temporary increases of sediment and turbidity levels. However, potential adverse effects will be minimized through the use of Best Management Practices in the design and construction. The bridge replacement will increase the amount of over -water structure above the Yakima River. Overall, the proposed activities are not expected to appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of MCR steelhead. The determination of no jeopardy was based on the following factors: (1) timing restrictions related to in -water construction will minimize impacts to fish and their habitat, (2) removal of the old bridge will improve habitat conditions for all life stages of salmonids and will improve channel morphology, (3) the installation of stormwater facilities will minimize the effects of increased impervious surface added to the Yakima watershed, and (4) riparian vegetation removal will be minimized and replaced. NOAA Fisheries concludes that the proposed action is not likely to impair properly functioning habitat or appreciably reduce the functioning of already impacted habitat. Furthermore, NOAA Fisheries concludes that the proposed action is unlikely to influence existing population trends or risks in the action area. Overall, the proposed activities are not expected to appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival of MCR steelhead. 2.4 Reinitiation of Consultation Consultation must be reinitiated if the extent of taking specified in the Incidental Take Statement is exceeded, or is expected to be exceeded; new information reveals effects of the action may affect listed species in a way not previously considered; the action is modified in a way that causes an effect on listed species that was not previously considered; or, a new species is listed or critical habitat is designated that may be affected by the action (50 CFR 402.16). 2.5 Incidental Take Statement Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act prohibit the take of endangered and threatened species without special exemption. "Take" is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined as significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by "significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding, and sheltering" (50 CFR 222.102). Incidental take is take of listed animal species that results from, but is not the purpose of, the Federal agency or the applicant carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of section 22 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to, and not intended as part of, the agency action is not considered prohibited taking provided that such takings is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this incidental take statement. An incidental take statement specifies the effects of any incidental taking of endangered or threatened species. It also provides reasonable and prudent measures that are necessary to minimize take and sets forth terliis and conditions with which the action agency must comply to implement the reasonable and prudent measures, 2.5.1 Amount or Extent of Take Anticipated MCR steelhead are likely to express one of several life histones in the action are during any day of the year. As such, they are likely to be in the action area when project effects are manifest and therefore take of MCR steelhead is reasonably ceriain to occur. The exact numerical amount of take is difficult if not impossible to quantify. In such cases where NOAA Fisheries finds take to be unquantifiable, the extent of effects on habitat in the action area are analyzed as a surrogate for the amount of anticipated take. Take is reasonably certain in the form of harm or habitat modification to an extent that impairs normal behaviors including spawning, feeding, sheltering, and migrating. The mechanisms of harm for proposed project activities include work in the water, isolation of in -water work areas, pile driving, temporary construction effects including sediment mobilization, vegetation removal, and hydrologic changes related to increased impervious surface. The extent of these activities is analyzed in this Opinion and are a surrogate for the extent of take that is anticipated to result from project activities. The anticipated extent of take from each is summarized below. 1. Water quality impairment: That which would occur from the clearing of approximately one acre in the 100 -year floodplain of the Yakima River. That which would occur from in -water construction activities, including the dnving and subsequent removal of both cofferdams and steel piles, the demolition of the existing bridges, and the removal of the railroad bridge piers for up to 300 feet downstream from the point of disturbance. That which would occur from the net increase of approximately 357,000 square feet of new impervious surface. 2. Benthic productivity: That which would occur from permanent loss of up to 500 square feet of streambed habitat from the construction of new bridge columns. That which would occur from temporary loss of up to 7,000 square feet of streambed. 3. Pile driving: That which would occur from 290 steel piles over a period of four weeks. 4. Predation Opportunity: That which would occur from a net increase of 23,100 square feet and a temporary increase of approximately 26,400 square feet of over -water structure. 23 5. Riparian and wetland habitat loss: That which would occur from the cutting of up to 21 cottonwood trees in riparian areas and filling of up to 0.48 acre of wetland. 2.5.2 Reasonable and Prudent Measures The NOAA Fisheries believes that the following reasonable and prudent measures (RPM) are necessary and appropriate to minimize incidental take of MCR steelhead: 1. The FHWA will minimize the amount and extent of incidental take from construction activities by taking measures to limit the timing, duration, and extent of construction within the OHWM. 2. The FHWA will minimize the amount and extent of incidental take from isolation and fish handling by taking measures that ensure prudent methods are used that will minimize risk of injury to listed species. 3. The FHWA will minimize the amount and extent of incidental take from construction activities in or near the Yakima River, by developing and implementing effective erosion and pollution control measures throughout the area of disturbance and for the life of the project. The measures shall minimize the movement of soils and sediments both into and within the Yakima River and Blue Slough, and stabilize bare soil over both the short and long term. 4. The FHWA will minimize the amount and extent of take from loss of instream habitat, by taking measures to minimize impacts to riparian and instream habitat, or where impacts are unavoidable, to replace or restore lost riparian and instream habitat function. 5. The FHWA will ensure the effectiveness of implementation of the RPMs, the erosion control measures, and plantings for site restoration by monitoring and evaluating both during and following construction, and meet criteria as described below in the terms and conditions. 2.5.3 Terms and Conditions In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the ESA, the FHWA must ensure that WSDOT complies with the following terms and conditions, which implement the RPMs described above. Implementation of the teinis and conditions within this Opinion will further reduce the risk of impacts to MCR steelhead. These temis and conditions are non -discretionary. 1. To implement RPM No. 1 (construction within the OHWM) above, the FHWA shall ensure that: 1.1 All work within the active channel of the Yakima River is completed between June 1 and September 15. All in -water work in Blue Slough is completed between June 1 and November 1, and that blockages to fish passage will be limited to a 45 -day period 24 between July 1 and November 1. Any additional extensions of the in -water work period are first approved by and coordinated with NOAA Fisheries and WDFW. 1.2 Planned alteration or disturbance of streambanks and existing riparian vegetation are minimized to the extent de.scriberi in the PA and other infor-matio�. ---------- --� +�. ...a.... v�aava supplemental information L1 Vll provided by WSDOT and FHWA to NOAA Fisheries. 13 All water intakes used at in -water work areas in both the Yakima River and Blue Slough are screened and maintained according to NOAA Fisheries' fish screen criteria.' 1.4 To implement RPM No. 1, the FHWA shall ensure that: (1) A plan is developed and implemented for hydroacoustic monitoring of the peak and root -mean -squared (rms) sound pressure levels generated during impact -driving of steel piles. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by NOAA Fisheries. No monitoring or sound attenuation measures will be required for piles driven in the dry, vibratory driving of any type of pile, or impact driving of wood. piles. During hydroacoustic monitoring, the hydrophone shall be positioned at mid -depths, 10 meters distant from the pile being driven. (a) If sound pressure levels exceed 150 dBiiiis (re: 1 p.Pa)(0.032 KPa) for fewer than 50% of the impacts and never exceed 180 dBpeak (re: 1 .tPa)(1 KPa), pile driving may proceed without further restriction; or (b) If rms sound pressure levels exceed 150 dB for 50% or more of the impacts, or peak pressures ever exceed 180 dB, pile driving may continue, but only with the use of a bubble curtain or another sound -attenuation device pre -approved by NOAA Fisheries. (i) The initial hydroacoustic monitoring to establish the sound pressure levels being produced will not be required if the approved sound -attenuation device is used for all piles. (ii) If a sound -attenuation device is deployed, the level of sound attenuation will be determined through hydroacoustic monitoring according to a plan to be developed by the FHWA and submitted for approval by NOAA Fisheries. (2) Measures will be taken to prevent demolition and/or construction debris from entering the Yakima River. 1 NOAA Fisheries, Juvenile Fish Screen Criteria (revised February 16, 1995) and Addendum: Juvenile Fish Screen Criteria for Pump Intakes (May 9, 1996) (guidelines and criteria for migrant fish passage facilities, and new pump intakes and existing inadequate pump intake screens) (http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/lhydrop/hydroweb/ferc.htm). 25 2. To implement RPM No. 2 (isolation and fish handling), the FHWA shall ensure that: 2.1 The work area is isolated from the flowing stream using the measures described in the BA and which are incorporated here by reference. 2.2 A fishery biologist experienced with work -area isolation ensures the safe handling of all ESA -listed fish and conducts or supervises all capture -release operations. 2.3 The capture team handles ESA -listed fish with extreme care, keeping fish in -water to the maximum extent possible during capture and transfer procedures to prevent the added stress of out -of -water handling. 2.4 Captured fish are released as near as possible to the capture area. 2.5 ESA -listed fish are not transferred to anyone except NOAA Fisheries personnel, unless otherwise approved in writing by NOAA Fisheries. 2.6 Other state permits necessary to conduct the capture and release activity are obtained. 2.7 NOAA Fisheries or its designated representative is allowed to accompany the capture team during the capture and release activity, and must be allowed to inspect the capture team's capture and release records and facilities. 2.8 The capture team completes the In -water Construction Monitoring Report form (Appendix 1) for all salmonids encountered during isolation and fish -movement operations. The FHWA submits to NOAA Fisheries (Washington Branch) a monitoring report with the results of the monitoring by December 31 of the year following the completion of construction. 3. To implement RPM No. 3 (construction activities), the FHWA shall ensure that all temporary erosion and sediment control ('1'ESC) and pollution control measures included in the BA and other written correspondence from WSDOT and/or FHWA are included as special provisions in the contract. NOAA Fisheries requires the FHWA to pay particular attention to preparation of a'1'ESC plan as follows: A'1'ESC plan will be prepared by the FHWA, WSDOT, or the Contractor and implemented by the Contractor. The TESC plan will outline how and to what specifications various erosion control devices will be installed to meet water quality standards, and will provide a specific inspection protocol and time response. Erosion control measures shall be sufficient to ensure compliance with applicable water quality standards and this Opinion. The "ESC plan shall be maintained on site and shall be available for review upon request. FHWA shall also ensure that: 26 3.1 Construction within the project vicinity does not begin until all temporary erosion controls are in place. Erosion control structures are maintained throughout the life of the contract. 1.7 A11 exnncerl nrenc are renlantPd N.vith a natYVP cePrl mi - 33 All equipment used for in -water work is cleaned prior to entering the active channel of the Yakima River. External oil and grease will be removed. Untreated wash and rinse water is not discharged into streams and rivers without adequate treatment. 3.4 Material removed during excavation is only placed in upland locations and shall be prevented from eroding into the Yakima River. 3.5 Shall preclude demolition debris from entering the river. Any matenal that falls into the Yakima River during construction operations is removed in a manner that has a minimum impact on the streambed and water quality. 3.6 The Contractor develops an adequate, site-specific Spill Prevention and Countermeasure or Pollution Control Plan (PCP), and is responsible for containment and removal of any toxicants released. FHWA will monitor the Contractor to ensure compliance with this PCP. 3.7 Areas for fuel storage, refueling, and servicing of construction equipment and vehicles are at least 150 feet from the stream channel and all machinery fueling and maintenance occurs within a contained area. Overnight storage of vehicles and equipment occurs only in designated staging areas. 3.8 No surface application of nitrogen fertilizer is used within 50 feet of any water of the State of Washington. 4. To implement RPM No. 4 (riparian habitat protection), the FHWA shall ensure that: 4.1 All disturbed areas are planted with a native seed mix, and native shrubs and trees. 4.2 The boles and root wads of all felled cottonwood trees (>_ 8 inches diameter at breast height) are salvaged and distributed in riparian areas. 5. To implement PDM No. 5 (monitoring), the FHWA shall ensure that: 5.1 Erosion control measures as described above in Tenn and Condition No. 3 are monitored. 27 5.2 All riparian plantings are monitored yearly for three years to ensure that finished grade slopes are at stable angles of repose and that woody plantings are achieving a minimum of 80% cumulative survival. 5.3 If the success standard specified above in Terni and Condition No. 5.2 is not achieved, dead plantings are replaced to bnng the site into confolinance. If failed plantings are deemed unlikely to succeed, replacement plantings are conducted at other appropnate locations in the project area. 5.4 Within 60 days of completing the hydroacoustic monitoring for each temporary work platform, a report shall be submitted to NOAA Fisheries, Washington Habitat Branch, Lacey, Washington. The report shall include a description of the monitoring equipment and for each pile monitored, the peak and ims sound pressure levels with and without a bubble curtain, the size of pile, the size of hammer and the impact force used to drive the pile, the depth the pile was driven, the depth of the water, the distance between hydrophone and pile, and the depth of the hydrophone. 5.5 By December 31 of the year following the completion of construction, the FHWA submits to NOAA Fisheries (Washington Habitat Branch) a monitoring report with the results of the monitoring required in terms and conditions 5.1 and 5.2 above. 5.6 In each of the two years following completion of construction, the FHWA submits to NOAA Fisheries (Washington Habitat Branch) a monitoring report with the results of monitoring requirements of 5.3. 3.0 MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT 3.1 Background The Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267), established procedures designed to identify, conserve, and enhance EFH for those species regulated under a Federal fisheries management plan. Pursuant to the MSA: • Federal agencies must consult with NOAA Fisheries on all actions, or proposed actions, authorized, funded, or undertaken by the agency, that may adversely affect EFH (§305(b)(2)); • NOAA Fisheries must provide conservation recommendations for any Federal or state activity that may adversely affect EFH (§305(b)(4)(A)); • Federal agencies must provide a detailed response in writing to NOAA Fisheries within 30 days after receiving EFH conservation recommendations. The response must include a description of measures proposed by the agency for avoiding, mitigating, or offsetting the 28 impact of the activity on EFH. In the case of a response that is inconsistent with the conservation recommendations of NOAA Fisheries, the Federal agency must explain its reasons for not following the recommendations (§305(b)(4)(B)). EFH means those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity (MSA §3). For the purpose of interpreting this definition of EFH: waters include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that are used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish where appropriate; substrate includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities; necessary means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species' contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and "spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" covers a species' full life cycle (50 CFR 600.110). Adverse effect means any impact which reduces quality and/or quantity of EFH, and may include direct (e.g., contamination or physical disruption), indirect (e.g., loss of prey or reduction in species fecundity), site-specific or habitat -wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions (50 CI4K 600.810). EFH consultation with NOAA Fisheries is required regarding any Federal agency action that may adversely affect EFH, including act1 ons that occur outside EFH, such as certain ,ipstrenp and upslope activities. The objectives of this EFH consultation are to determine whether the proposed action would adversely affect designated EFH and to recommend conservation measures to avoid, minimize, or otherwise offset potential adverse effects to EFH. 3.2 Identification of EFH Pursuant to the MSA the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) has designated EFH for ,t of Federally _� Pacific _t___- ..L:�_..l_. coho, and Puget Sound pink salmon ..... three species Federally managed salmon: chinook; coho, i uget Sound pink salmon (0. gorbuscha) (PFMC 1999). Freshwater EFH for Pacific salmon includes all those streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and other water bodies currently, or historically accessible to salmon in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California, except areas upstream of certain impassable man- made barriers (as identified by the PFMC 1999), and longstanding, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for several Lundred years). Detailed descriptions and identifications of EFH for salmon are found in Appendix A to Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan (PFMC 1999). Assessment of potential adverse effects to these species' EFH from the proposed action is based, in part, on this infofuiation. 3.3 Proposed Actions The proposed project is detailed above in Sections 1.3 and 1.4 of this document. The project encompasses habitats that have been designated as EFH for various life -history stages of chinook and coho salmon. 29 3.4 Effects of Proposed Actions As described in detail in section 2.1.3 of this document, the proposed project may result in detrimental short-teiln impacts to a variety of habitat parameters. These adverse effects are: . • Short-telni degradation of water quality in the action area due to an increase in turbidity and contaminants during construction. Temporary risk of contamination through the accidental spill or leakage of petroleum products from heavy equipment. Short-teini degradation of habitat due to removal of riparian vegetation. Temporary reduction of riparian vegetation and recruitment of woody debris through the removal of native plant species. • Temporary degradation of benthic habitat due to in -water construction. 3.5 Conclusion NOAA Fisheries believes that the proposed actions may adversely affect EFH for chinook and coho salmon. 3.6 EFH Conservation Recommendations Pursuant to Section 305(b)(4)(A) of the MSA, NOAA Fisheries is required to provide EFH conservation recommendations to Federal agencies regarding actions that would adversely affect EFH. While NOAA Fisheries understands that the conservation measures described in the BA will be implemented by the WSDOT, it does not believe that these measures are sufficient to address the adverse impacts to EFH described above. Consequently, NOAA Fisheries recommends that FHWA implement the following conservation measures to minimize the potential adverse effects to EFH for chinook and coho salmon: 1. The work area is isolated from the flowing stream using the measures described in the BA and which are incorporated here by reference. 2. Construction within the project vicinity should not begin until all temporary erosion controls are in place. Erosion control structures should be maintained throughout the life of the contract. 3. All exposed areas should be replanted with a native seed mix. 4. All equipment used for in -water work should be cleaned prior to entering the active channel of the Yakima River. External oil and grease will be removed. Untreated wash and rinse water should not be discharged into streams and rivers without adequate treatment. 30 5: Material removed during excavation should only he placed in upland locations and should be prevented from eroding into the Yakima River. 6. Demolition debris should be precluded from entering the river. Any material that falls into the Yakima River during construction operations should be removed in a manner that has a minimum impact on the streambed and water quality. 7. The Contractor should develop an adequate, site-specific Spill Prevention and Countermeasure or Pollution Control Plan (PCP), and should be responsible for containment and removal of any toxicants released. FHWA should monitor the Contractor to ensure compliance with this PCP. 8. Areas for fuel storage, refueling, and servicing of construction equipment and vehicles should be at least 150 feet from the stream channel and all machinery fueling and maintenance occurs within a contained area: Overnight storage of vehicles and equipment should occur only in designated staging areas. 9. No surface application of nitrogen fertilizer should be used within water o f _ ... .....__..._.. »�., �.,....,.....�.... .........,.�.,....,�...x...,..... .,,.x......�.. ...,. uvv... ., ae.aaaii 50 feet of any water of the State of Washington. 10. All disturbed areas should be planted with a native seed mix, and native shrubs and trees. 11. The boles and root wads of all felled cottonwood trees (>_ 8 dbh) should be salvaged and distributed in riparian areas. 12. All riparian plantings should be monitored yearly for three years to ensure that finished grade slopes are at stable angles of repose and that woody plantings are achieving a minimum of 80% cumulative survival. 13. If the success standard specified above in Conservation Recommendation 12 above is not achieved, dead plantings are replaced to bring the site into confoiiiiance. If failed plantings are deemed unlikely to succeed, replacement plantings should be conducted at other appropriate locations in the project area. 14. FHWA should ensure that erosion control measures are monitored and are implemented as described above. 3.7 Statutory Recnonce Rennirempn4 Pursuant to the MSA (§305(b)(4)(B)) and 50 CFR 600.920(k), Federal agencies are required to provide a detailed written response to NOAA. Fisheries' EFH conservation recommendations within 30 days of receipt of these recommendations. The response must include a description of measures proposed to avoid, mitigate, or offset the adverse impacts of the activity on EFH. Tn the case of a response that is inconsistent with the EFH conservation recommendations, the response must explain the reasons for not following the recommendations, including the scientific justification for any disagreements over the anticipated effects of the proposed action and the measures needed to avoid, minimize, mitigate, or offset such effects. 3.8 Supplemental Consultation The FHWA must reinitiate EFH consultation with NOAA Fisheries if the proposed action is substantially revised in a manner that may adversely affect EFH, or if new infolrrration becomes 31 available that affects the basis for NOAA Fisheries' EFH conservation recommendations (50 CFR 600.920(1)). 32 4.0 REFERENCES Allan, J.D. 1995. Stream Ecology: structure and function of running waters. Chapman and Hall, Inc., New York. 388 p. Berg, L. (editor). 2001. Yakima subbasin summary. 2001. Draft report prepared for the Northwest Power Planning Council. 381 p. Berg, L., and T.G. Northcote. 1985. Changes in territorial, gill -flaring, and feeding behavior In juvenile coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) following short-teim pulses of suspended sediment. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 42:1410-1417. Bishop, S., and A. Morgan, (eds.). 1996. Critical habitat issues by basin for natural chlnook salmon stocks in the coastal and Puget Sound arras of Washington State. Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Olympia, WA, 105 pp. Bisson, P.A, and R.E. Bilby. 1982. Avoidance of suspended sediment by juvenile coho salmon. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 2:371-374. Busby, P.a., T.C. Wainright, G.J. Bryant, L.J. Lierheines, R.S. Wapies, F.W. Waknitz and I.V. Lagamarsino. 1996. Status Review of West Coast Steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon and California. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-27. 261p. Busby, P.J., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, L. J. Lierheimer, R.S. Wapies, F.W. Waknitz, and I.V. Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review of west coast steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. NOAA Fisheries-NWFSC-27, 261 p. Campton, D.E., and J.M. Johnston. 1985. Electrophoretic evidence for a genetic admixture of native and nonnative rainbow trout in the Yakima River, Washington. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 114:782-793. Chapman, , n , C. Pe v an, T. Hillman, A. Giorgi, and F. Utter. 1994. Status of summer steelhead in vll[l 1110.11 L. the mid -Columbia River. Don Chapman Consultants, Inc., Boise, Idaho. Ecology (Washington Department of Ecology). 1998. Lower Yakima River cleanup plan (a plan targeting sediments and pesticides). Publication No. 98-2026-WQ. December 1998. Feist, B.E., J.A. Anderson, and R. Miyarnoto. 1992. Potential impacts of pile driving on juvenile pink (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) and chum (0. keta) salmon behavior and distribution. 66 p. FHWA. 2003. Letter from Michael Kulbacki to Steven Landino. 33 Gregory, R.S. and T.G. Northcote. 1993. Surface, planktonic, and benthic foraging by juvenile chmook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Can.J.Fish.Aquat.Sci.50:233-240. Hastings, M. C., Popper, A. N., Finneran, J. J., and Lanford, P. 1996. Effects of low frequency sound on hair cells of the inner ear and lateral line of the teleost fish Astronotus ocellatus. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 99:1759-1766. Hruby, T. et al. 1999. Methods for assessing functions in riverine and depressional wetlands located in the lowlands of western Washington, part 1. Publication No. 99-115. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. 469 p. Hruby, T. et al. 2000. Methods for assessing wetland functions, Vol. 2, Depressional wetlands in the Columbia Basin of eastern Washington, part 1. Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA. Iockersmith, E., J. Vella, and L. Stuehrenberg. 1995. Yakima River radio -telemetry study: steelhead, 1989-1993. Annual report submitted to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. DOE/BP-00276-3. May, C.W., R.R. Horner, J.R. Karr, B.W. Mar, and E.B. Welch. 1997. Effects of urbanization on small streams in the Puget Sound Lowland Ecoregion. Watershed Protection Techniques 2(4): 483-494. McClure, M.M., E.E. Holmes, B.L. Sanderson, and C.E. Jordan. 2001. In press. A large-scale, multi -species status assessment: anadromous salmonids in the Columbia River Basin. Ecological Applications. McQueary, P.L. 2003. Biological Assessment for OL -3549 - SR 24, SR 82 to Keys Road South Alignment Raised Profile. WSDOT, South Central Region. Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 2000. Wetlands, 3rd edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 920 p. NOAA Fisheries. 1996. Making Endangered Species Act determinations of effect for individual or grouped actions at the watershed scale. 31 p. NOAA Fisheries. 1998. Status review of chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. NOAA Tech. Memo NMFS-NWFSC-35. 443 p. NOAA Fisheries. 2000. Guidelines for electrofishing waters containing salmonids listed under the Endangered Species Act. Website. http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ 1 salmon/s almesa/4ddocs/final4d/electro2000.pdf 34 NOAA Fisheries. 2001. Endangered SpCCTCS Act section 'T consultation biological 1 vpiriikJfl. Dail Francisco -Oakland Bay Bridge, east span seismic safety project. NRCC (National Research Council Committee on Protection and Management of Pacific Northwest Anadromous Salmonids). 1996. Upstream: salmon and society in the Pacific Northwest. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 452 p. Null, W.S., G. Skinner, and W. Leonard. 2000. Wetland functions characterization tool for linear projects. Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA. 30 p. PFMC. 1999. Amendment 14 to the Pacific coast salmon plan. Appendix A: description and identification of essential fish habitat, adverse impacts and recommended conservation measures for Sahyion. Portland, OR. Schueler, T. 1984. The importance of imperviousness. Water Protection Techniques 1(3): 100-113. Servizi, J.A., and D.W. Martens. 1992. Sublethal responses of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus lylsutrh) to .c iii r enllPd Sediments. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49:1389-1395. Sigler, J.W., T.C. Bjornn, and F. H. Everest. 1984. Effects of chronic turbidity on density and growth of steeihead and coho salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 113:142-150. Spence, B.C., G.A. Lomnicky, R.M. Hughes, and R.P. Novitzki. 1996. An ecosystem approach to salmonid conservation. Website: http://www.nwr.noaa.clovilhabcon/habweb/ManTech/front.htin. Waples, R.S. 1991. Pacific salmon, Oncorhynchus spp., and the definition of "species" under the Endangered Species Act. Marine Fisheries Review 53:11-22. WDF (Washington Department of Fisheries) and Washington Department of Wildlife. 1993. Regional supplement to 1992ashington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory. Appendix three; Columbia River stocks. Wydowski, R.S., and R.R. Whitney. 1979. Inland Fishes of Washington. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. 220 p. Yakama-Klickitat Fisheries Project. Website: http://www.ykfp.or/ WDF 1992 (1992 Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory) 35 APPENDIX I In -Water Construction Monitoring Report 36 Start Date: End Date: In -Water Construction Monitoring Report SR 24, I-82 to Keys Road Project (NOAA Fisheries WSB-01-010) N}\'WS Tracking Number 2001/00064 Waterway: Yakima River Construction Activities: Number of fish observed: Number of salmonid ujuveniles observed (what kinrt/): Number of salmonid adults observed (what kind?): What were fish observed doing prior to Construction? What did the fish do during and after construction? Number of fish stranded as a result of this activity: How long were the fish stranded before they were captured and released to flowing water? Number of fish that were killed during this activity: Send report to: NOAA Fisheries, Washington Habitat Branch, 510 Desmond Dr. SE, Suite 103, Lacey, WA 98503 37 APPENDIX G - USFWS CONCURRENCE LETTERS SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT United States Department of the Interior DEPT. OF TRANS FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE SEP 1 7 2003 Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office )IST. 11103 E. Montgomeiy Drive 5 ' Roo f, Spokane, WA 99206 September 16, 2003 Mr. Gary Hughes Federal Highway Administration Suite 501 Evergreen Plaza 711 South Capitol Way Olympia, WA 98501-1284 Subject: SR 24, SR 82 to Keys Road Project, Yakima County, Washington FWS Reference 1-9-03-I-517 (File #807.4000) Dear Mr. Hughes: This responds to your request of August 15, 2003, for infoilual consultation on the SR 24, SR 82 to Keys Road Project, Yakima County, Washington. Your request with a biological evaluation (BE) was received in this office on August 20, 2003. This project entails the replacement of the SR 24 bridge over the Yakima River, and the widening of SR 24 by adding two travel lanes between 18th Street and South 33rd Street. The new bridge will be constructed with drilled shaft pilings to prevent scour problems, and may be designed to allow for the re -connection of the Yakima River floodplain as proposed by the Yakima Flood Zone Control District. 1 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurs that the proposed project as described in the BE is not likely to adversely affect the bald eagle or the bull trout or result in the adverse modification of proposed critical habitat for bull trout, provided the project is implemented as described in the BE. This includes performing surveys through the winter of 2003 before commencing construction and in the winter of 2004, during construction of the bridge and road segment, to determine the presence and distribution of bald eagles through the Yakima River Reach between Selah Gap and Union Gap. Should these surveys indicate that bald eagle foraging and roosting may be affected in a manner or to an extent not analyzed in this consultation, reintiation of consultation will be required as described below. This concludes informal consultation pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act f 1973, Rs'amended (Act). This project should be re -analyzed if new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this consultation; if the action is subsequently modified in a manlier that causes an effect to the listed species nr critical hab tat was not consultation; .._ i lo� ---- - - -- ---- ------ --1------- --- .�__.._.-..+ .=...v a...,.� that was considered in this Valls Ul LdLl Vll, Q11W Vl, if a new species is listed or critical habitat is designated that may be affected by this project. If you have further questions about this letter or your responsibilities under the Act. please contact Robert Newman of this office at 509-893-8017. Sincerely, \f - Supervisor c: WDFW, Region 3 FWS, Wenatchee Paul Wagner, WSDOT Biology Program Manager Gary Beeman, WSDOT, South Central Region Pat McQueay, WSDOT South Central Region Sheri Neuenschwander, WSDOT, South Central Region United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Upper Columbia River Basin Field Office 11103 E. Montgomery Drive - Spokane, WA 99 206 DEPT. OF TRANS. NOV 6 - 2QO )15 7. 6 - MAILRO'O November 2, 2000 Patricia L. McQueary South Central Region Biologist Washington State Department of Transportation P.U. Box 12560 Yakima, WA 98909 Subject: OL -3549 -SR 24, SR 82 to Riverside Rd; FWS Reference 1-9-01-I-060 (File # 807.2000) Dear Ms McQueary: This responds to your request of July 25, 2000, for informal consultation on the effects of the proposed improvements to SR 24 including the replacement of the Yakima River Bridge. The project is in Yakima, Yakima County, Washington. Your request with a biological evaluation (BE) was received in this office on July 28, 2000. Washington State Department of Transportation is proposing to widen and improve this arterial, adding turn lanes and a bicycle/pedestrian path. This project will also replace the Yakima River Bridge on SR 24. The new bridge will be constructed immediately downstream of the existing bridge, then the existing bridge will be removed. Disturbed areas will be revegetated with appropriate native species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concurs that the proposed project as described in the BE is not likely to adversely affect the bull trout. This concludes informal consultation pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). This project should be re -analyzed if new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this consultation; if the action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in this consultation; and/or, if a new species is listed or critical habitat is designated that may be affected by this project. If you have further questions about this letter or your responsibilities under the Act, please contact Linda Hallock of this office at 509-893-8012. n WnFW RPoinn Sincerely, Supervisor C L •.:.. L� APPENDIX H - CITY OF YAKIMA PARK LAND CONCURRENCE SR24 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT