HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/06/2008 12 Upper Yakima River Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan RM 107-128 June 2007 Update • BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No.
For Meeting Of May 6, 2008
ITEM TITLE: Resolution of the City of Yakima, Washington, adopting the Upper
Yakima River Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan RM
107 -128 June 2007 Update, Including New Appendix F.
SUBMITTED BY: William R. Cook, Director Community & Economic Development
CONTACT PERSON /TELEPHONE: Jeff Peters, Assistant Planner - 575 -6163
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
The Upper Yakima River CFHMP was adopted by the Board of Yakima County
Commissioners on June 19, 2007. The CFHMP describes the studies, findings, and
recommendations of the Yakima Countywide Flood Control Zone District (FCZD) for
flood hazard prevention and floodplain restoration along as more fully described in the
CFHMP.
The CFHMP describes a coordinated approach to flood hazard management within a
complex interagency and inter - jurisdictional context. Implementation of projects and
policy proposals that are consistent with the CFHMP will require further assessment for
environmental significance, regulatory consistency, and policy preferences of the
relevant jurisdictions and agencies.
CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
Resolution _ Ordinance Contract _ Other (Specify)
Contract Mail to (name and address)
Phone:
Funding Source
APPROVAL FOR SUBMITTAL:
City Manager
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve resolution
BOARD RECOMMENDATION: None.
• COUNCIL ACTION:
•
As a statutorily prescribed comprehensive flood control management plan, the CFHMP
will, upon adoption by the City of Yakima, become binding.(RCW 86.12.210). Any land
use regulations and restrictions on construction activity contained within the CFHMP
that are applicable to the City of Yakima will become the minimum standards of the City
and may supplant existing City of Yakima regulations and standards.
Overall, the City's proposed adoption of the CFHMP brings with it risks that are difficult
to quantify. The risks identified below are not exclusive, in part because the CFHMP
itself contains ambiguities which make its effect difficult to fully analyze.
The proposed resolution of adoption is intended to minimize potential risks. A risk
analysis of the CFHMP adoption is provided in the form of the attached April 24, 2008
memorandum prepared by outside legal counsel, Kenneth W. Harper.
With regard to environmental review, Yakima County issued a SEPA Final MDNS for
the CFHMP in July of 2005. The City in reliance on the County's environmental
process issued a SEPA Notice of Application and Environmental Review on April 14,
2008 noting an expectation that a DNS will likely be issued. The public comment period
for the City's application ends May 5, 2008. A SEPA determination will follow the close
of the comment period. Staff will report the nature of comments received and the
SEPA determination at the May 6 meeting.
Yakima County is the responsible agency for floodplain planning in the County. As
such the City has relied heavily on the expertise of County staff in this effort. Staff has
worked diligently with County officials for the past year to improve consistency between
the CFHMP and existing City policies and regulations. A review of City floodplain
regulations and policies by Yakima County planning staff concluded that existing City
standards are consistent with the CFHMP. Given the effort, progress, and
understandings reached through this process staff recommends adoption of the
CFHMP.
•
•
•
RESOLUTION NO. R -2008-
A RESOLUTION of the City of Yakima, Washington, adopting the Upper Yakima
River Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan RM 107-
128 June 2007 Update, Including New Appendix F.
WHEREAS, the Yakima Countywide Flood Control Zone District was formed in
1998 and prepared a Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan in 1998; and
WHEREAS, in 2004 the 1998 plan was amended and updated; and
WHEREAS, the amended plan bearing the formal title "Upper Yakima River
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan RM 107 -128" with amendment date of
June, 2007 (hereinafter "CFHMP "), was adopted by the Yakima County Board of
County Commissioners in Resolution No. 287 -2007 dated June. 19, 2007; and
WHEREAS, in some cases the contents of the CFHMP may overlap with the
ill contents of the City of Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan 2025 (hereinafter "Plan
2025 ") and development regulations of the City of Yakima; and
WHEREAS, the CFHMP represents a valuable inter - governmental effort
regarding flood control for the relevant affected geographic areas; and
WHEREAS, the CFHMP should not constitute an additional layer of potentially
inconsistent policies or regulations binding on and within the City of Yakima, but should
instead serve only as an advisory complement to other City of Yakima planning
endeavors, including Plan 2025 and the City of Yakima's development regulations; and
WHEREAS, in the event of any conflict between the CFHMP (including any
policy, rule, regulation, or requirement contained therein), and Plan 2025 or any of the
City of Yakima's development regulations, Plan 2025 and /or the City of Yakima's
development regulations should be deemed authoritative and controlling within the City
of Yakima for all purposes; and
WHEREAS, a new appendix (hereinafter "New Appendix F ") should be included
with the CFHMP to address any such express or latent conflicts; and
WHEREAS, the Yakima City Council finds and determines that it is in the public
• interest to adopt the resolution set forth herein;
1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Yakima,
Washington:
The Upper Yakima River Comprehensive Flood, Hazard Management Plan RM
107 -128 June 2007 Update, Including New Appendix F, is adopted; provided, however,
that the CFHMP shall by this resolution be limited in effect solely to serving as an
advisory complement to other City of Yakima planning endeavors, including Plan 2025
and the City of Yakima's development regulations; and provided, further, that in the
event of any conflict between the CFHMP (including any policy, rule, regulation, or
requirement contained therein), and Plan 2025 or any of the City of Yakima's
development regulations, Plan 2025 and /or the City of Yakima's development
regulations are and shall be deemed authoritative and controlling within the City of
Yakima for all purposes.
ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Yakima,
Washington, this 6 day of May, 2008.
David Edler, Mayor
•
ATTEST:
City Clerk
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor David Edler
Members of Yakima City Council
City Manager Dick Zais
City Attorney Ray Paolella
FROM: ` Kenneth W. Harper, outside legal counsel
SUBJECT: Overview Regarding Adoption of Upper Yakima River
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan
DATE: April 24, 2008
I. INTRODUCTION
This memorandum provides an overview of the proposed adoption by the City of Yakima
of the Upper Yakima River Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan RM 107-
128 June 2007 Update (referred to as the "CFHMP ").
II. BACKGROUND OF CFHMP
The CFHMP was adopted by the Board of Yakima County Commissioners on June 19,
2007. It was produced at the direction of the Yakima Countywide Flood Control Zone
District, an independent taxing district authorized by state law and created by the Board
of Yakima County Commissioners on January 13, 1998.
The CFHMP primarily describes a coordinated approach to flood hazard management for
the Yakima River from the Yakima County northern boundary to Union Gap and along
the Naches River from Twin Bridges on SR 12 to its mouth. A copy of the executive
summary of the CFHMP is attached to this memorandum.
•
MEMORANDUM: Overview Regarding
Adoption of Upper Yakima Comprehensive
Flood Hazard Management Plan - 1
III. SIGNIFICANCE OF CFHMP TO THE CITY OF YAKIMA
As a statutorily- prescribed comprehensive flood control management plan, the CFHMP
will, upon adoption by the City of Yakima, become binding. RCW 86.12.210. Any land
use regulations and restrictions on construction activity contained within the CFHMP that
are applicable to the City of Yakima will become the minimum standards of the City and
may supplant existing City of Yakima regulations and standards.
A. Limitations on assessment of the effect of the CFHMP on the City's existing
regulations.
The CFHMP does not contain a clear statement of the regulations and restrictions
contained within the plan that are applicable to the City of Yakima. Much of the
CFHMP, in fact, is devoid of prescriptive content at the land use regulatory level.
Instead, most of the plan's chapters contain general descriptions of regional concerns
regarding flood damage protection, resource protection, and environmental enhancement
within the plan study area.
At Chapter Six, entitled "Regulations," the CFHMP provides an overview of existing
federal, state, and local regulatory and permitting requirements that relate to flood hazard
management, surface water management, water quality, and wetland protection.
It is unclear whether the CFHMP is intended solely to depict the relationship between
y p p
existing regulations and flood hazard management policies or, on the other hand, whether
the CFHMP is also intended to establish a foundation for mandatory future regulations.
Because the plan is unclear on this point, it is impossible to precisely identify what future
regulations the CFHMP may be intended to support or how the CFHMP may affect future
development regulation enforcement in the City of Yakima.
B. Ambiguity of CFHMP requirements for implementation of policies.
The CFHMP is ambiguous regarding the extent to which it establishes recommendations
or requirements for future project and non - project actions to implement its policies.
Chapter Eight of the CFHMP, entitled "Flood Mitigation Alternatives," lists thirty -three
separate "flooding issues" that appear to be set forth as recommended actions and policy
changes to reduce flood hazards within the plan's study area.
The CFHMP states that additional environmental review and comprehensive assessments
will be performed when specific projects may be proposed by proponents. Although this
representation indicates that project -level environmental review will be necessary before
project actions proceed, it is unclear whether adoption of the CFHMP commits the City
MEMORANDUM: Overview Regarding
Adoption of Upper Yakima Comprehensive
Flood Hazard Management Plan - 2
of Yakima to policies geared toward the ultimate implementation of some or all of the
ranked "flooding issue" mitigation measures.
Several of the "flooding issues" are not project- specific, and the CFHMP is also unclear
regarding the expectation for future review and analysis of non - project "flooding issue"
mitigation measures, as well as the environmental review processes that would be
associated with each.
For each of the ranked "flooding issues," the CFHMP sets forth a preferred alternative
• and recommended action statement. The preferred alternative and recommended actions
may or may not represent appropriate public policy for the City of Yakima and, likewise,
may or may not present insurmountable environmental review and assessment problems.
Thus, for instance, the preferred alternative and recommended action regarding critical
areas ordinance consistency states that "City jurisdictions should integrate flood hazard
items included in the County's CAO that are not specified in their respective FHOs or
CAOs or develop an interlocal agreement creating a FHO that applies across all
jurisdictional boundaries." (See CFHMP at 8 -61). This language suggests that the City
of Yakima has an obligation to reconsider its recently- adopted critical areas ordinance for
consistency with respect to the integration of flood hazard items compared to the
County's critical area ordinance. No such formal analysis has been performed, and it is
unclear how this analysis would relate to questions of the City's sovereignty over its
• CAO process.
Similarly, the CFHMP endorses as its "flood issue number one" the re- configuration of
the levee system adjacent to the Yakima Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
( "WWTP "). (See CFHMP at 8 -3). It is probable that alteration of the levee system will
affect the Yakima River's hydrology near the WWTP's outfall, with potentially dramatic
consequences to the viability of the current WWTP.
As summarized in the CFHMP:
Changes to the configuration of the bridge and levee
system upstream can be expected to change the hydraulic
conditions at the outfall, with a very high probability that
the river channel will begin to move /migrate if the levees
are relocated. This would potentially result in the outfall
no longer being located in the river, the outfall being buried
as the river recovers to a more natural elevation, or reduced
flow and turbulence at the outfall, any of which would
result in violation of water quality standards and/or the
City's NPDES permit from the Department of Ecology,
which allows the WWTP to discharge to the river. (See
CFHMP at 8 -11).
•
MEMORANDUM: Overview Regarding
Adoption of Upper Yakima Comprehensive
Flood Hazard Management Plan - 3
At the time of this memorandum, there has been no formal assessment of the significance
of this change, including from an environmental, fiscal, or other public policy
perspective.
The proposed setback of the levee has the potential to significantly alter the course of the
river thereby impacting the WWTP outfall mixing zone. The impact of such a change
has not been fully evaluated as part of the CFHMP planning process. It will be necessary
that the environmental review efforts of future capital improvements undertaken to
implement the plan include a thorough analysis and mitigation of the impacts to the
WWTP outfall, which could be significant.
IV. CONCLUSION
Overall, the City's proposed adoption of the CFHMP brings with it risks that are difficult
to quantify. The risks identified above are not exclusive, in part because the CFHMP
itself contains ambiguities and also in part because the City (including the author of this
memorandum) does not have the ability to fully analyze the technical content of the plan.
Identified risks of adoption can, at this time, be summarized as follows:
• Inconsistency between CFHMP policies and regulations as compared to existing
City of Yakima policies and regulations;
• Ambiguity regarding the source of development regulation standards for land use
permitting activities within the City;
• Unclear relationship between independent assessment by the City of policy
choices regarding flood hazard management through City decision - making
processes and implementation of CFHMP - determined "flooding issues," both
project and non - project; and
• Establishment of expectation that City of Yakima critical areas and flood hazard
ordinances will be modified to achieve consistency with similar regulations of
Yakima County.
KWH:ksl
MEMORANDUM: Overview Regarding
Adoption of Upper Yakima Comprehensive
Flood Hazard Management Plan - 4
•
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This 2007 plan is an update of the 1998 Upper Yakima River Comprehensive Flood Hazard
Management Plan (CFHMP) for the Yakima River from the Yakima County northern boundary
to Union Gap and along the Naches River from Twin Bridges on State Route 12 to its mouth.
The CFHMP is a policy document which contains recommended actions or policy changes to
reduce flood hazard in a comprehensive fashion. The CFHMP fulfills one of the main
requirements for the County to be eligible for funding from the State of Washington under the
Flood Control Assistance Account Program (FCAAP).
YAKIMA FLOODING HISTORY AND IMPACTS
Since 1894, the flow in the Yakima River has exceeded flood level 47 times. Since 1970 the area
was declared a federal disaster area due to flooding 8 times in 27 years. The largest flood of
record occurred in December 1933, despite completion of the Yakima Project reservoir system
by the US Bureau of Reclamation.
In 1938 designs for a federal levee system on the Yakima River were completed, but this project
was not constructed until after World War H, completed in 1948, and repaired and extended the
next year after the 1948 flood. These works were constructed to protect the urban areas of
Yakima and Terrace Heights. A series of large floods during the 1970's prompted further
studies by the Corps, and the levees earlier constructed under Corps authority were raised
twice in the 1970's and the 1980's. The need for raising of the levees resulted from river channel
rise (aggradation) since construction of the federal project. The Wastewater Treatment Plant
Levee, built in 1958, has been reconstructed 8 times due to scour at the toe of the levee.
Most of the same floods occurred on the Naches River. In the 1970's, SR 12 was constructed
adjacent to the river, to an elevation to withstand the 200 year flood. The area of SR 12 upstream
of the 16th Avenue exit has experienced repeated flood damage since the 1980's and failure of
this roadway during a major flood event would inundate a significant portion of Yakima.
There were three major flood events in the 1990's culminating in the 1996 flood. During this
• flood (approximately. a 100 year flood), several areas along the Corps levees protecting the
urban area received successful emergency reinforcement during the flood, including:
• The west bank levee at Buchannan Lake (also known as the Beech Street Gravel
Pit)
• The east bank levee immediately downstream of Terrace Heights bridge
Failure at either of these locations would have resulted in widespread damages and inundation
of a large number of businesses and residences.
The following occurred at non -corps levee locations:
• Raising of the east bank Drainage Improvement District #1 levee immediately
downstream of SR -24 bridge to prevent overtopping and failure.
• Overtopping and damage to the west bank Waste Water Treatment Plant levee
located across from the DID #1 levee.
•
ES-1
•
Upper Yakima River Comprehensive FIood Hazard Management Plan ...
• Major failure of a private west bank levee in Selah that protected a large
floodplain gravel mining pit. Failure of that levee caused erosion of two lanes of
I -82, and the closure of I -82 during the flood event.
• Overtopping of, and damage to, 1-82 near Union Gap.
The ability of flood protection facilities to withstand erosion and overtopping by floodwaters is
a continuing concern. Countywide damage from the 1996 flood alone was 18 million dollars.
The presence of numerous confining flood protection levees, and roads crossings that act as
levees in the planning area result in increased flood hazards due to their disruption of, and
increased exposure to, natural riverine processes. The active floodplain width has been reduced
to as Iittle as one eighth its former width at several locations. The physical conditions in the
river channel change from year to year on a more rapid basis than before confinement, which
also changes flood effects exerted against the Ievees and other infrastructure, such as height of
flood waters, water velocity, and the location of erosive energy. Expensive maintenance and
repairs are required to keep the levee system in place in order to reduce damages to businesses,
homes, roads, SR 24 , 1-82 and infrastructure such as irrigation, water, and wastewater systems.
At this time Yakima County has one of only two remaining Corps certified levee systems within
the state. This qualification enables technical and financial aid from the federal government.
The impacts of past floods, which threaten the levee system and result in millions of dollars of
damage, indicate the need for effective long term flood hazard management and planning.
COMPREHENSIVE FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLANNING
Since 1986 state financial assistance for flood control works has been under the authority of the
Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 86.26 and requires the development of a flood
management plan. Since 1991 this funding requires adoption of a plan development process in
accordance with the 1991 guidebook from Department of Ecology, entitled "Comprehensive
Planning for Flood Hazard Management ". A management plan, so developed, is referred to as
a "Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan (CFHMP)" and, upon approval by the
Department of Ecology, qualifies the agency for funding under Washington Administrative
Code (WAC) Chapter 173 -145: Administration of the Flood Control Assistance Account
Program (FCAAP). State funds from this program can be used for emergency and non -
emergency activities that reduce property loss and threats to human health caused by flooding.
In addition, the CFHMP is recognized by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
and the Washington State Emergency Management Division as a mitigation plan to be used to
direct post- disaster mitigation measures.
The CFHMP requires the following steps of the planning process:
• Establish a citizen and agency participation process
• Set goals and objectives for flood hazard management
• Develop an inventory and analysis of physical conditions
• Determine the need for flood hazard management measures
• Review existing regulations that impact flood hazard management.
• Identify alternative flood hazard management measures
ES -2 •
... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
•
• Evaluate alternative measures
• Hold Advisory Committee meetings for evaluation of alternatives
• Develop a flood hazard management strategy
•
• Complete the draft CFHMP and submit to Ecology
• Submit the final CFHMP to Ecology
• Hold a public hearing and adopt the CFHMP
• Notify Ecology the final plan is adopted.
1998 UPPER YAKIMA CFHMP
In response to the flood events of the early .1990's the Board. of Commisioners in 1995 hired
KCM Inc., a consulting fain with wide experience in the preparation of CFHMP's, to undertake
the Upper Yakima CFHMP. Funding for the Upper Yakima CFHMP was provided under an
agreement between Ecology and Yakima County, with Ecology contributing 75 percent of the
project costs through the state's Flood Control Assistance Account Program (FCAAP), and
Yakima County contributing the remainder from County funds. This plan was completed in
1998, adopted by the Board of Yakima. County Commissioners on September 1, 1998, and
approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) on March 3, 2003. The
County adoption made it eligible for State and I'EMA funding.
The CFHMP identified flooding issues along the plan reach in order to gain an understanding
of flood hazard management alternatives and develop a flood hazard management program to
address these issues. As part of the development of a citizen and agency participation process
an Advisory Committee of 22 members was formed and 8 meetings held during plan
development. The committee had members from local agencies, including the Cities and
citizens. A list of members is contained in Chapter 1. The following long -term and short -term
goals and objectives were developed by the committee.
CFHMP GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Long -term goals, which were established by the Advisory Committee for the 1998 Upper
Yakima River CFHMP, and are maintained in the update, include the following:
• Prevent the loss of life, creation of public health or safety problems, and damage
to public and private property
• Maintain the varied uses of existing drainage pathways and floodplains within
the County
• EstabIish and adopt a systematic and comprehensive approach to flood hazard
management
• Minimize the expenditure of public funds through effective flood hazard
management
• Prevent the degradation of surface and groundwater
• Establish a stable, adequate, and publicly acceptable long -term source of
financing for a flood hazard management program.
• Objectives established to reach CFHMP goals include the following:
.
ES -3
•
Upper Yakima River Comprehensive FIood Hazard Management Plan ...
• Implement flood hazard management measures as approved in the CFHMP
• Give preference to nonstructural measures such as regulations and preservation
of existing drainage corridors
• Preserve floodplain uses that are compatible with periodic flooding. Discourage
land uses in the floodplain that are incompatible with periodic flooding
• Adopt flood control measures that preserve or enhance existing fishery, wildlife,
and other natural uses of the riparian zone
• Ensure that changes in land use within drainage corridors maintain or restore the
natural character wherever possible
• Integrate water quality needs with flood control needs and minimize the impact
of contaminants and sediment in stormwater entering receiving waters
• Pursue strategies for flood hazard management that balance engineering,
economic, environmental, and social factors
• Maintain consistency with Yakima County and local comprehensive plans, the
state Growth Management Act, and related policy plans
• Coordinate flood hazard planning with all interested and affected parties
• Imp.rove public understanding of flood hazard management through public
education
• Establish a funding mechanism to implement the CFHMP
• Develop structural and nonstructural measures to prevent or minimize existing
flood problems
• Adopt regulations to prevent new development from causing or being
susceptible to flood damage.
A complete listing of the 1998 recommended actions, the implementing lead agency, and the
current status of those recommendations, is provided in Table 7 -2 of the 2007 update. The
majority of the non - structural actions have been completed or superceded. Details of these
recommended actions are contained in Chapter 8 of the 1998 CFHMP.
One of the major recommendations of the 1998 CFHMP was the establishment of a Flood
Control Zone District (FCZD) to oversee implementation of the Upper Yakima CFHMP, and
preparation of other CFHMPs throughout the County. On January 13, 1998, the Board of
Yakima County Commissioners established the Yakima Countywide Flood Control Zone
District as an independent taxing districts authorized by RCW 86.15, with the Board of County
Commissioners acting as the Supervisors of the District, and the Yakima County Engineer as the
head of the FCZD.
The Yakima Countywide FCZD was not staffed until 2001, and revenue collected by the FCZD
that began in 1999, was used to establish an emergency fund for flood fighting in the County, as
the 1996 flood fight had severe impacts on the County's general fund.
ES-4
,.. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
•
2007 UPPER YAKIMA CFHMP UPDATE
Between. the addption of the CFHMP in 1998, and 2002, a number of significant changes
occurred which impacted the 1998 CFHMP recommendations. The most significant of these
changes are summarized in Table ES -1.
TABLE ES -1
SUMMARY OF MAJOR CHANGES TO AND IMPACT ON THE 1998 CFHMP
Action Nature of Change Impact on CFHMP
Formation of the Yakima FCZD takes responsibility for Implements many of the CFHMP
Countywide Flood Control Zone implementing CFHMP actions, providing recommendations for the County as a
District oversite, management and.monitoring of whole, and for some actions in this project
flood hazards in Yakima County. Actions area.. Many of the implemented actions
on CFHMP recommendations establish are for non - structural measures.
partnerships.
•
Completion of the FEMA Regulatory environment altered. CFHMP formulated when maps were in
floodplain Maps in 1998 Floodplain extent and elevations generally early draft stage, so that much discussion
. reduced, although hydrology not updated regarding draft maps in the CFHMP is no
for floods of 1990s. longer relevant.
Completion of Plan 2015, the Regulatory environment altered. Many, but not all, of the concerns
Yakima County Comprehensive Especially land use designations in regarding high density zoning in
Plan floodplain areas, floodplains were resolved in Plan 2015 and
are no longer relevant.
Listing of Middle Columbia River Regulatory and funding environment CFHMP did not specifically address the
Steelhead and Bull Trout as altered. Actions that alter habitat for these biological attributes of the reach, or the
Threatened under the species, or that receive federal funding or effect of the plan or individual actions on
Endangered Species Act permits, must be designed to not effect or habitat conditions in the reach.
degrade habitat conditions.
Purchase of Floodplain Properties Land use environment altered. Change in potential future values of
by the US Bureau of Reclamation properties in floodplain for ag or other
These properties will remain. in development. Eliminates the need for
conservation status. some structural actions, alters the
configuration of others.
The completion of the Reaches Improved understanding of riverine Greater understanding of why federal
Report on stream processes in the processes, river mechanics and sediment Ievees were near failure in 1996, why other
study reach transport and deposition between the levees have repeatedly failed, past levee
levees. raising and potential actions to reduce
danger of failure. •
Proposed reconstruction of SR 24 Change in physical environment and. Rendered the highest ranked structural
Bridge increased flexibility in levee action in the plan not- implementable, and
reconfiguration. provided opportunities for other actions.
Much of the need to update chapter 8 of the plan became apparent during the planning and
permitting process that WSDOT .undertook for the new SR 24 bridge and related facilities. This
chapter deals with the analysis of flood problems, and corresponding flood hazard
management alternatives and programs. In that process, several committees were formed to
look at different aspects of the environment and the bridge design such as recreation, wetlands,
'10 effect on ESA- listed species. Participants in this process included Yakima County, the City of
•
ES -5
•
Upper Yakima River Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan ...
Yakima, the Greenway Foundation, Diking Improvement District #1, WSDOT, Ecology,
WDFW, the Yakama Nation, and federal agencies such as NMFS, USFWS, USBOR, the Corps of
Engineers, and Federal Highways. Riverine processes and their relationship to flood hazards
within the leveed area of the "gap to gap" reach of the Yakima River became a focal part of the
SR 24 committee discussions and permitting process.
Given the extent of the above impacts, and the the fact that the municipalities affected by the
CFHMP, namely the Cities of Selah, Union Gap, and Yakima, had not adopted the 1998 plan, it
was decided in 2002 to revise and amend Chapter 8 of the CFHMP. Once revised, the FCZD
would seek approval of the revised plan from the County and the above cities in the planning
area.
In 2004 the FCZD submitted Chapter 8 to the Yakima County Planning Department for analysis
on the consistency of the proposed amendments with the State Environmental Policy Act
(SEPA) decision for the original plan. County Planning determined that the amended Chapter 8
was substantively different from the original chapter 8 and required a full SEPA process.
Through the SEPA process, and after conversation with interested parties such as the City of
Yakima, WSDOT, Ecology, and others, plan adoption was conditioned on the complete update
of all portions of the plan prior to submission to the Board of Yakima County Commissioners
for approval, or to any of the cities. Revisions were requested to update information that has
become obsolete (refereces to prior versions of regulations, listings of needed actions that have
since been implemented, etc:) and to ensure consistency of all chapters with the revised content
of chapter 8. Also in the SEPA decision, and contained in this executive summary, is a general
plan for how the actions in the plan will be implmentented by the Flood Control Zone District
in cooperation with the partners listed above, and others such as the Yakama Nation,
Washington. Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the United States Bureau of Reclamation..
Updating the 1998 plan was a process of updating Chapters 1 through 9 in accordance with the
ammended Chapter 8. The recommended actions in Chapter 8 were a process of: (a) subtraction
of actions no longer deemed appropriate given new information or already completed; (b),
addition of new actions that are needed; and (c) modification of several actions to be consistent
with new information. The list of these changes is given in Appendix B. Actions are presented
in Chapter 8 in an order based on the severity of the flooding problems (prioritized by the 1998
advisory committee) that those actions address. The most severely modified actions were those
physically associated with the SR 24 bridge and the properties acquired by USBR.
Modified recommendations in the CFHMP 2004 Amendment were directly related to the
enhanced understanding of the dominant processes driving flood hazards that came to light as
part of the SR 24 Bridge permitting process, although much of the new science was developed
by the BOR and CWU. Recommendations include policy changes and additional studies
related to the processes driving flood hazards. These recommended studies are either of a
general nature (i.e. study the available sediment supply in this reach) or specific, such as the
recommendation for further study of the effects of levee relocation on adjacent infrastructure.
For instance, such future studies and environmental analysis will include assessing potential
impacts of levee relocation on the City of Yakima WWTP outfall, mixing zone, and water
quality of the Yakima River. Levee relocation studies and environmental analyses will include
identification and evaluation of measures to mitigate /identified adverse impacts.
410
ES -6
•
• ... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
•
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
In this plan area the ability of flood protection facilities to withstand erosion and overtopping
by floodwaters was a primary consideration within the recommendations.
The 2007 CFHVIP recommended actions detailed in Chapter 8, and Chapter 9, are summarized .
below in Table ES-2. Recommended flood hazard management actions include construction
projects, studies to evaluate and fund new construction projects, new policy decisions, land use
modifications, enhancements to regulations, and options for retrofitting existing structures. In
Table ES -2. they have been grouped accordingly with the highest priority flood issues listed
first in each category.
•
•
. .,
•
•
•
•
ES -7
Table ES -2
Summary of Recommended Actions _
Structural, Non- Structural, Regulatory, Study Issues
Addressed
Setback of the levees downstream of SR 24 should riot occur until the WWTP's ability to continue to discharge is assured. LR5
Structural Actions
Reconfigured levees upstream of SR24 should tie into the new SR 24 bridge abutments.. On the east side of the river, levee setback would LR5
begin upstream of the Old Moxee bridge and continue to the SR 24 alignment.
Remove the western Old Moxee bridge abutment, located upstream of new SR24 alignment. LR5
Levees Downstream of SR24, on the east side of the river will be set back to allow the incorporation of the Newland Pits into the floodplain. LR5
The levee should be located west of Blue Slough for a distance of approximately 2,300 feet south of SR 24, then crossing the slough and
continuing downstream.
Levees Downstream of SR24 on the west side of the river, currently protecting Yakima WWTP should be repaired to ensure protection of the LR5
WWII' itself and maintain the ability of the City of Yakima WWTP to continue to discharge in conformance with state law.
The opportunity exists at the Beech Street Pit location for widening of the channel and improving (for sediment transport) the configuration UR5, MI22,
of the levee system by setting back the levee opposite from the pit and this action should be taken. Spur dikes and additional bank
protection are recommended along the Beech Street levee to reduce levee erosion. Spur dikes recently installed at the East Selah Gravel Pit
should be monitored during flood events to ensure that they are protecting 1 -82 and the East Selah Pit levee.
To reduce the potential for avulsion or levee failure at the Buchanan Lake /Beech Street Pit over the long term (i.e., in approximately 15 -20 UR5, MR2,
years or sooner if possible), the existing Terrace Heights bridge should be modified to improve sediment transport and reduce the
concentration of energy downstream, especially against the levee that protects the Beech Street Pit.
Existing Gravel Mining Sites: Due to the location of the East Selah Gravel Pit, large flood events will continue to affect the property in this UR5, MR2,
area. Following gravel extraction, long -term modifications should include a levee designed to overtop during large flows.
The Flood Control Zone District should work with BIA, BOR, and other interested parties in replacing or modifying Wapato Dam to pass LR3
bedload and fine sediment.
The levees at Union Farms also act as a choke point in this section of the river forcing the river against I -82, and taking a fairly large amount LR3
of floodplain surface out of the active floodplain. Removal of these levees would relieve the pressure against 1 -82 and lower flood
elevations by allowing the river to expand across a larger floodplain.
The WSDOT should construct barbs similar to the existing downstream barbs to protect 1 -82. The Spring Creek gate should be reinforced to LR7
prevent failure during a future flood event or avulsion caused by pit capture. A new channel for Spring Creek (approximately 550 feet in
length) should be constructed outside of the 1 -82 clear zone, with fish habitat elements installed in this new channel.
Retirement of the Fruitvale Diversion and Consolidation with the Current Nelson Dam Diversion NA1
Implementation of Bank Protection on US Highway 12 at the 16th Avenue Exit. NA1
Based on the county -wide road closure database, prioritize roads requiring flood damage mitigation. RW1.2
The County should implement bank protection projects following established guidelines (e.g., King County 1993 or ISPG, 2003), modified for RW3, LR1, UR1
Yakima County. _
The following are recommended to address operations and maintenance issues: RW16
Consolidate maintenance requirements into one document following the steps outlined above
Adopt a policy requiring all new flood- control projects to define maintenance responsibilities and a funding source for operations,
ES -8
S. •
... EXECUTIVE SUMLviARY
Table ES -2
Summary of Recommended Actions
maintenance, and repairs before acceptance by the County
• Continually update and maintain a flood control facility inventory database to document the current condition of each flood control facility.
Rebuild the existing Greenway pathway levee to pre -flood conditions; however, install additional embankment protection by applying MR6
heavy riprap in the highly erosive areas.
Study Issues
Addressed
In addition, an inventory of the existing structural adequacy and capacity of all levees that protect existing floodplain mines and pits should UR5, MR2,
be undertaken.
Develop a high water elevation database to evaluate changes in river channels LR3
Obtain additional high water elevations throughout the floodplain resulting from the February 9, 1996, flood RW1
Obtain accurate topographic data throughout the floodplain specifically for the left bank levee and floodplain downstream of the SR 24 RW1
bridge, I -82, and the floodplain near East Selah
Once this data is obtained, a new hydrologic and hydraulic analysis should be performed to FEMA standards, this will allow the design of RW1
the facilities specified above in issue LR5, and shorten the time needed to amend the FEMA maps after implementation of those actions.
Request that FEMA produce a digital floodplain map that combines all jurisdictions and reflects recent data for use in the County's GIS. RW1
Given the long -term nature of this type of flood hazard (channel migration, sediment accumulation, erosion), a study to determine these RW20
values and to monitor sediment transport and energy should be implemented.
The County, WDFW, and the Yakama Indian Nation should identif ' and ssecificall ' list fish habitat enhancement areas RW2, MR8
Assemble GIS coverages documenting closed and damaged roads from historic flood events discussed in the C.FI-IMP _ RW15
Obtain flood damage GIS coverages for recent and historical floods as they become available from FEMA RW15
The County should hire a public education officer to manage a public education and CRS program RW18,
RW7•
Non- Structural Actions Issues
( Flood Fight) Addressed
During flood events posing risk, formalize procedures for dispatching field teams and volunteers to critical locations along rivers and creeks W19
to manually collect real -time river information
Finish compiling time delays from the BOR in flood peaks between locations along the Yakima River for various flood magnitudes
Continue reviewing and compiling information on past flood events to create a database that correlates road closures with river stage and
discharge
Develop and communicate to the public a policy on sandbag distribution during flood events (use periodic public outreach methods to
reiterate this policy).
Develop a flood inundation map for distribution to the public
I -time, automatic gauging stations within the upper watershed of tributary creeks
Create a Community Alert Network for use at the EOC
Non - Structural Issues
ES -9
•
Upper Yakima River Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan ...
Table ES -2
Summary of Recommended Actions
(Funding) Addressed
Review the adequacy of dedicated funds versus projected costs. RW13
Actively pursue state and federal grant programs to supplement funding provided by flood control district (see Tables 9 -1 and 9 -3, in RW13
Chapter 91.
Adopt a funding policy similar to polices developed in Plan 2015. RW13
Investigate the value and need for sub - zones within the FCZD. RW13
Provide direction and support to secure funding for large scale actions which involve cooperation across jurisdictions and agencies RW13
County should provide guidance in designing private bank protection projects. RW3, LR1, UR1
Limit development in rapid channel migration areas by promoting the Open Space Taxation Program in a public awareness campaign (see RW3, LR1, UR1
issue RW10— Acquisition/Preservation of Floodplain Open Space).
Adopt and enforce design standards, such as onsite detention, to limit or mitigate increased erosion potential resulting from new RW3, LR1, UR1
development.
The County should submit a letter of intent for participation in the COE 1135 program to obtain funding for fish habitat restoration RW2,
consistent with flood protection within the plan river reaches. MR8
The County should pursue funding through the Reigle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act, Robert 1. Stafford RW17
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Flood. Control Assistance Account Program (FCAAP), Pre - Disaster Mitigation (PDM)
progam, and FIazard Mitigation Grants Program (HMGP).
The County should continue to operate and promote the Open Space Taxation Program. RW1.0
•
Pursue funding through state and federal programs to purchase high- hazard floodplain properties or development rights for open space RW10
use.
The County should enroll in the CRS using a "short form" (Appendix E of the CRS Coordinator's Manual). RW18,
RW7
The County should submit the full set of required documentation to update its CRS rating following adoption of the CFHMP. RW18, ^
RW7
Establish a maintenance budget for Greenway facilities. MR6
Non - Structural Issues
(Regulatory) Addressed
Future. Gravel Mining Sites: Development of future gravel extraction sites in the floodplain of the Yakima River and Naches River will be UR5, MR2,
driven by the Yakima County Comprehensive Plan
Adopt and follow the proposed Plan 2015 County policy for management of the riverine environments. _ LR3
Add compensatory storage requirements to the County's CAO. _1_,R3
Revise base floodproofing and elevation building standards based on February 9,1996, high water data. RWI
Require disclosure of floodplain status in the subdivision ordinance for all newly created parcels. RW6
Sections 5.28.020(1)(a), 5.28.020(2), and 5.28.020(3) of the County's CAO should be revised to require all new construction and substantial RW4,
improvement, regardless of intended land use, to be elevated or floodproofed. RW5
CAO Sections 5.32.010(2) and 5.361010(2) pertaining to requirements for siting utility lines in the floodway fringe and floodway should be RW4,
consolidated within Section 4.14 pertaining to siting of utilities in I-IRCAs. RW5
•
ES -l0
•
4111 1111
110.
0.
... EXECUTIVE SUMtviARY
-- � -- Table ES -2
Summary of Recommended Actions
CAO Section 5.36.010(1) should be deleted. RW4,
RW5
A new CAO Section 5.28.010(d) should be added as follows: RW4,
• Construction of new critical facilities shall be, to the extent possible, located outside the limits of the base flood plain RW5
The County should determine if each jurisdiction's shoreline ordinance requires mitigation similar to zero -rise methods for the area within RW4,
100 feet of the OHWM or floodway. If so, language from the shoreline ordinances should be repeated in each jurisdiction's flood hazard RW5
ordinance. If not, Yakima County CAO Section 5.28.010(a)(3) should be replicated in each jurisdiction's ordinance
City jurisdictions should integrate flood hazard items included in the County's CAO. RW4,
RW5
Apply design standard of the Greenway Master Plan during Class 2 review of developments within floodplain or Greenway overlay zones. RW10
Extend Greenway overlay zoning beyond the Yakima Urban Area within conservation, recreation, and natural areas designated in the RW10
Master Plan.
Obtain from FEMA the best available digital flood hazard map that meets the objectives listed below: RW15
Accuracy: Establish definitive and accurate representations of the floodWay, 100 -year floodplain, Special Flood Hazard Areas ( SFHAs), and
Base Flood Elevations (BFEs)
Completeness: Endure that all of the items listed above are present in the G1S database and that the database includes all jurisdictions within
Yakima County
Accessibility: Enhance the County's ability to perform floodplain determinations, measure areas of SFHAs, determine BFEs of specific
locations, and realize time savings in the permit process
Community Review: Ensure that sufficient local review of flood hazard information has occurred prior to release of that data for public use.
The County should adopt a Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan to reduce localized flooding in the Yakima urban areas OSA1
Non - Structural Issues
Re;ulator , Education) Addressed
Construct a G1S permit review tool. RW15
Continue Standard GIS data updates. _ RW15
Structural, Non - Structural Issues
(Funding, Flood Fight, Education) Addressed
The following are recommended to minimize damage to Greenway and Elks Golf Course facilities: MR7, UR3,
Floodproof repetitively damaged structures by moving them to a higher elevation or installing flood walls or sealant UR4
Rebuild Greenway pathways to higher design standards such as using more erosion- resistant embankment protection •
Establish a maintenance budget to provide funding for the repair of inevitable future flood damage to roadways, pathways, and the Elks
Golf Course
Establish flood response teams to remove temporary structures prior to a impending flood event
Educate Greenway users about flooding by installing interpretive signs near damaged sites that describe floodplains, floodways, effective
floodplain management, and how various actions can aggravate flooding and flood damage
Continually monitor cumulative effects of development in the area to limit the potential of aggravating flood damage.
ES -11
•
Upper Yakima River Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan ...
•
Table ES -2
Summary of Recommended Actions
Structural, Non - Structural, Study Issues
Addressed
To address flood damage within southeastern Union Gap, the following are recommended: LR6
- ate floodproofing techniques into the City of Union Gap's pump station
Promote floodproofing and flood insurance to Union Gap residents who experienced damaged during the February 1996 flood
Construct the Wide Hollow Creek high -flow bypass as recommended in the 1993 . draft City of Yakima Comprehensive Stormwater
Management Plan for the urban area,
Conduct a comprehensive drainage study for the Ahtanum Creek watershed as recommended in issue OSA1— Continued Flood Damage
Outside the CFI Study Area.
Study, Non - structural Issues
(Regulatory) Addressed
Submit certification forms and supporting data to FEMA to obtain a Map Revision in Union Gap following FEMA guidelines (FEMA 1990). RW1
ES -12
•
•
•
PROJECT I_MPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
Several of the recommended structural actions and the studies needed to support them are large
actions and will require funding at a scale that cannot be entirely be funded by any single
funding source. The FC7D can provide, or contract, the expertise required to design and
implement these projects and studies, as well as seek funds. Detailed analysis is required for
each of the structural actions in order to maximize beneficial and minimize potential
detrimental impacts. The array of levee relocation and stabilization projects require study as an
overall set of coordinated actions so that the benefits and impacts can be understood and
realized in a holistic manner. The following considerations are to be included: flood hazard,
critical infrastructure such as water treatment, diversion, and distribution systems; the state,
local, and federal transportation systems; and natural resources of very high importance to the
economy of the Yakima Valley such as water quality, recreation, and fish and wildlife habitat.
Timelines for several of these activities, particularly large ones, are dependent on external
agencies. Cooperation across jurisdictions and agency responsibilites will be necessary to
successfully design, fund, implement, and maximize benefits from these large scale actions and
studies, and to ensure that multiple objectives can be met.
Funding opportunities will be increased through the existence and adoption of this plan,_plus
coordination amongst affected parties and presence of a lead proponent for each project. For the
largest actions, there will likely be the need to approach athorities such as the Legislature and
Congress to provide or allow funds to be spent on these multi - objective and cross jurisdictional
projects.
For large flood projects, the Yakima County Flood Control Zone District has the authority and
can perform the role of lead or coordinator across the variety of authorities to attain multi-
agency/multijursdictional cooperation, participtation, and joint decision - making.
Environmental review and permitting will be required for structural projects. Mitigation for
impacts identified during additional studies and environmental review will be developed in
cooperation with affected agencies or jurisdictions. Projects shall not proceed to construction
unless impacts are mitigated in accordance with state and federal laws, local policies and codes,
and this CFHMP.
•
ES -13
•
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
_---
(� Planning Division
s; , �� 129 North Second Street, 2nd Floor Yakima, Washington 98901
�r �t ,'. ��'� fop;
l "�' r ; 74q (509) 575 -6183 • Fax (509) 575 -6105 • www.ci.yakima.wa.us
�� =fins � � v
1, 1 Sy PORA T n ,'
CITY OF YAKIMA
NOTICE OF APPLICATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
•
:DATE: April 14, 2008
TO: SEPA Reviewing Agencies, Applicant and Adjoining Property Owners
FROM: Bruce Benson, Acting Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Notice of Application & Environmental Review of the adoption by the
City of Yakima of the Upper Yakima River Comprehensive Flood Hazard
Management Plan RM 107 -128 June 2007 Update, Including New
' Appendix F ( "CFHMP" herein).
•
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
. • The City of Yakima has reviewed this proposal for probable adverse environmental
impacts and expects to issue a determination of nonsignificance (DNS) for this proposal.
A copy of the subsequent threshold determination may be obtained on request and may
be appealed pursuant to YMC 6.88.170. The optional DNS process in WAC 197 -11 -355
is being used. This may be your only opportunity to comment on the environmental
impacts of the proposal.
Comment due date: May 5, 2008
Agencies, tribes, and the public are encouraged to review and comment on the proposal
and its probable environmental impacts. All written comments received by May 5, 2008
will be considered prior to issuing the final SEPA determination on this application.
The following conditions have been identified that may be used to mitigate the adverse
environmental impacts of the proposal: No impacts identified
• Required Permits: N /A.
Required Studies: None
Existing Environmental Documents:
1. SEPA Final . Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance issued by Yakima
County Planning Services Division dated July 22,2005, together with files and
records associated therewith:
Yakima
brazil
al- MsiaCIty
1I
1994
•
2. USGS Sediment Transport Study and Geomorphic Analysis; and
3. Bureau of Reclamation Modeling Study, and Yakima River Study.
. . Preliminary determination of the development regulations that will be used for
project mitigation and consistency: City of Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan,
Yakima Municipal Code, Washington Administrative Code.
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION
The City of Yakima Department of Community & Economic Development has received
an application from the City of Yakima Wastewater division for the environmental
review of the CFHMP, which is proposed for adoption by the City of Yakima. The
CFHMP describes the studies, findings, and recommendations of the Yakima
Countywide Flood Control Zone District (FCZD) for flood hazard prevention and
floodplain restoration along the Yakima River between Selah Gap and Union Gap.
• Adoption of the CFHMP is considered.a non - project action under WAC 197-11 -
704(2)(b) and does not implement any specific project, such as construction or
management activity located in a defined geographical area under WAC 197-11 -
704(2)(a).
The CFHMP describes a coordinated approach to flood hazard management within a
complex interagency and inter jurisdictional context. Implementation of projects and
policy proposals that are consistent with the CFHMP will require further assessment for
environmental significance, regulatory consistency, and policy preferences of the relevant
jurisdictions and agencies.
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
Proposal Study Area: Upper Yakima River from the ,northern boundary of Yakima
County to Union Gap and along the Naches River from the Twin
Bridges on SR 12 to its confluence with the Yakima River.
Proposal Applicant: City of Yakima Wastewater Division
File Number: UAZO EC #23 -08
Date of application: April 8, 2008
Date of determination of completeness: April 9, 2008
PUBLIC REVIEW & COMMENT
Your views on this proposal are welcome. All written comments received by May 5,
2008 will be considered prior to issuing the final decision on this application. Please mail
your comments on the environmental review of this proposal to:
Bruce, Benson Acting Planning Manager
•
•
•
•
• City of Yakima, Department of Community & Economic Development
129 North 2 Street
Yakima, WA 98901
Please be sure to reference the file number in your correspondence (UAZO EC #15 -08).
NOTICE OF DECISION
A copy of the SEPA threshold deteiinination will be mailed to you after the end of the
20 -day comment period.
•
The file containing the complete application is available for public review at the City of
Yakima Planning Division, 2nd floor City Hall. If you have any questions on this
proposal, please call Jeff Peters, 'Assistant Planner at (509) 575 -6163 or e -mail at
jpeters@ci.yakima.wa.us.
End.: Environmental Checklist & Appendix F
•
•
. .
•
•
•
RECEIVED
•
APP, 0 8 2008
CITY OF YAX9NIA
Adoption of Upper Yakima River Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management) WING Diil,
RM 107 -128 June 2007 Update, Including New Appendix F
City Of Yakima
SEPA Environmental Checklist
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Nonproject action: adoption by the City
of Yakima of the Upper Yakima River Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management
Plan RM 107 -128 June 2007 Update, Including New Appendix F ( "CFHMP" herein).
2. Name of applicant: City of Yakima
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
City of Yakima
129 North Second Street .
Yakima, WA 98901
Max Linden
(509) 575 -6077
4.• Date checklist prepared: April 7, 2008
5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Yakima
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Adoption of
CFHMP during May, 2008.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related
• to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain.
No. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197 -1 1- 704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area. WAC
197 -1 1- 704(2)(a).
The CFHMP describes a coordinated approach to flood hazard management within a
complex interagency and inter - jurisdictional context.
Implementation of projects and policy proposals consistent with the CFHMP will
require future assessment for environmental significance, regulatory consistency, and
policy preferences of relevant jurisdictions and agencies.
•
•
• H:.Pro ti'akima WW Page 1 of 21 •
Fac Plan. SEPA Env Checklist
RECEIVED
APR 0 8 2008
CITY Y
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been preparEcl,4itNI NIl
. will be prepared, directly related to this proposal.
SEPA Final Mitigated Determination of Non - significance issued by Yakima County
Planning Services Division dated July 22, 2005, together with files and records
associated therewith. In addition, several studies (e.g., USGS Sediment Transport
Study and Geomorphic Analysis, Bureau of Reclamation Modeling Study, and the
Yakima River Study) have been prepared and are ongoing dealing with floodplain
restoration on the Yakima River.
•
The CFHMP describes a coordinated approach to flood hazard management within a
complex interagency and inter - jurisdictional context.
Implementation of projects and policy proposals consistent with the CFHMP will
require future assessment for environmental significance, regulatory consistency, and
policy preferences of relevant jurisdictions and agencies.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of
other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes,
explain.
Central Premix (CPM) has current permits and applications submitted for mining and •
related activities on CPM -owned land on both sides of Riverside Road, which is
within the CFHMP study area.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal,
if known.
Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(b). Adoption
of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as construction or
management activity located in a defined geographical area. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a). .
11. Give a brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses
and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this
checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not
need to repeat those answers on this page: (Lead agencies may modify this form
to include additional specific information on project description.)
The CFHMP describes the studies, findings, and recommendations of the Yakima
Countywide Flood Control Zone District (FCZD) for flood hazard prevention and
floodplain restoration along the Yakima River between Selah Gap and Union Gap.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand
the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any,
III
and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a
H:'•ProjYakima \Mandatory WW Page 2 of 21
Fac Plan. SEPA Env Checklist
APR 0 8 2008
CITY OF yAK1MA
• range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a ?e tJ NING DIV.
description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably
'available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are
not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit
applications related to this checklist.
The CFHMP is for the Upper Yakima River from the northern boundary of Yakima
County to Union Gap and along the Naches River from the Twin Bridges on SR 12 to
its confluence with the Yakima River.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
• a. General description of the site (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes,
mountainous, other...
The CFHMP study area covers a combination of flat, rolling, hilly, and steep
slopes along the lower Naches River and Yakima River in northern Yakima
. County.
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)?
40 -50 %.
c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand,
gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils,
specify them and note any prime farmland.
The lower elevations, along the Naches and Yakima Rivers, are primarily
Weirman- Naches - Ashere series which are well drained, level to gently sloping,
consisting of flood deposits. To the west, soils change to the Ritzville- Warden-
Starbuck series and then to the Harwood - Gorst - Cowiche series. These series
range in depth from very shallow to quite deep, well- drained, level to very
steep. To the south of Yakima and west of Union Gap, -along Wide Hollow
Creek, is the Umapine - Esquatzel series which are deep, well- drained to poorly -
drained, level to moderately steep. They are found on terraces and floodplains.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate
vicinity? If so, describe.
According to the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, locations exist
within the CFHMP study area that are oversteepened and therefore high risk.
Se. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or
grading proposed. Indicate source of fill.
H:',ProjiYakiniaMandatory ww Page 3 of 21
Fac Plan. SEPA Env Checklist
RECEIVED.
APR 0 8 2008
CITY OF YAgfill
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so,
generally describe.
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces
after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)?
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the
• earth, if any:
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197-11-704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust,
automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when
the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate
quantities, if known.
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
•
•
H: +Proj'tY" akimaVvlandatory w Page 4 of 21
Fac Plan. SEPA Env Checklist
•
RECEIVED
APR 0 8 2008
O. CITY OF y.Axi
b . Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect yalativNI G O AAA
proposal? If so, generally describe.
No.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if
any:
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197 -1 1- 704(2)(b)..
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC, 197 -1 l - 704(2)(a).
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the
site (including year -round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes,
ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. if
appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. •
® Yes. The Yakima River, Naches River, Cowiche Creek, Wide Hollow
Creek, Ahtanum Creek, Blue Slough, and Moxee Drain.
2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200
feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available
• plans.
• NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197-11 -
704(2)(b). Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific
project, such as construction or management activity located in a defined
geographical area. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed
• in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of
• the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material.
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197-11 -
704(2)(b). Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific
project, such as construction or management activity located in a defined
geographical area. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions?
® Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities, if
known.
H:'.Proj'YakirnaMvlandatory WW Page 5 of 21
Fac Plan. SEPA Env Checklist
•
RECEIVED
APR 0 8 2008
CITY OF YA
PLANNING
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197-11 -
704(2)(b). Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific
project, such as construction or management activity located in a defined •
geographical area. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
.5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location
on the site plan.
Yes. The CFHMP study area addresses the Yakima River and most of its
•
shoreline is within the 100 -year floodplain.
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface
waters? if so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of
discharge.
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject•action. WAC 197-11 -
704(2)(b). Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific
project, such as construction or management activity located in a defined
geographical area. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
b. Ground:
ground g
1) Will b round water be withdrawn, or will water be dischar to
ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate
quantities, if known.
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197 -11-
704(2)(b). Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific
project, such as construction or management activity located in a defined
geographical area. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from
septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: domestic sewage;
industrial, containing the following chemicals ...; agricultural; etc.).
Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems,
the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of
animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve.
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197-11 -
704(2)(b). Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific
project, such as construction or management activity located in a defined
geographical area. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
c. Water runoff (including stormwater):
•
H:'.Proi'+Yakiina•Mandatory WW Page 6 of 21
Fac Plan. SEPA Env Checklist
•
RECEIVED
•
. APR 0 8 ?OM
1) Describe the source of runoff (including g storm water) and m
•
�' 3 G DIV.
collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where
will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so,
describe.
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197 -1 1-
704(2)(b). Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific
project, such as construction or management activity located in a defined
geographical area. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so,
generally describe.
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197-11 -
704(2)(b). Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific
project, such as construction or management activity located in a defined
geographical area. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water
impacts, if any:
•
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(b).
• Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAG 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
4. Plants
•
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
Within the CFHMP study area:
X Deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other
X Evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other
X Shrubs
X Grass
X Pasture
X Crop or grain
X ,Wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bulrush, skunk cabbage, other
X Water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil. other
X Other types of vegetation (riparian plants where the outfall enters the
river)
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?
•
•
H:\Proj \Yakima''.Mandator ww Page 7 of 21
Fac Plan. SETA Em- Checklist
RECEWED
APR 0 8 2008
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197 -11- 704"�' ( Aaa PF YA
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific ement an s ecifi project, such as p
construction p J
construction or management' activity located in a defined geographical area. •
WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
•
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
Within the CFHMP study area:
Plant Listing
•
Scientific Name Common Name State Status Federal
Status
Astragaluscolumbianus Columbia milk -vetch Threatened SC
Cypripedum Clustered lady's- Threatened SC
fasciculatum slipper
Erigeron Basalticus• Basalt daisy Threatened C
Lobelia Kalmii Kalm's lobelia Endangered E
Lomatium Tuberosum Hoover's desert- Threatened SC
parsley
Sisyrinchium Pale blue -eyed grass Threatened SC
Sarmentos2.n
Tauschia Hooveri Hoover's tauschia Threatened SC
•
SC = Species of Concern.
C = Candidate.
E = Endangered
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve
or enhance vegetation on the site, if any:
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 197-11-704(2)(a).
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are
known to be on or near the site:
Within the CFHMP study area:
Birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: ducks, pheasant.
quail.
411
H. Proj'Yakima:Mandatory WW Page 8 of 21
Fan Plan. SEPA En. Checklist
RECEIVED
APR 0 8 2008
•
Mammals: deer. elk. beaver, other: skunks, coyote TY OF YAKIM
y PLANNING DIV. •
Fish: bass. salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other:
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.
•
Within the CFHMP study area:
Bald Eagle
Ferruginous Hawk
Golden Eagle
Great Blue Heron
Prairie Falcon
Ring Necked Snake
Fish: Salmon
Steelhead
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
Possible migration within the CFHMP study area. Salmon and steelhead
migrate on the Yakima River. Waterfowl migrating on the Pacific Flyway use
the rivers, sloughs, and nearby agricultural lands.
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
6. Energy and Natural Resources
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be
used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it
•
will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc.
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAG 197- 11- 704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
b. "Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent
properties? If so, generally describe.
S
HP.Proj`Yakima\Mandaton' WW Page 9 of 21
Fac Plan. SEPA Env Checklist
RECEIVED
APR 0 8 2008
CITY OF
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197 -11- 704(,4 iMlNG
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this
proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy
impacts, if any:
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 197-11-704(2)(a).
7. Environmental Health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic
. chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could
occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe.
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
1) Describe special emergency services that might be required.
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197-11 -
704(2)(b). Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific
project, such as construction or management activity located in a defined
geographical area. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health
hazards, if any:
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197-11 -
704(2)(b). Adoption of theCFHMP does not implement any specific
project, such as construction or management activity located in a defined
geographical area. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
b. Noise
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project
(for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)?
H: \Proj. YakimaiMandatory \\ W Page 10 of 21
Fac Plan. SEPA Env Checklist
RECEIVED •
•
. APR 0 8 ?OOis
• C1T�l 6�;= ���1��
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197 - 111- n 1 G D V
704(2)(b). Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific
project, such as construction or management activity located in a defined
geographical area. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a). .
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with
the project on a short -term or a long -term basis (for example: traffic,
• construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would
come from the site.
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197-11 -
704(2)(b). Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific
project, such as construction or management activity located in a defined
geographical area. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any:
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197-11 -
704(2)(b). Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific
project, such as construction or management activity located in a defined
• geographical area. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
8. Land and Shoreline Use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?
Within the CFHMP study area, the City of Yakima wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP) site is currently used for wastewater treatment. Pasture is located to
the north and east of the WWTP. The interstate forms the western boundary.
The land to the south of the WWTP is owned by the City and leased out for hay
production. Other areas within the CFHMP study area are used for many
different purposes, including suburban, light industrial, and other uses.
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? if so, describe.
Yes. Some of the, areas within the CFHMP study area have been used for
agriculture, primarily in the area east of the Yakima River, between SR -24 and
the Union Gap.
c. Describe any structures on the site.
Within the CFHMP study area are dikes, bridges, roads. City of Yakima
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) outfall, irrigation drains, etc.
•
H:'Proi\Yakiina'Mandator■ \vw Page 11 of 21
Fac Plan. SEPA En ■ Checklist
RECEIVED
APR 0 8 2008
CITY
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? PLA OF YA NNING*
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
Within the CFHMP study area are lands zoned for many different uses,
including suburban, light industrial, and other uses.
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?
Within the CFHMP study area are lands designated by the Yakima Urban Area
Comprehensive Plan as low density residential, medium density residential,
arterial commercial and professional office.
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of
the site?
•
The designation of the shoreline within the CFHMP study area and inside the
City of Yakima, is rural, urban, and conservancy.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive"
area? If so, specify.
There are areas within the CFHMP study area designated as sensitive areas
within the Yakima Service Area. These include wetlands, groundwater
recharge areas, conservation areas, and geologically hazardous areas.
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed
project?
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
H:`Proj`.Yakima'Mandaton WW Page 12 of 21
Fac Plan. SEPA EnN Checklist
•
APR 0 8; r , ; ..
CITY OF Y, .
•
k. Proposed measure to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any:
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and
projected land uses and plans, if any:
Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
• A new Appendix F has been added to the CFHMP and is intended as a
statement reconciling any potential conflicts between the CFHMP and existing
land use plans within the City of Yakima.
•
•
•
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate
whether high, middle, or low- income housing.
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate
whether high, middle, or low - income housing.
. NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
•
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any:
•
H:'Proj WW Page 13 of 21
Fac Plan. SEPA Env Checklisi
•
APR 0 8 2nH
CITY OF YAKIMA
PLANNING
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including
antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed?
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197 -1 1- 704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical-area.
WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
•
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any:
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197-11-704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
11. Light and Glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day
would it mainly occur?
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as .
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
•
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or
interfere with views?
H:.Prol %Yakiina`.Mandatory Ww Page 14 of 21
lac Plan. SEPA Env Checklist
•
APR 0 8 2008
CITY OF `AKIMA
• NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197 -1 1- 704(_) DIV.
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
c. What existing off site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?
• NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 1 97-11-704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any:
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
12. Recreation
•
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the
immediate vicinity?
•
• There is an arboretum, greenway path along the west side of the Yakima River,
and a private park, state park and City park. Throughout the CFHMP study
area, there are numerous parks and recreational opportunities along the Yakima
River and other surface waters.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so,
describe.
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 197-11-704(2)(a).
•
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including
recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any:
41, NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197 -1 1- 704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
H:\,Proj\Yakima Mandatory WW Page 15 of 21
Fac Plan. SEPA Env Checklist
•
RECEIVED
APR O8
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical arty of V
WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a). PLANNING D V
13. Historic and Cultural Preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national state, or
local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site ?. If so,
generally describe.
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
It is unknown what significant historical and cultural resources may exist within
the CFHMP study area.
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological,
scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(b).
•
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
It is unknown what significant historical and cultural resources may exist within
the CFHMP study area.
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197-11-704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed
access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any.
Portions of SR 24, SR12, I -82, and Yakima Avenue are within the CFHMP
study area.
b. Is the site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the
approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?
H:PropYakima,Mandatory WW Page 16 of 21
Fac Plan. SEPA Env Checklist
•
RECeIV D
APR 0 Q ; ''(•R Cnir Portions of the CFHMP study area are currently served by public transit. G 1 l4
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many
would the project eliminate?
• NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 1 97- 11- 704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 197-11-704(2)(a).
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to
existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe
(indicate whether public or private).
•
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 19 7- 11- 704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 19 7- 11- 704(2)(a).
•
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or
air transportation? If so, generally describe.
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP FHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197 -1 1- 704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
f How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed
project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur.
• NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 1 97- 11- 704(2)(a).
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any:
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197 -1 1- 704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
H:''Proj'Yakima'Mandatory WN Page 17 of 21
Fac Plan. SEPA Env Checklist
•
RECEIVED
APR 0 8 2008
15. Public Services CITY OF YA
PLANNING D
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for
example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If
so, generally describe.
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197 -I 1- 704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if
any.
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action: WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site:
II)
Within the CFHMP study area: Electricity. natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone. sanitary
sewer. septic system, other.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing
the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the
immediate vicinity which might be needed.
NA. Adoption of the CFHMP is a nonproject action. WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(b).
Adoption of the CFHMP does not implement any specific project, such as
construction or management activity located in a defined geographical area.
WAC 197- 11- 704(2)(a).
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that
the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.
r
Signature: \.) c M
Title: City of Ya a Wastewater. anager
Date Submitted: April 8, 2008
4111
H:Troi`YakimaNMandatory ww Page 18 of 21
Fac Plan. SEPA Env Checklist
APR 0 8 2008
• D. SUPPLEMENT SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (To completed by 'To be com leted b th
CITY OF �A DIV.
LA NAIIr' G
applicant.)
(Do not use the following for project actions.)
Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the
list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent
the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at
a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air;
production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise?
Adoption of the CFHMP would not be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air;
production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise.
Implementation of projects consistent with the CFHMP would likely have a beneficial effect
on discharge to water and an unknown effect on emissions to air; production, storage, or
release of toxic or hazardous substances; and production of noise.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: None.
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life?
Adoption of the CFHMP would not be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life.
Implementation of projects consistent with the CFHMP would likely have a beneficial effect
on fish life and an unknown effect on plants, animals, and marine life.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are:
None.
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources?
Adoption of the CFHMP would not be likely to deplete energy or natural resources.
Implementation of projects consistent with the CFHMP would have an unknown effect on
energy and natural resources.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: None.
4. How would. the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or
areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks,
wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or
cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime famiilands?
•
Adoption of the CFHMP would not be likely to affect environmentally sensitive areas or
areas designated for governmental protection. Implementation of projects consistent with the
4110 ,
CFHMP would likely have a beneficial effect on habitat wetlands, and floodplains; have an
H:' WW Page 1 of 1
Fac Plan. SEPA Env Checklist
RECEIVED
APR 0 8 200'
CITY O A
unknown effect on parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, and historic and cultural siRtANNI
and would likely reduce some farmlands adjacent to the Yakima River.
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: None.
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it
would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
Adoption of the CFHMP might have an effect on land and shoreline use pursuant to Ch.
86.12 RCW. Implementation of projects consistent with the CFHMP would likely have an
unknown'effect on land and shoreline use.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: Adoption of
new Appendix F to the CFHMP.
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public
services and utilities?
Adoption of the CFHMP would not be likely to increase demands on transportation or public
services and utilities. Implementation of projects consistent with the CFHMP would likely
have an effect on existing utilities such as the Yakima Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP) outfall. With implementation of levee set backs along the east side of the Yakima
River the outfall for the WWTP will need to be relocated or a different method of treatment
. will need to be incorporated.
•
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: None. Further
environmental assessment and identification of potential mitigation projects is needed.
Assessment will need to be funded and mitigation will need to be constructed on a time
frame that ensures that concerns about the WWTP's outfall are addressed,
7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws
or requirements for the protection of the environment.
The CFHMP describes a coordinated approach to flood hazard management within a
complex interagency and inter- jurisdictional context.
Implementation of projects and policy proposals consistent with the CFHMP will require
future assessment for environmental significance, regulatory consistency, and policy
preferences of relevant jurisdictions and agencies.
H:`,Proj \Yakima Mandatory ww Page 2 of 2
Fac Plan. SEPA Ens Checklist
RECEIVED
APR 0 8 2008
• Appendix F CITY OF YAKIMA
PLANNING DIV.
IDENTIFICATION AND INTEGRATION OF POLICIES FOR CITY OF
YAKIMA
This CFHMP recognizes the existing policies for flood hazard management within the
City of Yakima Urban Area as set forth in the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan
2025 ( "Plan 2025 ") and also recognizes the existing development regulations set forth in
the Yakima Municipal Code ( "YMC "). The policies set forth in Plan 2025 and the
development regulations set forth in the YMC are incorporated by this reference as the
only land use regulations and restrictions on construction activities of the CFHMP that
are applicable to and binding on the City of Yakima for all purposes of Ch. 86.12 RCW.
•
•