TABLE OF CONTENTS
									PAGE
Terms Used in this Document						iii
Acronyms Used in this Document						iv
Section 1	Introduction						1-1
Section 2	Purpose and Need for Action				2-1
Section 3	Alternatives Analysis					3-1
3.1	Alternative 1  No Action					3-1
3.2	Alternative 2  Proposed Action					3-1
3.3	Other Alternatives Considered					3-1
Section 4	Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences	4-1
4.1	Climate, Geology and Soils					4-1
4.1.1	Climate								4-1
4.1.2	Geology and Soils						4-1
4.1.3	Environmental Consequences					4-2
4.2	Floodplains (EO 11988)						4-2
	4.2.1	Environmental Consequences				4-3
4.3	Wetlands (EO 11990) and Water Resources				4-4
4.3.1	Environmental Consequences					4-4
4.4	Vegetation							4-4
	4.4.1	Environmental Consequences				4-5
4.5	Biological Resources						4-5
	4.5.1	Federally Listed Species and Critical Habitat		4-5
	4.5.2	Environmental Consequences				4-6
4.6	Historic, Archaeological and Cultural Resources (EO 11988)	4-7
	4.6.1	Historical Resources					4-7
	4.6.2	Archaeological and Cultural Resources			4-8
	4.6.3	Environmental Consequences				4-8
4.7	Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice (EO 12898)		4-9
Section 5	Cumulative Impacts					5-1
Section 6	Public Involvement and Response to Comments		6-1
Section 7	Required Permits and Compliance				7-1
Section 8	Conclusion						8-1
Section 9	References						9-1

APPENDICES
Appendix A	Figures
Appendix B	U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species Lists
Appendix C	Biological Assessment Addendum Letter
Appendix D	Project Plans
Appendix E	Project Conditions and Conservation Measures
Appendix F	Public Notice


TERMS USED IN THIS DOCUMENT
Aggradation  the process in which the rate of sediment deposition exceeds that of erosion and 
creates a persistent, long-term rise in the elevation of a streambed. 

Area of Potential Effects (APE)  the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking 
may cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if such properties exist.  The 
area of potential effects is influenced by the scale and nature of the undertaking.

Best Management Practices (BMPs)  innovative environmental protection practices applied to 
help ensure that projects are conducted in an environmentally responsible manner.

Channel Migration Zone (CMZ)  the geographic area where a stream or river has been and 
will be susceptible to channel erosion and/or channel occupation.  Because alluvial channels are 
rarely static through time, rivers and streams naturally migrate within their valleys. Channels 
respond with horizontal movement (lateral migration, avulsion, channel widening, cannel 
narrowing) and vertical movement (incision and aggradation) depending on site-specific 
circumstances and watershed conditions. Human landscape disturbance can exaggerate or 
constrain channel migration by affecting local and watershed processes of flooding, erosion, and 
deposition.

FEMA Floodway  the channel of a river or other watercourse and the adjacent land areas that 
must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water 
surface elevation more than a designated height.

Floodplain  the area adjacent to a river that is susceptible to inundation, and often bears 
geophysical evidence of previous flood events.  It is part of the lateral dimension of rivers and 
contributes to the interchange of materials between terrestrial components and aquatic 
components of the watershed. 

Wildland-Urban Interface  line, area, or zone where structures and other human development 
meet or intermingle with the wildland ecosystems.


 

ACRONYMS
APE	Area of Potential Effects
BMP	best management practice
CFHMP	Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan
CFR	Code of Federal Regulations
DAHP	Department of Archaeological and Historic Preservation
EA	environmental assessment
EO	Executive Order
FCAAP	Flood Control Assistance Account Program
FEMA	Federal Emergency Management Agency
HMTAP	Hazard Mitigation Technical Assistance Program
NEPA	National Environmental Policy Act
NHPA	National Historic Preservation Act
NMFS	National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA	National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NRHP	National Register of Historic Places
SHPO	State Historic Preservation Officer
USFWS	US Fish and Wildlife Service
WNHP	Washington Natural Heritage Program



SECTION ONE - INTRODUCTION

Yakima County applied to the US Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) for assistance with a 
road relocation project in Central Washington.  The project will build upon activities outlined in 
the Yakima County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan and the Naches River 
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan (CFHMP) to reduce flood damage and improve 
ingress and egress for the project area, which was identified in both plans as a high priority 
project. 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the Council on Environmental 
Quality regulations implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 1500 
through 1508) direct FEMA and other federal agencies to fully understand and take into 
consideration environmental consequences of proposed federally funded projects.  Under NEPA, 
Congress authorizes and directs federal agencies to carry out their regulations, policies, and 
programs as fully as possible in accordance with the statutes policies on environmental 
protection.  NEPA requires federal agencies to make a series of evaluations and decisions that 
anticipate significant effects on environmental resources.  This requirement must be fulfilled 
whenever a federal agency proposes an action, grants a permit, or agrees to fund or otherwise 
authorize any other entity to undertake an action that could possibly affect the human 
environment.  In compliance with NEPA and its implementing regulations, FEMA prepared this 
draft environmental assessment (EA) to analyze potential environmental impacts of alternatives.


SECTION TWO - PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

The FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program provides grants to states and local governments to 
implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration. The purpose 
of this action is to provide HMGP funding to Yakima County for mitigating their natural hazard 
risks.

Flooding on the Naches River typically occurs during the winter and spring. Historically, winter 
floods have been larger in magnitude, such as the December 1933 and February 1996 events. 
Lewis Road has been inundated by the Naches River on an almost annual basis, with more 
significant damage at approximate 5-year and higher events.  Shallow, fast moving water 
flowing across a roadway can wash a car off the road, and as little as 6 inches of moving water 
can knock people off their feet (WA Department of Ecology 2008).  This represents a real danger 
to the local residents.      
The County identified the need to reduce the repetitive damages sustained to Lewis Road, while 
improving ingress and egress to the properties that use it.  From this need the County identified 
the Proposed Action as a high priority in the Naches River Comprehensive Flood Hazard 
Management Plan and the Yakima County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan.


SECTION THREE - ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

This section discusses the two alternatives considered in this EA: (1) the No Action Alternative 
and (2) the Proposed Action Alternative to which FEMA funding would contribute.

3.1	ALTERNATIVE 1  NO ACTION
Under the No Action Alternative, FEMA would not provide funding to relocate Lewis Road 
further south.  The Naches River would continue to damage Lewis Road yearly and close the 
road during 1-5 year floods and greater events.  Continued inundation and washing of the gravel 
surface of Lewis Road would contribute to sedimentation and continue to degrade water quality 
and fish habitat.  Risks associated with flooding of the road and the safety hazard to residents 
driving through overtopped roads during flood events would continue.  Current and ongoing 
activities to protect the properties and road would continue with County funding as available.  
This alternative would not meet the project needs nor the Countys goals and objectives. 
 
3.2	ALTERNATIVE 2  PROPOSED ACTION
The Proposed Action would reconstruct Lewis Road approximately 500 feet further south of the 
Naches River.  The total road length would be shortened by approximately 350 feet for a total 
length of 1,700 feet (see Appendix D).  The road would be 30 feet wide, with an overall depth of 
1 foot.  The subgrade would be compacted and a 0.7 foot compacted depth crushed surfacing 
base coarse would be applied and compacted.  A 0.3 foot compacted depth crushed surfacing top 
coarse would then be applied. The stormwater treatment for the new road would be through 
infiltration along side slopes adjacent to the roadway.  Although the road will remain in the 
FEMA floodplain and floodway, the road would move to slightly higher land, allowing residents 
and emergency vehicles safer access during 1-, 5-, and 25-year floods.  Land has been purchased 
from Boise Cascade Inc. for the right of way needed to relocate the road.  Approximately 200 
feet of the existing roadway closest to South Naches Road would be removed and planted with 
native vegetation.    The remainder of the gravel roadway would remain but would not be 
maintained by Yakima County.
   
3.3	OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A design and review team consisting of Yakima Flood Control District personnel reviewed the 
reoccurring flooding, safety and access issue.  The team considered three other alternatives.

Raise Lewis Road - The first alternative discussed was raising the elevation of Lewis Road by 
approximately 3 feet on the existing alignment to a level above the approximate 20-year flood 
event and armoring the riverward shoulders.  This alternative would not guarantee access and 
safety for the residences along Lewis Road, given that the raising and armoring may not be 
successful in a large flood event.  The raised roadway would create an additional dike, raising the 
river flood elevation and constricting the river.  This would cause additional pressure on the 
north side of the Naches River and on Highway 12 downstream of the area, an area which was 
noted in the Naches River CFHMP as being highly constricted already.  This alternative would 
also cost roughly twice as much as the proposed alternative. 

Close Lewis Road - The second alternative briefly discussed was a proposal to close the road 
and purchase all residential properties currently accessed by Lewis Road.  According to the 
Yakima County Department of Assessments, this could cost upwards of $2 million for the 
affected parcels.  This alternative was dismissed as being cost prohibitive. 

Locate outside of floodplain - The third alternative considered constructing a new access road 
outside of the FEMA floodplain.  However, land in this area is relatively flat and moving further 
away from the Naches River does not guarantee a higher elevation.  During mapping exercises, 
Yakima County determined that areas further south of the proposed roadway location would be 
inundated during 10-year and higher flood events (see Figures 4-6).  This alternative was 
dismissed as there were no other practicable routes outside of the floodplain.     


SECTION FOUR - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section discusses the existing conditions by resource and the potential effects of the No 
Action and Proposed Action alternatives.  

For each resource category, the impact analysis follows the same general approach.  Where 
possible, quantitative information is provided to establish impacts.  Qualitatively, these impacts 
will be measured based on minor, moderate, and major impacts as outlined in the chart below.
 
Impact Intensity			Criteria
	Small 			Environmental effects would not be detectable or would be so minor that they 
				would neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the 
				resource.  
	
	Moderate		Environmental effects would be sufficient to alter noticeably, but not to 
				destabilize, important attributes of the resource.

	Large 			Environmental effects would be clearly noticeable and would be sufficient to 
				destabilize important attributes of the resource.

Impacts are disclosed based on the amount of change or loss of the resource from the baseline 
conditions.  Impacts may be direct or indirect.  Direct impacts are caused by an action and occur 
at the same time and place as the action.  Indirect impacts are caused by an action and occur later 
in time or farther removed from the area, but are reasonably foreseeable.  Cumulative impacts 
are discussed in Section 5.

Resources that were not analyzed in detail include air quality and visual resources.  These 
resources will not be analyzed to any further extent.    

4.1	CLIMATE, GEOLOGY AND SOILS

4.1.1	Climate
The climate in the Naches River Basin varies from desert conditions in the southern lowlands to 
moist alpine conditions in the mountain headwater region.  Yakima County experiences 
moderate winters, warm and dry summer months and is classified as semi-arid.  Mean annual 
rainfall is approximately 8 inches, and mean annual snowfall is approximately 24 inches.  
Temperatures range from an average low of 20 F in January to an average high of 87 F in July.

4.1.2	Geology and Soils
The Naches River flows through a broad valley between two uplifted and folded basalt ridges.  
In the Naches River valley, a layer of alluvium overlies the sedimentary Ellensburg formation of 
volcanic agglomerates and ash.  The alluvium consists of poorly sorted sand and gravel 
deposited by glaciers and streams, of Quaternary to Recent Age.  Beneath the Ellensburg 
formation are three basalt layers, the Saddle Hills, Wanapum, and Grande Ronde formations.  
Below the confluence with the Tieton River, the river flows through a wide alluvial valley along 
the project area.  The gradient of the river is 30.8 feet per mile below the confluence (through the 
project area).  The channel pattern through the area is characterized by a meander-braided 
transition pattern.  This channel pattern is characterized as having a large sediment load with a 
significant fraction of sand, gravel and cobbles (Chorley et. al 1984). 

Along the floodplain, the primary soil types are Weirman sandy loam, fine sandy loam, and 
gravelly fine sand loam.  Weirman loam is characterized by stratified layers and beds or 
permeable gravel and sand at shallow depths.  It contains minimal organic matter, and drainage 
through the soil is medium to very rapid.  Isolated patches of Logy silt loam also occur 
throughout the study area.  The Logy series soils are deep, well drained floodplain soils.  

4.1.3	Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1  No Action  
Under the No Action Alternative, FEMA would not provide funding to relocate Lewis Road 
further south.  Continued soil erosion would occur from flood events.  

Alternative 2  Proposed Action
No effect on climate and geology would be expected based on the small scale of the project and 
minor ground-disturbing activities.  No environmental consequences to soils are expected from 
road removal and paving activities in the project area because best management practices 
(BMPs) for erosion control would be followed.  Vegetation removal activities would not result in 
increased erosion of stream banks.  Some soils may be removed during construction. 

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to soil productivity, fertility, stability, or infiltration 
capacity would be at or below the lower levels of detection.  Any effects on soil productivity or 
fertility would be small, and no long-term effects to soils would occur.

4.2	FLOODPLAINS
The channel width of the Naches River is variable, with a relatively wide and shallow channel.  
The development of bars and islands may modify flow alignments and change the location of 
bank erosion.  Recent studies also suggest that aggradation has occurred throughout the project 
and surrounding area.  The Naches River has historically experienced very active channel 
migration.

Avulsions (abrupt switching of the river to a new location), the most unpredictable and 
destructive type of channel migration, are common on the Naches River.  Avulsions typically 
occur during a flood when the river reoccupies an old channel or erodes a barrier to gain access 
to a new path.  A major avulsion occurred on the Naches River just upstream from Ramblers 
Park (near Gleed, WA) during the 1996 flood.  Another important avulsion occurred near 
Kershaw Road, approximately 5.5 miles from the project area, during the same flood (Naches 
River CFHMP 2005).

Since 1909, the river has overtopped its banks approximately 60 times.  The Naches River can 
remain at critical flood stage for more the 30 days, rising 11 to 16 feet.  Near the project area, it 
usually takes at least a day for overbank flooding to occur.  Most significant floods on the 
Naches River have remained above flood stage for five to seven days.  There have been cases in 
which the river crested above flood stage more than once within a two-week period (Naches 
River CFHMP 2005).

The current alignment of the Naches River places the brunt of the meander migration pressure on 
the south bank just downstream from the bridge along Lewis Road.  In the project area, the river 
is constrained by the Town of Naches to the north.  Here, the channel is fixed in one location, 
which increases the energy available to the river downstream for migration.  To the north, the 
Highway 12 embankment is impeding the channel from migrating further northeast and may 
magnify the erosive energy of the river in the vicinity of the L-shaped meander (Naches River 
Channel Migration Study 2003).  Both the existing and relocated Lewis Road would be located 
within the FEMA Floodway and floodplain (current FIRM Panel # 5302170680-B effective date 
June 5th, 1985; Preliminary FIRM Panel 53077CO677-D dated September 30, 2008).

Based on 44 CFR Part 9.10, the following floodplain values are present in the project area:

Flood hazard-related factors - The project area has swift floods, usually rising to flood stage 
over a day.  Floods generally last for five to seven days.  The only evacuation route for residents 
in the project area is through Lewis Road.  Flooding may also cause erosion and debris loads.

Natural values-related factors - The water resource value of the project area is low, as natural 
moderation of floods does not occur.  The project area includes several fish and animal species 
(described in Section 4.5 of this EA).  No archaeological or historical sites were identified in the 
project area.  The Naches River is easily accessible within the project area for informal 
recreation activities.  Agricultural activities include apple orchards and vineyards.

Factors relevant to the survival and quality of wetlands - Flooding along the Naches River 
causes erosion, scour, channel migration, and a loss of vegetation due to excessive river volume 
and flow velocities, which may effect wetlands in the project area.  

4.2.1	Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1  No Action 
Under the No Action Alternative, FEMA would not provide funding to relocate Lewis Road 
further south.  The continued inundation and repair of Lewis Road would continue to be subject 
to seasonal and catastrophic flood events, including the natural movement of the river within its 
floodplain.  The floodplain values listed in Section 4.2 would not change.  

Alternative 2  Proposed Action
The Proposed Action would move Lewis Road further south and away from the river.  The 
reconstructed road would remain within the FEMA Floodway.  While other alternatives were 
considered, removing the roadway out of the floodplain was not a practicable alternative as much 
of the surrounding land to the south is slightly lower in elevation.  With further inundation and 
damage to the old portion of Lewis Road, the Naches River may carve a new channel further 
south of its current location.  However, removal of the elevated portion of the existing road may 
provide more natural channel migration by making the river channel less constricted.  A 
condition of approval will include a no-rise certification which Yakima County would provide to 
officials through floodrise data and maps in order to obtain the floodplain permit.

The Proposed Action would not adversely impact the floodplain values under 44 CFR Part 9.10.  
The following floodplain values would be improved:

Flood hazard-related factors - The only evacuation route (Lewis Road) would become more 
reliable and safer. 

Natural values-related factors - Since Lewis Road would be relocated to higher ground further 
from the Naches River, the water resource value of the project area may increase.  

4.3	WETLANDS AND WATER RESOURCES
Wetlands and water bodies are located in the project vicinity.  The national wetland inventory 
identifies the south bank of the Naches River adjacent to Lewis Road as a temporarily flooding 
palustrine scrub/shrub wetland complex (Figure 3).  The applicant mapped a small palustrine 
scrub/shrub wetland approximately 100-200 feet near the proposed realigned section of Lewis 
Road (Figure 2).  This wetland has not been delineated or assessed for function and values.   
 
4.3.1	Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1  No Action 
Under the No Action Alternative, no impacts to wetlands and water resources within the project 
area would be expected to occur except by regular periodic flooding of the Naches River.  These 
impacts may include erosion, scour, channel migration, and a loss of vegetation due to excessive 
river volume and flow velocities.  Such actions would affect the quantity and quality of wetlands 
and water resources in the project vicinity and along downstream portions of the Naches River.

Alternative 2  Proposed Action
Construction of the new roadway further away from the Naches River would reduce erosive 
conditions to the new roadbed.  Construction of the new road bed would not require mechanized 
vegetation or soil disturbance to wetlands or other water resources nor does it have the potential 
to affect the nearby wetland.  However, leaving a portion of the existing roadbed (not to be 
county maintained) presents the continued opportunity that future flooding and erosive flows 
would erode the existing road.  Future erosion of the existing road would temporarily reduce 
water quality and add additional sediments in adjacent wetlands and downstream water resources 
during flood events.  Water quality would return to background conditions as floodwaters 
subside and possible erosion of the existing roadbed ceases during each flood event.

4.4	VEGETATION
The vegetative community in the project vicinity is a mosaic of interspersed herbaceous, shrub, 
and tree habitats.  Shrub and tree habitats dominate the area between the existing Lewis Road 
and the Naches River.  Herbaceous and shrub habitats dominate the site of the new Lewis Road 
relocation.  There are approximately 45-50 trees in the project vicinity, including one small stand 
of ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) situated on the north side of the proposed relocated 
roadbed.  Trees identified in the project vicinity include ponderosa pine and black cottonwood 
(Populus balsamifera).  Shrubs included willows (Salix sp.), roses (Rosa sp.), and red-osier 
dogwood (Cornus sericea).  Various unidentified grasses, soft rush (Juncus effusus), slender rush 
(Juncus tenuis), reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), klamath weed (Hypericum 
perforatum), unidentified sedges, and various common weed species were clustered throughout 
the herbaceous community.
 
4.4.1	Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1  No Action 
Under the No Action Alternative, no adverse impacts to vegetation are anticipated.

Alternative 2  Proposed Action
The Proposed Action would have little impact on vegetation.  The realignment takes advantage, 
to the maximum extent possible, of an existing but rarely used off-road path.  Removal of 
commonly found herbaceous and shrub species would occur along the proposed road 
realignment.  The realignment mostly avoids the dominant unique vegetative feature in the 
project area, a stand of ponderosa pines.  Three to four pines may be removed depending on the 
final alignment.  If necessary, the County may plant replacement pines.  Some of the impacts 
from the new road alignment would be offset by removal of a portion of the existing Lewis 
Road.  The portion of existing Lewis Road to be removed would be excavated to surrounding 
grade and revegetated with hydroseed.  The project would not appreciably increase the presence 
of common weedy species beyond what is already found in the project vicinity.  Yakima County 
would monitor the revegetated section for one season to control any invasive species that appear.    

4.5	BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Undeveloped floodplain habitats are highly productive ecosystems that service the majority of 
resident and migratory fish and wildlife species.  These floodplain ecosystems are particularly 
valuable in the arid portions of eastern Washington.  They serve as fertile corridors where 
animals concentrate in and travel through because of the scarcity of water in the broader 
landscape.  Floodplain ecosystems also often contain species that cannot survive in the 
surrounding arid landscape.  Where the urban built environment intersperses with the wildland 
ecosystems, the value of the floodplain habitats increases exponentially because these pockets of 
natural habitat provide oases for fish and wildlife to pass through or survive in the wildland-
urban interface.  Wildlife within the project vicinity includes songbirds, birds of prey, waterfowl, 
deer, small mammals, reptiles/amphibians, and fish (also see Sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.2).

4.5.1	Federally Listed Species and Critical Habitat

Lists of federally endangered and threatened species and designated critical habitats with the 
potential to occur in Yakima County and/or the Naches River (fish) were obtained from the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 
on December 1, 2008 and are included in Appendix B (USFWS 2008, NMFS 2008).  Six animal 
species and one plant species are listed as endangered or threatened by the USFWS and NMFS 
(Table 1).  Critical habitat is designated for three of the threatened species (Table 1).  
Table 1.  Federally endangered and threatened species potentially occurring in the project 
vicinity.

Species				Status		Potential to occur in project vicinity		Critical Habitat Status

Animal Species
Steelhead - Middle Columbia 
River DPS (
Onchorhynchus mykiss)		Threatened			Yes					Designated

Bull trout  - Clombia River 
DPS (Salvelinus confluentus)	Threatened			Yes					Designated

Gray Wolf (Canis lupus)		Endangered			Yes

Grizzly bear 
(Ursus arctos horribilis)	Threatened			Yes

Marble murrelet 
(Brachyramphus marmoratus)	Threatened			No

Northern spotted owl 
(Strix occidentalis caurina)	Threatened			No					Designated


Plant Species

Ute ladies-tresses 
(plant; Spiranthes diluvialis)	Threatened			Yes


A site investigation performed on November 25, 2008 identified that no suitable habitat is 
available for the marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) or the northern spotted owl 
(Strix occidentalis caurina) in the project vicinity.  Steelhead (Onchorhynchus mykiss) and bull 
trout (Salvelinus confluentus) occupy the Naches River in the project vicinity, with the Naches 
River designated as critical habitat for both species.  Occasional gray wolf (Canis lupus) and 
grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) observations occur in eastern Yakima County closer to the 
Cascade Mountains.  The potential for these two species to occur in the project vicinity is remote 
because of their habit of avoiding heavily populated urban areas.  The Utes ladies-tresses orchid 
(Spiranthes diluvialis) has only been identified in Washingtons Chelan and Okanagon Counties. 
The habitat conditions where the Utes ladies-tresses were observed are similar to the ecological 
conditions in the project vicinity (WNHP 2000).  Further detailed analysis of threatened and 
endangered species and designated critical habitats is described in the projects Biological 
Assessment and the Biological Assessment Addendum Letter (Appendix C).

4.5.2 Migratory Birds
The project areas provide habitat for a variety of migratory birds, including songbirds and birds 
of prey.  The USFWS Office of Migratory Bird Management maintains a list of migratory birds 
(50 CFR 10.13).  The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended, provides federal 
protections for migratory birds, their active nests, eggs, and parts from harm, sale, or other 
injurious actions.  The act contains no take provisions that enforce these protections.

4.5.3	Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1  No Action
The No Action Alternative would have no adverse affects to endangered and threatened 
terrestrial wildlife and plant species because no new land clearing or additional urbanization 
would occur. 
 
This alternative could adversely affect fish species temporarily as future flood events would 
erode Lewis Road.  Erosive flood events would reduce water quality standards because of 
reduced turbidity, increased sediments, increased pollutants as the existing road erodes during 
flood flows.  These impacts to fish species would dissipate after an erosive flood event subsides.

Alternative 2  Proposed Action
The Proposed Action Alternative would not adversely affect listed threatened or endangered 
terrestrial species. No listed species are actively using the project area or have been recently 
sighted in the project vicinity.

This alternative could affect fish species as future flood events would erode the section of the 
original Lewis Road that remains in place.  Erosive flood events would temporarily reduce water 
quality standards because of reduced turbidity, increased sediments, and increased pollutants as 
the existing road erodes during flood flows.  These impacts to fish species would dissipate after 
an erosive flood event subsides, similar to the No Action Alternative.

Road construction activities would include vegetation removal and ground disturbances, which 
have the potential to directly and indirectly affect migratory birds.  However, potentially 
negative impacts to migratory birds would be eliminated or greatly reduced by avoiding 
vegetation and land clearing activities during the most sensitive portion of the breeding season 
(early March through July).  If seasonal restrictions are not practicable, a pre-construction survey 
to identify active nests should be conducted by a qualified biologist familiar with local bird 
species prior to any disturbing activities.

4.6	HISTORIC, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.6.1	Historic Resources

Examples of historic resources include canals, railroads, residences, and other buildings. An 
online database of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and a statewide inventory of 
Washington Heritage Register were reviewed in December 2008 via the Washington Information 
System for Architectural and Archaeological Records Data system .  There do not appear to be 
any NRHP- or state-listed resources located within a one-half mile radius of the Lewis Road 
realignment project area. 

An inventory of historic resources was recently conducted along the proposed Lewis Road 
realignment as a component of a broader road improvement project (Komen 2007).  Though 
none were recorded within the Lewis Road realignment Area of Potential Effects (APE), five 
historic resources including three residences, a retaining wall associated with the Naches-Tieton 
Highway, and the Johncox Ditch, were inventoried within one mile of the Lewis Road projects 
APE (Komen 2007).  None of these resources were recommended as eligible for the National 
Register of Historic Places, and no additional work was recommended.  The Washington 
Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) concurred with these findings in 
a letter dated November 14, 2007. 
     
4.6.2	Archaeological and Cultural Resources

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) holds that activities occurring on 
federal lands, or those that require federal permits or use federal funds, undergo a review process 
to protect cultural resources that are or may be eligible for listing on the NRHP.  

The entire proposed project area has been subjected to previous inventory efforts that meet 
current archaeological site identification and reporting standards.  An intensive cultural resources 
inventory of the Lewis Road realignment APE was recently completed as part of a Yakima 
County road improvement project (Komen 2007).  Tribal consultation was initiated during the 
cultural resources inventory.  This investigation included a review of existing site records and 
prior inventory work that is maintained at the DAHP; a review of historical maps and land 
records and other background information; a pedestrian survey and exploratory subsurface 
shovel testing; and inventory of historic resources and archaeological resources.   

The 2007 investigation addressed the Lewis Road proposed alignment as a component of a 
broader road improvement project.  Based on a literature review and review of files at DAHP, no 
previously-recorded resources were located within the projects APE.  The proposed Lewis Road 
realignment was found to run through the former Boise Cascade Lumber Mill location; two 
foundations related to the Boise Cascade Lumber Mill were observed but were determined to be 
less than 50 years old and were therefore not recorded (Komen 2007:8).  Ground surface 
visibility was excellent at the time of survey, and therefore no shovel testing was conducted 
along the Lewis Road alignment (Komen 2007:4,8).  No archaeological resources or Traditional 
Cultural Properties were identified along the Lewis Road realignment as a result of this 
investigation, and no additional cultural resources work was recommended (Komen 2007:10).  
DAHP concurred with these findings in a letter dated November 14, 2007.

4.6.3	Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1  No Action
Because no federal activity would occur under the No Action Alternative, no requirement for 
compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA exists.  Archaeological sites and historic resources 
would continue to be at the same risk level for potential flood damages. 

Alternative 2  Proposed Action
The Proposed Action has the potential to adversely affect archaeological deposits during 
construction, both by disturbing the spatial integrity of a site and by damaging individual 
artifacts.  The results of a cultural resources surface survey (Komen 2007) suggest that the 
proposed Lewis Road realignment was previously disturbed by construction and operation of a 
former Boise Cascade Lumber Mill.  No significant (NRHP-eligible) cultural resources were 
found to be located within the project area.  Therefore, the Proposed Action would not affect any 
known resources.  However, given the proximity to the Naches River, and the inability of a 
pedestrian survey to identify potential, buried cultural resources, it is possible that as-yet 
unidentified resources could be disturbed by the Proposed Action.  In the event of an 
unanticipated discovery during construction, in compliance with various state and Federal laws 
protecting cultural resources, including Section 106 of the NHPA, all construction work shall 
cease in the immediate vicinity of the find until appropriate parties (including the SHPO) are 
consulted and an appropriate plan is established.

4.7	SOCIOECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (EO 12898)

Executive Order (EO) 12898, Environmental Justice, directs federal agencies to identify and 
address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 
effects on minority and low-income populations in the US resulting from federal programs, 
policies, and activities.  Socioeconomic and demographic data for residents in the project vicinity 
was studied to determine if a disproportionate number (defined as greater than 50 percent) of 
minority or low-income persons have the potential to be affected by the alternatives. 

Alternative 1  No Action
Because no federal activity would occur under the No Action Alternative, no requirement for 
compliance with EO 12898 exists.  A greater potential for flooding and economic loss would 
continue to exist.  

Alternative 2  Proposed Action
U.S. Census Bureau data for Yakima County was used to identify the minority and low-income  
compositions of the study area, which is located in Block Group 2 (within Census Tract 29).  
Census 2000 data at the county level and census block group level was reviewed.  In Yakima 
County and Block Group 2, the minority population ranges from 34 percent to 17 percent 
respectively.  The poverty level for Yakima County was 20 percent, while the poverty level in 
Block Group 2 was four percent.  As the project vicinity has a lower percentage of minorities and 
residents below poverty level, the Proposed Action would not cause adverse economic impacts 
and would comply with EO 12898. 

NOTES for Section 4.7: 

A minority person is a person who is: (1) Black (a person having origins in any of the black 
racial groups of Africa); (2) Hispanic (a person of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or 
South American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race); (3) Asian American 
(a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, the 
Indian subcontinent, or the Pacific Islands); or (4) American Indian and Alaskan Native (a person 
having origins in any of the original people of North America and who maintains cultural 
identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition).

Low-income is identified as one whose median household income is at or below the Department of 
Health and Human Services poverty guidelines.  Income data based on Department of Health and Human 
Services (HHS) guidelines are difficult to gather, so Census Bureau data are often used for 
environmental justice analyses. 
 

SECTION FIVE - CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA requires an 
assessment of cumulative effects during the decision-making process for federal projects.  
Cumulative effects are defined as the impact on the environment which results from the 
incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 
future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other 
actions (40 CFR 1508.7).  Cumulative effects are considered for both the No Action and 
Proposed Action alternatives.  Cumulative effects were determined by combining the effects of 
the alternative with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.  

While the proposed roadway location would remain within the floodplain, no significant 
cumulative impacts would occur from the Proposed Action Alternative.  While some terrestrial 
habitat would be eliminated, due to the limited scope of the work and the proposed mitigation no 
loss of any sensitive species is expected that would contribute a measurable amount to the 
cumulative effects.  The road relocation would not result in increased capacity, nor are there any 
plans for future land use development in the area.  Other nearby road projects in Yakima County 
include several safety improvements to the South Naches and Naches-Tieton Roads, including 
widening roads and improving roadway alignment.    


SECTION SIX - PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

FEMA is the lead federal agency for conducting the NEPA compliance process for the relocation 
project.  As the lead agency, FEMA expedites the preparation and review of NEPA documents, 
responds to the inquiries of residents surrounding the project area, meets the spirit and intent of 
NEPA, and complies with all NEPA provisions.

A public notice is required for this draft EA.  The public will have the opportunity to comment 
on the EA for 30 days after the publication of the public notice.  The notice identifies the action, 
location of the proposed site, participants, location of the draft EA, and who to write to provide 
comments.  FEMA will review all written comments submitted for identification of any 
significant issues that need to be addressed and will incorporate them into the final EA, as 
appropriate. 
 
Public involvement is ongoing and had begun before the initiation of this EA.  The public has 
been notified in the past of the intent to carry out this action in public meetings during the 
preparation of the Naches River Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan, the public 
open houses for the plan, and the meetings with the Town of Naches prior to adoption of the 
CFHMP by Naches.  Two public meetings were held in May 2007 with direct mailings sent to 
the residents prior to the meetings.  This project is a component of a larger project on South 
Naches Road.  Several meetings were held in the vicinity to discuss the potential project 
alignment, with the most recent meeting in January 2006 where the final project alignment was 
presented to the public. 
  
The following two plans are relevant to public involvement efforts supporting this EA.

Naches River Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan

Public and agency involvement for the Naches River CFHMP was achieved by forming an 
advisory committee whose membersrepresentatives of public and private organizations and 
agency representativesassisted in establishing plan goals and objectives, identifying flood 
problems, and evaluating alternative solutions to flood problems. Additional agency 
representatives were contacted as needed throughout the plan preparation, and contact was 
maintained with Ecology to ensure compliance with Flood Control Assistance Account Program 
(FCAAP) requirements. Consensus by the group on the plans recommendations ensures 
successful implementation of the Naches River CFHMP (Tetra Tech 2005).

Upper Yakima River Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan

Public and agency involvement for the Upper Yakima River CFHMP was achieved by forming 
an Advisory Committee of 22 members who provided input through meetings and document 
review.  The members represented the public, private organizations and agencies.  Additional 
agency representatives were contacted as needed throughout the plan preparation, and contact 
with Ecology was maintained to ensure compliance with FCAAP requirements (KCM 2007).  


SECTION SEVEN - REQUIRED PERMITS AND COMPLIANCE

Yakima County is required to obtain and comply with all required local, state, and federal 
permits and approvals prior to implementing the Proposed Action Alternative.  Yakima County 
is required to apply, obtain and comply with both a floodplain permit and a no-rise certification 
prior to any construction activities.  Development at the Proposed Action Alternative site shall 
comply with the approved site plan.  Any expansion or alteration of this use beyond that initially 
approved would require a new or amended permit.  Construction should occur during non-flood 
seasons, but in the event of construction with a flood season all construction equipment would 
need to be staged in an area not susceptible to flood events.  

In the event that historically or archaeologically significant materials or sites (or evidence 
thereof) are discovered during the implementation of the project, the project shall be halted 
immediately and all reasonable measures taken to avoid or minimize harm to property.  The 
County would then be required to consult with FEMA and the SHPO for further guidance.


SECTION EIGHT - CONCLUSION

The draft EA evaluated potentially significant resources that could be affected.  The evaluation 
resulted in identification of no significant impacts associated with the resources of climate, 
geology and soils; floodplains; wetlands and water resources; vegetation; biological resources 
(endangered species act); historic, archaeological, and cultural resources; and socioeconomic and 
environmental justice.  Obtaining and implementing permit requirements along with appropriate 
Best Management Practices will avoid or minimize any effects associated with the action.  
Should no significant impacts be identified during the public comment period, it is recommended 
that a finding of no significant environmental impact to the human or natural environment be 
issued for the Proposed Action Alternative.


SECTION NINE - REFERENCES

Chorley, R. J., S.A. Schumm and D.E. Sugden. 1984. Geomorphology. Methuen and Co. Ltd., 
London. 607p.

KCM, Inc., and Otak.  2007.  Upper Yakima River Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management 
Plan Update, Yakima County.  June.

Komen, Dana.  2007.	 Cultural Resources Survey for the Yakima County Public Services South 
Naches/Naches-Tieton Road Improvement Project, Yakima County, Washington.  Short 
Report 937, Archaeological and Historical Services, Eastern Washington University.  
Prepared for Yakima County.  On file at the Washington Department of Archaeology and 
Historic Preservation, Olympia. 

National Marine Fisheries Service.  2008.  Endangered Species Act Status of West Coast Salmon 
and Steelhead, updated February 26, 2008.  Available at:  http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/ESA-
Salmon-Listings/Salmon-Populations/Index.cfm .  National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Regional Office, Seattle, 
Washington.

Tetra Tech, and KCM, Inc.  2005.  Naches River Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management 
Plan Update, Yakima County.  February.

______.  2003.  Naches River Channel Migration Study, Yakima County.  October.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  2008.  Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, and 
Candidate Species for Yakima County, Washington, updated July 24, 2008.  Available at:  
http://www.fws.gov/easternwashington/species/countySppLists.html.  Upper Columbia 
Fish and Wildlife Office, Spokane, Washington. 

Washington Natural Heritage Program and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.  2000.  Field Guide to 
Washingtons Rare Plants.  Cooperative Project between Washington Department of 
Natural Resources,  Natural Heritage Program, Olympia, Washington and Bureau of 
Reclamation, Spokane District, Spokane, Washington.

Washington State Department of Ecology.  Floods website.  Accessed December 2008.  
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/floods/index.html


APPENDIX A - FIGURES 

Figure 1  Vicinity Map:  This map shows an outline of the project area (just southwest 
			  of the City of Naches) with respect to the Naches area and the State of Washington.

Figure 2  Proposed Project:  An overlay of the floodplain and floodway is shown over the proposed project 
				(removal of a small portion of the existing road, the wetland in the southwest 
				corner of the site, and the location of the new roadway).

Figure 3  National Wetland Inventory:  There are two wetlands north of the project area along the Naches River, 
					"Freshwater Emergent Wetland" and "Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetlands". 

Figure 4  5-Year Flood Event:  The new road alignment would provide unhindered access to residents during 5-Year floods.

Figure 5  10-Year Flood Event: The new road alignment would provide safer access during 10-year floods (approx. 0-2ft water cover on road)

Figure 6  25-Year Flood Event: The new road alignment would provide safer access during 25-year floods (approx. 1-2ft water cover on road)


APPENDIX B - U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE SPECIES LISTS 

YAKIMA COUNTY 
Updated 7/24/2008 


LISTED 

Endangered 

Gray wolf (Canis lupus) 

Threatened 

Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)  Columbia River distinct population segment 
Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) 
Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) 
Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) 
Spiranthes diluvialis (Ute ladies-tresses), plant 


Designated 


Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl 
Critical habitat for the Columbia River distinct population segment of the bull trout 

CANDIDATE 

Fisher (Martes pennanti) - West Coast distinct population segment 
Greater sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus)  Columbia Basin distinct population segment 
Mardon skipper (Polites mardon), butterfly 
Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) 

SPECIES OF CONCERN 

Animals 

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (delisted, monitor status) 
Black swift (Cypseloides niger) 
Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) 
Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) 
Larch Mountain salamander (Plethodon larselli) 
Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) 
Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) 
Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) 
Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) 
Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) 
Pallid Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens) 
Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) (Delisted, monitor status) 
Redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 
River lamprey (Lampetra ayresi) 
Sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciosus) 
Sharptail snake (Contia tenius) 
Townsends ground squirrel (Spermophilis townsendii) 
Western brook lamprey (Lampetra richardsoni) 
Western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus griseus) 
Westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi) 
Wolverine (Gulo gulo) 


Vascular Plants 


Astragalus columbianus (Columbia milk-vetch) 
Calochortus longebarbatus var. longebarbatus (Long-bearded sego lily) 
Castilleja cryptantha (Obscure indian-paintbrush) 
Cryptantha leucophaea (Gray cryptantha) 
Cypripedium fasciculatum (Clustered ladys-slipper) 
Erigeron basalticus (Basalt daisy) 
Lomatium tuberosum (Hoovers desert-parsley) 
Pinus albicaulis (Whitebark pine) 
Sisyrinchium sarmentosum (Pale blue-eyed grass) 
Tauschia hooveri (Hoovers tauschia) 


APPENDIX C - BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT ADDENDUM LETTER 

      								Mark Eberlein
      								FEMA- Region X
      								130 228th Street SW
      								Bothell, WA 98021-9796


								December 16, 2008


U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Attn:  Robert Newman
Upper Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office
11103 East Montgomery Drive
Spokane, Washington  99206

And

National Marine Fisheries Service
Attn:  Steve Landino, State Director
510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 103
Lacey, Washington  98503


Re:   South Naches River Road Re-Alignment Project, Yakima County, WA.  
      USFWS Reference:  1-9-04-I-177 (File #807.4000).  
      NMFS Tracking No.:  2004/00332


Dear Mr. Newman and Mr. Landino:

In March of 2004, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) 
submitted a Biological Assessment (BA) for informal consultation to the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 
(collectively the Services) for the South Naches River Road Re-Alignment Project in 
Yakima County, Washington (WSDOT Project #LA05467).  Concurrence letters from 
the USFWS (dated April 8, 2004) and from the NMFS (dated July 7, 2004) were received 
by WSDOT.  Since this time, the project has not been built and several changes to the 
project have occurred including a change in the action agency, a project design change, 
the designation of critical habitat for bull trout, and the delisting of the bald eagle.  The 
effects analysis determinations however, have not changed.  

On May 31, 2007 the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) received an 
application from Yakima County requesting funding through the Hazard Mitigation Grant 
Program to re-align a portion of Lewis Road.  Attached to this application were the 
aforementioned Services consultation letters to WSDOT and the original BA prepared by 
WSDOT.  FEMA requests that the USFWS and NMFS review the changes detailed 
below and recommend an appropriate course of action for FEMAs compliance under the 
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA).  

Action Agency

The regulations (50 CFR 402.08) implementing Section 7 of the ESA of 1973, as 
amended, allow a Federal agency to designate a non-Federal representative to conduct 
informal consultations or prepare BAs by giving written notice to the Director for such 
designation.  On May 10, 1999, Gene Fong, Division Administrator of the Federal 
Highways Administrations (FHWA) provided the Services with written notice so 
designating WSDOT as the FHWA non-Federal representative.  

The original BA prepared by WSDOT for FHWA for the South Naches Road Alignment 
Project included the re-alignment of a portion of Lewis Road.  The project has not been 
built.  Under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, FEMA has been requested to provide 
funding to re-align the portion of Lewis Road which was part of the original, larger 
WSDOT project.  FEMA would not fund the entire project discussed in the original BA, 
but only the Lewis Road re-alignment.  Therefore, FHWA would remain responsible for 
the remainder of the project as described in the aforementioned BA and FEMA would 
require ESA and MSA compliance for the Lewis Road re-alignment only. 

Project Description Changes

The original project is described in paragraph one of the Executive Summary in the 2004 
BA which states:  

Yakima County, in cooperation with the FHWA, plans to realign the existing 
roadway beginning at the junction of US 12 in the City of Naches and proceeding 
south on the South Naches Road.  The project will include the addition of 
sidewalks along the first 1370 feet of road beginning at the junction of US 12 and 
S. Naches Road.  A new roadway is proposed just beyond the existing Naches 
River Bridge and will continue southwest to connect with the Naches-Tieton Road 
approximately 2100 feet.  Included with the improvement of South Naches Road, 
Lewis Road will be re-located out of the Naches River floodway.  

As previously stated, FEMA is considering funding the Lewis Road re-alignment only 
and the remainder of the project actions would remain the responsibility of the FHWA.  

Design changes were identified after comparing the description of the Lewis Road re-
alignment between the 2004 BA and the 2007 Hazard Mitigation Application.  The 
changes are as follows:  

1)  Floodway vs. Floodplain.  On page 2 of the original BA, the design included 
relocating Lewis Road 600 feet to the south, away from the Naches River and 
into the area that is not considered the floodway of the Naches River.  Under 
recently changed floodway delineations (FEMA Firm Preliminary Map) , the 
proposed new location is no longer outside the floodway, but under the new 
guidelines it would remain within the floodway, but be located 600 feet 
further away from the river than at present.  
2)  Road Removal.  The original design included removing the entire existing 
roadway and fill.  The new design would remove a portion of Lewis Road 
(approximately 1700 feet) and the remaining roadway would not be 
maintained.  The portion to be removed would be where Lewis Road 
approaches South Naches Road (see Appendix A, Figure 2). 
3)  Stormwater treatment.  On page 2 of the original BA, it states that 
stormwater treatment for the new impervious surface will be through 
infiltration along side slopes adjacent to the roadway and through the use of 
bio-swales.   However, on page 31 it states A stormwater site plan has not 
yet been developed but based on weather patterns and annual precipitation 
with the project action area, it is likely that infiltration, using vegetation on 
embankment slopes, in an appropriate method.  The 2007 application states 
that the relocation of the 1700 feet of Lewis Road will utilize a design to 
mitigate stormwater runoff that was not in effect when the current road was 
designed.  The stormwater treatment for the new road will be through 
infiltration along side slopes adjacent to the roadway.  
4)  In-water work window.  Although there is no in-water work proposed for the 
Lewis Road relocation, the 2004 BA did have some in-water work near the 
South Naches channel.  This work would remain as part of the FHWA project, 
but not as part of the FEMA segment.  The 2004 BA proposed an in-water 
work window of June 1 to October 31.  USFWS (Krupka 2008) commented 
that bull trout are most likely present in the Naches River between mid-
September and mid-July.  As discussed later under the species information, 
sub-adult and adult bull trout are present year-round in the Naches River, but 
an in-water work window of mid-July through mid-September may be more 
appropriate to coincide with the time of reduced numbers of bull trout in the 
project area (as the spawning adults would be in the headwaters and out of the 
project area).  Construction activities would likely occur during the spring and 
summer, but at this time it does not appear necessary to impose an in-water 
work window for the FEMA segment.  To minimize and reduce potential 
sedimentation impacts to Naches River and to support the may affect, not 
likely to adversely affect determinations, it would be prudent for construction 
methods to use Best Management Practices for minimizing dust, debris, and 
construction related pollutants to ensure to the extent practicable that no 
pollutants enter the Naches River and sedimentation is minimized.  
5)  Culverts, Stream Crossings, roadside ditches.  There are no culverts, stream 
crossings, or roadside ditches along the segment of Lewis Road that is 
proposed to be removed.  The road prism is slightly elevated above general 
ground surface grade, but no obvious channels conveying stormwater were 
noted during a site visit on November 25, 2008 by a URS biologist.  

Environmental Baseline

The existing Lewis Road is compact gravel and dirt and the new road would be paved.  

The environmental baseline only describes the riparian area and channel of the South 
Naches River Channel (a historic side channel currently functioning as an irrigation 
canal), rather than the main channel of the Naches River which is the river channel 
potentially impacted by the Lewis Road project's actions.

The BA does not contain matrices of pathways and indicators for the mid-Columbia 
River steelhead DPS (NMFS Matrix) and bull trout (USFWS Matrix).  It does, however, 
have a description of NMFS indicators for the South Naches River Channel in the text.  
In many cases the text does not indicate the status of the NMFS indicators or how the 
project will affect the indicators.  The BA does not address the subpopulation size, 
growth and survival, life history diversity and isolation, and integration of species and 
habitat conditions indicators for bull trout.

The only time the environmental baseline text addresses the main channel of the Naches 
River and its riparian area is for the Large Woody Debris, Pool Frequency and Quality, 
and off-channel habitat indicators.  For those indicators, the text states that the re-
alignment of the Lewis Road and potential subsequent levee setback would re-connect 
the Naches River with a portion of its floodplain, providing a beneficial effect.  This is 
incorrect for two reasons.  First, page 2 of the BA states that a levee setback is not 
directly associated with the project, but that Yakima County has funds for a possible 
levee setback.  Secondly, a levee between Lewis Road and the Naches River was not 
found to exist during a November 25, 2008 site visit by a URS biologist.

Finally, recent changes of FEMA mapping of the Naches River Floodway have extended 
the extent of the floodway to encompass the proposed new alignment of the Lewis Road 
(see Appendix A, Figure 2).

Species Evaluation

The status or critical habitat designations have changed from those listed in the South 
Naches Road Re-alignment BA for the following species.  In the case of chum salmon 
and bull trout, errors in the BA are also addressed.

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus): 

The bald eagle has been de-listed under the ESA by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
and is no longer a species considered in a Biological Assessment.

Bull Trout (Salvelinus confluentus):

The BA makes the statement that surveys in 2001 found only two bull trout in the Naches 
basin.  This is incorrect and the survey referenced was a Forest Service survey of a 
limited area of the Naches basin.  The Naches River fluvial bull trout stock spawns 
primarily in the American River, Rattlesnake Creek, and Crow Creek, with limited 
spawning occurring in other headwater tributaries of the Naches River (USFWS 2001).  
Spawning surveys of the three major spawning tributaries (1999-2007) indicate 
approximately 88 redds per year (USFWS 2001, Anderson 2008).  Adult and sub-adult 
bull trout occur year-round throughout the Naches River mainstem, including the reach of 
the Naches River in the vicinity of the project (Anderson 2008).  Mature bull trout do not 
spawn every year (but more like every other year), and therefore non-spawning but adult 
bull trout are present in the project area all year.  The only change during the spawning 
season, is that a portion of the mature bull trout leave the project area to spawn in the 
headwaters in late summer and early fall.  The 2004 BA appears to primarily concern 
itself with the likelihood of bull trout occurring in the South Naches River Channel.

Bull Trout critical habitat:

The BA references critical habitat for bull trout proposed for designation on November 
29, 2002 (67 FR 71236-71438).  The proposed critical habitat included the entire Naches 
River basin below naturally occurring impassable barriers, with a lateral extent defined as 
the bankfull width of the stream channel.

A final rule designating bull trout critical habitat was published on September 26, 2005, 
after the BA was written (70 FR 56212-56311).  The final rule excluded portions of the 
Naches River basin from critical habitat designation, but the mainstem of the Naches 
River in the project vicinity remained designated as critical habitat for bull trout with the 
same lateral extent as defined in the proposed critical habitat designation.

Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) critical habitat:

Critical habitat for Canada Lynx was proposed on November 9, 2005, after the BA was 
written (70 FR 68294).  Designated critical habitat for Canada lynx was finalized on 
September 9, 2006 (71 FR 66008-66059).  The closest existing designated critical habitat 
for Canada lynx to the project action area is in Chelan County, with no critical habitat in 
the vicinity of the project area.

Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus):

The BA does not mention that critical habitat has been designated on May 24, 1996 for 
the marbled murrelet (61 FR 26256-26320).  Critical habitat for marbled murrelet is not 
designated east of the Cascade Mountain crest, so it is not an issue for this BA.

Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis):  

Critical habitat for northern spotted owl was revised on August 13, 2008 (73 FR 47326-
47374).  Designated critical habitat for northern spotted owl remains essentially the same 
as what was present in the original final rule, with the nearest critical habitat to the 
project area approximately fifteen miles west of the project.
Mid-Columbia River Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss): 

Although steelhead primarily spawn in tributaries (higher up in the watershed), there is 
no barrier to preclude them from spawning in the project area.  The only studies of 
spawning steelhead in the Naches basin have been redd counts, which are highly 
questionable because steelhead primarily spawn in the spring (March-June) when the 
streams are high and turbid (particularly likely to be true in project area).  As a result, 
steelhead redds have only been observed during years of reduced spring flows and 
usually only in tributaries (generally warmer tributaries).  

Mid-Columbia River Steelhead DPS critical habitat:

Critical habitat for mid-Columbia River steelhead is mentioned in the main body of the 
text, but not in the summary table present in the executive summary.  At the time that the 
BA was written, critical habitat was defined as including all portions of the riparian 
habitat that contribute to the functioning of the in-stream habitat.  This would have 
included the entire project action area of the Lewis Road project.  Critical habitat for the 
mid-Columbia River steelhead DPS was revised on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52630).  
The Naches River channel in the vicinity of the project remains designated as critical 
habitat for middle Columbia River steelhead but the lateral extent of critical habitat is 
now defined as the bankfull width of the stream channel.

Chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta) EFH:  

Chum salmon habitat is incorrectly listed as Essential Fish Habitat under the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.  EFH has not been designated for 
chum salmon in the Columbia River watershed.  In addition, although historically present 
in the Naches River basin, chum salmon have been extirpated from the basin and the 
remaining chum salmon population in the Columbia River watershed is considered a 
single ESU (lower Columbia River chum salmon) that has been federally listed as 
threatened and is essentially restricted to the Columbia River watershed downstream 
from Bonneville Dam (with a few hundred fish passing over Bonneville Dam annually 
and none documented to occur in the Naches River watershed).  

Effects Analysis

A final rule designating bull trout critical habitat was published on September 26, 2005, 
after the BA was written (70 FR 56212-56311).  Therefore a supplemental effects 
analysis is provided below. 
In the critical habitat final rule for bull trout, the USFWS defined the eight (8) primary 
constituent elements (PCEs) to be essential for the conservation of bull trout.  All lands 
identified as essential and proposed as critical habitat contains one or more of the PCEs.  
The eight PCEs are identified in bold italics, followed by the effects analysis to that PCE.  
1.	Water temperatures that support bull trout use.  Bull trout have been 
documented in streams with temperatures from 32 to 72 F (0- to 22 C), 
but are found more frequently in temperatures ranging from 36 to 59F 
(2 to 15C):  The project would have no effect on water temperatures that 
support bull trout use.  
2.	Complex stream channels with features such as woody debris, side 
channels, pools, and undercut banks to provide a variety of depths, 
velocities, and instream structures:  The existing conditions of the road 
does contribute fine sediment to the river during high flood events.  There is 
minimal riparian vegetation in this area and the proposed project would 
include vegetation plantings that may improve the riparian area.  Relocating 
the road will marginally improve floodplain function by allowing the river 
to flood naturally on this side of the river as it is confined on the opposite 
bank by a levee.  However, benefits are somewhat reduced because the 
entire road is no longer being removed.  Therefore, flood events will 
continue to scour and erode portions of the road that are not removed.  
3.	Substrates of sufficient amount, size, and composition to ensure success 
of egg and embryo overwinter survival, fry emergence, and young-of-the-
year and juvenile survival:  There is no spawning in this reach of the river.    
4.	A natural hydrograph, including peak, high, low, and base flows within 
historic ranges:  The project will have no effect on peak or base flows. 
5.	Springs, seeps, groundwater sources, and subsurface water to contribute 
to water quality and quantity as a cold water source:  The project activities 
would have no impact on this PCE. 
6.	Migratory corridors with minimal physical, biological, or water quality 
impediments between spawning, rearing, overwintering, and foraging 
habitats, including intermittent or seasonal barriers induced by high 
water temperatures or low flows:  The project will have limited benefit in 
reducing sedimentation impacts to the river because only a portion of the 
road is proposed to be removed.  The existing road is compact dirt and 
gravel and is overtopped during high flood events.  The remaining road will 
no longer be maintained and the impact of that to the river is uncertain.  
7.	An abundant food base including terrestrial organisms of riparian origin, 
aquatic macroinvertebrates, and forage fish:  The project will not reduce 
the quantity or quality of a food base for bull trout.  
8.	Permanent water of sufficient quantity and quality such that normal 
reproduction, growth, and survival are not inhibited:  The project will 
have no impact on water supply.



Revised Effects Determinations

Table 1. Species Effects Determinations

Species				Listing Status-2004		Listing Status-2008		Determination of Effect-2004		Determination of Effect-2008

Bald Eagle				T				Delisted				NE				Delisted

Bull Trout				T				T					NLAA				NLAA

Canada Lynx				T				T					NE				NE

Gray Wolf				T				T					NE				NE

Grizzly Bear				T				T					NE				NE

Marbled Murrelet			T				T					NE				NE

Mid-Columbia Steelhead			T				T					NLAA				NLAA

N. Spotted Owl				T				T					NE				NE

Ute Ladies tresses			T				T					NE				NE



Table 2. Revised Critical Habitat Effects Determinations

Species			Critical Habitat Status-2004		Critical Habitat Status-2008		Determination of Effect-2004	Determination of Effect-2008

Bald Eagle			Not designated				Species delisted, NA			NA				NA

Bull Trout			Proposed				Designated on 9/26/05			Not likely to adversely 
														modify proposed critical 
														habitat				May affect, not likely to adversely affect (NLAA)

Canada Lynx			Not designated				Designated on 9/9/06			NA				NE

Gray Wolf   			Not designated in WA State		Not designated in WA State		NA				NA

Grizzly Bear  			Not designated				Not designated				NA				NA

Marbled Murrelet		Designated on 5/24/96			Still designated			No effects call provided	NE

Mid Columbia Steelhead		Designated 				Revised 9/2/05				NLAA				NLAA

N. Spotted Owl			Designated				Revised on 8/13/08			NE				NE

Ute Ladies tresses  		Not designated				Not designated				NA				NA

Table 3.  EFH Effects Determinations

Essential Fish Habitat For:	2004 Determinations			2008 Determinations

Chinook					NLAA*					No effect

Coho					NLAA*					No effect

*Effects determinations for EFH are different than for ESA species.  The appropriate effects determinations are either 
no effect or adverse affect (see EFH regulations).  


References

Anderson, Eric.  2008.  Personal communication with Eric Anderson (Fisheries Biologist, 
WDFW), December 2, 2008.  Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 
Region 3 Office, Yakima, Washington.

Krupka, J.  2008.  Comments and questions via email in response to the scoping notice 
for Lewis Road Relocation.  December 10, 2008.  

USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service).  2001.  Yakima basin case history for bull trout 
(Salvelinus confluentus).  In U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service bull trout workshop.  
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Columbia River Fisheries Program Office, 
Vancouver, Washington.


APPENDIX D - PROJECT PLANS 

Page One: Transmittal Memo from Gene Soules to Yakima County Public Services.  

Page Two: Vicinity Map showing location of Lewis Road and Naches/Tieton Road projects 

Page Three: Visual representation of roadway cross-sections A, B, and C; where A is the widest and C is the narrowest.

Page Four: Summary of quantities needed for the project (ex: Lewis Road will have 3,690 cubic yards of roadway excavated)

Page Five: Shows the small area of roadway to be removed (on old Boise Building Solutions land)

Page Six:  Shows the plan and profile of the existing roadway east of the portion of road to be removed.

Page Seven:  Plan and profile of the furthest east section of existing roadway, shows construction for the road approach and location of new culvert.

Page Eight:  Plan/profile of Lewis Road, shows removal of fence, narrow roadway, and improvements to existing road and shoulder.

Page Nine:  Shows overall profile of Lewis Road (shallow grade, higher elevation towards Naches Road/western side of road)


APPENDIX E - PROJECT CONDITIONS AND CONSERVATION MEASURES

The following conditions and measures shall be followed:

*The applicants shall obtain all required local, state, and federal permits and approvals 
prior to implementing the Proposed Action Alternative and comply with any and all 
conditions imposed. 

*The applicant is responsible for selecting, implementing, monitoring, and maintaining 
best management practices to control erosion and sediment, reduce spills and pollution, 
and provide habitat protection.

*Any change to the approved scope of work will require re-evaluation for compliance with 
NEPA and other laws and Executive Orders.

*In the event that archaeological or historic materials are discovered during project 
activities, work in the immediate vicinity should be discontinued, the area secured, and 
the State and FEMA notified. 
 
*Construction shall occur during non-flood seasons.  However, should construction be 
required during the flood season, as determined by the local floodplain administrator, all 
construction equipment shall be staged in an area not susceptible to flood events or be 
readily transportable out of the floodplain to avoid any flood damages.   


APPENDIX F - PUBLIC NOTICE

PUBLIC NOTICE
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Draft Environmental Assessment
Lewis Road Relocation and Reconstruction
Yakima County, WA

The US Department of Homeland Securitys Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 
proposes to provide funding to Yakima County for a road relocation and construction project in 
central Washington.  

FEMA prepared a draft environmental assessment (EA) for the proposed project pursuant to the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and FEMAs implementing regulations 
found in 44 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 10.  The EA evaluates alternatives for 
compliance with applicable environmental laws, including Executive Orders #11990 (Protection 
of Wetlands), #11988 (Floodplain Management), and #12898 (Environmental Justice).  Many 
alternatives were evaluated during the development of the Naches River Comprehensive Flood 
Hazard Management Plan (CFHMP) and the Upper Yakima River CFHMP.  The alternatives 
evaluated in the EA are the (1) no action; and (2) reducing flood damage and providing improved 
ingress and egress for residents along Lewis Road by relocating and reconstructing Lewis Road. 
No practicable alternatives outside the floodplain were identified.  

The proposed action, while remaining in the floodplain, would offer some reduction in potential 
road damage and loss of lives from residences traversing it when the road is inundated during 
flood events.  However, the road would still be subject to future damages by virtue of its location 
in the floodplain and floodway.  Further analysis is available in the EA.  

The EA is available for review online at the FEMA environmental website at: 
http://www.fema.gov/plan/ehp/envdocuments  under Region X.  If no significant issues are 
identified during the comment period, FEMA will finalize the EA, issue a Finding of No 
Significant Impact (FONSI) and fund the project.  Unless substantive comments are received, 
FEMA will not publish another notice for this project.  However, should a FONSI be issued, it 
will be available for public viewing at http://www.fema.gov/plan/ehp/envdocuments under 
Region X.

The draft EA is also available for review on February 6, 2009 at the Yakima County Public 
Services Department at 128 N. 2nd Street, Yakima, Washington.

Written comments on the draft EA should directed no later than 5 pm on March 6, 2009 to 
Steven Randolph, Program Manager, FEMA Region 10, 130 228th Street SW, Bothell 
Washington 98021-9796 or by e-mail at steven.randolph@dhs.gov.  Comments can also be faxed 
to 425-487-4613.