2018-07-27 - Environmental Assessment (Final) for HUD Projects (Part 58) - City Park SplashpadYelm City Park Splash Park Environmental
Assessment Determinations and Compliance
Findings for HUD-assisted Projects
Prepared For:
City of Yelm Public Works
Thurston County, Washington
Prepared by:
July 18, 2018
Contents
Environmental Assessment Determinations and Compliance Findings for HUD-assisted Projects ........ 3
Compliance with 24 CFR 50.4, 58.5, and 58.6 Laws and Authorities ................................................. 5
Environmental Assessment Factors .................................................................................................... 15
Environmental Assessment Factors .................................................................................................... 15
Sources ................................................................................................................................................ 20
Appendix A: Airport Hazards Checklist ................................................................................................ 27
Appendix B: Clean Air Act Compliance Checklist ................................................................................ 32
Appendix C: Coastal Zone Management – Washington State Checklist ............................................... 34
Appendix D: Contamination and Toxic Substances ............................................................................... 40
Appendix E: Endangered Species Act Checklist ................................................................................... 47
Biological Assessment ................................................................................................................................ 53
Appendix F: Explosive and Flammable Operations .............................................................................. 94
Appendix G: Farmland Protection Checklist .......................................................................................... 97
Appendix H: Floodplain Management Checklist ................................................................................ 101
Appendix I: Historic Preservation Checklist ........................................................................................ 105
Cultural Resources Survey Report .................................................................................................... 121
Appendix J: Noise Abatement and Control Checklist .......................................................................... 154
Appendix K: Sole Source Aquifers Checklist ..................................................................................... 156
Appendix L: Protection of Wetlands Checklist ................................................................................... 159
Appendix M: Wild and Scenic Rivers Checklist .................................................................................. 164
Appendix N: Environmental Justice Checklist ..................................................................................... 168
Environmental Assessment Determinations and Compliance Findings
for HUD-assisted Projects
24 CFR Part 58
Project Information
Project Name: Yelm City Park, Splash Park
Responsible Entity: Thurston County, Washington
Grant Recipient (if different than Responsible Entity): City of Yelm, WA
State/Local Identifier: CDBG Contract #B-16-UC530007
Preparer: Kara Randall, WHPacific, Inc.
Certifying Officer Name and Title: Shelli Slaughter, Director of Public Health and Social Services,
Thurston County
Grant Recipient (if different than Responsible Entity): Thurston County, WA
Consultant (if applicable): Kara Randall, WHPacific, Inc.
Direct Comments to: Thomas Webster, Thurston County
Project Location:
Yelm City Park is located at 115 Mosman Ave SE, City of Yelm, Washington, east of the intersection of
1st Street and Mossman Ave. The park is in the Southwest Quarter of Section 19, Township 17 North,
Range 2 East (S19172E). The Splash Park will be in the south end of the park adjacent to the existing
Community Center and 1st Street. (Figures 1 and 2).
Description of the Proposed Project [24 CFR 50.12 & 58.32; 40 CFR 1508.25]:
In 2016, the City of Yelm was awarded Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding through
the Thurston County 2013 – 2017 HUD Consolidated Plan to build a wet play area (splash park) in the
existing Yelm City Park. The proposed project will construct an approximately 4000 square foot splash
park consisting of a concrete pad with water play appurtenances and above and below grade features
including a potable water collection and recirculation system. The splash park will be constructed to
and accommodate all physical abilities and age groups and will benefit all Yelm residents. The project
also includes repurposing of storage buildings for a recirculating water treatment system.
The splash park will be adjacent to other new park features including new a playground, new picnic
table and bench seating areas around both features, and walkways that are funded separately through
the Washington State 2018 Local and Community Projects Budget (WA State 2017-19 Capital Budget).
Total project area (new splash park and playground, picnic table, benches, walkways, and work staging
areas) will be approximately 9000 SF.
Statement of Purpose and Need for the Proposal [40 CFR 1508.9(b)]:
According to the 2016 update to the 2013 -2017 Thurston County and Olympia Regional Consolidation
Plan, the city of Yelm is the only qualifying low to moderate income community in Thurston County
with 49% of the residents considered low income (plan available at:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/health/sscp/PDF/2016HUDAnnualPlan_FINALDRAFT_071416.pdf).
The proposed splash park will add a new unique recreational water facility to the existing Yelm City
Park. The Splash Park will be adjacent to a new playground area and will be in a highly visible location
adjacent to the existing Community Center and 1st Street. The splash park will be constructed to
accommodate all physical abilities and age groups and will create a water recreational activity
accessible to all members of the community. Yelm City Park is near public transit, and easily accessible
by nearby sidewalks and the nearby Yelm – Tenino Bike trail.
Existing Conditions and Trends [24 CFR 58.40(a)]:
Yelm City Park is a 3.73 acres park made up largely of a large mowed grass lawn, scattered shade trees,
restroom building, maintenance building, benches, covered and uncovered picnic areas, an unpaved
parking area on the parks south end, and a new community center building and paved parking lot on
the parks east side. Park vegetation in the project area consists of a mix of non-native lawn grasses
and non-native herbaceous species commonly found in lawns in Western Washington including
narrowleaf plantain (Plantago lanceolata), broadleaf plantain (Plantago major) clover species
(Trifolium spp.), and hairy cat’s ear (Hypochoeris radicata).
The park hosts several community events throughout the year including a car show, Christmas in the
Park, circus, Patriot Day, Prairie Days, Prairie Street Rod Association Car Show, and the Yelm Lion’s Club
Easter Egg Hunt.
The park is within the Nisqually River Watershed (WRIA 11). Yelm Creek is located approximately 0.4
miles NNE of the park at its closest point and the headwaters for Thompson Creek are located
approximately 0.7 miles SW of the park (Thurston County 2017) (Figure 3). There are no surface water
connections between Yelm City Park and these waterways.
The NRCS Web Soil Survey soil map for Yelm City Park shows the project area soils consist of Spanaway
gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 3%. Spanaway gravely sandy loam is a friable, dark, well-drained soil formed
on glacial outwash terraces and plains from glacial outwash and volcanic ash (NCRS Web Soil Survey
website: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm). Past agricultural and current
managed park land use has altered the soils in Yelm City Park and the cultural resources survey
conducted by WHPacific staff found that much of the Spanaway gravelly sandy loam has been removed
by modern landscape modification, but the underlying glacial outwash was encountered during
subsurface sampling.
The cultural resources survey report identified no cultural resources, new or previously identified in
the within the project’s area of potential effect (APE) and determined that the proposed splash park
project would have no effects upon cultural resources and no adverse effect to any potentially eligible
structures within the APE. The Washington State Department of Historic Preservation (DHAP) issued a
letter of concurrence with this finding, and no comments were received from interested parties with
in the 30-day comment window (project’s cultural resources survey report is attached to Appendix I).
Because Spanaway gravely sandy loam is a preferred soil for ESA listed Mazama pocket gophers, three
pocket gopher surveys were required to meet USFWS ESA compliance for this project. No evidence of
pocket gophers was observed during these surveys and the USFWS issued a letter of concurrence that
the project “may affect but will not likely adversely affect” the Yelm subspecies of Mazama pocket
gopher (project’s biological assessment is attached to Appendix E).
Funding Information
Grant Number HUD Program Funding Amount
B-16-UC-53-0007 CDBG $305,019.00
Estimated Total HUD Funded Amount: $305,019.00
Estimated Total Project Cost (HUD and non-HUD funds) [24 CFR 58.32(d)]: $350,000
Compliance with 24 CFR 50.4, 58.5, and 58.6 Laws and Authorities
Record below the compliance or conformance determinations for each statute, executive order, or regulation.
Provide credible, traceable, and supportive source documentation for each authority. Where applicable,
complete the necessary reviews or consultations and obtain or note applicable permits of approvals. Clearly
note citations, dates/names/titles of contacts, and page references. Attach additional documentation as
appropriate.
Compliance Factors: Statutes,
Executive Orders, and
Regulations listed at 24 CFR
§58.5 and §58.6
Are formal
compliance
steps or
mitigation
required?
Compliance determinations
STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS LISTED AT 24 CFR 50.4 and 58.6
Airport Hazards
24 CFR Part 51 Subpart D
Yes No From a review of the airport locations on EPA’s
NEPAssist website
(https://www.epa.gov/nepa/nepassist), Yelm City
Park is not within 3000 of a civilian airport or
15,000 feet of a military airport and so is not
within an airport Clear Zone or Accident Potential
Zone. The nearest military airports are Gray Army
Field (46,010 feet N of the park) and McChord
airfield (72,372.6 feet N) and the nearest general-
purpose airport (Western Airpark) is 13,862 feet
SE of the park.
Please see the attached Clear Zones (CZ) and
Accident Potential Zones (APZ) Checklist and maps
(Appendix A).
Coastal Barrier Resources
Coastal Barrier Resources Act, as
amended by the Coastal Barrier
Improvement Act of 1990 [16
USC 3501]
Yes No
There are no Coastal Barrier Resources System
units in Washington State. Therefore, the project
is compliant with the Coastal Barrier Resources
Act. (Source: USFWS Coastal Barrier Resources
System website:
https://www.fws.gov/cbra/maps/index.html).
Flood Insurance
Flood Disaster Protection Act of
1973 and National Flood
Insurance Reform Act of 1994 [42
USC 4001-4128 and 42 USC
5154a]
Yes No
According to FEMA National Flood Hazard Map
Firmette # 53067C0353E (eff. 10/16/2012) Yelm
City Park is in an area of minimal flood hazard and
is outside the 100-year and 500-year flood hazard
zone (unshaded Zone X) and so is not located in a
Special Flood Hazard Area.
The FEMA Community Status Book Report for
Washington lists The City of Yelm (Community ID
530310#) as a community participating in the
National Flood Insurance Program
(https://www.fema.gov/cis/WA.pdf). But, as Yelm
City Park is not located in a Special Flood Hazard
Area, the project does not require flood
insurance.
Please see the project area Firmette map attached
to the Floodplain Management Checklist
(Appendix H).
STATUTES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND REGULATIONS LISTED AT 24 CFR 50.4 & 58.5
Clean Air
Clean Air Act, as amended,
particularly section 176(c) & (d);
40 CFR Parts 6, 51, 93
Yes No
From a review of the EPA Nonattainment Areas
for Criteria Pollutants (Green Book)
(https://www.epa.gov/green-book) and NEPAssist
(https://www.epa.gov/nepa/nepassist) websites,
Yelm City Park is not in a nonattainment or
maintenance status area for any of the criteria
pollutants and meets Clean Air Act conformity
requirements.
Please see the attached Clean Air Act Compliance
Checklist with attached NEPAssist report
(Appendix B).
Coastal Zone Management
Coastal Zone Management Act,
sections 307(c) & (d)
Yes No
The project is compliant with the requirements
Coastal Zone Management Act.
All of Thurston County, WA is protected by the
federal Coastal Zone Management Act and WA
State Shoreline Management Act (RCW Chapter
90.58).
Yelm City Park is landlocked, is not near a
protected coastal zone or shoreline, and does not
have surface water connections to nearby streams
or waterbodies. The city of Yelm has adopted the
Thurston County Shoreline Mater Program to
implement the state’s Shoreline Management Act.
The closest protected Shoreline of the State to
Yelm City Park is Yelm Creek, approximately 0.4
miles from the park and project area (Thurston
County Shorelines of the State WAC 172-18-380
available at:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=17
3-18-380). As the park and project area is outside
Yelm Creek’s 200 ft shoreline buffer, the project
complies with the requirements of the WA State
Shoreline Management Act.
Please see Coastal Zone Management –
Washington State Checklist with Certification of
Consistency with Washington’s Coastal Zone
Management Program, and map attached
showing distances to the nearest waterbodies
(Appendix C).
Contamination and Toxic
Substances
24 CFR Part 50.3(i) & 58.5(i)(2)
Yes No
A review of EPA and Washington Department of
Ecology websites found no evidence of
contamination and toxic substances occurring in
or near Yelm City Park. This includes a review of
the EPA Superfund National Priorities List website
(www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl), and the
EPA’s NEPAssisst website
(https://www.epa.gov/nepa/nepassist) which
show no evidence of Superfund, Brownfield, Toxic
Substances Control Act sites, or sites regulated for
radiation or radioactivity (RADInfo) on or near the
park.
There are two businesses that generate, use,
and/or store hazardous waste on their premises
that are near Yelm City Park and which provide
information about their activities to the EPA as
part of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRAInfo). These are Frontier Prof Dryclean
(~225 feet SW in a shopping center across
Mosman Ave from the park) and Gorders Auto
Rebuild (~550 feet NE of the park). Based on the
EPA’s Enforcement and compliance History Online
(ECHO) website (https://echo.epa.gov/) neither
business has had violations in the past 12-
quarters.
The WA DOE’s What’s in My Neighborhood map
shows seven toxic cleanup sites within a mile of
Yelm and Yelm City Park, all seven require no
further action (NFA)
(https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/neighborhood).
A review of the WA DOE’s Regulated and
Underground Storage Tank data for both active
and inactive facilities data (available through the
DOE’s Toxics Cleanup Program Web Reporting
website:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/tcpwebreporting/rep
ort.aspx) found no underground storage tanks in
Yelm City Park and that the USTs found near the
park (Gorders Auto Rebuild, Nisqually/Tahoma
Valley Golf Course, and at the location of the Yelm
Skate Park) are either permanently closed or have
been removed.
No evidence of contamination or toxic hazards
were seen in Yelm City Park during the three
pedestrian Yelm pocket gopher surveys conducted
between June and October 2017.
Please see attached Toxic Chemicals and
Radioactive Materials checklist with maps, and
ECHO data documentation (Appendix D).
Endangered Species
Endangered Species Act of 1973,
particularly section 7; 50 CFR
Part 402
Yes No
The USFWS IPAC Official Species List for the Yelm
Splash Park project area, issued Oct. 13, 2017, lists
ten federally listed USFWS managed threatened,
endangered, or candidate species potentially
occurring within or near the project boundary,
including marbled murrelet, streaked horned lark,
yellow-billed cuckoo, Oregon spotted frog, bull
trout, golden paint brush, water howellii, and
three sub-species of Mazama pocket gopher
(Yelm, Tenino, and Olympia)
(https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/). Federally listed
threatened Puget Sound Chinook and/or Puget
Sound Steelhead, managed by NOAA Fisheries, are
also know to occur in Yelm Creek, Thompson
Creek, and/or the Nisqually River (Sources: NMFS
West Coast Salmon & Steelhead Listings webpage
http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protect
ed_species/salmon_steelhead/salmon_and_steel
head_listings/salmon_and_steelhead_listings.htm
l and WDFW SalmonScape web mapper
https://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/). No
listed species has designated critical habitat in
Yelm City Park or the adjacent area.
The abbreviated biological assessment prepared
by WHPacific staff for the Yelm Splash Park Project
determined that project would have No Effect on
six species (marbled murrelet, streaked horned
lark, yellow-billed cuckoo, and Oregon spotted
frog) due to the park and project area not meeting
their specific habitat requirements and where the
species are documented to occur relative to the
project area.
The BA also determined that the project would
have No Effect on bull trout, Puget Sound
Chinook, and Puget Sound steelhead because of
the distance between the park and streams/river
with listed species in them (Yelm Creek is
approximately 0.4 miles NNE of the park at its
closest point, the headwaters for Thompson Creek
approximately 0.7 miles SW of the park, and the
Nisqually River 1.95 miles east of the park at its
closest point) and that there are no surface water
connections between the park and any of these
streams/river.
HUD and the Thurston County Public Health and
Social Services Department agreed with the BA’s
“No Effect” determination for these nine species.
The USFWS has no regulatory or statutory
authority for “no effect” determinations and so no
consultation with USFWS was required for these
species.
Since the project area has preferred Mazama
pocket gopher soils and is within the area Yelm
pocket gophers are known to occur, the proposed
project has the potential to impact Yelm pocket
gophers. A review of WDFW’s Priority Habitats
and Species (PHS) on the Web interactive mapper
shows the closest known pocket gopher location
to Yelm City Park is 0.3 miles SW near Mill Rd SE
(https://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/). Since
pocket gopher subspecies populations are in part
defined by the historic locations of their isolated
populations and the project is occurring in the
Yelm pocket gophers’ historic range, the proposed
project may potentially effect Yelm pocket
gophers but will have No Effect on the Olympia
and Tenino pocket gopher subspecies which are
found elsewhere.
Because of the project’s potential effect on Yelm
pocket gophers the USFWS was consulted and
conducted three ESA compliance pocket gopher
surveys at least 30 days apart between August and
October 2017 to look for evidence of Yelm pocket
gopher activity in Yelm City Park. No evidence of
pocket gopher activity was seen during the
surveys. Based upon the surveys finding no
evidence of pocket gopher activity in the
park/project area, the highly disturbed nature of
the park (both soils and vegetation as well as
human use) and the distance to the nearest
known pocket gopher populations the BA
determined that project “may affect, not likely to
adversely affect” Yelm pocket gophers.
The USFWS issued a letter of concurrence with the
BA’s finding that the project is not likely to
adversely affect Yelm Pocket Gophers on February
28th, 2018. Note, this concurrence is in part based
on the information included in the BA, successful
implementation of the best management
practices and minimization measures described in
the BA, and that this action may need to be
reanalyzed if the project is modified in a manner
that causes and effect to a listed species or critical
habitat that was not considered in the
consultation and/or a new species is listed or
critical habitat is designated that may be affected
by this action.
Please see the attached Endangered Species Act
No Effect Guidance for Washington State
Checklist, USFWS letter of concurrence, and
abbreviated BA (Appendix E).
Explosive and Flammable
Hazards
24 CFR Part 51 Subpart C
Yes No
The City of Yelm has two above ground diesel fuel
tanks attached to generators near the water
tower on 2nd St SE just northeast of the project
area. One tank is approximately 200 gallons and is
for the well site below the water tower and the
other is approximately 300 gallons and serves the
public safety building. Using Google Earth, a
conservative estimate of the closest ground
distance between the nearest corner of the
proposed project area to the nearest corner of the
water tower pad is 277.06 feet. Using the HUD
Acceptable Separation Distance (ASD) Electronic
Assessment Tool
(https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental-
review/asd-calculator/) the acceptable distance
for thermal radiation for people (ASDPPU) for a
tank holding a non-cryogenic liquefied gas such as
diesel fuel is 167.48 feet for a 300 gallon tank
141.45 feet for a 200 gallon tank. Since the tanks
are a minimum of 277.06 feet away they are an
acceptable distance from the splash park project
area.
In addition, based on the Google Earth image of
the surrounding area, there is what appears to be
a large tank on private property approximately
508.39 feet from the nearest edge of the project
area. This tank is approximately 12 feet long and
so, based on tanks of comparable size, could hold
approximately 1000 gallons. Since this tank is on
private land there is no information on what type
of liquid it is holding or if it is being used. If the
tank is holding flammable and/or explosive
liquids, according to the HUD Acceptable
Separation Distance Assessment Tool
(https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental-
review/asd-calculator/) the acceptable distance
for a 1000 gallon un-diked tank is 219.03 feet for a
non-cryogenic liquefied gas and 276.57 feet for a
cryogenic liquefied gas. In both cases the project
area is an acceptable separation distance from
this tank.
The project is compliant with explosive and
flammable hazard requirements. Please see
attached Explosive and Flammable Hazards
Checklist and maps (Appendix F).
Farmlands Protection
Farmland Protection Policy Act of
1981, particularly sections
1504(b) and 1541; 7 CFR Part 658
Yes No
The project area is exempt from the Farmlands
Protection Policy Act.
According to the US Census, 2010 Census – Urban
Cluster Reference Map: Yelm, WA (available at:
https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10map/U
AUC_RefMap/uc/uc97642_yelm_wa/DC10UC9764
2.pdf), The city of Yelm is in an Urbanized Area.
According to Thurston County GeoData Center
online maps (http://www.geodata.org/all-map-
layers.html), Yelm City Park is zoned as Open
Space Park (P/OS) and the surrounding area is
zoned for commercial and residential
development. Please see Farmlands Protection
Checklist with attached maps (Appendix G).
Floodplain Management
Executive Order 11988,
particularly section 2(a); 24 CFR
Part 55
Yes No
Floodplain Management regulations do not apply.
Yelm City Park is in an area of minimal flood
hazard and is outside the 100-year and 500-year
flood hazard zone (unshaded Zone X).
Please see attached to the Flood Management
Checklist with FEMA FIRMette map panel
53067C0353E (effective 10/16/2012) (Appendix
H).
Historic Preservation
National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966, particularly sections
106 and 110; 36 CFR Part 800
Yes No
To meet the project’s Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act requirements a
professional cultural resources survey was
conducted by WHPacific cultural resources staff in
July 2017 with the subsequent cultural resources
report submitted in October 2017. The cultural
resources survey included a systematic pedestrian
survey, judgmental subsurface sampling, and a
historic architecture survey of the Splash Park
Project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE). The
survey identified no cultural resources, new or
previously identified in the APE and
recommended that any excavations associated
with the splash park project will have No Effect
upon cultural resources and there will be No
Adverse Effect on any potentially eligible
structures with in the APE.
The WA state DAHP has concurred with these
findings, with the stipulation that work be
discontinued, the area secured, and the
concerned tribes notified if archaeological or
historic materials are discovered during project
activities.
Letters requesting comment were sent out to the
concerned parties (five tribes for the
Thurston/County/City of Yelm area) in April 2018
and no responses were received from the tribes
during or past the comment period. Thurston
County notifying DAHP that 30-day comment
window had expired with no comments received,
May 2018.
As such the project is compliant with Sec. 106
requirements of the National Historic Preservation
Act.
Please see attached Historic Preservation for
Washington State Checklist with attached DAHP
letter of concurrence with the No Adverse Effect
Determination, Thurston County’s letter notifying
DAHP that the 30 day comment window for
interested parties had expired and they had
received no comments back or communications
back from interested parties, copies of letters sent
to the interested parties and tribes, related email
correspondence, and the professional cultural
resources survey report (Appendix I).
Noise Abatement and Control
Noise Control Act of 1972, as
amended by the Quiet
Communities Act of 1978; 24 CFR
Part 51 Subpart B
Yes No
The proposed project is for building a new
outdoor splash park in the existing Yelm City Park
and is not a noise sensitive use. The project is not
subject to noise standards and is compliant with
the Noise Abatement and Control Act.
Please see attached Noise Abatement and Control
Checklist (Appendix J).
Sole Source Aquifers
Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974,
as amended, particularly section
1424(e); 40 CFR Part 149
Yes No
According to the Interactive map of Sole Source
Aquifers (SSAs) available through the EPA’s Sole
Source Aquifers for Drinking Water website
(https://www.epa.gov/dwssa), Yelm City Park is
not located in a SSA review area and the project is
compliant with this requirement of the Safe
Drinking Water Act. The nearest SSA is the Central
Pierce County Aquifer east of Yelm and the
Nisqually River.
Please see attached Sole Source Aquifers Checklist
and map (Appendix K).
Wetlands Protection
Executive Order 11990,
particularly sections 2 and 5
Yes No
According to wetland maps obtained from the
Thurston County GeoData Center
(http://www.geodata.org/all-map-layers.html)
and USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI)
Wetlands Mapper
(https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.ht
ml) there are no mapped wetlands, riparian areas,
or hydric soils in Yelm City Park or the adjoining
area.
In addition, according to the Natural Resource
Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey,
Yelm City Park’s soils consist of Spanaway gravelly
sandy loam, 0 to 3 % slopes, and Spanaway stony
sandy loam, 0 to 3% slopes. Both soil types are
recorded in the Soil Survey of Thurston County,
Washington (available at:
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUS
CRIPTS/washington/WA067/0/wa067_text.pdf ),
as being very deep, somewhat excessively drained
soil on glacial outwash terraces, with low water
storage capacity. These soil types are unlikely to
naturally support wetlands and are typical of the
well-drained glacial outwash prairie soils in
Thurston County and necessitated the required
Yelm pocket gopher surveys conducted as part of
ESA compliance for this project. No wetlands
were observed in Yelm City Park during these
surveys.
Please see attached Protection of Wetlands
Checklists and maps (Appendix L).
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of
1968, particularly section 7(b)
and (c)
Yes No
According to the National Wild and Scenic River
System website Yelm City Park is not near a
designated Wild and Scenic River
(https://www.rivers.gov/washington.php) or a
river that is part of a Wild and Scenic River Study
(https://www.rivers.gov/study.php).
The National Park Services Nationwide Rivers
Inventory interactive mapper designates portions
of the Nisqually River (1.95 miles east of Yelm City
Park) as having Outstandingly Remarkable Value
(https://www.nps.gov/subjects/rivers/nationwide
-rivers-inventory.htm). The online map shows the
upper reach of the Nisqually River is considered to
have Outstandingly Remarkable Geologic and
Scenic Value from the Nisqually Glacier
downstream to Alder Reservoir, but lower reach
below the Alder Reservoir and nearer The City of
Yelm does not have the same designation.
The project is compliant with the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act. Please see attached Wild and Scenic
Rivers Checklist and maps (Appendix M).
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898
Yes No
The proposed Yelm Splash Park Project is
compliant with environmental laws and
authorities in the sections above. The project will
have no adverse environmental impacts to Yelm
City Park or the surrounding area and meets
Environmental Justice requirements.
The EPA Environmental Justice Screening and
Mapping tool (https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen),
show that the area within 2 miles of Yelm City
Park has a 40% average poverty rate compared
with a 30% for WA state and 34% USA national
average poverty rate. The splash park will provide
much needed water related recreational
opportunities to low income residents in the
surrounding area.
Please see the Environmental Justice Checklist
with EPA Environmental Justice EJSCREEN Report
for a 2-mile radius around Yelm City Park
(Appendix N).
Environmental Assessment Factors
Environmental Assessment Factors [24 CFR 58.40; Ref. 40 CFR 1508.8 &1508.27]
Recorded below is the qualitative and quantitative significance of the effects of the proposal on the character,
features and resources of the project area. Each factor has been evaluated and documented, as appropriate and
in proportion to its relevance to the proposed action. Verifiable source documentation has been provided and
described in support of each determination, as appropriate. Credible, traceable and supportive source
documentation for each authority has been provided. Where applicable, the necessary reviews or consultations
have been completed and applicable permits of approvals have been obtained or noted. Citations,
dates/names/titles of contacts, and page references are clear. Additional documentation is attached, as
appropriate.
All conditions, attenuation or mitigation measures have been clearly identified.
Impact Codes: Use an impact code from the following list to make the determination of impact for each factor.
(1) Minor beneficial impact
(2) No impact anticipated
(3) Minor Adverse Impact – May require mitigation
(4) Significant or potentially significant impact requiring avoidance or modification which may require an
Environmental Impact Statement
Environmental
Assessment Factor
Impact
Code
Impact Evaluation
LAND DEVELOPMENT
Conformance with
Plans / Compatible
Land Use and Zoning
/ Scale and Urban
Design
2 According to the Thurston County GeoData Center, Permitting Map
zoning layer data, Yelm City Park is zoned as an Open Space Park
(P/OS) (http://www.geodata.org/all-map-layers.html). Building the
proposed outdoor splash park in Yelm City Park is consistent with the
park’s land use and so is compliant with the local zoning ordinance.
In addition the proposed splash park, as a Special Use Park Facility,
will help the city of Yelm’s meet its park level of service (LOS) goals
outlined in the 2017 City of Yelm Parks and Recreation Plan
(available at:
http://www.ci.yelm.wa.us/uploads/library/reports/ParksPlan.pdf).
Soil Suitability/
Slope/ Erosion/
Drainage/ Storm
Water Runoff
2 The project area has suitable soils for the proposed project. Yelm
City Park’s topography is flat, and no evidence of erosion or drainage
issues were seen during the three pedestrian pocket gopher surveys.
Based upon NCRS Web Soil Survey map, soils in the proposed project
area consist of Spanaway gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 3% slope (Web
Soil Survey website:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm).
These are friable, dark, well drained, soils that formed from glacial
outwash and volcanic ash. Due to the flat, rocky nature of the site,
slope stability issues and erosion are highly unlikely. In addition,
because the soils are permeable and well-drained, stormwater
runoff generated by the splash park’s new impervious surfaces, are
anticipated to be absorbed by the surrounding landscape.
Hazards and
Nuisances
including Site Safety
and Noise
2
No obvious hazards were seen during pedestrian surveys of the
project area. The splash park will be built to local building codes and
Washington State Department of Health (DOH) administrative codes
for Water Recreation Facilities (WAC, Chapter 246-260), including
spray pool design, construction, and equipment codes (WAC,
Chapter 246-260-081), and recreational water contact facilities
codes (WAC, Chapter 246-262) (links available on the DOH Water
Recreation Facility Rules and Guidelines webpage:
https://www.doh.wa.gov/CommunityandEnvironment/WaterRecrea
tion/RegulatedFacilities/RulesandGuidelines#Guidelines).
Noise created by people using the splash park may be preserved as
bothersome to some people, but this noise is consistent with the
typical use of a park and is not considered to be a public nuisance.
Best management practices followed during project construction will
focus on eliminating public hazards caused by construction (ex.
project area exclusion and silt fencing), and mitigating construction
phase noise during non-business hours.
Energy Consumption
2 The project is not expected to have a negative impact on energy
consumption. Yelm City park is centrally located in the city of Yelm
and is accessible to the surrounding community by public transit and
pedestrian sidewalks and paths, reducing transportation energy
consumption. The park is also across the street from the Yelm-
Tenino bike trail (formally a BNSF railroad line) allowing people to
easily bike to the park.
The splash park project design also reduces energy consumption
by repurposing storage buildings for a recirculating water treatment
system.
Energy required to run the splash park will come from the local
power company (Puget Sound Energy). The project will not require a
significant increase in energy production for PSE.
Environmental
Assessment Factor
Impact
Code
Impact Evaluation
SOCIOECONOMIC
Employment and
Income Patterns
2
The proposed splash park project will generate a few temporary
construction jobs and may increase the number of people visiting
Yelm City Park and businesses in the surrounding area. The project is
not expected to significantly increase or decrease temporary and/or
permanent employment opportunities.
Demographic
Character Changes,
Displacement
2
According to the EPA Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping
tool (https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen), the city of Yelm is a moderate
to low income area with a higher low income population average
than Washington state or the national average.
The proposed splash park will add a much-needed free recreational
water related activity to a low-income area and will be designed to
be accessible to the whole community. The project is not
anticipated to result in any demographic character changes or
displacement in the city of Yelm and may in fact have the beneficial
effect of building a sense of community in those who use it.
Environmental
Assessment Factor
Impact
Code
Impact Evaluation
COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES
Educational and
Cultural Facilities
2 The proposed splash park does not increase the local residential
population and is not anticipated to impact local schools or existing
cultural facilities.
Commercial Facilities
2 The proposed splash park project is not expected to have a
significant negative impact on commercial businesses. The splash
park will not compete with any similar local commercial businesses
but may increase the number of people visiting the city of Yelm and
increasing the possibility they will shop at businesses near or on
their way to Yelm City Park.
Health Care and Social
Services
2 The proposed splash park is not anticipated to significantly increase
the demands on the local health care system or social services.
If medical attention is needed, according to Google Maps, the
nearest civilian hospital to Yelm City Park is Providence St. Peter
Hospital in Olympia, WA (16.5 miles away by SR 510, approximately
35 minutes away by car and 1hr 31 mins by bus, helicopter
accessible). Yelm Family Medicine is the closest medical clinic to
the park (0.9 miles by SR 510 approximately 3 minutes by car, 9
minutes by bus, and 18 minutes walking distance). The park is also
located across the street from the Yelm Police department (213
feet away) and 0.4 miles away (1 min. drive) from the nearest Fire
Department (SE Thurston fire Authority, Yelm Station #21) which
can also provide medical emergency services.
Solid Waste Disposal /
Recycling
2 The proposed splash park is not anticipated to significantly increase
the demands on the local solid waste disposal and recycling
facilities.
Project construction will include excavating and disposing of excess
soils. Excess excavated soils and/or inappropriate fill will be
disposed of at a permitted facility; if different or additional fill is
required a commercial source will be used.
According to the city of Yelm utility services website
(http://www.ci.yelm.wa.us/utility-services/) local garbage and
recycling service is provided by LeMay Pacific Disposal (. The
project may increase the number of people using trash and
recycling facilities at Yelm City Park but this is not expected to
overwhelm existing park facilities or city of Yelm Public Works or
LeMay Pacific Disposal facilities.
Waste Water /
Sanitary Sewers
2 The proposed splash park is not anticipated to produce significant
amounts of waste water or to significantly increase the demands on
local waste water treatment systems and sewers.
Water used in the splash park will be contained in a recirculating
water system and will not be contributing much additional water to
Yelm City Park’s all-ready existing wastewater disposal systems
(sewers). The potential for increased park use after the
development of the splash park would likely increase the use of
park toilets but increased use will be compatible with existing
sewer facilities.
Water Supply
2 The proposed splash park is not anticipated to significantly impact
the city of Yelm’s municipal water system.
The splash park will use potable municipal water that will be
captured and contained in a recirculating water system designed
and permitted to meet Washington Department of Heath
recreational water contact facilities administrative codes (WAC,
Chapter 246-262). The project’s recirculating water system will
reduce the demands the splash park could put on the city of Yelm
municipal water supply and so should not negatively impact the
municipal water system.
Public Safety - Police,
Fire and Emergency
Medical
2
Yelm City Park is located across the street from the Yelm Police
department (213 feet away) and very near the SE Thurston Fire
Authority Headquarters Building, Yelm Station #21 (0.4 road miles
away), making for very rapid response times to the park. Both local
police and fire departments are adequate and equipped to service
the splash park project and the project is not expected to put
undue demands on these local services.
Parks, Open Space
and Recreation
1
The proposed splash park is being built in the existing Yelm City
Park and will benefit the existing park and community by providing
a new, unique to the area water feature. The splash park will be
built to accommodate all physical abilities and will be accessible by
all members of the community. The splash park will likely increase
park utilization but is not expected to overload existing park
facilities.
Transportation and
Accessibility
2
The proposed splash park project is not anticipated to significantly
increase traffic volumes around Yelm City Park and will not require
a traffic study.
Yelm City park has two uncovered parking lots (one dirt and one
paved) and has handicapped accessible parking in the paved
parking lot. The park is 4 min. walking distance from the closest
bus stop at Yelm Ave SE and 3rd St. and can be safely accessed by
existing sidewalks. The park is also located across the street (125
feet) from the Yelm-Tenino bike trail (formally a BNSF railroad line)
allowing people to easily bike to the park.
Environmental
Assessment Factor
Impact
Code
Impact Evaluation
NATURAL FEATURES
Unique Natural
Features,
Water Resources
2 Yelm City Park is typical of city park with grass lawns, trees,
playground, restroom, and picnic facilities, and is not known have
any unique natural features. The project will not negatively impact
any unique natural features.
Yelm City Park does not include and is not adjacent to any natural
surface waters (ponds or streams) and is not within the watershed
of a particularly sensitive natural area. The park is also not within
the boundary of a sole source aquifer or in an area subject to rapid
ground water withdrawal. The project will use the existing
municipal water supply and not rely on groundwater resources.
The splash park will use a recycling water system which will reduce
water consumption and run off from the splash parks’ water supply.
Stormwater runoff from the new impermeable splash pad surface
will run off and percolate into the surrounding soils. The project is
not expected to have a negative impact on water resources.
Vegetation, Wildlife
2 The project is not anticipated to have negative impacts on
vegetation or wildlife found in Yelm City Park or the surrounding
area.
Yelm City Park vegetation consists of mostly non-native lawn
grasses and non-native herbaceous species commonly found in
lawns in Western Washington including narrowleaf plantain
(Plantago lanceolata), broadleaf plantain (Plantago major) clover
species (Trifolium spp.), and hairy cat’s ear (Hypochoeris radicata).
Tree species include Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and
unidentified deciduous trees. The project will remove
approximately 4000 square feet of grass lawn in an already highly
disturbed landscape and will not impact or destroy any vegetation
protected by federal, state, or local entities. Mitigation measures
(such as hand pulling) will be taken if any invasive plant species are
introduced during this project.
The proposed splash park is not anticipated to negatively impact
and federal, state, or local protected species. Yelm City Park has
soil types preferred by federally listed Yelm pocket gophers, but
these soils have been highly disturbed by past agricultural and
public use. Three ESA compliance pocket gopher surveys
conducted by biologists with the USFWS found no evidence of
pocket gopher activity in Yelm City Park and the USFWS issued a
letter of concurrence with the project’s biological assessment’s
determination that the project “may affect but not likely adversely
affect” Yelm pocket gophers.
The only potential nesting habitat being removed for this project is
highly disturbed lawn grasses. Birds are highly unlikely to be found
nesting within the area being disturbed but if an actively used bird
nest is found within the project area during construction, efforts
will be taken to comply with Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and
the nest will be left until all the young have fledged.
The park is located is surrounded by commercial and residential
development and does not provide much in the way of wildlife
habitat or function a wildlife corridor. In addition, the project is not
expected to create any special hazards for animal life currently
using the park. There is a chance that wildlife will drink and/or bath
in the splash park, but this is unlikely to these species in anyway.
Other Factors N/A
Additional Studies Performed:
Three Yelm pocket gopher ESA compliance surveys of Yelm City Park were conducted by biologist with the
USFWS and WHPacific staff August 1st, September 1st, and October 11th, 2017. The associated Biological
Assessment for the project was submitted in December 2017.
A professional cultural resources survey was conducted by WHPacific cultural resources staff July 18, 2017 in
compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 requirements. The associated cultural
resources report was submitted in October 2017.
Field Inspection (Date and completed by):
Field inspections of existing park conditions were conducted by WHPacific staff (Kara Randall) in conjunction
with Yelm City park pocket gopher surveys (August 1st, September 1st, and October 11th, 2017).
List of Sources, Agencies and Persons Consulted [40 CFR 1508.9(b)]:
Sources
City of Yelm, Comprehensive Plan and Joint Plan with Thurston County, 2009. Available at:
https://www.ci.yelm.wa.us/uploads/library/reports/ComprehensivePlan.pdf).
City of Yelm, 2017 Parks and Recreation Plan. Available at:
http://www.ci.yelm.wa.us/uploads/library/reports/ParksPlan.pdf (last viewed 7/16/18).
City Park Splash Pad and Playground website: http://www.ci.yelm.wa.us/splash_pad/ (last viewed 7/17/18).
City of Yelm, Utility Services website: http://www.ci.yelm.wa.us/utility-services/ (last viewed 7/17/18).
DOE (Washington Department of Ecology). Online tools and databases website:
https://ecology.wa.gov/About-us/Online-tools-publications/Online-tools-databases (last viewed 7/12/18).
DOE, Shorelines of statewide significance website: https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Shoreline-
coastal-management/Shoreline-coastal-planning/Shoreline-Management-Act-SMA/Shoreline-Management-
Act-jurisdiction/Shorelines-of-statewide-significance. (last viewed 7/18/18).
DOE, Toxic Cleanup Program Web Reporting website:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/tcpwebreporting/report.aspx (last viewed 7/12/18).
DOE, Water Quality Permitting and Reporting Information System (PARIS) website:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/paris/PermitLookup.aspx. Information specific to Mosman minor violation of the
Clean Water Act for missing WA DOE’s Monitoring Report (DMR) documentation for permit # WAR301244 is
available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/paris/PermitVersionDocuments.aspx?PermitId=870800 (last viewed
7/12/18).
DOE, What’s in My Neighborhood web mapper website: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/neighborhood (last
viewed 7/12/18).
DOH (WA State Department of Health), Water Recreation Facility Rules and Guidelines webpage:
https://www.doh.wa.gov/CommunityandEnvironment/WaterRecreation/RegulatedFacilities/RulesandGuidelin
es#Guidelines (last viewed 7/17/18).
EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency), Enforcement and compliance History Online (ECHO) website:
https://echo.epa.gov/ (last viewed 7/12/18).
EPA, EJSCREEN: Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool website: https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen
(last viewed 7/17/18).
EPA NEPAssist website: https://www.epa.gov/nepa/nepassist (last viewed 7/17/18).
EPA Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants (Green Book) website: https://www.epa.gov/green-book
(last viewed 7/12/18).
EPA, Sole Source Aquifers for Drinking Water website: https://www.epa.gov/dwssa (last viewed 7/12/18).
EPA Superfund National Priorities List website: www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl (last viewed 7/12/18).
FEMA (US Federal Emergency Management Agency), Flood Map Service Center website:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home (last viewed 7/10/18).
FEMA, Community Status Book Report, Washington. Communities Participating in the National Flood Program.
Available at: https://www.fema.gov/cis/WA.pdf .
Google Maps website: https://www.google.com/maps (last viewed 7/17/18).
HUD (US Department of Housing and Urban Development), Region 10, Completing Environmental Reviews in
Washington State website: https://www.hud.gov/states/shared/working/r10/environment/washington (last
viewed 7/17/18).
HUD, Environmental Factors Guidance. Available at:
https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/Environmental-Assessment-Factors-Guidance.pdf.
HUD Acceptable Separation Distance Assessment Tool (https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental-
review/asd-calculator/ (last viewed 7/12/18).
HUD Exchange, Environmental Assessments website: https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental-
review/environmental-assessments/ (last viewed 7/17/18).
Joint Base Lewis-McChord (JBLM) Joint Land Use Study (JLUS). 2015. Available at:
https://www.cityoflakewood.us/documents/community_development/SSMCP/JLUS/2015JBLMJLUSCompatibil
ityAnalysis.pdf.
National Wild and Scenic River System website: https://www.rivers.gov/study.php (last viewed 7/16/2018).
NPS (US National Park Service), Nationwide Rivers Inventory website:
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/rivers/nationwide-rivers-inventory.htm (last viewed 7/16/2018).
NRCS (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service). Soil Survey of Thurston County, Washington. 1990.
Available at: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/washington/WA067/0/wa067_text.pdf.
NRCS, Web Soil Survey website: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm (last viewed
7/16/18).
Thurston County. 2013 – 2017 Thurston County and Olympia Regional Consolidated Plan. Fourth year 2016
Annual Action Plan for the 2013 – 2017 HUD Consolidated Plan. Available at:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/health/sscp/PDF/2016HUDAnnualPlan_FINALDRAFT_071416.pdf.
Thurston County GeoData Center website: http://www.geodata.org/all-map-layers.html (last viewed
7/17/18).
Thurston County Public Health and Social Services, Housing and Community Renewal website:
http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/health/sscp/index.html (last viewed 7/10/18).
US Census, 2010 Census – Urban Cluster Reference Map: Yelm, WA. Available at:
https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10map/UAUC_RefMap/uc/uc97642_yelm_wa/DC10UC97642.pdf.
USFWS (US Fish and Wildlife Service) Coastal Barrier Resources System website:
https://www.fws.gov/cbra/maps/index.html (last viewed 7/11/18).
USFWS, National Wetlands Inventory, Wetlands Mapper website:
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html (last viewed 7/15/18).
Washington State Administrative Code for Thurston County Waters of the State: Available at: Thurston County
WAC 172-18-380 available at: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=173-18-380
WDFW (WA Department of Fish and Wildlife), Priority Habitats and Species on the Web website:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/ (last viewed 7/13/18).
WDFW, SalmonScape website: https://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/ (last viewed 7/13/18).
Agencies and Persons Consulted
Please see attached Public Involvement and Communication Plan for the Yelm Park Splash Park and Playground
Equipment. In addition, consultation letters were distributed to Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis, Cowlitz
Indian Tribe, Nisqually Indian Tribe, Squaxin Island Tribe of the Squaxin Island Reservation, Confederated
Tribes of the Warm Springs, and the Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation.
City of Yelm
Chad Bedlington, Public Works Director. Office phone 360.458.8412, email chadb@ci.yelm.wa.us
Pat Hughes, Public Works Program and Projects Manager. Office phone 360.458.8499, email
patrickh@yelmwa.gov
Thurston County Public Health and Social Services
Tom Webster, Housing and Community Renewal. Office Phone 360.867.2531, email
webstet@co.thurston.wa.us
List of Permits Obtained: SEPA pending NEPA approval, Recreational Water Feature Permit from Thurston
County, City of Yelm Building Permit
Public Outreach [24 CFR 50.23 & 58.43]: See attached Public Involvement and Communication Plan
which includes this City park project.
Cumulative Impact Analysis [24 CFR 58.32]:
Yelm City Park is centrally located in the city of Yelm and is currently mostly comprised of large grassy lawn
with a playground, restroom building, maintenance building, benches, covered and uncovered picnic facilities,
and unpaved parking lots. In 2015 a new community center building and paved parking lot were constructed
on the east side of the park, and in 2017 a new walking path was constructed along the west side of the park
linking the end of the sidewalk on 1st St. SE/SR 507 to Mosman Ave SE. Construction of the proposed splash
park is consistent with the improvements the city of Yelm is making to the park, increasing the parks value to
the surrounding community.
Cumulative impacts from splash park construction include the loss of some of the park’s stormwater drainage
function by the conversion of approximately 4,000 square feet (sq. ft.) of grass lawn with permeable soils to a
non-permeable splash park splash pad. As lawn grass covers most of the 3.73-acre park, the loss of 4,000 sq.
ft. of permeable lawn is not likely to significantly change the park’s current stormwater drainage function.
Park construction will also result in the need to close all or portions of the park while the splash park is being
constructed, limiting public access to the park for a limited time to ensure public safety. Post construction the
park will likely see an increase in public use but this increase in use is not likely to significantly strain already
existing park or surrounding area resources. Overall, the addition of a new, unique recreational water feature,
accessible to all community members, in a centrally located park will likely have a beneficial cumulative effect
on the surrounding community.
Alternatives [24 CFR 58.40(e); 40 CFR 1508.9]
No other alternatives were considered due to the nature of the grant.
No Action Alternative [24 CFR 58.40(e)]:
The no action alternative is that there would not be a splash park in Yelm City Park, the existing site conditions
will remain as park lawn, and all or sections of the park would not be closed off to the public during
construction. No Action on the splash park also means the surrounding low to moderate income community
would not see any benefits from the addition of a new, unique water recreational facility near the planned
new playground in Yelm City Park.
Summary of Findings and Conclusions:
Based on the research and analysis conducted for this Environmental Assessment Determination and
Compliance Findings for HUD-assisted Projects document, the proposed splash park project is in compliance
with the laws and authorities outlined in HUD Codes of Federal Regulation 24 CFR §50.4, §58.5 and §58.6, and
will have no major impact on the Environmental Assessment Factors outlined 24 CFR 58.40; Ref. 40 CFR 1508.8
&1508.27. Based on the assumption that the contingency requirements outlined in the WA State DAHP and
USFWS letters of concurrence, and that local and state best practices measures will be followed, this EA
concludes that the proposed Yelm City Park splash park will have “no significant impact” (FONSI) on the quality
of the human environment. The project will be converting a portion of an existing park from grass lawn to a
Figure 1: City of Yelm Splash Park project location.
Figure 2: Map with 2 ft contour lines showing the proposed splash park project area (shaded blue) in the south corner of Yelm City Park near the community center
(building being constructed in this 2015 aerial image). The exact splash park location within this area is yet to be determined (source: Thurston County GeoData
Center, Show me everything map http://www.geodata.org/all-map-layers.html).
Attachment: Public Involvement and Communication Plan Yelm
Park Splash Park and Playground Equipment
DRAFT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COMMUNICATION PLAN (PICP)
YELM PARK SPLASH PARK AND PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT
Updated: July 26, 2018
1 | P a g e 1 2
H:\~Parks Department\Projects\2017 Yelm City Park - Splash Park\7 Public Involvement
Introduction
The City of Yelm received a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) to design and
construct a Splash Park at City Park within the City of Yelm for $350,000 in 2018. The City of
Yelm also adopted a new Parks Plan in 2017 (Figure 1). The new facilities are not currently set
for the exact location.
“Our purpose and need is to is to select the exact locations of these facilities to meet the needs
of the public, function of the park, grant requirements, and Environmental constraints and;
Yelm Splash Park (Figure 2)
- Complete the SEPA/NEPA phase of the project November 2017,
- Begin Design July of 2018 with the selected facility,
- Complete Design and Environmental Permitting August 2018,
- Obligate and Advertise for Construction October 2018,
- Begin Construction November of 2018 and Complete this Phase of the Project
November of 2018, and
Project Description:
The Yelm Splash Park will be an approximately 3000 square foot wet play area
located generally on the Southerly portion of the existing City Park. The Splash
Park will be in a highly visible location adjacent to the existing Community Center
and 1st Street (State Route 507) and will be constructed to accommodate all
physical abilities and age groups. Its central location within the City, and proximity
to nearby demographically diverse residential neighborhoods, provides an
excellent location for access and maximized use.
All citizens require recreation, a need that is often unfulfilled for those who cannot
afford to participate in organized sports or leisure that require an entry or use fee
such as softball leagues and golf. There is an unmet need in the City of Yelm for
free active recreation aimed at Elementary to Middle school aged children and
development of social play settings. The reduction of social play activities for kids
in these age groups, as well as the epidemic rise in obesity in younger age groups,
require projects like this to be constructed to promote physical activity, and positive
social environments at little to no cost.
The City adopted a City Park Master Plan in 2014 and again in 2017, which
included the addition of a Spray Park at the City Park. A committee comprised of
elected officials as well as a representative of the Yelm Parks Board and Yelm
Chamber of Commerce developed the Master Plan. The public participation
process involved presentations to the Yelm Chamber of Commerce and a survey
sent to 700 Yelm residents. Public input was actively sought through the drafting
of the plan through a variety of ways including information gathering at the Yelm
DRAFT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COMMUNICATION PLAN (PICP)
YELM PARK SPLASH PARK AND PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT
Updated: July 26, 2018
2 | P a g e 1 2
H:\~Parks Department\Projects\2017 Yelm City Park - Splash Park\7 Public Involvement
Home and Garden Show and open houses.
The Spray Park will continue to increase recreational opportunities for younger
children and pre-teens who may not be able to afford participation in organized
team sports or lack access to free activities or amenities.
Public Involvement and Communication Goals
Public involvement and communication are important parts of this Project, and this Draft Public
Involvement and Communications Plan (PICP) provides the guidelines for informing the public
about this project and for soliciting the public’s opinions. The PICP is a working document to
identify and finalize the scope of work of the project.
The PICP is a working document and shall be modified appropriate for the specific customers
identified for this specific project.
Prior to finalizing the PICP, the City and the Parks Advisory Board identified a list of
additional Public Stake Holders with which to conduct interviews. The interviews were to
promote a better understanding of community issues prior to the first public meetings
and will determine whether additional members shall be added to the Public Stake Holder
Team.
The public involvement and communication goals are to:
Engage the public in discussions about the proposed project.
Provide opportunities for members of the public to share their local
knowledge and express their opinions.
Create a liaison between the public and the technical core support and
advisory team members.
Create an exchange of information that leads to public support for the project.
Validate information collected from other sources.
DRAFT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COMMUNICATION PLAN (PICP)
YELM PARK SPLASH PARK AND PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT
Updated: July 26, 2018
3 | P a g e 1 2
H:\~Parks Department\Projects\2017 Yelm City Park - Splash Park\7 Public Involvement
CITY PARK CONCEPT LAYOUT AND LOCATION
FIGURE 1
DRAFT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COMMUNICATION PLAN (PICP)
YELM PARK SPLASH PARK AND PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT
Updated: July 26, 2018
4 | P a g e 1 2
H:\~Parks Department\Projects\2017 Yelm City Park - Splash Park\7 Public Involvement
SPLASH PARK ALTERNATIVE ESTIMATED IN THE GRANT APPLICATION
FIGURE 2
DRAFT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COMMUNICATION PLAN (PICP)
YELM PARK SPLASH PARK AND PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT
5 | P a g e 1 2
H:\~Parks Department\Projects\2017 Yelm City Park - Splash Park\7 Public Involvement
Opportunities for Public Input to the Process
The public will have opportunities for involvement through this scoping phase of the
project. Scoping, meetings, Public Stakeholder meetings, Special Interest Group
meetings, and Open Houses will provide opportunities for members of the public to
meet and talk with City staff and the consultant team, and to share information,
concerns or questions they may have about the project.
The major factors in the structure of the public involvement process plan will identify:
The desired participants / stakeholders and input selected to be requested.
Strategies/techniques for engaging traditionally underserved
populations. (Environmental Justice and Title VI).
The legal requirements and constraints.
The special issues and areas of concern.
The need for public education on the project, environmental permitting
process, and the best ways(s) to accomplish these tasks.
The procedures for considering and responding to public comments.
The program for monitoring, evaluating and restructuring the plan
when necessary.
The major project decision milestones and program scheduling.
The points at which specific public interaction is requested.
The PICP for this project will use the following two approaches to solicit input from agencies
and local interested persons in the design and environmental permitting process:
Informational program for dissemination of information to the general public,
businesses, interested persons and groups, public agencies, Tribes, key
stakeholders, and public officials.
Scoping, Public Stakeholder meetings, Open Houses, Special Interest Groups
and final design and facility sighting.
Mechanisms for Sharing and Receiving Information
The following describes the mechanisms and tools planned to both inform and
involve the public.
(1) Informational Program
City staff will develop and maintain the project’s mailing list and e-mail list of all interested
parties to include potentially affected residents, businesses, public officials, Tribes and
environmental organizations. The informational program will also identify any community
based/service organizations in the City of Yelm that provide assistance or services to the
demographics served and to low-income populations that may reside in the project area.
We will utilize newspapers that specifically communicate with these for this program.
The mailing list developed and the database established is so that an extracted list of the
recipients can be produced.
Information will be extracted as needed for mailings to, legislators, agencies (federal, state,
DRAFT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COMMUNICATION PLAN (PICP)
YELM PARK SPLASH PARK AND PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT
6 | P a g e 1 2
H:\~Parks Department\Projects\2017 Yelm City Park - Splash Park\7 Public Involvement
county, city and regional) and Tribes. The City will be informed of any additions,
deletions, or corrections to the list of which they become aware.
Potential topics covered in each of the informational programs could include one or more
of the following:
Time and location of any meetings.
A review of the purpose of the projects.
A list of participants.
Project progress to date.
Contact names, addresses, and phone numbers.
A simplified project schedule indicating project status.
A review of major issues.
A report of input received at the previous open houses or meetings.
A discussion of project alternatives with graphics.
A review of the process used to evaluate alternatives.
Agency contact information
Where to direct comments (including e-mail)
All written materials for review by the public and facilities used for public involvement
will also conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
contain the ADA message concerning the availability of alternative format material upon
request, the Title VI message on discrimination, and a statement that facilities meet ADA
requirements.
The Informational Program will take six (6) primary forms. It is important to provide written
materials in non-technical language as much as possible. In addition to requirements of the
ADA pertaining to alternative formats there are also requirements of Title VI . The Department
of Justice and USDOT guidance on Limited English Proficiency contains a 4-factor analysis
that entities must use in determining the need for printing select materials in other languages.
The 2015 Census shows Yelm has a 14.7% Hispanic population We begin with what the
Dept. of Justice has termed the “safe harbor.
In short, this means that if you have a Hispanic population in the area of 5% or more, you
should consider developing select materials in Spanish (or any other language that may
meeting the 5% criteria) and English. This is not to mean that all materials must be translated
(unless specifically requested). Rather, it would be those materials necessary for someone to
understand the project and how it may affect him or her individually
(2) Newsletters
The city staff will e-mail the newsletters to the elected officials three days prior to each mailing.
(3) Bulletins/Posters
We will prepare a project bulletin / poster (one side of one 8 1/2” x 11” page). We will provide any
information required in alternative languages at the following locations:
Community Center,
City Hall,
DRAFT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COMMUNICATION PLAN (PICP)
YELM PARK SPLASH PARK AND PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT
7 | P a g e 1 2
H:\~Parks Department\Projects\2017 Yelm City Park - Splash Park\7 Public Involvement
Library,
and other conspicuous, highly visible public locations in the project area,
two weeks prior to each public meeting.
(4) Press Releases
The City staff will prepare and process press releases and distribute them to newspapers,
community groups, and public agencies at various times during the project to give information
on progress and upcoming hearings or public meetings.
(5) Handouts and Comment Forms
Staff will prepare meeting handouts with a tear-off comment form for the public meetings,
Scoping Meetings, Open Houses, and Community Group Meetings. Handouts with comment
forms will contain the information explaining the purpose and need of the project, the public
input process, major issues, the proposed alternatives, areas of impact, alternative evaluation
criteria, and project schedules. A summary of past events, present events, and future events
shall be highlighted in each handout. The handouts are intended to solicit comments from the
meeting attendees. Staff will tabulate and summarize the written comments received from the
public at the public scoping meeting and the public open houses.
An electronic form for the handouts shall be posted on the project web page.
(6) City of Yelm Web Page
Press releases, notices, the project flyers/invitations, and newsletters will be posted on
the City’s web site.
Public and Agency scoping meetings, open houses, and community meetings
Community and Public Meetings will be held to inform the public on the design and
environmental processes and to solicit comments. Meetings are intended to be held at the
City of Yelm Community Center. The Project Advisory Committee meeting is expected to
be held at the City of Yelm Community Center and will occur at 9:00 AM the second
Monday of every Month beginning in October 2017 ,
Public Stakeholder Team Recruitment
Outreach by the Parks Advisory Board
Outreach by City Council to assign one volunteer member each as a
volunteer.
Media Press Release Week of September 25, 2017
DRAFT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COMMUNICATION PLAN (PICP)
YELM PARK SPLASH PARK AND PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT
8 | P a g e 1 2
H:\~Parks Department\Projects\2017 Yelm City Park - Splash Park\7 Public Involvement
Public Stakeholder Team Meetings
The Public Stakeholder Team will provide input and guidance on the purpose and need
statement. The Public Stakeholder Team is a very important means for collecting local
information about the project and sentiments about proposed alternatives and solutions.
The opinions of the stakeholders will help prioritize issues and will assist in shaping the
development of the alternatives and guiding the selection of a preferred alternative.
The Public Stakeholder Team will be an advisory body.
The Public Stakeholder Team will meet the second Monday of the month at 9:00AM
beginning in October of 2017 and complete a final meeting in January of 2018 .
Public Works Council Committee
Staff will meet up to two times with the City Council Committee for Public Works to provide
briefings of the progress/issues and milestones from the Public Stakeholder Team
Meetings. Council will be updated in August 2018 prior to final design and sighting the final
locations per the following:
Provide overview of input from the community at open houses,
specialty briefings, scoping meetings, and the review the results of
screening levels including Stakeholder Team input.
Review results of final screening levels and preferred alternative.
Provide Stakeholder Team input. Seek concurrence on the preferred
alternative. Preview material to be presented at the second and third
open houses.
Report results of second open house and seek confirmation of
preliminary preferred options/alternatives.
Note:
Optional Schedule Decisions:
Close Park September/October 2018
Do Design/Construction Contracting to close Park in June/July 2018
DRAFT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COMMUNICATION PLAN (PICP)
YELM PARK SPLASH PARK AND PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT
9 | P a g e 1 2
H:\~Parks Department\Projects\2017 Yelm City Park - Splash Park\7 Public Involvement
PUBLIC STAKEHOLDER T EAM
TABLE 1
Group / Name Contact E-mail or Address Information
1. Parks Department Tony Reese tonyr@ci.yelm.wa.us
2. City of Yelm Community
Development
Tami Merriman tamim@yelmwa.gov
3. Water Department Tim Rarick timr@ci.yelm.wa.us
4. Parks Advisory Board Peggi Reese
5. Parks Advisory Board Cecelia Jenkins
6. Executive
Dana Spivey dspivey@ci.yelm.wa.us
7. Council Assigned Volunteer
Volunteers
Sooze Fitsik
Sandi Hanson
8. Public Volunteers Chelsea Trujillo
DRAFT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COMMUNICATION PLAN (PICP)
YELM PARK SPLASH PARK AND PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT
10 | P a g e 1 2
H:\~Parks Department\Projects\2017 Yelm City Park - Splash Park\7 Public Involvement
WORKING DRAFT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT MILESTONES AND SCHEDULE
TABLE 2
ACTIVITY DATE AGENDA/MILESTONE
Public Involvement September 11, 2017 Initiate PICP steps and Build
Stakeholder team with Parks
Advisory Board
Public Involvement September 12, 2017 City Administrator requests Council
assign volunteers for Stakeholder
Committee
Public Involvement September 20, 2017 Complete Draft PICP for review by
Parks Advisory Board
Public Involvement September 20, 2017 Draft Press Release for Volunteers
Public Involvement September 25, 2017 Notice to the Paper and Publish to
Media Advertise for Volunteers and
Publish Meeting Notice.
YPAC Meeting Public
Stakeholder Meeting
October 9, 2017 Review Draft PICP
Assign Volunteers
Review Options in Schedule
and Park Closure Needs
Review Purpose and Need
Council Meeting October 10, 2017 Present Public Involvement
Plan
Go over Schedule and
Milestones
How to be involved
SEPA/NEPA October 31, 2017 Submit SEPA to CDD for
review (complete 07.26.18)
Submit to Tom CDBG
Thurston County for 90 day
review (update to 08/1/18)
YPAC Meeting Public
Stakeholder Meeting
November 6, 2017 Plan for Open House
Discuss Roles
Discuss Out Reach
DRAFT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COMMUNICATION PLAN (PICP)
YELM PARK SPLASH PARK AND PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT
11 | P a g e 1 2
H:\~Parks Department\Projects\2017 Yelm City Park - Splash Park\7 Public Involvement
Open House Notices November 21, 2017 Press Release to Paper
Post Bulletins
Post Web Site
Post Comment Form to Web
YPAC Meeting Public
Stakeholder Meeting
November 27, 2017 Update on Project
Update on Schedule
Review Citizen Comments
Open House
December 2, 2017
2PM to 6PM Community
Center (as part of Christmas
in the Park Event)
YPAC Meeting Public
Stakeholder Meeting
January 8th, 2018 Update on Project
Update on Schedule
Review Citizen Comments
Prepare to AD for Vendors
Go over siting and functional
plan
Open House Notice January 8, 2018 Press Release to Paper
Post Bulletins
Post Web Site
Post Comment Form to Web
Open House January 16, 2018 4PM to 6PM Community
Center
YPAC Meeting Public
Stakeholder Meeting
February 12, 2018 Plan for Open House
Meet Vendor
Review Progress
Open House Notification –
General Parks Projects Update
June 6, 2018 Press Release to Paper
Post Bulletins
Post Web Site
Open House June 20 and 21st, 2018 Update on Project
Update on Schedule
Review Citizen Comments
Finalize Water Recreation
Facility Permitting
September 2018
DRAFT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COMMUNICATION PLAN (PICP)
YELM PARK SPLASH PARK AND PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT
12 | P a g e 1 2
H:\~Parks Department\Projects\2017 Yelm City Park - Splash Park\7 Public Involvement
Construction AD Notice to
paper and DJC
September 5, 2018
Construction AD September 7, 2018
Open Bids September 24, 2018
Council Award October 9, 2018
Contract Execute October 9, 2018
5 Day NTP CN Start October 14, 2018
Complete Construction November 14, 2018
DRAFT PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COMMUNICATION PLAN (PICP)
YELM PARK SPLASH PARK AND PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT
13 | P a g e 1 2
H:\~Parks Department\Projects\2017 Yelm City Park - Splash Park\7 Public Involvement
Appendix A: Airport Hazards Checklist
Clear Zones (CZ) and Accident Potential Zones (APZ)
Checklist for HUD or Responsible Entity
General requirements Legislation Regulation
Promote compatible land uses
around civil airports and
military airfields
Section 2 of the Housing Act of 1949 as
amended, 42 U.S.C 1331, affirmed by Section
2 of the Housing and Urban Development Act
of 1969, P.L. No 90-448; Section 7(d) of the
Dept HUD Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 3535 (d).
24 CFR Part 51 Subpart D
32 CFR Part 256
1. Does the project include new construction, major rehabilitation, or any other activity which significantly
prolongs the physical or economic life of existing facilities?
No: STOP here. The project is not subject to the regulations. Record a description of your project and
your determination.
Yes: PROCEED to #2
2. Is the Project located within 3000 feet of a civil airport or within 15,000 feet of a military airfield?
The regulations only apply to military and civil primary and commercial service airports. The Federal Aviation
Administration updates the list of applicable airports annually:
http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/airports/planning_capacity/passenger_allcargo_stats/passenger
No: STOP here. The project is not within a Clear Zone (also known as Runway Protection Zone) or
Accident Potential Zone. Maintain a list of airports considered and the distance from your project to the
covered airport. Record your determination.
Yes: PROCEED to #3
3. Is the Project in the Clear Zone or Accident Potential Zone?
Contact the airport operator and obtain written documentation of the Clear Zone (also known as Runway
Protection Zone) and for military airfields, the Accident Potential Zone, and a determination of whether your
project is in the APZ or CZ.
No: STOP here. Maintain the written documentation from the airport operator. Identify the location of
your project in relation to the clear zone. Record your determination that the project is not in a CZ or APZ.
Yes Project is in an Accident Potential Zone: PROCEED TO #4
Yes Project is in a Clear Zone: PROCEED TO #5
4. For Accident Potential Zones at Military Airfields, does the project change the use of a facility so that it
becomes one which is no longer acceptable in accordance with Department of Defense standards (Please
see 32 CFR Part 256 for Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Accident Potential Zones), significantly
increase the density or number of people at the site, or introduces explosive, flammable or toxic materials
to the area?
No: STOP here. Record your determination that the project fits under the DoD Land Use Compatibility
Guidelines. Include any correspondence with the Military Airfield.
Yes: The project cannot be assisted with HUD funds. STOP HERE.
5. For Airport Clear Zones, will the project frequently be used or occupied by people?
Yes: The project cannot be assisted with HUD funds. STOP HERE.
No: Obtain written assurance from the airport operator to the effect that there are no plans to purchase
the land involved with the project as a portion of a Runway Clear Zone or Clear Zone acquisition program.
Maintain copies of all the documents you have used to make your determination
DISCLAIMER: This document is intended as a tool to help Region X HUD
grantees and HUD staff complete environmental requirements. This
document is subject to change. This is not a policy statement. Legislation
and Regulations take precedence over any information found in this
document.
Distance to nearest military airport is 46,010 feet (Source NEPAssist, map created 7/2/2018).
Distance to nearest general-purpose airport (Western Airpark) is 13,862 feet (Source NEPAssist, map
created 7/2/2018).
Map showing the Clear Zones, Approach/Departure Zones for both Gray Army Field and McChord Airfield. Source: According to the 2015 Joint Base Lewis-
McChord (JBLM) Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) available at:
https://www.cityoflakewood.us/documents/community_development/SSMCP/JLUS/2015JBLMJLUSCompatibilityAnalysis.pdf .
Appendix B: Clean Air Act Compliance Checklist
Clean Air Act Compliance
Checklist for HUD or Responsible Entity
General requirements Legislation Regulation
EPA requires federal actions to
conform to State or Federal Action
Plans for air quality.
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et
seq.) as amended
40 CFR Parts 6, 51 and 93
1. Does your project require an environmental assessment level review for new construction or major
rehabilitation of existing structures?
No: STOP here. The Clean Air Act conformity requirements do not apply. Record your determination.
Yes: PROCEED to #2
2. Is the project located in a designated non-attainment area for criteria air pollutants?
Maintain, in your ERR, either a map or list of non-attainment areas in your region.
You can find information on non-attainment areas by state at this website:
http://epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/ancl.html
No: STOP here. The Clean Air Act conformity requirements do not apply. Record your determination.
Yes: PROCEED to #3
3. Does your project exceed de minimis impact criteria?
Determine if your project will result in emissions (both direct and indirect) that exceed the de mimimis
thresholds established for each criteria pollutant at 40 CFR Part 93.153 (see attached). In general, HUD
projects will not exceed this threshold. However, you should work with your local air quality authority
to determine whether your project may have an impact on air quality. For PM-10 and PM 2.5 non-
attainment areas, please make special note of any local dust control regulations that might apply during
construction. Please see attached document for air authority contacts.
No: STOP here. The project does not impact air quality. Record your determination on the Statutory
Worksheet and attach documentation.
Yes: PROCEED to #4
4. Does your project conform with the State or Federal Action Plan for air quality?
Work with your local or state air quality authority to determine if your project conforms with your State
Action plan. If you cannot reach this determination, please contact your HUD environmental officers for
further guidance.
DISCLAIMER: This document is intended as a tool to help Region X grantees
and HUD staff complete HUD environmental requirements. This document
is subject to change. This is not a policy statement, and the Clean Air Act
Legislation and Regulations take precedence over any information found in
this document.
Appendix C: Coastal Zone Management – Washington State
Checklist
Coastal Zone Management—Washington State Checklist for HUD or Responsible Entity
General requirements Legislation Regulation
Ensure that projects are consistent
with the Washington Coastal Zone
Management Program
Coastal Zone Management Act
16 U.S.C. 1451-1464
15 CFR Part 930
1. Is the project located in Callam, Grays Harbor, Island, Jefferson, King, Kitsap, Mason, Pacific, Pierce,
San Juan, Skagit, Snohomish, Thurston, Wahkiakum or Whatcom Counties?
No: Stop here. The CZM review is complete. Record your determination on the EA, Statutory Worksheet
or HUD Form 4128.
Yes: PROCEED to #2
2. Is the project located on tribal trust lands?
Yes: Tribal Trust land is excluded from the state coastal zone. Proceed to #3.
No: PROCEED to #4
3. Will the project impact the coastal zone beyond the excluded tribal trust land, for example through
water runoff from increased impervious surfaces, or increased sediment loads in waterbodies?
Yes: PROCEED to #4
No: The Coastal Zone Management review is complete. Document that your project will have no impact on
coastal zones outside of the excluded tribal trust land. Record your determination on the Statutory Worksheet,
Environmental Assessment form or HUD Form 4128.
4. Does the project include new construction or major rehabilitation of existing structures? Major
rehabilitation means work that exceeds the categorical exclusion threshold at 24 CFR Part 58.35(a) and therefore
requires a full Environmental Assessment.
No: STOP here. The Coastal Zone Management review is complete.
Yes: PROCEED to #4
4. Does the project comply with the enforceable policies of the Coastal Zone Management Program?
• Complete the attached “Certification of Consistency with Washington’s Coastal Zone Management
Program,” and send it to the Department of Ecology (DOE) at the following address: Federal Consistency
Coordinator, Shorelines & Environmental Assistance Program, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47690,
Olympia, WA 98504-7690 telephone number: (360) 407-6068 or email it
toecyrefedpermits@ecy.wa.gov Be sure to identify the Federal Program, i.e. CDBG, Section 202, SHOP,
etc. The Applicant is HUD or the Responsible Entity. The first certification on the form should be signed
by the lender or non-profit organization that is developing the project. HUD (under Part 50) or the
responsible entity (under Part 58) signs the determination that the action will not affect coastal resources
(once it has been determined that the project will comply with all enforceable policies of the CZM
Program). Ecology has 6 months to concur with a determination, however, they often do so within two
weeks if all of the information is submitted.
Yes: STOP here. The Coastal Zone Management Review is complete. You should have a mechanism in
place (i.e. condition to the contract or FIRM Commitment) to assure the recipient has completed all actions
prior to releasing funds. Attach a copy of the Certification and Consistency determination. Record your
determination on the EA, Statutory Worksheet or 4128.
No: If the project will not comply will all enforceable policies as outlined on the Certification of
Consistency, work with Department of Ecology to mitigate issues. Do not initiate the Project until CZM has
been mitigated.
DISCLAIMER: This document is intended as a tool to help HUD
Region X grantees and HUD staff complete NEPA requirements. This
document is subject to change. This is not a policy statement, and the
Coastal Zone Management Legislation and Regulations take
precedence over any information found in this document.
(HUD or Responsible Entity)
HUD or Responsible Entity mail Form to:
Federal Consistency Coordinator
Shorelines & Environmental Assistance Program
Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504
Email: ecyrefedpermits@ecy.wa.gov
Phone: (360) 407-6068
Department of Ecology please mail Determination of
Consistency to: (Include Phone number of contact)
Map showing the distance from the approximate splash park project area in Yelm City park in relation to the two nearest water bodies, a pond located 0.29 miles SW
of the proposed splash park and Yelm Creek located 0.42 miles NE of the proposed splash park. (Source: Thurston County GeoData Center online maps website:
http://www.geodata.org/all-map-layers.html).
City of Yelm Critical Areas Map showing streams designated as shorelines of statewide significance by the Washington State Shoreline Management Act
(labeled on the map as Type 5 streams), as well as critical wetland and oak habitat areas. (Source: City of Yelm, Comprehensive Plan and Joint Plan with
Thurston County, 2009. Available at: https://www.ci.yelm.wa.us/uploads/library/reports/ComprehensivePlan.pdf)
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
Appendix D: Contamination and Toxic Substances
Toxic Chemicals and Radioactive Material4 CFR Part 58
General requirements Legislation Regulation
All property proposed for use in HUD programs must be
free of hazardous materials, contamination, toxic
chemicals and gasses and radioactive substances, where
a hazard could affect the health and safety of occupants
or conflict with the intended utilization of the property.
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 as amended
by Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act
24 CFR 58.5(i)
1. Is the project for acquisition, new construction or rehabilitation of a one-to-four family residential
property?
Yes: PROCEED to #3 to determine the likelihood of hazardous conditions existing nearby or on the
property which could affect the health and safety of proposed occupants.
No: PROCEED to #2
2. Is the project for multifamily housing with 5 or more dwelling units (including leasing), or non-
residential property?
No: PROCEED to #3
Yes: The environmental review must include the evaluation of previous uses of the site or other evidence of
contamination on or near the site, to assure that the occupants of proposed sites are not adversely affected by
hazardous materials, contamination, toxic chemicals and gases, and radioactive substances. For acquisition
and new construction projects, HUD strongly advises that the review include an ASTM Phase 1
assessment or equivalent analysis, including an update if the assessment is over 180 days old, in order to
meet real estate transaction standards of due diligence. If you do obtain a Phase I review, it is suggested that
you include consideration of the regulations at 24 CFR Part 58.5(i) as an additional purpose in the subsection on
“purpose” in the Phase I. Your review should cover the information in the questions below (if you have a
Phase I it will already cover the information below). PROCEED to #3.
3. Is the answer Yes to any of the following questions?
• Is the property or surrounding neighborhood listed on an EPA Superfund National Priorities, the
CERCLA List, or equivalent State list?
An internet site that may be helpful is www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl.
No Yes
• Is the property located near a toxic or solid-waste landfill site?
An internet site that may be helpful is http://www.epa.gov/emefdata/em4ef.home. Maps, site
inspections and documentation from the local planning department may also be useful in making your
determination.
No Yes
• Are there any underground storage tanks (not including residential fuel tanks) on or near the
property?
For projects in Washington State, visit: www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/tcp/ust-lust/tanks.html.
You are required to consider all hazards that could affect the health and safety of occupants and
use current techniques by qualified professionals to undertake investigations determined
necessary. This checklist tool is intended as guidance only and does not cover all possible hazards.
This document is subject to change. Legislation and Regulations take precedence over any
information found in this document.
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
For projects in Oregon, visit: http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/tanks/index.htm
For projects in Idaho, visithttps://www.deq.idaho.gov/waste-mgmt-remediation/storage-tanks/leaking-
underground-storage-tanks.aspx
For projects in Alaska, visit: http://www.dec.state.ak.us/spar/ipp/tanks.htm
Consider past uses of the property when making your determination.
No Yes
• Is the property known or suspected to be contaminated by toxic chemicals or radioactive
materials?
No Yes
HUD’s “Choosing an Environmentally ‘Safe’ Site” provides guidance in considering potential environmental
issues: https://www.onecpd.info/resource/83/choosing-an-environmentally-safe-site/ In
considering the site the guidance suggests that you:
• Make a visual inspection of the site for signs of distressed vegetation, vents or fill pipes, storage/oil
tanks or questionable containers, pits, ponds or lagoons, stained soil or pavement, pungent, foul or
noxious odors, dumped material or soil, mounds of dirt, rubble, fill etc.
• Research the past uses of the site and obtain a disclosure of past uses from the owner. Certain past
and present uses such as the following signal concerns of possible contamination and require a more
detailed review: gasoline stations, vehicle repair shops, car dealerships, garages, depots, warehouses,
commercial printing facilities, industrial or commercial warehouses, dry cleaners, photo developing
laboratories, hospitals, junkyard or landfills, waste treatment, storage disposal, processing or
recycling facilities, agricultural/farming operations (including hog and poultry operations) and
tanneries.
• Identify adjoining properties in the surrounding area for evidence of any facilities as described above.
• Research Federal, State and local records about possible toxins and hazards at the site.
Yes to any of the above questions: PROCEED to #4
No to all questions: The toxic chemicals and radioactive materials review is complete, unless there are other
hazards that could affect the health and safety of occupants. Record your determination on the Statutory
Worksheet and maintain appropriate documentation in the ERR.
4. Could nearby toxic, hazardous or radioactive substances affect the health and safety of project
occupants or conflict with the intended utilization of the property?
Gather all pertinent information concerning any on-site and nearby toxic hazards. Consider, at a
minimum, each of the areas identified in Question 3. Consider if your ASTM Phase 1 or
equivalent analysis identifies any Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) or conditions that
could impact the health or safety of the occupants. If appropriate and/or required, obtain
independent professional reviews of the site (e.g., an ASTM Phase 2 or equivalent analysis).
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
Contact appropriate Federal, State and Local resources for assistance in assessing exposure to
health hazards.
Yes: PROCEED to #5.
No: The toxic chemicals and radioactive materials review is complete, unless there are other hazards that
could affect the health and safety of occupants. Record your determination that there are no hazards that
could affect the safety of occupants or impact the intended use of the project and maintain appropriate
documentation in the ERR.
5. Can the adverse environmental condition be mitigated?
Yes: Mitigate according to the requirements of the appropriate Federal, State or local oversight agency.
Record your determination that there are no hazards that could affect the safety of occupants or impact the
intended use of the project and maintain appropriate documentation in the ERR. HUD assistance should be
conditioned on completion of appropriate mitigation. Deny HUD assistance if, after mitigation, the property
is still determined to be unsafe or unhealthy. For more details please refer to HUD’s “Choosing an
Environmentally ‘Safe’ Site.”
No: Do not provide HUD assistance for the project at this site.
DISCLAIMER: This document is intended as a tool to help Region X HUD
grantees and HUD staff complete environmental requirements. This
document is subject to change. This is not a policy statement. Legislation
and Regulations take precedence over any information found in this
document.
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
EPA Superfund National Priorities List map showing that there are no current, past, or proposed Superfund sites in the vicinity of Yelm WA.
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
Washington Department of Ecology What’s in my Neighborhood map of cleanup sites within one mile of Yelm City Park. All seven sites require No Further
Action (NFA).
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
EPA NEPAssist map of EPA Facilities near Yelm City Park. Frontier Village Prof Dryclean and Gorder’s Auto Rebuild both businesses that generate, transport,
treat, store, and or dispose of hazardous waste and provide information to the EPA’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information program
(RCRAInfo), neither have had violations in the past 12 months. Please see EPA ECHO detailed facility reports for each site below. The Mosman Ave site is a
minor violation of the Clean Water Act for missing WA DOE’s Monitoring Report (DMR) documentation for permit # WAR301244. The City of Yelm sent the
DOE a Notice of Termination for this Permit in May, 2018 (General Permit Documents for WAR301244 are available at:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/paris/PermitVersionDocuments.aspx?PermitId=870800).
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
Appendix E: Endangered Species Act Checklist
Endangered Species Act No Effect Guidance
for Washington State
(Prepared in collaboration with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
NOAA Fisheries. Applies in Washington State only.)
24 CFR Part 58
General requirements ESA Legislation HUD Regulations
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act mandates that
actions that are authorized, funded, or carried out by Federal
agencies do not jeopardize the continued existence of plants
and animals that are listed or result in the adverse
modification or destruction of designated critical habitat.
The Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.; particularly
section 7)
24 CFR 58.5(e)
24 CFR 50.4(e)
Purpose: The purpose of this checklist is to assist HUD and responsible entities meet their Endangered
Species Act obligations. A determination of “no effect” to federally listed species and critical habitat
fulfills HUD’s and the responsible entity’s obligation to ensure actions it authorizes, funds, or carries out
do not jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or adversely modify designated critical habitat.
“No effect” determinations do not require coordination with or approval from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and/or NOAA Fisheries.
Definition: “No effect” – the appropriate determination when the proposed action, including its
interrelated and interdependent actions, will not affect (i.e., influence or bring about any change) listed
species or designated critical habitat either directly or indirectly.
The following questions will help you determine if the proposed project will have an effect to
federally listed species or designated critical habitat. The list of activities is not all-inclusive, but
provides examples of typical types of projects that would meet a “no effect” determination.
1. Does the project consist solely of the following activities: purchasing existing buildings;
completing interior renovations to existing structures; replacement or repairs to existing roofs (not
including galvanized material unless it has been sealed or otherwise confined so that it will not
leach into stormwater); replacing exterior paint or siding on existing buildings; adding sprinkler
systems or repairing landscape, not including removing trees or shrubs?
Yes: STOP here. The project will have No Effect on listed or proposed species, and designated or
proposed critical habitat. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA
Fisheries is not required. Record your determination of no effect and maintain this documentation in
your ERR.
No: PROCEED to #2
2. Does the project consist solely of the any of the following activities and not result in an increase of
impervious surface, removal of trees, or removal of streamside vegetation: rehabilitation of an
existing structure; reconstruction or repair to existing curbs, sidewalks or other concrete
structures; repairs to existing parking lots (for example repairing pot holes or repainting lines – not
expansions); purchasing or installing appliances?
Yes: STOP here. The project will have No Effect on listed or proposed species, and designated or
proposed critical habitat. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA
Fisheries is not required. Record your determination of no effect and maintain this documentation in
your ERR.
No: PROCEED to #3
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
3. If new construction, does construction occur on a previously developed parcel and meet all of the
following criteria: does not add new impervious surfaces; does not remove trees or streamside/riparian
vegetation; complies with all state and local building codes and stormwater regulations; infiltrates all
stormwater or does not discharge stormwater to a salmonid-bearing stream or proposed/designated critical
habitat.
Yes: STOP here. The project will have No Effect on listed or proposed species, and designated or
proposed critical habitat. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries is
not required. Record your determination of no effect and maintain this documentation, including
information about the stormwater discharge, in your ERR.
No: PROCEED to #4
4. If new construction, does construction add new impervious surfaces to a previously developed parcel
and meet all of the following criteria: does not remove trees or streamside/riparian vegetation; complies
with all state and local building codes and stormwater regulations; discharges treated stormwater to non-
salmonid-bearing stream within the same subbasin (discharge point must be a minimum of ¼ mile from
salmonid bearing stream or proposed/designated critical habitat) or infiltrates all treated stormwater
within the same subbasin.
Yes: STOP here. The project will have No Effect on listed or proposed species, and designated or
proposed critical habitat. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA
Fisheries is not required. Record your determination and maintain this documentation, including
information about the stormwater discharge, in your ERR.
No: PROCEED to #5
5. Would project effects, including those that extend beyond the project site (e.g., noise, air pollution,
water quality, stormwater discharge, visual disturbance), overlap with identified federally listed or
proposed species occurrences or designated or proposed critical habitat or potential habitat (e.g., roosting,
feeding, nesting, spawning, rearing, overwintering sites, or migratory corridors) for listed species?
For USFWS, please visit the following website to order a site-specific species list from the State
Department of Wildlife and Fish: www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/release. The process takes one to eight
weeks and costs $40.
For NOAA Fisheries, please visit this website to determine the location of listed species:
www.streamnet.org (click “Interactive Mapper”)
No: STOP here. The project will have No Effect on listed or proposed species, and designated or
proposed critical habitat. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA
Fisheries is not required. Record your determination of no effect and maintain this documentation in
your ERR.
Yes: The project may affect listed or proposed species, or designated or proposed critical
habitat. Consultation with the USFWS and/or NOAA Fisheries may be required.
Working Toward Recovery: The Endangered Species Act requires that all federal agencies utilize their
authorities to help conserve listed species. Therefore, as responsible entities, you are encouraged to minimize
the effects of your actions on listed species, designated critical habitat and habitat identified in endangered
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
species recovery plans. For your activities, you are especially encouraged to minimize your action’s
contribution to water quality degradation from point and non-point discharges, and water quantity alteration
due to increased impervious surfaces. Information on low impact development can be found at
www.epa.gov/nps/lid/lidlit.html.
DISCLAIMER: This document is intended as a tool to help grantees and HUD
staff complete NEPA requirements. This document is subject to change. This is
not a policy statement, and the Endangered Species Act and associated regulations
take precedence over any information found in this document. Questions concerning
environmental requirements relative to HUD programs can be addressed to Deborah
Peavler-Stewart (206) 220-5414 or Sara Jensen (206) 220-5226.
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
Biological Assessment
Technical Memorandum
To: Ryan McReynolds, USF&WS
From: Kara Randall, WHPacific
Date: 12/28/2017
Re: City of Yelm Splash Park Biological Assessment Memorandum Introduction
The City of Yelm, WA contracted WHPacific, Inc. (WHP) to conduct Mazama pocket gopher
(Thomomys mazama) surveys and to write this associated biological assessment memorandum
prior to the construction of a splash park at Yelm City Park. Due to previously mapped soil
conditions, federal and Washington State listed threatened Mazama pocket gopher subspecies are
potentially present in the project area. Three Mazama Pocket gopher surveys were conducted by
biologists from the Lacey, WA US Fish and Wildlife Service office and WHPacific environmental
staff. No evidence of pocket gopher activity or presence was detected in Yelm City Park during
these surveys. No effect is anticipated from the proposed Yelm City Park splash park project on
Mazama pocket gophers and other listed species or their designated critical habitats. Project Description
Project Nexus
The City of Yelm has received a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) for the
development of a splash park in Yelm City Park through the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) and administered by Thurston County Public Health and Social Services.
The proposed project activities being funded through the federal HUD grant program constitutes
a federal nexus requiring compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16
U.S.C. § 1531 et seq.). WHP was contracted to perform the environmental compliance work
required as part of this publicly funded grant.
Project Purpose and Need
The CDBG the City of Yelm received from HUD is for building an approximately 4000 square
foot wet play area (splash park) located generally on the southerly portion of the existing Yelm
City Park. The splash park will be adjacent to a new playground area and in a highly visible
location adjacent to the existing Community Center and 1st Street (State Route 507). The splash
park will be constructed to accommodate all physical abilities and age groups. Its central
location within the City, and proximity to nearby demographically diverse residential
neighborhoods provides an excellent location for access and maximized use.
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
Project Location
Yelm City Park is located northeast of the intersection of 1st Street and Mossman Ave. This is
located in the City of Yelm in Thurston County, Washington in the Southwest Quarter of Section
19, Township 17 North, Range 2 East (see Figure 1).
Project Schedule and Timeline
• Complete the SEPA/NEPA phase of the project January 2018
• Begin design of the selected facility February 2018
• Complete design and environmental permitting June 2018
• Obligate and advertise for construction July/August 2018
• Begin construction August 2018
• Complete this phase of the project October 2018
Project Elements
Temporary/Construction-related
Temporary elements of the project are not extensive and are associated with
construction. Construction related elements include mobilization and staging of contractor
equipment, temporary on-site storage of apparatus associated with the splash park construction
(vehicles, equipment, and materials), and temporary park closures.
Permanent Structures and Features
This project consists of construction of an approximate 4000 SF splash-pad adjacent to new
playground equipment. The splash-pad will consist of a concrete pad with water play
appurtenances as above grade features; below grade features include a potable water collection
and recirculation system. The project also includes repurposing of storage buildings for a
recirculating water treatment system.
Construction Sequence or Implementation
Construction is planned to begin in August of 2018 and will be conducted over approximately 45
working days. The southern portion of the City Park will be closed and fenced off during
construction. Anticipated construction sequencing includes: preconstruction 7 day notice to
proceed and confirmation of all permit approvals prior to commencement, contractor installation
of temporary ES&C, excavation and disposal of excess soils, modification to existing park
sprinkler system, preparation of splash-pad area and hard surface pathways for drainage and
concrete placement, installation of drainage elements and plumbing, backfill area and pour
concrete, install surface features for spray park and install recirculating water system, install splash
pad above grade features, test splash-pad recirculating system, certify as needed with Department
of Health (DOH) for public use, install permanent fencing, clean-up site for walk thru and close-
out of physical completion.
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
Access, Staging, Equipment, and Materials
Project area for the splash park permanent features is approximately 4000 SF. Staging and
equipment/materials will occupy approximately 8700 SF of area.
Best Management Practices (Environmental – General)
BMPs will be installed prior to construction to mitigate sediment and contaminant runoff
associated with earthwork and construction activities. Housekeeping measures will be employed
during construction to maintain BMPs. Work areas will be fenced during construction activity
and secured during off hours.
Action Area
The project action area includes Yelm City Park and adjacent roads and parking areas that will be
used to transport equipment and materials into the park for splash park construction. Yelm City
Park is oriented in a northeast –southwest direction and is bordered to the northwest by 1st St S
(SR 507), to the southwest by SE Mossman Ave, to the southeast by 2nd St SE, and to the northeast
by residential and commercial development (Thurston County 2017). A gravel parking lot is
located along the southwest end of the park accessible by SE Mossman Ave, and the community
center with an adjacent paved parking area is located between the southeast side of the park and
2nd St SE. (Figure 2).
Current Land Uses and Management
Yelm City Park currently includes a small walled off playground area, covered and uncovered
picnic areas, a restroom building, and a newly constructed pathway along the northwest side of the
park (Photos 1 – 3). The rest of the park is covered by a grass lawn that is maintained by mowing.
A few shade trees are within the park with more along the parks’ northwest and northeast ends
(some of which are on adjacent residential and commercial properties). Currently the park hosts
a variety of community events including the Car Show, Christmas in the Park, Circus, Patriot Day,
Prairie Days, Prairie Street Rod Association Car Show, and the Yelm Lion’s Club Easter Egg
Hunt.
Baseline Environmental Conditions, Habitats and Habitat Condition
Yelm City Park is within the Nisqually River Watershed (WRIA 11). Yelm Creek is located
approximately 0.4 miles NNE of the park at its closest point and the headwaters for Thompson
Creek are located approximately 0.7 miles SW of the park (Thurston County 2017) (Figure 3).
There are no surface water connections between Yelm City Park and these waterways.
Soils in Yelm City Park are mapped as Spanaway gravelly sandy loam and Spanaway stony sandy
loam (NRCS 2017) (Figure 4). The Spanaway soil series consists of friable, dark, well drained,
soils formed on glacial outwash terraces and plains from glacial outwash and volcanic ash (NCSS
2017). Spanaway series soils are the most common prairie associated soils in Thurston County
(Hall et al.1995). Past agricultural and current managed park land use has altered the soils in Yelm
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
City Park and a recent cultural resources survey conducted by WHPacific staff found that much of
the Spanaway gravelly sandy loam has been removed by modern landscape modification but the
underlying glacial outwash was encountered during subsurface sampling (WHPacific 2017).
Vegetation in the park consists of mostly non-native lawn grasses and non-native herbaceous
species commonly found in lawns in Western Washington including narrowleaf plantain
(Plantago lanceolata), broadleaf plantain (Plantago major) clover species (Trifolium spp.), and
hairy cat’s ear (Hypochoeris radicata) (Photo 4). Tree species include Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga
menziesii) and unidentified deciduous trees.
Status and Critical Habitat for Listed and Proposed Listed Species
The USFWS Official Species List for the Yelm Splash Park project area, issued Oct. 13, 2017,
lists ten federally listed threatened, endangered, or candidate species potentially occurring within
or near the project boundary (USFWS 2017a) (Appendix A). Federally listed threatened Puget
Sound Chinook and/or Puget Sound Steelhead, managed by NOAA Fisheries, are documented in
Yelm Creek, Thompson Creek, and the Nisqually River (WDFW 2017a). No critical habitat is
designated in or adjacent to Yelm City Park (USFWS 2017a, USFWS 2017b, NMFS 2017a). A
species list with information on each species’ federal and state status, general habitat
requirements, closest designated critical habitat and likelihood of occurring in or near the project
area is included in Table 1.
Based upon the online research compiled in Table 1 six of the twelve listed species/sub-species
(the three fish species and three Mazama pocket gopher sub-species) are known to occur within
two-miles of Yelm City Park. The following sections include the results from field surveys and
desktop research on the potential presence and habitat suitability of the action area for these
species, and potential impacts of the proposed action. Salmonids
There are three federally listed threatened fish species/Evolutionary Significant Units (ESU) in the
vicinity of Yelm City Park: bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), Puget Sound ESU Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), and Puget Sound ESU steelhead trout (Oncrhychus mykiss)
(USFWS 2017a, NMFS 2017a). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s SalmonScape
online mapping website lists bull trout as documented present in the Nisqually River; Puget Sound
Chinook documented spawning in the Nisqually River, documented rearing and present in Yelm
Creek, and presumed present in Thompson Creek; and Puget Sound steelhead documented present
in all three waterbodies (WDFW 2017a). The Nisqually River is designated as critical habitat for
all three species (excluding the portion running through Joint Base Lewis McCord). Additional
Puget Sound Chinook critical habitat is designated in Yelm Creek from the confluence with the
Nisqually River to just north of Mountain View Rd. SE (1.7 miles NNW of Yelm City Park).
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
Additional Puget Sound Steelhead critical habitat is designated in Yelm Creek from the Nisqually
River confluence to Crystal Springs St. NW (0.5 miles N of the park) and in Thompson Creek
from the Nisqually River confluence to before 93 Ave SE (1.5 miles NNW of the park) (NMFS
2017a). The Nisqually River, Yelm Creek, and Thompson Creek are part of the Nisqually River
Hydrologic Unit (HU 17110015) and are considered Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for Chinook
salmon (NMFS 2014).
There are no surface water connections between Yelm City Park and Yelm and Thompson Creeks
or the Nisqually River. The Splash Park project area is topographically lower than the surrounding
area and below nearby structures (community center) and roads (1st St. SE, SE 2nd St. and SE
Mosman Ave) resulting in runoff remaining within the boundary of the park. The Splash Park will
use a recirculating potable water system and all additional runoff from new non-permeable
surfaces and construction will run off into and be absorbed by surrounding grasslands. The
proposed project will not directly or indirectly impact creeks and rivers in the area and so should
have no effect on listed fish species or EFH in the surrounding area.
Mazama Pocket Gophers Habitat requirements and regulatory setting
Mazama pocket gophers (pocket gophers) are endemic to western Washington, western Oregon,
and a portion of northern California. In south Puget Sound pocket gophers are primarily associated
with open upland prairie and savannah grasslands, and somewhat with agricultural fields and
pastures (Stinson 2013, WDFW 2013a). Pocket gophers seem to prefer open habitats with well-
drained loamy sand or sandy loam soils with low clay content that occur on top glacial outwash
plains (Stinson 2013, WDFW 2013a). Research on pocket gopher activity in Thurston and Pierce
Counties have found pocket gopher occurrence to be positively associated with sandy loam soils
and negatively associated with increasing amounts of Scot’s broom (Cytisus scoparius), shrub
cover, and percent course gravel (Olson 2011). While pocket gopher density has been found to be
higher in sandy loam soils, they are also known occur in gravelly sandy loams, like those in Yelm
City Park (Stinson 2013, WDFW 2013a).
Pocket gophers were once widespread in the south Puget Sound prairies but their populations have
declined with the loss of suitable habitats to development, invasion by Scot’s broom, and forest
succession on lands that were once maintained as prairies by Native American populations prior
to European settlement in the 1850’s (Stinson 2013). A 1995 Washington State Natural Heritage
Program (WSNHP) study found at least 80% of prairie soils in south Puget Sound have been
converted into urban areas, agricultural lands, or invaded by forests (Hall et al. 1995).
In 2001 USFWS listed eight Washington State Mazama pocket gophers as candidates for listings
under the federal ESA followed by the Washington Fish and Wildlife Commission listing the
Mazama pocket gopher as state threatened in 2006 (RCW 77.15.130) (Stinson 2013). Due to
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
continuing habitat loss and declining pocket gopher populations in Thurston and Pierce Counties
the USFWS listed four Thurston and Pierce County Mazama pocket gopher sub-species as
threatened in 2014 (USFWS 2014a). These include the Olympia pocket gopher (Thomomys
mazama pugetensis), Roy Prairie pocket gopher (T. m. glacialis), Tenino pocket gopher (T. m.
tumuli), and Yelm pocket gopher (T. m. yelmensis). Critical habitat for these sub-species was
designated in Thurston and Pierce Counties at the same time (USFWS 2014b). Mazama pocket
gophers and prairie habitats are also protected under Washington State’s Growth Management Act
(RCW 36.70a) as species and habitats of local importance in Thurston County’s Critical Areas
Ordinances (TCC 24.25).
In order to ensure compliance with the ESA and local ordinances the USFWS and Thurston County
have developed Mazama pocket gopher mound survey protocols for those areas with soils likely
to support pocket gophers. These protocols takes into consideration pocket gopher soil
preferences, seasonality of burrowing/mound building activity, and current site conditions in
determining the need and timing of surveys. Pocket gopher mounds can easily be confused with
mole mounds, especially as they weather over time, so specialized training is needed to correctly
identify the animal creating each mound.
Potential for Mazama pocket gopher habitat and occupancy in Yelm City Park
The 2017 USFWS guidance letter list the Spanaway gravelly sandy loam and Spanaway stony
sandy loam soils found in Yelm City Park as More Preferred and Less Preferred pocket gopher
soils respectively, prompting the need for surveys (USFWS 2017d) (Appendix B). Soils in Yelm
City Park have been altered by past agricultural and current city park land uses. Test pits dug
during a recent National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Sec. 106 compliance survey of the
park found that much of the Spanaway gravelly sandy loam soil has been removed by modern
landscape modification (WHPacific 2017). The park contains a mix of human made structures,
trees, and a managed lawn of mostly introduced grass species that is maintained by mowing. While
pocket gophers are known to eat and cache some of the plant species present in the park (e.g. hairy
cat’s ear and clover species) (Stinson 2013) the park’s vegetation is frequently disturbed by human
use and as a whole does not appear to be high quality pocket gopher habitat.
Yelm City Park is located in the northern half of Yelm Prairie. The WDFW Draft Mazama Pocket
Gopher Recovery Plan Appendix F (Stinson 2013) notes Yelm Prairie pocket gopher populations
as being modest and scattered in the northern portion of the prairie and no records of pocket
gophers occurring in the southern portion of the prairie, though this could be partially due to
difficulties accessing private properties in the southern half of Yelm Prairie (WDFW 2013a). A
review of WDFW’s Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) on the Web shows the closest pocket
gopher location to Yelm City Park is 0.3 miles SW near Mill Rd SE which was located on
10/9/2013 (WDFW 2017b). Several other populations have been located a mile or more north and
northwest of Yelm City Park near and north of SR 510 and also near 93 Ave SE. Populations were
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
also identified in 2013 approximately 1.3 miles east of Yelm City Park near the 103 Rd Right of
Way and Canal St Right of Way. Based upon the pocket gopher location data available in the
WDFW PHS interactive mapping program and in the 2013 recovery plan pocket gophers are not
known to occur in or adjacent to Yelm City Park.
2017 Yelm City Park Mazama pocket gopher surveys
Following the 2017 USFWS guidance letter protocol (USFWS 2017d), three Mazama pocket
gopher surveys were conducted in Yelm City Park between August and October, 2017. Surveys
were conducted by biologists from the Lacey, WA USFWS office accompanied by a WHPacific
environmental staff member. A biologist from WSDOT assisted with the September 1st survey.
Survey forms and a map of the survey route are attached in Appendix C. Results from the surveys
are summarized in Table 2.
Surveys were conducted by walking transects across all of Yelm City Park’s grasslands and along
the slope below 1st St for all three surveys. One intermediate (unidentifiable) mound was found
on the west side of the park on August 1st and four mole mounds were found on October 11th. No
definite or likely pocket gopher mounds were observed during any of the surveys. Survey
conditions were good for the Aug. 1st and Sept. 1st surveys but only fair on Oct. 11th. Survey
conditions were somewhat limited by the installation of a new park irrigation system on Aug. 1st,
re-seeding park grasslands on Oct. 11th, and the building of a new cement pathway along the
northwest side of the park earlier in the summer. None of these other park projects had federal
funding or nexus and so did not require Mazama pocket gopher compliance surveys beforehand.
In addition to the three USFWS surveys, the WHPacific environmental staff member conducted
an additional pocket gopher mound survey on June 30th, 2017. Transects were walked across most
of the park except for the northwest side due to new pathway construction. No pocket gopher or
mole mounds were observed during this survey.
No Mazama pocket gopher activity was detected in Yelm City Park during the three ESA
compliance surveys. In addition the park’s degraded prairie soils, maintained lawns, and fairly
high amount of human activity are not typical of pocket gopher habitat in Thurston County.
Because of this it is extremely unlikely Mazama pocket gophers occur in Yelm City Park.
Effects of the Proposed Action
No listed species or designated critical habitats were found to occur in or adjacent to Yelm City
Park and the splash park project area. The use of standard best practices to mitigate sediment and
contaminant runoff associated with earthwork and construction activities and the splash park’s
recirculating potable water system will help ensure that listed species known to occur within a
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
couple miles of the park (bull trout, Chinook, steelhead, and Mazama pocket gopher subspecies)
will not be directly or indirectly effected by the splash park’s construction or operation.
In addition the effects of the proposed action to the physical, chemical, and biological environment
in general are minor and consistent with current land use practices. Beneficial effects of the
proposed action on the surrounding environment are not anticipated. Temporary effects and
exposures from construction related implementation are minor. Effects to habitat and habitat
conditions from implementation and adaptive management are minor and consistent with current
land use. Indirect effects occurring later in time are not anticipated. Effects of interrelated or
interdependent actions are minor and generally also consistent with current land use practices
(playground equipment). Discountable exposures and effects are extremely unlikely for listed or
proposed species. Insignificant exposures and effects are not measurable for listed or proposed
species. Significant and potentially adverse exposures and effects are not anticipated for listed or
proposed species. Beneficial effects are not anticipated for listed or proposed species. Effects to
listed and proposed listed species’ critical habitats and to the condition of the landscapes’ primary
constituent elements (PCEs) are not anticipated. The proposed federal action is anticipated to have
no effect on listed species,designated critical habitats, and essential fish habitats in Thurston
County.
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
Figures
Figure 1: City of Yelm Splash Park project location.
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
Figure 2: Yelm City Park action area. Splash Park is to be built in the area of the existing playground. Orange outline demarks park
grassland area surveyed for Mazama pocket gophers.
Picnic Structures
Play Ground
Restrooms
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
Figure 3. Hillshade topography map of streams and ponds in the Yelm City Park area. Park outlined in red. (Source: Thurston
County 2017)
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
Figure 4: Yelm City Park Soil Map (NCSS 2017).
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
Photos
Photo 1: Yelm City Park splash park project area looking northeast towards
project area. Splash park is to be built in the area currently occupied by the
playground. Photo taken during 10/11/17 survey while park was being re-
seeded.
Photo 2: Close view of Yelm City Park splash park project area looking
northwest. Photo taken 7/18/2017 during cultural resources survey and
prior to installation of new irrigation system.
Photo 3: North end of Yelm City Park splash park project area looking
northwest towards new pathway construction site. 6/1/2017.
Photo 4: Mixed vegetation and gravelly soil seen in Yelm City Park.
8/1/2017. Photo shows hairy cat’s ear and clover species known to be
consumed by pocket gophers.
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
Tables
Table 1: Listing Status, habitat requirements, nearest designated critical habitat, and likelihood of occurring in the Yelm Splash Park
project area
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Federal
Status1
WA State
Status2
General Habitat
Requirements
Critical Habitat and Additional
Notes
Olympia
Pocket Gopher
Thomomys
mazama
pugetensis
Threatened Threatened See main text for details Nearest critical habitat 13.2 miles
WNW (Bush Prairie/Olympia
Airport) (USFWS 2017b).
See main text for more detail.
Tenino Pocket
Gopher
Thomomys
mazama tumuli
Threatened Threatened See main text for details Nearest critical habitat 11.4 miles
WSW (Rocky Prairie) (USFWS
2017b).
See main text for more detail.
Yelm Pocket
Gopher
Thomomys
mazama
yelmensis
Threatened Threatened See main text for details Nearest critical habitat 6.5 miles SW
(Tenalquot Prairie) (USFWS
2017b). Range includes Yelm City
Park.
See main text for more detail.
Marbled
Murrelet
Brachyramphus
marmoratus
Threatened Endangered Inhabit shallow coastal
marine areas where they
primarily feed on near shore
forage fish. Travel inland to
nest in mature and old
growth forest, mostly
building nests on large
branches or other suitable
platforms in large trees
(WDFW 2013b).
Closest designated critical habitat is
approximately 18 miles southeast of
Yelm City Park (Near Alder Lake)
and 20 miles west in Capitol State
Forest (USFWS 2017b).
No suitable habitat in or near Yelm
City Park. Project should have no
effect on Marbled Murrelet
populations.
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Federal
Status1
WA State
Status2
General Habitat
Requirements
Critical Habitat and Additional
Notes
Streaked
Horned Lark
Eremophila
alpestris
strigata
Threatened Endangered Breeding habitat includes
relatively sparsely vegetated
grasslands, beaches,
agricultural fields, and
airports; prefer bare ground
to vegetation more than
several inches high (Stinson
2015, Anderson and Pearson
2015, Pearson and Altman
2005). Wintering areas are
usually mostly large, bare,
treeless and shrubless
expanses (Stinson 2015).
Nearest designated critical habitat is
along the WA coast 68 miles WSW
of Yelm City Park. (USFWS 2017b).
Streaked horned larks are known
breed in prairies and near airfields at
Joint Base Lewis McCord (< 5 mi
north of Yelm City Park) and at the
Olympia Airport (13 miles WNW of
the park) (Person and Altman 2005).
Yelm city park is a developed park
with densely vegetated lawns and a
high level of human disturbance and
is not suitable streaked horned lark
habitat. Project should have no
effect on streaked horned larks.
Yellow-billed
Cuckoo
Coccyzus
americanus
Threatened Candidate
Species
Prefer open lowland
deciduous woodlands with
clearing and shrubby
vegetation, with a strong
preference in western North
America for large
continuous riparian zones
with cottonwoods and
willows. Has experienced a
major decline in breeding
range since 1800’s, were
once abundant along the
lower Columbia River
(WDFW 2013b).
No designated critical habitat in
Washington State (USFWS 2014c).
Yellow billed cuckoos have not bred
in Washington since the 1930’s and
only sited 4 times in Western WA
State between 1950 and 2000
(WDFW 2013b).
Habitat for this species is not present
within the project area. Project
should have no effect on Yellow-
billed Cuckoos.
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Federal
Status1
WA State
Status2
General Habitat
Requirements
Critical Habitat and Additional
Notes
Bald Eagle Species of
Concern –
Bald and
Golden
Eagle
Protection
Act
Removed
from WA
State
Sensitive
Species
List in
2017
Populations increasing since
banning of DDT. Build nests
in large trees with open
branching usually within a ½
mile of water primarily in
undeveloped areas with little
human activity. (USFWS
2017g)
No bald eagle nest seen in the
vicinity of Yelm City Park.
Oregon
Spotted Frog
Rana pretiosa Threatened Endangered Found in wetland habitats
with large expanses of
shallow water and abundant
emergent or floating aquatic
plants. Need access to water
for reproduction and shelter.
(USFWS 2017f).
13.3 miles SW of Yelm City Park in
Beaver Creek (USFWS 2017b).
No Oregon spotted frog habitat
available in Yelm City Park. Project
should have no effect on Oregon
spotted frogs.
Bull Trout Salvelinus
confluentus
Threatened Candidate Prefer cold, clean, complex
and connected stream
habitats. While bull trout
will migrate through warmer
water, spawning and rearing
habitats are associated with
very cold water (USFWS
2015).
Bull Trout designated critical habitat
in Nisqually River (WDFW 2017a).
The Nisqually River is 2 miles west
of Yelm City Park at its closest point
(USFWS 2017b).
Project should have no effect on bull
trout. See main text for more
information.
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Federal
Status1
WA State
Status2
General Habitat
Requirements
Critical Habitat and Additional
Notes
Puget Sound
Chinook ESU
Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha
Threatened Candidate Prefer streams that are
deeper and larger, and
spawning sites with larger
gravel and more water flow
up through the gravel than
sites used by other Pacific
salmon. Juveniles may
spend 3 months to 2 years in
freshwater before migrating
to estuaries and later marine
environments (NMFS
2017d).
Documented presence and rearing in
Yelm Creek and Nisqually River,
modeled presence in Thompson
Creek (WDFW 2017a).
Designated critical habitat in Yelm
Creek from confluence with
Nisqually River to 0.7 miles
upstream. (NMFS 2005, NMFS
2017a).
Project should have no effect on
Puget Sound ESU Chinook or
Chinook EFH. See main text for
more information.
Puget Sound
Steelhead ESU
Oncrhychus
mykiss
Threatened No Current
WA State
Status
Steelhead are capable of
surviving in a wide range of
temperature conditions.
They do best where
dissolved oxygen
concentration is at least 7
parts per million. In streams,
deep low-velocity pools are
important wintering habitats.
Spawning habitat consists of
gravel substrates free of
excessive silt (NMFS
2017b).
Documented presence in Yelm and
Thompson creeks and Nisqually
River (WDFW 2017a)
Designated critical habitat in Yelm
Creek from confluence with
Nisqually River to Crystal Springs
St. culvert (~0.5 miles N), and in
Thompson Creek from Confluence
with Nisqually River to before 93rd
Ave. SE (~1.6 miles NW) (NMFS
2016, NMFS 2017a)
Project should have no effect on
Puget Sound ESU steelhead. See
text for more information.
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Federal
Status1
WA State
Status2
General Habitat
Requirements
Critical Habitat and Additional
Notes
Golden
Paintbrush
Castilleja
levisecta
Threatened Threatened In WA usually occurs on
loamy sand or sandy loam
soils in gravelly, glacial
outwash prairies (USFWS
2010b). Blooms Feb. into
summer, plants senesce by
mid-summer, fruit capsules
mature in August and persist
on plant into the winter
(USFWS 2010b).
No designated critical habitat
(USFWS 2017d). Natural and
reintroduced Castilleja levisecta
populations occur Thurston County
(USFWS 2007, Dunwiddie and
Martin 2017).
Yelm City Park is a developed
grassland and not typical C.
levisecta habitat and it was not seen
during pedestrian surveys.
Water
Howellia
Howellia
aquatilis
Threatened Threatened Found in low elevation
wetlands in western WA.
Requires seasonally
inundated wetlands for
growth (wet periods) and
reproduction (dry periods).
Soils rich in organic matter
(WNHP 2017).
No designated critical habitat
(USFWS 2017e).
Yelm City Park is within the
species’ range (USFWS 2017e).
Project area is upland and does not
meet species’ wetland habitat
requirement.
1 USFWS Official Species List (Issued Oct. 13, 2017); NOAA Fisheries Wet Coast Region, ESA-Listed Pacific Salmon map
(website:http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/gis_maps/maps/salmon_steelhead/critical_habitat/wcr_salmonid_ch_esa_july2016.pdf ); and
Endangered Species Act Critical Habitat KML map data
(website:http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/maps_data/endangered_species_act_critical_habitat.html )
2 Source: WDFW State Listed Species, Revised February 2017 (available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endangered/state_listed_species.pdf ) and
Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) 2017 Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Vascular Plant List (available at:
https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/amp_nh_vascular_ets.pdf )
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
Table 2: Yelm City Park Mazama pocket gopher mound survey results.
Date
# of Pocket
Gopher
Mounds
Observed
# of
Intermediate
Mounds
Observed
# of Mole
Mounds
Observed Comments
8/1/2017 0 1 0
1 intermediate mound found
in the park’s west corner
near 1st St.
9/1/2017 0 0 0
Substantial recent earthwork
has been done for sidewalks
and a new irrigation system.
This work has no federal
nexus.
10/11/2017 0 0 4
Recent placement of topsoil
& seed throughout most of
park.
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
Sources
Anderson, H.E. and S.F. Pearson. 2015. Streaked horned lark habitat characteristics. Unpublished
paper. Available at: http://cascadiaprairieoak.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Streaked-horned-
lark-habitat-characteristics_April-2015.pdf
Dunwiddie, PW and RA Martin. 2016. Microsites Matter: Improving the Success of Rare Species
Reintroductions. PLoS ONE 11(3): e0150417. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150417. Available at:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4773064/pdf/pone.0150417.pdf
Hall, H.L., R. Crawford, B. Stephens. 1995. Regional Inventory of Prairies in the Southern Puget
Trough: Phase One. Technical Report. Washington Department of Natural Resources Natural
Heritage Program. Available at:
https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/amp_nh_prairie_inventories.pdf
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2017a. West Coast Region, Maps and Data,
Endangered Species Act Critical Habitat website:
http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/maps_data/endangered_species_act_critical_habitat.html
(last viewed 12/8/17).
NMFS. 2017b. Steelhead trout species information page. Available at:
https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/steelhead-trout
NMFS. 2017c. Essential Fish Habitat Mapper v3.0 website:
http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/habitatmapper.html (last viewed 12/15/17).
NMFS 2017d. Chinook species information. Available at:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/chinook-salmon.html#habitat
NMFS. 2016a. Designation of critical habitat for Columbia River coho salmon and Puget Sound
steelhead. Federal Register 81 (9251 – 9325). Available at:
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/02/24/2016-03409/endangered-and-threatened-
species-designation-of-critical-habitat-for-lower-columbia-river-coho
NMFS. 2014. Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Impact Review. Pacific Coast Salmon
Plan Amendment 18: Incorporating Revisions to Pacific Salmon Essential Fish Habitat. Prepared
by The Pacific Fishery Management Council and National Marine Fisheries Service. Regulatory
Identifier Number 0648-BC95. Available at:
http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/habitat/essential_fish_habitat/bc95_final_ea_
rir_am_18_fonsi___appendices.pdf
NMFS. 2005. Designation of Critical Habitat for 12 Evolutionarily Significant Units of West Coast
Salmon and Steelhead in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. Federal Register 70 (52630 – 52858).
Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/fr/fr70-52630.pdf
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2017. Web Soil Survey Website:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm (last visited 12/12/2017).
National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS). 2017. Spanaway Series. Available at:
https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_Docs/S/SPANAWAY.html
Olson, G.S. 2011. Mazama pocket gopher occupancy modeling. Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01352/
Pearson, S.F. and B. Altman. 2005. Range-wide Streaked Horned Lark (Eremophila alpestris
strigata) Assessment and Preliminary Conservation Strategy. Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 25pp. Available at:
https://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/StreakedHornedLark/Documents/SHL-
assessment_strategy.pdf
Stinson, D. W. 2015. Draft periodic status review for the Streaked Horned Lark in Washington.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. Available at:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01774/
Stinson, D. W. 2013. Draft Mazama Pocket Gopher Status Update and Washington State Recovery
Plan. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. Available at:
https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01449/
Thurston County. 2017. Thurston County GeoData Center website: http://www.geodata.org/ (last
viewed 12/15/2017).
Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) 2017. Howellia aquatilis species information
page. Available at: https://www.dnr.wa.gov/publications/amp_nh_hoaq.pdf (last viewed
12/7/2017).
U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017a. Official species list for Yelm City Park Splash
Park. Generated October 13, 2017. Consultation Code: 01EWFW00-2018-SLI-0061. Generated
by the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) website:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ (last viewed 12/8/2017). (Attached as Appendix A).
USFWS 2017b. Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS), Critical Habitat Report,
interactive mapper. Available at:
https://fws.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=9d8de5e265ad4fe09893cf75b8d
bfb77 (last viewed 12/7/17).
USFWS 2017 c. Guidance for Assessing Potential Take of Mazama Pocket Gophers in Thurston
County in 2017. March 6, 2017. Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, Lacey, Washington.
(Attached as Appendix B).
USFWS. 2017d. Species fact sheet, golden paintbrush (Castilleja levisecta). Available at:
https://www.fws.gov/wafwo/species/Fact%20sheets/GPaintbrush_factsheet.pdf
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
USFWS. 2017e. Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) page for Water howellia
(Howellia aquatilis). Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=Q2RM
(last viewed 12/7/2017).
USFWS. 2017f. Oregon spotted frog species information webpage. Available at:
https://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/articles.cfm?id=149489458
USFWS. 2017g. Bald Eagle. Species information webpage. Available at:
https://www.fws.gov/wafwo/articles.cfm?id=149489583
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Recovery plan for the coterminous United States
population of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). Portland, Oregon. Available at:
https://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/pdf/Final_Bull_Trout_Recovery_Plan_092915.pdf
USFWS 2014a. Threatened Species Status for the Olympia pocket gopher, Roy Prairie pocket
gopher, Tenino pocket gopher, and Yelm pocket gopher, with special rule. Final Rule. Federal
Register 79: 19760 – 19796. Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-04-
09/pdf/2014-07414.pdf
USFWS 2014b. Designation of Critical Habitat for Mazama Pocket Gophers. Final rule. Federal
Register 79: 19712-19757. Available at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-04-
09/pdf/2014-07415.pdf
USFWS. 2014c. Designation of critical habitat for the western distinct population segment of the
yellow-billed cuckoo. Proposed Rule. Federal Register 79 (48548 – 48652). Available at:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-08-15/pdf/2014-19178.pdf
USFWS. 2010a. Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for Bull Trout in the coterminous United
States. Final Rule. Federal Register 75 (63898 – 64070). Available at:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-10-18/pdf/2010-25028.pdf
USFWS. 2010b. Recovery plan for the prairie species of western Oregon and southwestern
Washington. Available at: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/100629.pdf
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2017a. SalmonScape Website:
http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/salmonscape/ (last viewed 12/15/2017).
WDFW. 2017b. Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) on the Web – interactive mapping website:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/
WDFW. 2013a. Mazama Pocket Gopher distributions and Habitat survey in Western Washington -
2012. Summary Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. Available
at: https://cascadiaprairieoak.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014/03/MazamaPocketGopher2012SurveysReportFINAL_WDFW.pdf
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
WDFW. 2013b. Threatened and Endangered Wildlife in Washington: 2012 Annual Report. Listing
and Recovery Section, Wildlife Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia.
251 pp. Available at: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01542/wdfw01542.pdf
WHPacific. 2017. Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed Splash Park, Yelm,
Thurston County, WA. Prepared for the City of Yelm by WHPacific, Inc. Portland, OR.
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
Appendix A: USFWS Official Species List
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Washington Fish And Wildlife Office
510 Desmond Drive Se, Suite 102
Lacey, WA 98503-1263
Phone: (360) 753-9440 Fax: (360) 753-9405
http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/
In Reply Refer To:
Consultation Code: 01EWFW00-2018-SLI-0061 Event Code: 01EWFW00-2018-E-00112
Project Name: Yelm City Park Splash Park
October 13, 2017
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed
project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, and proposed species,
designated and proposed critical habitat, and candidate species that may occur within the
boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The
species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under
section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.).
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. The species list is
currently compiled at the county level. Additional information is available from the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Priority Habitats and Species website:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/ or at our office website:
http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/species_new.html. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the
regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be
verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired.
The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website
at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists
and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by
completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species
and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and
7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of
threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect
threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat.
10/13/2017 Event Code: 01EWFW00-2018-E-00112 2
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having
similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that
a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether
or not the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed
critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR
402.12.
If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation,
that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed
project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In
addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species, and proposed
critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations
and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants,
can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF
Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.). You may visit our website at
http://www.fws.gov/pacific/eagle/for information on disturbance or take of the species
and information on how to get a permit and what current guidelines and regulations
are. Some projects affecting these species may require development of an eagle
conservation plan: ( http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/eagle_guidance.html).
Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy guidelines
(http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and bats.
Also be aware that all marine mammals are protected under the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (MMPA). The MMPA prohibits, with certain exceptions, the "take" of
marine mammals in U.S. waters and by U.S. citizens on the high seas. The importation of
marine mammals and marine mammal products into the U.S. is also prohibited. More
information can be found on the MMPA website:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/mmpa/.
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their
project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation
Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or
correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.
Related website:
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
National Marine Fisheries Service:
http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/protected_species/species_list/species_lists.html
Attachment(s):
Official Species List
10/13/2017 Event Code: 01EWFW00-2018-E-00112 1 Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information
whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a
proposed action".
This species list is provided by:
Washington Fish And Wildlife Office
510 Desmond Drive Se, Suite 102
Lacey, WA 98503-1263
(360) 753-9440
10/13/2017 Event Code: 01EWFW00-2018-E-00112 2
Project Summary
Consultation Code: 01EWFW00-2018-SLI-
0061 Event Code: 01EWFW00-2018-E-
00112
Project Name: Yelm City Park Splash Park
Project Type: DEVELOPMENT
Project Description: The City of Yelm has received a HUD Community Development
Block Grant for the construction of a splash park in Yelm City Park
(115 Mosman Ave SE, Yelm, WA 98597). Construction is to begin in
2018. Three Mazama pocket gopher surveys of the site where
conducted at this site between August and October 2017. Surveys
were conducted by USFWS biologists and WHPacific staff. No
pocket gopher activity was found at the site
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/46.94049131026948N122.60814213400135W
Counties: Thurston, WA
10/13/2017 Event Code: 01EWFW00-2018-E-00112 3 Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 10 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could
include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear
on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. See the "Critical
habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially within your
project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office if you
have questions.
Mammals
NAME STATUS
Olympia Pocket Gopher Thomomys mazama pugetensis
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.
Threatened
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6713
Tenino Pocket Gopher Thomomys mazama tumuli
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.
Threatened
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6290
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
Yelm Pocket Gopher Thomomys mazama yelmensis
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.
Threatened
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7257
Birds
NAME STATUS
Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus
Population: U.S.A. (CA, OR, WA)
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.
Threatened
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4467
Streaked Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris strigata
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.
Threatened
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7268
Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus
Population: Western U.S. DPS
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.
Threatened
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
10/13/2017 Event Code: 01EWFW00-2018-E-00112 4
Amphibians
NAME STATUS
Oregon Spotted Frog Rana pretiosa
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.
Threatened
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6633
Fishes
NAME STATUS
Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus
Population: U.S.A., conterminous, lower 48 states
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.
Threatened
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8212
Flowering Plants
NAME STATUS
Golden Paintbrush Castilleja levisecta
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7706
Threatened
Water Howellia Howellia aquatilis
No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7090
Threatened
Critical habitats
There are no critical habitats within your project area under this office's jurisdiction.
Appendix B
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
HUD Seattle Region Environmental Office – 2015
Appendix C
HUD Region X Environmental Office – April 2015
HUD Region X Environmental Office – April 2015
HUD Region X Environmental Office – April 2015
HUD Region X Environmental Office – April 2015
HUD Region X Environmental Office – April 2015
HUD Region X Environmental Office – April 2015
HUD Region X Environmental Office – April 2015
Appendix F: Explosive and Flammable Operations
Explosive and Flammable Operations
24CFR Part 58
General requirements Legislation Regulation
Establish safety standards that can
be used as a basis for calculating
acceptable separation distances for
assisted projects.
Sec.2 Housing and Urban
Development Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 1441 (a)
24 CFR Part 51 Subpart C
1. Does the project include development, construction, rehabilitation or modernization or conversion?
(For modernization and rehabilitation projects, does the work increase residential densities, convert a
building for habitation, or make a vacant building habitable?)
No: STOP here. The project is not subject to 24 CFR Part 51 C. Record your determination in your
Environmental Review Record (ERR).
Yes: PROCEED to #2
2. Are there aboveground storage tanks within 1 mile of the project site more than 100 gallons in size? Are
there plans to install such aboveground storage tanks within 1 mile of the project site? (HUD’s stated position
is that 24 CFR Part 51 C does not apply to storage tanks ancillary to the operation of the assisted 1-4 family
residence, for example the home heating or power source. It does apply to all other tanks, including tanks for
neighboring 1-4 family residences.)
Maintain documentation supporting your determination in your ERR. Documentation could include a
finding by a qualified data source (i.e. Fire Marshall etc…), copies of pictures, maps, and/or internet data.
TIP: You do not have to consider all tanks at all sizes within 1 mile of your project. Screen further by
determining the Acceptable Separation Distance for specific tank sizes and using that information to
narrow your search. For instance, the maximum ASD for a 100 gallon tank is 115 feet. You do not need
to map 100 gallon tanks farther than 115 feet from your project site. Find the list of ASDs by tank size in
Appendix C here: https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/Acceptable-Separation-Distance-
Guidebook-Appendix-C.pdf
No: STOP here. The project is not subject to 24 CFR Part 51 C. Record your determination that there are no
storage tanks within one mile of the project site in your ERR.
Yes: PROCEED to #3
3. Is the Separation Distance from the project acceptable based on standards in 24 CFR 51 C?
Use the online tool to calculate ASD: https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental-review/asd-calculator/
or use the HUD guidebook, “Acceptable Separation Distance Guidebook which is available at:
https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/2762/acceptable-separation-distance-guidebook/
Yes: STOP here. Include maps and your separation distance calculations in your ERR.
No: PROCEED to #4
4. With mitigation, can the Separation Distance become acceptable?
No: PROJECT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE-DO NOT FUND
Yes: STOP here. Maintain documentation supporting your determination in your ERR. Documentation could
include a finding by a qualified data source (i.e., Fire Marshall etc.), copies of pictures, maps, technical
calculations and information describing the mitigation measures taken.
DISCLAIMER: This document is intended as a tool to help Region X
HUD grantees and HUD staff complete environmental requirements.
This document is subject to change. This is not a policy statement.
Legislation and Regulations take precedence over any information
found in this document.
HUD Region X Environmental Office – April 2015
Google Earth Image showing the closest ground distance from the edge of the water tower pad holding two City of Yelm diesel fuel storage tanks to the closest
point of the proposed Yelm City Park splash park project area is 277.06 feet. According to according to the HUD Acceptable Separation Distance Assessment
Tool (https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental-review/asd-calculator/) the acceptable distance for thermal radiation for people (ASDPPU) for a tank
holding a non-cryogenic liquefied gas such as diesel fuel is 167.48 feet for a 300 gallon tank 141.45 feet for a 200 gallon tank. Both tanks are an acceptable
distance from the splash park project area.
HUD Region X Environmental Office – April 2015
Google Earth Image showing the ground distance to the nearest visible tank to the closest point of the proposed project area in Yelm City Park is 508.39 feet.
This tanks is approximately 12 feet long and so is estimated to be approximately 1000 gallons, but, since it is on private land, there is no information on what
type of liquid it is holding or if it is being used. If the tank is holding flammable and/or explosive liquids, according to the HUD Acceptable Separation Distance
Assessment Tool (https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental-review/asd-calculator/) the acceptable distance for a 1000 gallon un-diked tank is 219.03 feet
for a non-cryogenic liquefied gas and 276.57 feet for a cryogenic liquefied gas.
HUD Region X Environmental Office – April 2015
Appendix G: Farmland Protection Checklist
Farmland Protection
Checklist for HUD or Responsible Entity
General requirements Legislation Regulation
The Farmland Protection Policy
Act discourages Federal
activities that would convert
farmland to nonagricultural
purposes.
Farmland Protection Policy Act
of 1981 (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.)
7 CFR Part 658
1. Does your project include new construction, acquisition of undeveloped land or change in use
of land or property.
Yes: PROCEED to #2
No: STOP here. The Farmland Protection Policy Act does not apply. Record your determination
2. Does your project meet one of the following exemptions?
• Construction limited to on-farm structures needed for farm operations.
• Construction limited to new minor secondary (accessory) structures such as a garage or
storage shed
• Project on land used for water storage or already in or committed urban development (this
includes land with a density of 30 structures per 40 acre area. It also includes lands identified
as “urbanized area” (UA) on the Census Bureau Map, or as urban area mapped with a “tint
overprint” on the USGS topographical maps, or as “urban built-up” on the USDA Important
Farmland Maps. Please note that land “zoned” for development, i.e. non-agricultural use,
does not exempt a project from compliance with the FPPA).
Yes: STOP here. The Farmland Protection Policy Act does not apply. Record your determination
No: PROCEED to #3
3. Does “important farmland” regulated under the Farmland Protection Policy Act occur on the project
site? This includes prime farmland, unique farmland and/or land of statewide or local importance
You may use the links below to determine if important farmland occurs on the project site:
Maintain, in your ERR, documentation to evidence the project meets one of the exemptions.
If the project is already in urban development provide a map as described above with your site
marked or documentation from another credible source.
Maintain, in your ERR, a determination that the project does not include new construction,
acquisition of undeveloped land or change in use of a property
HUD Region X Environmental Office – April 2015
• Utilize USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Web Soil Survey
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
• Check with your city or county’s planning department and ask them to document if the
project is on land regulated by the FPPA (zoning important farmland as non-agricultural
does not exempt it from FPPA requirements)
• Contact NRCS at the local USDA service center
http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs for assistance
No: STOP here. The project does not convert farmland to nonagricultural purposes. Record your
determination on the Statutory Worksheet and attach documentation used to make your
determination
Yes: PROCEED to #4
4. Consider alternatives to completing the project on important farmland and means of
avoiding impacts to important farmland.
Complete form AD-1006, “Farmland Conversion Impact Rating” and contact the state soil scientist
before sending it to the local NRCS District Conservationist. Work with NRCS to minimize the
impact of the project on the protected farmland.
Return a copy of Form 1006 to the USDA-NRCS State Soil Scientist or his/her designee informing
them of your determination once you have finished the analysis.
DISCLAIMER: This document is intended as a tool to help Region
X HUD grantees and HUD staff complete environmental
requirements. This document is subject to change. This is not a
policy statement, and the Farmland Protection Legislation and
Regulations take precedence over any information found in this
doc ment
Record your determination on the Statutory Worksheet and attach documentation used to make
your determination. Include any mitigation required in the review.
HUD Region X Environmental Office – April 2015
Map showing Yelm City Park is zoned as an open space park that is bordered by central business district (CBD), commercial (C-1),
and residential (R-4) zoned developments.
100 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
2010 Census Urban Area Reference Map forYelm, WA. The City of Yelm is designated an urbanized
area (outlined in green). (Source US Census Bureau Reference Maps
https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10map/UAUC_RefMap/uc/uc97642_yelm_wa/DC10UC97642.
pdf )
101 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
Appendix H: Floodplain Management Checklist
Floodplain Management
Checklist for HUD or Responsible Entity
General requirements Legislation Regulation
Avoid the adverse impacts
associated with the occupancy
and modification of floodplains.
Avoid floodplain development
whenever there are practicable
alternatives.
Executive Order 11988, May 24
1977
24 CFR Part 55
1. Is the Project located in a floodway or a 100 or 500-year flood plain?
For projects in areas mapped by FEMA, maintain the FEMA map panel that includes your project site.
Make sure to include the map panel number and date. If FEMA information is unavailable or insufficiently
detailed, other Federal, state, tribal or local data may be used as ‘best available information.’ However, a base
flood elevation from an interim or preliminary or non-FEMA source cannot be used if it is lower than the
current FIRM and FIS. Include documentation, including a discussion of why this is the best available
information for the site.
No: STOP here. The Floodplain Management regulations do not apply. Record your determination that the
project is not in a floodplain or floodway.
Yes—Floodway. STOP. The National Flood Insurance Program prohibits federal financial assistance
for use in a floodway. The only exception is for functionally dependent uses, such as a marina, a port
facility, a waterfront park, a bridge or a dam. If your project is a functionally dependent use in a floodway,
proceed to #3
Yes—500-year flood plain (Zone B or X on FEMA maps or best information). PROCEED to #2
Yes—100 Year flood plain (Zone A or V on FEMA maps or best information). PROCEED to #3
Yes—Flood prone area. PROCEED to #3
2. For projects in the 500-year flood plain: Does your project involve a critical action, defined as an activity for
which even a slight chance of flooding would be too great because it might result in loss of life, injury or
property damage? Specific examples include:
• Structures or facilities that produce, use or store highly volatile, flammable, explosive, toxic or
water-reactive materials.
• Structures or facilities that provide essential and irreplaceable records or utility or emergency
services that may become lost or inoperative during flood and storm events (e.g., data storage
centers, generating plants, principal utility lines, emergency operations centers including fire
and police stations, and roadways providing sole egress from flood-prone areas).
• Structures or facilities that are likely to contain occupants who may not be sufficiently mobile
to avoid loss of life or injury during flood or storm events, e.g. persons who reside in hospitals,
nursing homes, convalescent homes, intermediate care facilities, board and care facilities, and
retirement service centers. Housing for independent living for the elderly is not considered a
critical action.
No: STOP here. The project can proceed without further analysis. Record your determination and attach
flood plain map and documentation that project does not involve a critical action.
Yes: PROCEED to #3
102 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
3. Does your project meet one of the categories of proposed action for which Part 55 does not apply?
(Below are several common exemptions—please see 24 CFR 55.12(c) for additional categories of proposed
action)
• The approval of financial assistance for restoring and preserving the natural and beneficial
functions and values of floodplains and wetlands but only other certain further conditions (see
24 CFR 55(c)(3).
• A minor amendment to a previously approved action with no additional adverse impact on or
from a floodplain.
• Approval of a project site, an incidental portion of which is situated in an adjacent floodplain,
but only with certain further conditions (see 24 CFR 55.12(c)(6)).
• A project on any site in a floodplain for which FEMA has issued a final Letter of Map
Amendment or Letter of Map Revision that removed the property from a FEMA-designated
floodplain location.
• A project on any site in a floodplain for which FEMA has issued a conditional LOMA or
LOMR if the approval is subject to the requirements and conditions of the conditional LOMA
or LOMR.
• Special Projects directed to the removal of material and architectural barriers that restrict the
mobility of and accessibility to elderly and persons with disabilities.
Yes: Stop here. Record your determination that the project is exempt from floodplain management
regulations per 24 CFR 55.12(c). Maintain copies of all of the documents you have used to make your
determination. Please note that you may still have to maintain flood insurance on the project per the Flood
Disaster Protection Act.
No: Proceed to #4.
4. Does your project meet one of the categories of proposed action for which the 8-step decision making
process does not apply? (Below are several common exemptions—please see 24 CFR 55.12(b) for
additional categories of proposed action)
• Financial assistance for the purchasing, mortgaging or refinancing of existing one-to-four family
properties under certain conditions (24 CFR 55(b)(1))
• Financial assistance for minor repairs or improvements on one-to-four-family properties that do not
meet the thresholds for ‘substantial improvement’1
• Disposition of individual HUD-acquired one-to-four-family properties.
• HUD guarantees under the Loan Guarantee Recovery Fund Program under certain conditions (see 24
CFR 55.12(b)(4).
• Leasing an existing structure in the floodplain but only under certain conditions (see 24 CFR
55.12(b)(5))
Yes: Stop here. Record your determination that the project is exempt from the 8-step process as per 24
CFR 55.12(b). Maintain copies of all of the documents you have used to make your determination.
Please note that you may still have to maintain flood insurance on the project per the Flood Disaster
Protection Act. Please also note that notification of floodplain hazard requirements at 24 CFR 55.21 may
apply.
No: Proceed to #5.
5. Does your project meet one of the categories of proposed action for which a limited 8-step process
applies? (please see 24 CFR 55.12(a) for more details)
• Disposition of acquired multifamily housing projects or acquired one-to-four family properties where
communities are in good standing in the NFIP program.
• HUD’s actions under the National Housing Act for purchase or refinance of existing multifamily
housing projects, hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, board and care facilities, and
intermediate care facilities, in communities that are in good standing under the NFIP.
103 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
• Actions under any HUD program involving the repair, rehabilitation, modernization, weatherization, or
improvement of existing multifamily housing projects, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, board
and care facilities, intermediate car facilities and one-to-four family properties in communities in the
Regular Program of the NFIP and in good standing, units are not increased more than 20 percent, the
action does not involve a conversion from nonresidential to residential land use, the action does not
meet the thresholds for ‘substantial improvement’1 and the footprint of the structure and paved areas is
not significantly increased.
• Actions under any HUD program involving the repair, rehabilitation, modernization, weatherization, or
improvement of existing nonresidential buildings and structures in communities in the Regular Program
of the NFIP and in good standing, the action does not meet the thresholds for ‘substantial
improvement’1 and the footprint of the structure is not significantly increased.
Yes: Complete the 5-step decision-making process for floodplains. You do not have to publish the notices
in steps 2 or 7 or do an analysis of alternatives in Step 3. Analyze potential direct and indirect impacts (step 4);
design or modify to minimize potential impacts (step 5); reevaluate the proposed action to determine if action is
still practicable (step 6).
• If still practicable, document your analysis in the file and move forward.
• If not still practicable, either reject or modify project.
No: Proceed to #6.
6. Are there practicable alternatives to locating your project in the floodplain?
HUD strongly discourages use of funds for projects that do not meet an exemption in Part
55.12. Reject the Project Site or Request a Letter of Map Amendment or Revision (LOMA/R)
from FEMA. If you decide to consider the project you must determine if there are alternatives by
completing the 8-step decision-making process described in 24 CFR Section 55.20. Please note that
requesting a LOMA/R or completing the 8 step process take time and resources. The 8-step decision-
making process requires two public notice and comment periods.
You must also maintain flood insurance on the project per the Flood Disaster Protection Act.
Yes: Reject or modify project.
No: Document your analysis, including floodplain notices, in your Environmental Review Record.
You must notify any private party participating in a financial transaction for the property of the hazards
of the floodplain location before the execution of documents completing the transaction. (24 CFR
Section 55.21)
Substantial Improvement means any repair, reconstruction, modernization or improvement of a structure, the cost of which
equals or exceeds 50% of the market value of the structure either before the improvement or repair started or if the structure
has been damaged before the damage occurred OR any repair reconstruction etc. that results in an increase of more than
20% of dwelling units or peak number of customers and employees (24 CFR 55.2(b)(8)
DISCLAIMER: This document is intended as a tool to help HUD Region X
grantees and HUD staff complete environmental requirements. This
document is subject to change. This is not a policy statement, and the
Floodplain Executive Order and Regulations take precedence over any
information found in this document.
104 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
FEMA FIRMette map of Yelm City Park showing park in an area of minimal flood hazard (Zone X).
105 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
Appendix I: Historic Preservation Checklist
Historic Preservation for Washington State
24 CFR Part 58
General requirements Legislation Regulation
Protect sites, buildings, and objects with national,
state or local historic, cultural and/or archeological
significance. Identify effects of project on properties
National Historic Preservation
Act, 16 U.S.C. 470(f), section
106
36 CFR Part 800
24 CFR Part 58.5(a)
1. Does the project include repair, rehabilitation or conversion of existing properties; new construction;
demolition; the acquisition of undeveloped land; or any activity that requires ground disturbance
(defined as one cubic foot of disturbed soil)?
No: STOP here. The Section 106 Historic Preservation review is complete.
Record your determination on the Statutory Worksheet or Environmental Assessment.
Yes: PROCEED to #2
2. Does the project involve a structure that is less than 45 years old, is not in a historic district and has no
ground disturbing activities?
Yes: STOP here. The Section 106 Historic Preservation review is complete.
Record your determination that there is no potential to cause effect, including the age of the existing
building and information from the National Register to show that the activity is not in a historic district, on
the Statutory Worksheet or Environmental Assessment.
No: PROCEED to #3
3. Consult with SHPO or THPO and any tribes or groups that may have an interest in the project to
determine if the project is eligible for the National Historic Register.
• You must define and consider the Area of Potential Effect (APE). The APE is the geographic area within
which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic
properties. The APE is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking. (36 CFR Part 800.16).
• Determine if there are tribes or groups that have an interest in the historic aspects of the project and invite
them to participate in the consultation. For ground disturbing activities, you must make a reasonable and
good faith effort to identify Indian tribes that may have an interest. HUD’s website lists interested tribes
by county: http://egis.hud.gov/tdat/Tribal.aspx. It is suggested that you go to the Tribal website or contact
the SHPO to make sure contact information is current.
• Consult the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), or if the project is on certain tribal lands, the
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO), with details of the project and project site and your
determination if it is eligible for the National Historic Register. SHPO or THPO has 30 days from receipt
of a well-documented request of review of your determination. We recommend sending the letter with a
return receipt form to document the contact. If they do not respond within the timeframe, or provide a
description of additional information needed, you may proceed with the next step of the process based on
your finding or consult with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP).
Visit the Region X environmental website for specific information about the Historic Preservation process in
your state: http://www.hud.gov/local/shared/working/r10/environment/index.cfm?state=wa
State Historic Preservation Officer contacts: http://www.nps.gov/nr/shpolist.htm
Tribal Historic Preservation Officers contacts: http://www.nathpo.org/map.html
Proceed as appropriate based on the Finding
106 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
:
No Historic Properties Affected: STOP here. The Section 106 Historic Preservation review is complete.
Attach SHPO/THPO concurrence, copies of letters to and from other interested parties and the tribes, and
your response to the ERR. If SHPO/THPO did not respond within 30 days, your dated letter documents
compliance. Record your determination of no historic properties affected on the Statutory Worksheet or
Environmental Assessment.
No Adverse Effect on Historic Property: STOP here. The Section 106 Historic Preservation review
is complete. Categorically Excluded projects (24 CFR Part 58.35(a)) CANNOT convert to exempt with
this determination.
Attach SHPO/THPO concurrence, copies of letters to and from other interested parties and the tribes, and
your response to the ERR. Record your determination of no adverse affect on historic properties on the
Statutory Worksheet or Environmental Assessment.
Adverse Effect on Historic Property Resolve Adverse Effects per 800.6 in consultation
with SHPO/THPO, the ACHP if participating, and any consulting parties. The loan or grant
may not be approved until adverse effects are resolved according to 800.6 or you have
complied with 36 CFR Part 800. Categorically Excluded projects (24 CFR Part 58.35(a)) CANNOT
convert to exempt with this determination.
Make sure that the resolution is fully documented in your ERR with all SHPO/THPO correspondence,
copies of letters to and from other interested parties and the tribes, surveys, MOAs etc.
107 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
108 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
109 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
110 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
111 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
112 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
113 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
114 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
115 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
116 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
117 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
118 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
119 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
120 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
121 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
Cultural Resources Survey Report
122 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
123 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
124 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
125 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
126 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
127 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
128 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
129 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
130 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
131 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
132 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
133 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
134 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
135 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
136 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
137 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
138 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
139 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
140 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
141 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
142 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
143 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
144 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
145 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
146 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
147 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
148 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
149 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
150 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
151 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
152 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
153 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
154 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
Appendix J: Noise Abatement and Control Checklist
Noise Abatement and Control
Checklist for HUD or Responsible Entity
General requirements Legislation Regulation
Encourage land use patterns for
housing and other noise sensitive
urban needs that will provide a
suitable separation between them
and major noise sources
Noise Control Act of 1972
The Quiet Communities Act of 1978
as amended
OMB Circular 75-2, “Comparable
Land Uses at Federal Airfields”
24 CFR Part 51 Subpart B
Noise Guidebook
1. Is the project for new construction, purchase or resale of existing, modernization, or rehabilitation of
noise sensitive use (i.e., housing, mobile home parks, nursing homes, hospitals, and other non-housing
uses where quiet is integral to the project’s function, e.g., libraries)?
No: STOP here. The project is not subject to the noise standards. Maintain documentation on the nature of
the project. Record your determination that the project is not subject to the noise standards in your
Environmental Review Record (ERR).
Yes: PROCEED to #2
2. Is the project located within 1,000 feet of a busy road or highway, 3,000 feet of a railroad, or 15
miles of a civil airport or military airfield? Are there any other potential noise sources in the project vicinity
that could produce a noise level above HUD’s acceptable range, including but not limited to concert halls,
night clubs, event facilities, etc…. ?
No: STOP here. Maintain a map identifying distances from roads, railroads and airports and your project.
Record your determination. You do not need to calculate a specific noise level.
Yes: PROCEED to #3
3. Determine the actions to take based on the project and HUD Acceptability Standards.
Is the activity for:
Construction of new noise sensitive use. Calculate noise using HUD standards or online tool:
https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental-review/dnl-calculator PROCEED to 3.a
Purchase or resale of existing buildings (existing buildings are either more than 1 year old or
buildings for which this is the second or subsequent purchaser). Noise calculation is not required.
HUD or RE determines need based on their evaluation of project. Proceed to 3.b
Modernization. Noise calculation is not required. HUD or RE determines need based on their
evaluation of project. Proceed to 3.c
Major or substantial rehabilitation (use the definition contained in the specific program guidelines).
Calculate noise using HUD standards or online tool: https://www.hudexchange.info/environmental-
review/dnl-calculator Proceed to 3.d
HUD General Acceptability Standards
HUD determination Day night average sound level in decibels (dB)
Acceptable Not exceeding 65 dB
Normally Unacceptable Above 65 dB but not exceeding 75dB
Unacceptable Above 75 dB +
New Construction
Is the Day-Night average sound level:
Above 75 dB. Construction of new noise sensitive uses is generally prohibited, an EIS is required prior
to the approval. The Assistant Secretary or Certifying Officer may waive the EIS requirement in cases
where noise is the only environmental issue and no outdoor sensitive activity will take place on the site.
155 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
(Under § Part 50 approval is required of the Assistant Secretary for CPD, under § Part 58 the Certifying
Officer must provide approval). The project must be mitigated to acceptable standanrds. Document the
ERR with the noise calculation, EIS, EIS waiver if approved, mitigation requirements and when complete,
evidence of mitigation..
Above 65 dB but not exceeding 75 dB. Construction of new noise sensitive uses is discouraged – all new
projects require special environmental reviews and may require special approvals prior to construction
(except when the threshold has been shifted to 70 dB as described below). Information is provided at
51.104 (b)(1). Document ERR include the noise calculation, special review and approval. Document
mitigation requirements and when complete, evidence of mitigation.
Not exceeding 65 dB. (this threshold may be shifted to 70 dB on a case-by-case basis when 6 specific
conditions are satisfied as described at Section 51.105(a)). Noise levels are acceptable. Document the noise
calculation in the ERR
b. Purchase or Resale of Existing Building
Is the Day-Night average sound level above an acceptable level (based on noise calculation or your
analysis of the site using maps or a site visit)?
Yes. Consider environmental noise as a marketability factor when considering the amount of insurance or
assistance that will be provided to the project? Noise exposure by itself will not result in the denial of HUD
support for the resale and purchase of otherwise acceptable existing buildings. Record your determination in
the ERR.
No. Record your determination in the ERR
c. Modernization
Is the Day-Night average sound level above an acceptable level (based on noise calculation or your
analysis of the site using maps or a site visit)?
Yes. Encourage noise attenuation features in alterations. Record your determination in the ERR. Identify
how you are encouraging noise attenuation
No. Record your determination in the ERR
d. Major or Substantial Rehabilitation
Is the Day-Night average sound level:
Above 75 dB. HUD or the RE shall actively seek to have project sponsors incorporate noise attenuation
features, given the extent and nature of the rehabilitation being undertaken and the level of exterior noise
exposure and will strongly encourage conversion of the noise exposed sites to land uses compatible with the
high noise levels. Document the ERR include the noise calculation and efforts taken to encourage noise
attenuation .
Above 65 dB but not exceeding 75 dB. HUD or the RE shall actively seek to have project sponsors
incorporate noise attenuation features, given the extent and nature of the rehabilitation being undertaken and
the level of exterior noise exposure Document ERR include the noise caluclation and efforts taken to
encourage noise attenuation.
Not exceeding 65 dB. (this threshold may be shifted to 70 dB on a case-by-case basis when 6 specific
conditions are satisfied as described at Section 51.105(a)). Noise levels are acceptable. Document the ERR
with the noise calculation.
DISCLAIMER: This document is intended as a tool to help Region X HUD
grantees and HUD staff complete environmental requirements. This
document is subject to change. This is not a policy statement, refer to the
24CFR Part 51 Subpart B and the Noise Guidebook for specific guidance.
156 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
Appendix K: Sole Source Aquifers Checklist
Sole Source Aquifers
Checklist for HUD or Responsible Entity
General requirements Legislation Regulation
Protect drinking water systems which
are the sole or principal drinking water
source for an area and which, if
contaminated, would create a
significant hazard to public health.
Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974
(42 U.S.C. 201, 300 et seq., and 21
U.S.C. 349)
40 CFR 149.2
1. Is the project located on a sole source aquifer (SSA) review area which includes the aquifer and
streamflow source areas? (Note: There are currently no sole source aquifers in Alaska.)
Maintain, in your ERR, a copy of the latest SSA review area map, marked with your project location.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/water.nsf/Sole+Source+Aquifers/ssamaps
Make sure you consider streamflow source areas.
No: STOP here. The Sole Source Aquifer authority does not apply. Record your determination.
Yes: PROCEED to #2
2. Is the project located in Idaho?
Yes: Follow the 2000 Sole Source Aquifer Memorandum of Understanding between HUD/Idaho Division
of Community Development/Idaho Housing and Finance Association and EPA. Record your determination
on the Statutory Worksheet.
No: PROCEED to #3
3. Does the project consist of an individual action on a one-to-four unit residential building (including
acquisition, disposition, new construction and rehabilitation) that meets all applicable local and state
groundwater regulations?
Yes: STOP here. The project is not likely to affect Sole Source Aquifer quality. Record your determination
on the Statutory Worksheet.
No: PROCEED to #4
4. Does the project consist of acquisition, disposition or rehabilitation of a multifamily (5 or more dwelling
units) residential building, commercial building or public facility that does not increase size or capacity and
meets all applicable local and state groundwater regulations?
Yes: STOP here. The project is not likely to affect Sole Source Aquifer quality. Record your determination
on the Statutory Worksheet.
No: PROCEED to #5
5. Does the project consist of new construction or rehabilitation that increases size or capacity of a multifamily
building, commercial building or public facility that meets all applicable local/state ground-water
regulations AND is served by public water, sewer and storm drainage systems. (If the project uses well
water or a septic system or infiltrates storm-water on site, you must proceed to Step #6.)
Yes: STOP here. The project is not likely to affect Sole Source Aquifer quality. Record your determination
on the Statutory Worksheet.
No: PROCEED to #6
157 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
6. Submit your project to EPA for review.
EPA approves project: Stop here. The project is not likely to affect Sole Source Aquifer quality.
Maintain copies of all of the documents you have used to make your determination and your correspondence
with EPA.
EPA objects to project: Continue working with EPA to mitigate issues. You may need to hire a technical
consultant or request EPA to conduct an independent review of the proposed project for impacts to ground water
quality. If EPA determines that the project continues to pose a significant contaminant hazard to public health,
federal financial assistance must be denied.
DISCLAIMER: This document is intended as a tool to help Region X HUD
grantees and HUD staff complete environmental requirements. This
document is subject to change. This is not a policy statement, and the Sole
Source Aquifer Legislation and Regulations take precedence over any
information found in this document.
Include the following information:
1. Location of Project and name of Sole Source Aquifer.
2. Project description and federal funding source.
3. Is there any increase of impervious surface? If so, what is the area?
4. Describe how storm water is currently treated on the site.
5. How will storm water be treated on this site during construction and after the project is complete?
6. Are there any underground storage tanks present or to be installed? Include details of such tanks.
7. Will there be any liquid or solid waste generated? If so how will it be disposed of?
8. What is the depth of excavation?
9. Are there any wells in the area that may provide direct routes for contaminates to access the aquifer
and how close are they to the project?
10. Are there any hazardous waste sites in the project area....especially if the waste site has an
underground plume with monitoring wells that may be disturbed? Include details.
11. Are there any deep pilings that may provide access to the aquifer?
12. Are Best Management Practices planned to address any possible risks or concerns?
13. Is there any other information that could be helpful in determining if this project may have an affect
on the aquifer?
14. Does this Project include any improvements that may be beneficial to the aquifer, such as
improvements to the wastewater treatment plan?
Submit the information to Susan Eastman at eastman.susan@epa.gov , phone number (206) 553-6249, for
EPA approval of the project. Please note that EPA may request additional information if impacts to the
aquifer are questionable after the information is submitted for review.
158 of 172 HUD Region X Environmental Office – May 2013
EPA Sole Source Aquifer map showing that the City of Yelm is not is a sole source aquifer review area. Yelm City Park is represented by the dot on the map
south of the Yelm city label. The closest SSA is the Central Pierce County Aquifer Area SSA beginning east of Yelm and starting at the Nisqually River.
(Source: EPA SSAs Interactive Mapper, available at: https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=9ebb047ba3ec41ada1877155fe31356b
).
HUD Region X Environmental Office – June 2012
Appendix L: Protection of Wetlands Checklist
Protection of Wetlands
Checklist for HUD or Responsible Entity
General requirements Legislation Regulation
Avoid the adverse impacts associated with the
destruction and modification of wetlands and to
avoid direct or indirect support of new construction
in wetlands wherever there is a practicable
alternative.
Executive Order 11990,
May 24 1977
24 CFR Part 55
1. Does the project include new construction, rehabilitation that expands the footprint of the building,
or ground disturbance?
No: STOP here. The Protection of Wetlands executive order does not apply. Record your determination
that the project is not in a wetland.
Yes: Proceed to #2
2. Is there a wetland on your project site?
Use both national and local resources to make this determination. A good first step is to check the National
Wetlands Inventory’s digital wetlands mapper tool: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html If site
conditions or other documents indicate there may be a wetland, next check with city, county or tribal experts
for local wetlands inventories. If none exist, the presence of hydric soils can indicate a wetland. If you suspect
a wetland due to soil type or site conditions, you should commission a professional site survey to delineate the
wetland and its boundaries.
HUD defines a wetland as those areas that are inundated with surface or ground water with a frequency
sufficient to support and under normal circumstances does or would support a prevalence of vegetative or
aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as sloughs, potholes, wet meadows,
river overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds. The definition includes wetlands separated from their natural
supply of water and constructed wetlands. Please note that the US Army Corps of Engineers has a more
restrictive definition of wetlands. A determination by the US Army Corps that there is no jurisdictional
wetland on site is not sufficient documentation for HUD’s purposes.
Maintain, in your ERR, all documents you have collected to make your wetlands determination.
No: STOP here. The Protection of Wetlands executive order does not apply. Record your determination
that the project is not in a wetland.
Yes: Proceed to #3.
3. Does your project involve new construction in the wetland? New construction includes draining,
dredging, channelizing, filling, diking, impounding, and related activities.
No: STOP here. The Protection of Wetlands executive order does not apply. Record your determination
that the project does not involve new construction in a wetland.
Yes: Proceed to #4.
4. Does your project meet one of the categories of proposed action for which the 8-step decision making
process does not apply? (Below are several exemptions that apply to wetlands—please see 24 CFR
55.12(b) and 55.12(c) for additional categories of proposed action)
HUD Region X Environmental Office – June 2012
• The approval of financial assistance for restoring and preserving the natural and beneficial functions
and values of floodplains and wetlands, including through acquisition of such floodplain and wetland
property if:
o The property is cleared of all existing structures and related improvements;
o The property is dedicated for permanent use for flood control, wetland protection, park land, or
open space; and
o A permanent covenant or comparable restriction is placed on the property’s continued use to
preserve the floodplain or wetland from future development.
• A minor amendment to a previously approved action with no additional adverse impact on or from a
floodplain or wetland.
• Project site with an incidental portion situated in an adjacent floodplain, including the floodway or
Coastal High Hazard Area, or wetland, but only if:
o The proposed construction and landscaping activities (except for minor grubbing, clearing of
debris, pruning, sodding, seeding, or other similar activities) do not occupy or modify the 100-
year floodplain (or the 500-year floodplain for critical actions) or the wetland;
o Appropriate provision is made for site drainage that would not have an adverse effect on the
wetland; and
o A permanent covenant or comparable restriction is placed on the property’s continued use to
preserve the floodplain or wetland.
• Special Projects directed to the removal of material and architectural barriers that restrict the mobility
of and accessibility to elderly and persons with disabilities.
Yes: Stop here. Record your determination that the project is exempt from floodplain management
regulations per 24 CFR 55.12. Maintain copies of all of the documents you have used to make your
determination.
No: Proceed to step 5.
5. Does your project meet one of the categories of proposed action for which a limited 8-step process
applies? (Below are categories that apply to wetlands, please see 24 CFR 55.12(a) for additional categories
of proposed action)
• Actions under any HUD program involving the repair, rehabilitation, modernization, weatherization, or
improvement of existing multifamily housing projects, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, board
and care facilities, intermediate car facilities and one-to-four family properties in communities in the
Regular Program of the NFIP and in good standing, units are not increased more than 20 percent, the
action does not involve a conversion from nonresidential to residential land use, the action does not
meet the thresholds for ‘substantial improvement’2 and the footprint of the structure and paved areas is
not significantly increased.
• Actions under any HUD program involving the repair, rehabilitation, modernization, weatherization, or
improvement of existing nonresidential buildings and structures in communities in the Regular Program
of the NFIP and in good standing, the action does not meet the thresholds for ‘substantial
improvement’1 and the footprint of the structure is not significantly increased.
Yes: Complete the 5-step decision-making process for wetlands. You do not have to publish the notices in
steps 2 or 7 or do an analysis of alternatives in Step 3. Analyze potential direct and indirect impacts (step 4);
design or modify to minimize potential impacts (step 5); reevaluate the proposed action to determine if action is
still practicable (step 6).
• If still practicable, document your analysis in the file and move forward.
• If not still practicable, either reject or modify project.
2 Substantial Improvement means any repair, reconstruction, modernization or improvement of a structure, the cost of
which equals or exceeds 50% of the market value of the structure either before the improvement or repair started or if
the structure has been damaged before the damage occurred OR any repair reconstruction etc. that results in an increase
of more than 20% of dwelling units or peak number of customers and employees (24 CFR 55.2(b)(8)
HUD Region X Environmental Office – June 2012
No: Proceed to #6.
6. Are there practicable alternatives to impacting a wetland?
HUD strongly discourages use of funds for projects that do not meet an exemption in Part
55.12. Reject the Project Site or amend project so there is no destruction or modification of the wetland. If
you decide to consider the project you must determine if there are alternatives by completing the 8-step
decision-making process described in 24 CFR Section 55.20. The 8-step decision-making process requires two
public notice and comment periods. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is recommended for
unavoidable adverse impacts to more than one acre of wetland. The use of compensatory mitigation may not
substitute for the requirement to avoid and minimize impacts to the maximum extent practicable. For further
details about compensatory mitigation please see 24 CFR 55.20(e)(2) and 55.2(b)(2).
A completed Individual Section 404 permit can cover steps 1-5 in the 8-step process if the project is not in the 100
year flood plain (or 500 year floodplain for critical actions) and all wetlands adversely affected by the action are
covered by the permit. (24 CFR 55.28)
Yes: Reject or modify project.
No: Document your analysis, including wetlands notices, in your Environmental Review Record.
HUD Region X Environmental Office – June 2012
Yelm City Park NRCS Web Soil Survey map showing Spanaway gravelly sandy loam and Spanaway stony sandy loam being the park’s primary mapped soil types (source: Web Soil Survey available at: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm )
DISCLAIMER: This document is intended as a tool to help Region X
grantees and HUD staff complete NEPA requirements. This document is
subject to change. This is not a policy statement, and the Floodplain
Executive Order and Regulations take precedence over any information found
in this document.
HUD Region X Environmental Office – June 2012
Thurston County GeoData Center wetland, waterbody, and hydric soil map of Yelm City Park (in middle of map)
and surrounding area (map accessed 7/3/2018).
USFWS NWI map showing wetlands, waterbodies, and riparian areas in the vicinity of Yelm City Park (map
accessed 7/3/2018).
HUD Region X Environmental Office – June 2012
Appendix M: Wild and Scenic Rivers Checklist
Wild and Scenic Rivers
Checklist for HUD or Responsible Entity
General requirements Legislation Regulation
Establishes a method for providing
Federal protection for certain free-
flowing and scenic rivers designated as
components or potential components of
the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
System from the effects of construction.
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
(Pub L. 90-542 as amended: 16
U.S.C. 1271-1287)
24 CFR 58.5(f)
24 CFR 50.4(f)
1. Is your project within proximity of a Wild and Scenic River?
You must consider Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers (http://www.rivers.gov/map.php); Study Wild
and Scenic Rivers (http://www.rivers.gov/study.php) and rivers on the Nationwide Rivers Inventory
(http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/rtca/nri/)
No: STOP here. Project is in compliance with this section. Attach documentation used to make your
determination, such as a map identifying the project site and its surrounding area or a list of rivers in your
region.
Yes: the project is in proximity of a Designation Wild and Scenic River or Study Wild and Scenic River.
PROCEED to #2
Yes: the project is in proximity of Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) river. PROCEED to #3
2. Is your project a Water Resources project?
A Water Resources Project is a federally assisted project that could affect the free-flowing condition of a
Wild and Scenic River. Examples include dams, water diversion projects, bridges, roadway construction,
boat ramps, and activities that require a Section 404 permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. New
construction that could increase storm water runoff should also be considered.
No: STOP here. Project is in compliance with this section. Please attach all necessary supporting
documentation.
Yes: PROCEED to #3.
3. Could the project do any of the following:
• Have a direct and adverse effect within Wild and Scenic River Boundaries
• Invade the area or unreasonably diminish the river outside the Wild and Scenic River
Boundaries?
• Have an adverse effect on the natural, cultural, and/or recreational values of a NRI segment?
For designated and study wild and scenic rivers, consult with the appropriate federal/state/local/tribal
Managing Agency, pursuant to Section 7 of the Act, to determine if the proposed project may have an
adverse effect. For NRI rivers, consult with the National Park Service pursuant to Section 5 of the Act to
determine if your project will have an adverse effect.
No: STOP here. Project is in compliance with this section. Please attach all necessary supporting
documentation.
HUD Region X Environmental Office – June 2012
Yes: PROCEED to #4
4. Can you mitigate the impact to the river?
Yes. Attach mitigation plan. Require mitigation as part of grant agreement and other contracts. Monitor
project to ensure mitigation followed-through.
No. Cancel project at this location.
DISCLAIMER: This document is intended as a tool to help HUD Region X
grantees and HUD staff complete environmental requirements. This
document is subject to change. This is not a policy statement, and the Wild
and Scenic Rivers legislation and regulations take precedence over any
information found in this document.
HUD Region X Environmental Office – June 2012
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System map showing that there are no designated Wild and Scenic Rivers near
Yelm, WA.
HUD Region X Environmental Office – June 2012
NPS Nationwide Rivers Inventory map showing the only the upper reach of the Nisqually River from the Nisqually Glacier (In Mount Rainier National Park)
downstream to Alder Reservoir is considered to have Outstandingly Remarkable Geologic and Scenic Value (river highlighted blue). The lower reach below
the Alder Reservoir is not considered to have Outstandingly Remarkable Value (river not highlighted).
HUD Region X Environmental Office – June 2012
Appendix N: Environmental Justice Checklist
Environmental Justice
Checklist for HUD or Responsible Entity
General requirements Legislation Regulation
Address disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on
minority and low-income populations.
Executive Order 12898,
February 11, 2004
24 CFR 50.4(l) and 24
CFR 58.5(j).
1. Is there an adverse environmental impact caused by the proposed action, or is the proposed action
subject to an adverse environmental impact?
This question is designed to determine how the Environmental Justice analysis is reflected in the environmental
review as a whole. Your consideration of the other environmental laws and authorities is your supporting
documentation for this question. If any other environmental law or authority required mitigation (i.e., 8-step
process for locating in a flood plain, waiver of noise requirements), then there is an adverse environmental impact.
No: STOP here. The project does not pose an Environmental Justice concern.
Yes: PROCEED to #2
2. Will the project have a disproportionate impact on low-income or minority populations?
The following steps will help you make this determination:
1) Describe the project.
2) Consider historic uses of the site, past land uses and patterns (such as lending discrimination and
exclusionary zoning).
3) Determine the demographic profile of the people using the project and/or living and working in the
vicinity of the project. EPA’s environmental justice geographic assessment tool provides helpful
demographic information: http://epamap14.epa.gov/ejmap/entry.html
4) Describe the adverse environmental impact you identified in your environmental review. Identify adjacent
land uses, paying particular attention to toxic sites, dumps, incinerators, hazardous materials (e.g.
asbestos), and other issues with the potential to have adverse human health effects. (This may already have
been considered in your review of toxic and hazardous substances.)
5) Consider how the adverse environmental impact and any potentially harmful adjacent land uses would
impact the people using and/or surrounding the project.
6) Consider whether market-rate development exists in the area. If not, would this project succeed as a
market-rate project at the proposed site?
No: STOP here. Maintain documentation concerning your determination of no disproportionate impact.
Yes: Consult with HUD environmental staff to develop a mitigation plan. An Environmental Justice
mitigation plan must include public outreach, participation and community involvement. The project can not
move forward until the EJ issue is mitigated to the satisfaction of HUD or the Responsible Entity and the
impacted community.
DISCLAIMER: This document is intended as a tool to help Region X HUD
grantees and HUD staff complete environmental requirements. This
document is subject to change. This is not a policy statement. Legislation
and Regulations take precedence over any information found in this
document.
HUD Region X Environmental Office – June 2012
HUD Region X Environmental Office – June 2012
HUD Region X Environmental Office – June 2012
HUD Region X Environmental Office – June 2012