HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinances - 2009-18 - Amending Ordinance 2008-07 Adopting Amendments to Douglas County Regional Shoreline Master Program, Changes required by the State Department of Ecology - RCW 36.70A.480(3)(a) - 11/24/2009CITY OF EAST WENATCHEE, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 2009-18
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EAST WENATCHEE,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE 2008-07 AND
ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE DOUGLAS COUNTY
REGIONAL SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM; TO
INCORPORATE THE CHANGES REQUIRED BY THE STATE
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND TO IMPLEMENT THE
PROVISIONS OF RCW 36.70A.480(3)(a), CONTAINING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND ESTABLISHING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAST WENATCHEE DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Purpose.
(1) The East Wenatchee Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 28,
2008 and unanimously recommended approval of the Draft Douglas County
Regional Shoreline Master Program ("SMP"), including revised appendices A —
H, (dated May 16, 2008), and as amended by the planning commission on May
28, 2008.
(2) On June 24, 2008, the East Wenatchee City Council ("City Council") held a
public hearing to consider the recommendation of the planning commission.
Following the public hearing, the City Council approved Ordinance 2008-07
adopting the Douglas County Regional Shoreline Master Program.
(3) On July 18, 2008, the adopting ordinance and the Douglas County Regional
Shoreline Master Program was submitted to the Washington State Department of
Ecology ("DOE")
(4) On March 10, 2009, DOE submitted a letter of conditional approval listing
changes that were necessary in order for them to issue final approval of the SMP.
(5) The City Council held a Special Public Meeting on March 31, 2009 to review
DOE's required and recommended changes. At that meeting, City Council took
action relative to either concurring with the changes or proposing alternatives. On
April 13, 2009, correspondence was transmitted to DOE to address their
conditional approval including acceptance of some of the changes proposed by
DOE and offering alternatives for other changes proposed by DOE.
(6) DOE submitted a letter and attachments on July 23, 2009 outlining the status of
required and recommended changes, in response to the City's April 13, 2009
proposal, including:
(a) A summary table of required changes on which DOE needs written notice of
agreement from the City; and
ORDINANCE NO. 2009-18
Page 1 of 4
(c) Documentation of changes that the City accepted or alternative proposed in
the April 13, 2009 correspondence.
(7) The City Council finds that it is in the best interests of the City and its citizens to
amend the adopted SMP in accordance the conditional approval letter from DOE
dated July 23, 2009.
Section 2: Authority.
(1) RCW 35A.11.020 and RCW 35A.12.190 authorize the City Council to adopt
ordinances of all kinds to regulate its municipal affairs and appropriate to the
good government of the City.
(2) RCW 90.58 authorizes the City to adopt a shoreline master program consistent
with the SMA.
(3) RCW 36.70A.480(3)(a) states: "As of the date the department of ecology
approves a local government's shoreline master program adopted under
applicable shoreline guidelines, the protection of critical areas as defined by RCW
36.70A.030(5) within shorelines of the state shall be accomplished only through
the local government's shoreline master program and shall not be subject to the
procedural and substantive requirements of this chapter, except as provided in
subsection (6) of this section."
Section 3: Adoption.
(1) Exhibit B of Ordinance No. 2008-07, adopted in Section 3 of the ordinance, is
amended to incorporate the changes identified in Exhibit B and C of this
Ordinance.
(2) The DOE correspondence requested that the City notify them regarding the City's
intention relative to Section 4.6 Regulation 16 of the SMP (Page 9 of Exhibit B).
The City Council hereby notifies DOE that this ordinance adopts the alternative
language proposed in the April 13, 2008 correspondence and does not accept the
alternative language provided by the City of Bridgeport
(3) The DOE correspondence requested that the City notify them regarding the City's
intention relative Appendix H.3 Section 1 C.060(D) (pages 73 — 80 of Exhibit Q.
The City accepts the language proposed by DOE.
(4) In accordance with RCW 36.70A.480(3)(a), on the date of Department of Ecology
approval of the Douglas County Regional Shoreline Master Program, adopted by
Ordinance No. 2008-07 and amended herein, the protection of critical areas as
defined by RCW 36.70A.030(5) within shorelines of the state shall not be
regulated by the provisions of East Wenatchee Municipal Code Chapter 18.12 and
Chapters 18.12A-18.12.F that apply to critical areas defined by RCW
36.70A.030(5).
(5) The City Council directs the Community Development Director to incorporate the
changes noted in Attachments B and C into the SMP.
Section 4: Findings of Fact.
(1) The City Council adopts by reference the findings of fact and conclusions as set
forth in the attached Exhibit A.
ORDINANCE NO. 2009-18
Page 2 of 4
(2) The Findings of Fact and Conclusions adopted in Ordinance No. 2008-07 remain
timely and in order and are adopted by this reference.
Section 5: Severability. If a court of competent jurisdiction declares any provision in this
Ordinance to be contrary to law, such declaration shall not affect the validity of
the other provisions of this Ordinance.
Section 6: Publication. The City Council directs the City Clerk to publish a summary of this
Ordinance. The summary shall consist of the title of this Ordinance.
Section 7: Effective Date. In accordance with RCW 90.58.090 the effective date of the
Douglas County Regional Shoreline Master Program shall be concurrent with the
adoption of the Douglas County Regional Shoreline Master Program by the
Washington State Department of Ecology which action also supersedes the 1975
Douglas County Shoreline Master Program.
Passed by the City Council of East Wenatchee, at a regular meeting thereof on this 24th
day of November, 2009.
CITY OF EAST WENATCHEE,
WASHINGTON
By ( I
Chuck Johnson, NPyor Pro-tem
ATTEST:
� 4v���
Dana Barnard, City Clerk
Approv as to form ly:
n
De in Poulson, City Attorney
FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK: 11/19/09
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL: 11/24/09
PUBLISHED: 11/27/09
EFFECTIVE DATE: 12/02/09
ORDINANCE NO. 2009-18
Page 3 of 4
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 2009-18
Of the City of East Wenatchee, Washington
On the 24th day of November 2009, the City Council of the City of East Wenatchee,
Washington, passed Ordinance No. 2009-18. A summary of the content of said Ordinance,
consisting of the title, provides as follows:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EAST WENATCHEE,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE 2008-07 AND
ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE DOUGLAS COUNTY
REGIONAL SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM; TO
INCORPORATE THE CHANGES REQUIRED BY THE STATE
DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND TO IMPLEMENT THE
PROVISIONS OF RCW 36.70A.480(3)(a), CONTAINING A
SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND ESTABLISHING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
The full text of this Ordinance will be mailed upon request.
CITY CLERK, DANA BARNARD
ORDINANCE NO. 2009-18
Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. During review of Ordinance No. 2008-07, the Department of Ecology has noted
revisions that are required and/or recommended.
2. The basis and rationale for the changes to Ordinance No. 2008-07, are stated within the
correspondence submitted by the City of East Wenatchee to DOE on April 13, 2009, and
in the correspondence from the Department of Ecology dated July 23, 2009.
3. The East Wenatchee City Council held a Special Public Meeting on March 31, 2009 to
review DOE's required and recommended changes. At that meeting, City Council took
action relative to either concurring with the changes or proposing alternatives. On April
13, 2009, correspondence was transmitted to DOE documenting the City Council's
acceptance of some of the changes proposed by DOE and offering alternatives for other
changes proposed by DOE.
4. On November 24, 2009, the City Council considered the requested changes proposed in
DOE's July 23, 2009 correspondence.
5. All previous determinations issued and documents prepared pursuant to the State
Environmental Policy Act of 1971 remain timely and in order.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The changes to Ordinance No. 2008-07, are necessary for consistency with and the
implementation of RCW Chapter 90.58, the Shoreline Management Act, and WAC
Chapter 173-26, State Master Program Approval/Amendment Procedures and Master
Program Guidelines
2. The changes to Ordinance No. 2008-07, are necessary for the protection of the public
health, safety and general welfare of the City of East Wenatchee.
Exhibit A, Ordinance No. 20094
EXHIBIT B
Douglas County RSMP Status Document Part 2.1— Required Changes — RSMP
Part 2: Status of Required Changes
On April 13, 2009, the local jurisdictions submitted a letter to Ecology agreeing to some of
Ecology's required changes to the RSMP, and proposing alternatives for othersl. Ecology has
approved the proposed alternatives that have been found to be consistent with the SMA and the
SMP Guidelines. Following is an account of the status of each required change.
Underlining indicates wording to be added.
• StTikeext indicates wording to be deleted.
Regional SMP (RSMP)
Section 1.2
The Act recognizes that certain waters are so important to citizens as to necessitate a special
status for classification and protection. These are "shorelines of statewide significance."
WAC 173-18-040 further clarifies streams and rivers in eastern Washington are considered
"shorelines of statewide significance." The Columbia River is a Shoreline of Statewide
Significance.
Ecology Rationale: Required change for compliance with WAC 173-26-171(1) in order to
regulate "shorelines" and "shorelines of the state" the waterbodies must be clearly classified as
required by RCW 90.58.020(7). The section of the SMP discusses what Douglas County's
jurisdiction is and talks in general about what a `Shoreline of Statewide Significance' is, but
never acknowledges that the Columbia River is a Shoreline of Statewide Significance. Chapter 9
deals with what shorelines are jurisdictional and what the Environment Designation is for each
stretch of shoreline. Yet, no where can it be identified in the scope that development actions that
occur on the Columbia River are under the specific mandates of WAC 173-26-251, and that
particular attention for compliance with the SMP needs to be enforced so as not to convert
resources into irreversible uses or detrimentally alter natural conditions characteristic of
shorelines of statewide significance (WAC 173-26-251(3)).
Local Response: Agreed to required change.
Section 1.7
All proposed uses and development, including accessory structures, occurring within the
shoreline jurisdiction must conform to Chapter 90.58 RCW, the Shoreline Management Act
and this Program whether or not a permit or other form of authorization is required.
1 A separate document titled "DC - RSMP Chronological Discussion contains the details of informal
discussions between the local jurisdiction(s) and Ecology. Any section for which more information is
available will be noted with "See Chronological Discussion".
July 22, 2009 Page 5
Douglas County RSMP Status Document Part 2.1 — Required Changes — RSMP
Ecology Rationale: Required change because accessory structures/uses do not belong in critical
areas or their buffers. Required to meet the WAC no net loss standard and WAC 173-26-221(5)
(a, b), WAC 173-26-221(6) (b). Using the word "Authorized" indicates that even developments
that are exempt from the requirement to obtain a shoreline permit must comply with this chapter
because they are authorized under the RSMP.
Through the public review process there was a misconception that Douglas County did not have
regulatory authority over the placement of accessory structures, specifically septic systems. The
explanation was provided that this placement authority was only through the Chelan -Douglas
Health District and not through the regulatory authority of the SMP. Not only do the SMP
Guidelines (WAC 173-26) provide this authority over septic system location, but also the On -site
Sewage System (OSS) regulations (WAC 246-272A) allow a local health officer to issue a permit
only when the proposed OSS meets the health district regulations AND other local regulations.
Therefore, Douglas County does have the authority to issue a local regulation (SMP) that the
health officer would be obliged to follow.
"WAC 246-272A-0200(4) The local health officer shall: (c) Issue a permit when the information
submitted under subsection (1) of this section meets the requirements contained in this chapter
and in local regulations, "
Local Response: Proposed alternative language (below).
All proposed uses and development, inelu ing .,eeesser-y stfuet„fes, occurring within the
shoreline jurisdiction must conform to Chapter 90.58 RCW, the Shoreline Management Act
and this Program. .
Ecology Response: Approves the proposed alternative language.
[NOTE: Ecology approves of the proposed alternative language for Section 1.7 with the
understanding that Douglas County and the cities of Bridgeport, East Wenatchee, and Rock
Island agree to ensure that all proposed uses and development, including accessory and/or
appurtenant development, must comply with policies and regulations set out in the RSMP
and each individual jurisdiction's Appendix H Critical Area Protections, including the
buffer standards. See RSMP Section 8, changes to Definitions - Accessory & Appurtenant.]
Section 1.10
When th X . . ins ef d:iis ehapter- or- any ether- pr-evisiens ef this Pr-eg.Lr."11 f-"%, ..Li direet.
eenfliet with eaeh ether- er- �� ether- federal er sta4e r-egulatiens, the pr-evisien that is the mes
r-est-fiefive shall apply. -, -In the event the provisions of this Program conflict with provisions of
federal, state, countor ci1�regulations, the provision that is the most protective of shoreline
resources shall prevail, when consistent with policies set out in the SMA.
July 22, 2009 Page 6
Douglas County RSMP Status Document Part 2.1 — Required Changes — RSMP
Ecology Rationale: As provided for in RCW 90.58.900, the Act is exempted from the rule of
strict construction; the Act and this Program shall be liberally construed to give full effect to the
purposes, goals, objectives, and policies for which the Act and this Program were enacted and
adopted, respectively. The SMA is an ecological shoreline management tool meant to result in a
` planned, rational, and concerted effort, jointly performed by federal, state, and local
governments, to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of
the state's shorelines "(RCW 90.58.020) The alteration in wording is more in line with the
guidelines goal of no net loss and protecting ecological functions while providing for compliance
with RCW 90.58.900 in taking into consideration the whole intent of the SM4, which also include
a preference for water -dependent shoreline uses and public access.
Local Response: Agreed to required change.
Section 2.2 (#2)
Access to shorelines is encouraged and should be incorporated into both private and public
shoreline development proposals. Private Aaccess developed for pr+vate residential
development may be limited to owners within that development.
Ecology Rationale: If it is planned that a residential access street shall become a County or City
owned and maintained street, then private access does not apply.
Local Response: Agreed to required change.
Section 3.3 (4)
Land uses that would substantially degrade the ecological functions or natural character of
the shoreline area should not be allowed. Specifically, the following new uses shall not be
allowed in areas designated natural environment: commercial or industrial uses, inon-water-
oriented recreation,; or roads, utility corridors, and parking areas that can be located outside
of natural designated shorelines.
Ecology Rationale: Required for compliance with WAC 173-26-211(5) (a) (ii) (B). Replace
commas with semi -colons and separate out that roads, utility corridors, and parking areas are
not allowed if they can be located elsewhere, to provide clarity. Ecology acknowledges that
Table 1, Section 3.10 reflects this policy.
Local Response: Proposed Alterative Language (below).
July 22, 2009 Page 7
Douglas County RSMP Status Document Part 2.1 — Required Changes — RSMP
Land uses that would substantially degrade the ecological functions or natural character of
the shoreline area should not be allowed. Specifically, the following new uses shall not be
allowed in areas designated natural environment:
• Commercial uses.
• Industrial uses.
• Non -water -oriented recreation.
• Roads, utility corridors, and parking areas that can be located outside of "natural"
designated shorelines.
Ecology Response: Approves proposed alternative language.
Section 4.6 (Policy 14)
Recreational development should place a priority for public use and access to the water.
Ecology Rationale: Required change for compliance with WAC 173-26-241(3)(i), move from
RSMP Section 4.6 Regulation 2 to policy section, because language is more policy in nature.
Local Response: Agreed to required change.
Section 4.6 (Regulation 2)
Public Access for commercial recreational development shall be consistent with the public
access requirements of commercial development of this Master Proms
Ecology Rationale: Move Section 4. 6(Reg 42) to create policy.
Local Response: Agreed to required change.
Section 4.6 (Regulation 6)
Commercial and industrial development shall provide public access to the shoreline, or if not
feasible ernEVe provide opportunities for public viewing of the shoreline, except as provided
for in Section 4.6(l l -t.,,,enevor ,..r-aef;ea an safe-.
Ecology Rationale: Required change for compliance with WAC 173-26-221(4) (d) (iii)
and WAC 173-26-241(3) (d).
July 22, 2009 Page 8
Douglas County RSMP Status Document Part 2.1— Required Changes — RSMP
Local Response: Agreed to required change.
Section 4.6 (Regulation 16)
New streets, roads and highways which are located within two hundred feet of a shoreline of
the state shall provide public access to the shoreline, whenever feasible, consistent with
design and safety standards. Such facilities may include roadside paldfig area-, pathways,
viewpoints or similar amenities.
EcologE Rationale: Required Change for compliance with WAC: 173-26-241(3)(k) To
specifically call out parking area as acceptable facility for public access is in direct conflict
with this WAC.
Local Response: Proposed alternative language (below).
Douglas County's suggested alternative: New streets, roads and highways which are
located within two hundred feet of a shoreline of the state shall provide public access to the
shoreline, whenever feasible, consistent with design and safety standards. Such facilities may
include pathways, viewpoints or similar amenities and accessory parking facilities incidental
to those amenities.
Bridgeport's suggested alternative: New streets, roads and highways which are located
within two hundred feet of a shoreline of the state shall provide public access to the
shoreline, whenever feasible, consistent with design and safety standards. Such facilities may
include roadside pull-outs, pathways, viewpoints or similar amenities.
Ecology Response: Approves both proposed alternatives.
Note: Please notify Ecology in writing whether there is consensus on one
proposed alternative. The proposed alternative submitted by Bridgeport is different from
that proposed by the other jurisdictions. It is acceptable for Bridgeport to have different
wording for the city SMP, but the local jurisdictions have all emphasized to Ecology that this
was a Regional SMP and they wanted consistent language.
Section 6.4 (Regulation 4)
Either match the wording of Industrial Uses (RSMP Section 5.6(1)(c)) or add underlined
language (below).
July 22, 2009 Page 9
Douglas County RSMP Status Document Part 2.1 — Required Changes — RSMP
Non -water -oriented commercial uses may be permitted where located on a site physically
separated from the shoreline by another property in separate ownership, or by a public right-
of-way, such that access for water -oriented use is precluded. All other non -water -oriented
commercial uses are prohibited in the shoreline unless the use provides significant public
benefit with respect to the objectives of the Act such as providing_ public access and
ecological restoration, and the industrial use is:
a. Part of a mixed use project that includes a water -dependent use; or
b. Proposed on a site where navigability is severely limited.
Ecology rationale: The RSMP can reword the WAC, but the full intent is not present. The
objectives of the Act are specifically called out for commercial uses in WAC 173-26-241(3) (d).
Local Response: Proposed alternative language (below).
Non -water -oriented commercial uses may be permitted when physically separated from the
shoreline by another property in separate ownership, or by a public right-of-way, such that
access for water -oriented use is precluded. All other non -water -oriented commercial uses are
prohibited in the shoreline unless the use provides significant public benefit with respect to
the objectives of the Act such as providing public access and ecological restoration, and the
commercial use is:
a. Part of a mixed use project that includes a water -dependent use; or
b. Proposed on a site where navigability is severely limited.
Ecology Response: Approves proposed alternative language.
;..
Section 5.4( 7)
Only those portions of water -dependent commercial uses that require over -water facilities
shall be permitted to locate waterward of the OHWM, provided they are located on piling or
other open-work structures, and they are limited to the minimum size necessary to support the
structures intended use.
Ecology Rationale: Required change to comply with WAC 173-26-211(5) (c) (ii) (B) & RSMP
Section 3.9 Aquatic Policy 42 The size of new over -water structures should be limited to the
minimum necessary to support the structure's intended use.
July 22, 2009 Page 10
Douglas County RSMP Status Document
Local Response: Agreed to required change.
Section 5.6 Industry — Add regulations
Part 2.1 — Required Changes — RSMP
ADD 5.6 Reg. 45. Only those portions of water -dependent industrial uses that require over -
water facilities shall be permitted to locate waterward of the OHWM, provided they are
located on piling or other open-work structures, and they are limited to the minimum size
necessary t�pport the structures intended use.
Ecology Rationale: See RSMP Section 3.9 Aquatic Policies 41 & 2 and WAC 173-26-
211(5) (c) (ii) (A) & (B). There is a policy in Section 3.9, but no implementing regulation to be
found.
Local Response: Agreed to required change.
Section 5.10 (Regulation 9)
9. In order to minimize impacts on near shore areas and avoid reduction in ambient light level:
a. Pier and Ramp construction must meet the following standards:
i) The width of piers and ramps, and f,^shall
not exceed 4 feet in width, except where specific information on use patterns such as
public or commercial docks may justify a greater width
ii) The bottom of the fascia boards on a pier, or bottom of the landward edge of a ramp,
must be elevated at least two (2) feet above the plane of OHWM.
iii) skirtingpiers, ramps or floats is prohibited.
iv) pier and/or ramp surfaces are made of either grating or clear translucent material.
The open area of and grating material needs to be 60%, and clear translucent material
has to have greater than 90% light transmittance, as rated by the manufacturer.
Ma4efials that will a4lew light te pass dffieugh the deek may be reqtfir-ed where Wi
o�,,,eoas 4 goo+
b. Float construction must meet the following standards:
i) Float dimensions shall not exceed 8-feet by 20-feet. Only one float is allowed per
dock project. Joint -use docks (as described above) are an exception and are allowed
two floats.
ii) The freeboard height on floats must be at least 10 inches.
iii) Any float materials that are in contact with the water must be white or translucent.
July 22, 2009 Page 11
Douglas County RSMP Status Document Part 2.1— Required Changes — RSMP
iv) Flotation materials must be permanently encased to prevent breakup and release of
small floatation pieces.
v) Decking or surface area of the float must be grating or clear translucent material.
Both types of material must cover at least 50% of the surface area of floats. The open
area of grating needs to be at least 60% and clear translucent material needs to have
greater than 90% light transmittance as rated by the manufacturer.
vi) Floats cannot be located in shallow water habitat where they could ground or impede
fish passage. The water depth under a permanent float must be at least:
(1) 14 feet for permanent floats in the Rock Island and Rocky Reach reservoirs and 7
feet for temporary floats.
(2) 18 feet for permanent floats in the Wells reservoir and 11 feet for temporary
floats.
(3) There is no specific depth standard in the Lake Rufus Woods pool or in lakes so
these will be examined on a case -by -case basis.
vii) "Temporary" floats shall not be located t in the water between March 1 and June 30.
Permit conditions will identify whether a temporary or permanent float is associated
with a project.
Ecology Rationale: Required for compliance with WAC 173-26-231(3) (b) and WAC 173-
26-241(3) (c) (vi) and WAC 173-26-251(2) and RCW 90.58.020(2) as well as being at
least as protective as current permitting practices. Without criteria to determine what
"specific information on use patterns, such as public or commercial docks may justify a
greater width, " additional size limits are needed to provide clarity on what the normal
range of size to be considered should be. Standards herein are taken directly from
Douglas County Multi Agency Permitting (MAP) Process - Conditioned Docks, Floats,
Mooring Buoys and Watercraft Lifts, Part One: Multi Agency Permitting (MAP) Process.
Local Response: Proposed alternative language (below).
In order to minimize impacts on near shore areas and avoid reduction in ambient, light level:
a. Pier and Ramp construction must meet the following standards:
i. The width of piers and ramps shall not exceed 4 feet for single or joint -use docks.
Greater widths may be permitted for community, public or commercial docks where
use patterns can justify the increase;
ii. The bottom of the pier or bottom of the landward edge of a ramp, must be elevated at
least two (2) feet above the plane of OHWM.
July 22, 2009 Page 12
Douglas County RSMP Status Document Part 2.1 — Required Changes — RSMP
iii. Pier and/or ramp surfaces are to consist of either grating or clear translucent material;
and
iv. Pier and ramp construction shall meet or exceed the standards and/or requirements of
the Washington State Departments of Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, and Natural
Resources and the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
b. Float construction must meet the following standards:
i. Any float materials that are in contact with the water must be white or translucent.
ii. Flotation materials must be permanently encased to prevent breakup and release of
small floatation pieces.
iii. Decking or surface area of the float must consist of either grating or clear translucent
material; and
iv. Floats cannot be located where they could impede fish passage.
V. Float construction shall meet or exceed the standards and/or requirements of the
Washington State Departments of Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, and Natural Resources
and the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
Ecology Response: Approves proposed alternative language.
Section 5.11 (Regulation 4)
Add Section 5.11 (Regulation 4). Commercial recreational facilities shall be consistent with
the provisions of Section 5.4 Commercial Use.
Ecology Rationale: Change required to establish regulatory requirement for existing Policy
statement SMP Section 5.6 (411) and for compliance with WAC 173-26-221(4)(d)(iii) and WAC
173-2 6-241 (3) (d).
Local Response: Accepted required change.
NOTE: Local jurisdiction(s) need to re -number the remaining
regulations in Section 5.11 after adding the new regulation.
Section 5.11(Policy#11)
Commercial recreational facilities should be consistent with the provisions of Section
5.4 Commercial Use.
July 22, 2009 Page 13
Douglas County RSMP Status Document Part 2.1— Required Changes — RSMP
Ecology Rationale: Change required for more consistent Policy language.
Local Response: Agreed to required change.
Section 5.11 (Regulation 3 )
3. Commercial and public recreation areas or facilities on the shoreline shall provide public
access (physical or visual) consistent with the er ter-i Section 4.6, Public Access.
Ecology Rationale: Change required to establish regulatory requirement for existing
Policy statement SMP Section 5.6 (411) and for compliance with WAC 173-26-
221(4) (d) (iii) and WAC 173-26-241(3) (d).
Local Response: Agreed to required change.
Section 5.11 (original Regulation 4)
Recreational uses and facilities shall be designed to be primarily related to access to,
enjoyment and use of the water and shorelines of the state and located to ensure no net loss
of critical areas and shoreline ecological functions.
Ecology rationale: Required change for compliance with WAC 173-26-241(3)(i).
Local Response: Request to maintain original language.
Recreational uses and facilities shall be designed and located to ensure no net loss of
critical areas and shoreline ecological functions.
Ecology Response: Approves of maintaining the original language based on the
local jurisdiction's rationale that Section 2.4 Objective #1 combined with Section
5.11, Regulation #1 implement the objective of WAC 173-26-241(3)(i).
Section 5.13 (Regulation 2)
Bulk and dimensional standards shall be coordinated with locally adopted zoning and
development standards to protect the natural character of the shoreline and ensure no net loss
of shoreline ecological functions and processes consistent with the purpose of the
July 22, 2009 Page 14
Douglas County RSMP Status Document Part 2.1 — Required Changes — RSMP
environment designation. hn the e v erri=vrc"r"eenf liet with.
In the event the provisions of this Program conflict with provisions
of federal, state, county or cijy regulations, the more protective of shoreline resources shall
prevail, when consistent with Shoreline Management Act policy.
Ecology Rationale: Required for compliance with Authority set out in WA 173-26-171(1) and
RCW 90.58.200.
Local Response: Agreed to required change.
Section 5.13(9)
Urban density standards- Where permitted, multi -family development, duplexes, subdivisions
and short plats within urban growth boundaries shall not exceed the following maximum
density standards, in addition to compliance with all other applicable provisions of this
Program:
• Shoreline residential: 5 dwelling units per acre
• Urban conservancy: 17 dwelling units per acre
• High intensity & Mixed -Use: 26 dwelling units per acre
• Natural: 1 dwelling unit per 10 acres
Ecology Rationale: Required change because "Mixed -Use " density standard were not provided,
Ecology inserted a number that matches High Intensity density. The Shoreline Advisory Group
designed the Mixed Use designation to allow the intensity of development as "High Intensity",
but restrict Industrial Uses within this Environment Designation. WAC 173-26-211 provides that
density standards be established to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
Local Response: Agreed to required change.
Section 5.13(11) Table 2
Institutional: dimensions applicable to structures
Building
* 15
* 15
* 15
* 15
* 15
NA
NA
setback
—
July 22, 2009 Page 15
Douglas County RSMP Status Document Part 2.1 — Required Changes — RSMP
Ecology Rationale: Required change as noted in SEPA review and Shoreline Advisory
Committee review, building setbacks from buffers to be at 15 ft. Error in table had 5 ft.
Local Response: Agreed to required change.
Section 5.13(11)
Strike all Asterisks from Table 2 — the asterisks are confusing. The double asterisk goes onto
say the other setback does apply within City jurisdiction
standafd listed applies within the eity jurisdiefiens.
Ecology Rationale: Required Changes, Remove all asterisks.
Ecology Rationale: The 15' structural setback from the landward edge of buffers shall apply to
all jurisdictions. The RSMP did not make it clear what the City required for setbacks from
Buffers even though it was clear at the citizen's advisory group meeting that citizens felt that a
setback was necessary to protect buffer areas.
Strike all double asterisks with 60 ft note - 15/'68
Ecology Rationale: Bulk Dimensional Standards (note Changes to Appendix H. 4) removed 60
foot structural setback requirement (for implementation of required larger buffers see Appendix
H.4 comments) Larger buffers are required in Appendix H, the 60 foot setback would have
sometimes placed development outside shoreline jurisdiction.
Local Response: Agreed to required change.
Section 6.8
1. Use restfiefiens may net be varied. Variances from the use regulations of the Program are
prohibited.
Ecology Rationale: WA 173-26-170 (5) Variances from the use regulations of the master
program are prohibited
Local Response: Agreed to required change.
July 22, 2009 Page 16
Douglas County RSMP Status Document Part 2.1 — Required Changes — RSMP
Section 8.0 Definitions
1. "Accessory" means any use or development incidental to and subordinate to a primary use
of a shoreline site. The terms accessory and appurtenant are sue, ous.
Ecology Rationale: Required change because the SMA and associated guidelines use the term
`appurtenant' while local code uses the term `accessory'. The RSMP did not provide a definition
of appurtenant. This change makes it clear that these two terms are considered synonymous.
Local Response: Proposed alternative language (below).
l ."Accessory" — Any structure or use incidental and subordinate to a primary authorized use
or development.
2."Appurtenant" — A structure or development which is necessarily connected to the use and
enjoyment of a single - family residence and is located landward of the ordinary high water
mark.
Ecology Response: Approves proposed alternative.
36. "Building"
means any combination of materials constructed, placed or erected permanently or
temporarily on the ground or attached to something having a permanent location on the
ground, for the shelter, support or enclosure of persons, animals or property, or supporting any
use, occupancy or function whether artificially built or composed of parts joined together in
some definite manner, which could be installed on, above or below the surface of the ground
or water. ,
residential fenees, retaining walls less than di:fee feet in height, reekefies and similffir-
. The terms building and structure are synonymous.
Ecology Rationale: This definition says that the definitions of building and structure are
synonymous, Yet the definition found in 173-27-030: (1 S) "Structure" means a permanent or
temporary edifice or building, or any piece of work artificially built or composed of parts joined
together in some definite manner, whether installed on, above, or below the surface of the
ground or water, except for vessels;
The 2nd to the last sentence is struck because many times residential fences, retaining walls and
other similar built structures meet the SDP dollar threshold and alter the natural character of
the shoreline, this type of exclusion is too permissive. Whether or not a mobile home or RV are
July 22, 2009 Page 17
Douglas County RSMP Status Document Part 2.1 — Required Changes — RSMP
immobilized or not has no bearing on placement in the shoreline. They should be required to
meet the RSMP Section 1.7 and fall under building/structure/development definitions.
Local Response: Agreed to required change.
65. "Development"
Means a use consisting of the construction or exterior alteration of structures; dredging; .
drilling; dumping; filling; removal of any sand, gravel, or minerals; bulkheading; driving of
piling; placing of obstructions; or any project of a permanent or temporary nature which
interferes with the normal public use of the surface of the waters overlying lands subject to
this Program at any state stage of water level.
Ecology Rationale: Required meet definition WAC 173-2 7-03 0(6)
Local Response: Agreed to required change.
165. "Mixed use development"
Means a combination of uses within the same building or site as a part of an integrated
development project with functional interrelationships and coherent physical design. Mixed
use developments, which incorporate non -water oriented uses, must include water dependent
use(s), except commercial uses complying with as provided for i WAC 173-26-241(3)(d).
Ecology Rationale: Require to meet the intent of Mixed Use development— Intent of
Regulations can be found: WAC 173-26-201(2) (d) (ii), WAC 173-26-211(5) (d) (ii) (A) &
WAC 173-26-241(3) ()g, WAC 173-26-231(3) WAC 173-26-241(3) (d).
Local Response: Agreed to required change.
251. "Utilities"
Means any water, gas, sanitary or storm sewer, electrical, telephone, irrigation, drainage way,
wire or television communication facility and/or service and all persons, companies or
governmental agencies furnishing the same. On -site utility features serving a primary use,
such as a water, sewer or gas line to a residence, are "accessory utilities" and shall be
considered a part of the primM use.
July 22, 2009 Page 18
Douglas County RSMP Status Document Part 2.1— Required Changes — RSMP
Ecology Rationale: Required for compliance with WAC (WAC 173-26-241(3) (D. This is not
addressed in RSMP Section 5.17, this wording could be added in Section 5.17 or added here
under the definition of 'utilities'.
Local Response: Agreed to required change.+
Section 9
Environmental designation site descriptions:
Columbia River (south to north) is a Shoreline of Statewide Significance and is regulated
under the SMP.
Add the following at the beginning of the list of Lakes:
Lakes listed here are shorelines of the state and are regulated under the SMP.
Ecology Rationale: Required change for compliance with WAC 173-26-171(1) in order
to regulate "shorelines" and "shorelines of the state" the waterbodies must be clearly
classified as required by RCW 90.58.020(7). And as provided for in WA 173-22-050, as
RSMP Section 9 becomes each jurisdiction's official list of regulated shorelines.
Local Response: Agreed to required change.
July 22, 2009 Page 19
EXHIBIT C
Douglas County RSMP Status Document Part 2.4 — Required Changes — East Wenatchee
East Wenatchee
On April 13, 2009, the City of East Wenatchee submitted a letter agreeing to some of Ecology's
required changes to Appendices B, C, D & H, and proposing alternatives for others. Following is
an account of the status of each required change.
Appendix 13(5)
Establish individual Restoration Goals and Policies for each city.
Required change because individual Restoration Goals not identified as required by WAC 173-
26-186(8) (c) for counties and cities containing any shorelines with impaired ecological
functions, master programs shall include goals and policies that provide for restoration of such
impaired ecological functions Also found in WAC 173-26-201(2) (c). WAC 173-26-201(2) (0
AND; WAC 173-26-201(d)(i)(E), RCW 90.58.040, RCW 90.58.280, WAC 173-27-060 (3).
Required change to comply with the above cited WACs. In communications regarding this
change there seemed to be concerns over FERC regulated lands and PUD project
development(s) arose, as well as identifying restoration opportunities that may be on private
lands. PUD's are private entities operating either on their own lands or on public lands
operating under a federal license. The city will have jurisdictional and regulatory authority for
any non-federal projects that are proposed within their jurisdictional boundaries. Just like a
privately owned parcel, any shoreline area that is owned or operated by the PUD means that
you cannot go on to their private property and make them do restoration, but they may not
develop that property without first coming to the city and requesting a project review. Any new
I on -exempt development proposed by the any non-federal entity would need to comply with the
SMP, SMP permitting and SMP mitigation requirements, which if on -site mitigation is not
possible mitigation is derived straight from the restoration goals. Implementable regulations
that would be applicable to PUD and other developments are noted below. As for restoration on
private lands, identified goal such as `establishing riparian habitat' is a goal and any private or
public entity could approach a private owner and initiate a discussion about riparian
enhancement, the decision would still be up to the private landowner. If individual city
restoration goals and policies are established, there is at least possibility of a net increase in the
ecological functions and values of the shorelines.
Local Response: Proposed Alternative Language (see below).
Douglas County RSMP Status Document Part 2.4 — Required Changes — East Wenatchee
Add the following language:
Page 1, B.1 Introduction in paragraph 3, first sentence. Change to read:
This Plan establishes a restoration goal, objectives, and policy priorities to
actively encourage and facilitate restoration in the county and cities.
Page 16, B.5, the 3rd bullet in the "Policies" section. Change to read:
The county and cities shall seek funding from state, federal, private and other
sources to implement restoration, enhancement, and acquisition projects.
Ecology approves the proposed alternative.
Appendix C2, page 4, 3rd paragraph
"The industrial activities are currently occurring are !a inside the old silicon plant and
related facilities. ' , aMetrgThere is extensive shoreline alteration onsite."
Ecology Rationale: Required change because a public commenter twice requested that this
information be corrected establishing a current use of the site.
Local Response: Agreed to required change.
Appendix D
In addition to project monitoring required for individual restoration and/or mitigation
projects, the cities and the county should conduct system -wide monitoring of shoreline
conditions and development activity, to the degree practical, recognizing that individual
project monitoring does not provide an assessment of overall shoreline ecological health. The
following three -prong approach shall be used:
Ecology Rationale: The Ecology grant agreement with Douglas County Task 5.4 —
Monitoring Program states —The participating jurisdiction will draft a program for
monitoring shoreline activities, compliance with the SAWSMP and effectiveness of the
SMP in achieving adopted goals. This Grant requirement was placed to meet the
requirements of WAC 173-26-191-(2) (iii) (D)
July 22, 2009 Page 64
Douglas County RSMP Status Document Part 2.4 — Required Changes — East Wenatchee
Ecology presented two options to the City East Wenatchee:
1) Accept Ecology's required change and use the monitoring plan as in Appendix D; or
2) Develop a monitoring plan of their own.
East Wenatchee chose to accept the above language change rather than
developing a different monitoring plan for Appendix D.
Appendix H.3
Section 1.035
Insert Section 1.035: Trails and trail -related facilities.
Construction of commercial, public and private trails and trail -related facilities, such as
picnic tables, benches, interpretive centers and signs, viewing platforms and campsites may
be authorized within designated resource lands and critical areas, subject to the following
minimum standards:
A. Trail facilities shall, to the extent feasible, be placed on existingrad grades, utility
corridors, or an, offer previously disturbed areas;
B. Trail facilities shall minimize the removal of trees, shrubs, snags and important habitat
features. Vegetation managementperformed in accordance with best managementpractices as
part of ongoing maintenance to eliminate a hazard to trail users is considered consistent with this
standard;
C. Viewing platforms, interpretive centers, campsites, picnic areas, benches and their associated
access shall be designed and located to minimize disturbance of wildlife and/or critical
characteristics of the affected conservation area;
D. All facilities shall be constructed with materials complementary to the surrounding
environment;
E. Trail facilities that parallel the shoreline may be located in the outer 25 percent of the buffer
area; and,
a. Commercial and Public trails shall not exceed 10 feet in width
b. Private trails shall not exceed 4 feet in width,
F. Trails that provide direct shoreline access shall not exceed 4 feet, or as allowed in Section
1 C.060(D), in width and shall be kept to the minimum number necessary to serve the intended
purpose; and
G. Review and analysis of a proposed trail facility shall demonstrate no net loss of ecological
functions and values in conformance with this chapter.
H. Trail facilities shall not be exempt from special report requirements, as may be required by
this chapter.
T„lxr 11 ')nno pacrA 4r%
Douglas County RSMP Status Document
Part 2.4 — Required Changes — East Wenatchee
Ecology Rationale: Required for compliance with: 173-26-211(5) (b) (ii) (A), 173-26-
211(5) (b) (ii) (D), 173-26-211(5) (b) (ii) (E), 173-26-221(4) (d) (iii) (C) (vi&v), 173-26-221(5) (a),
173-26-221(5) (b), WAC 173-26-241(3) (j), WAC 173-26-241(3) (j). There is no scientific basis for
intruding on more than the outer 25% of wetlands and critical habitat buffers. As worded, the
East Wenatchee places no standard widths on public or private trails. This could lead to the
removal of excess shoreline vegetation. The addition of this regulatory language allows the
jurisdiction to allow trails within a buffer area to provide public access to the shoreline, while
also providing developers language that results in dependability and providing vegetation
conservation measures as provided for in WAC.
Local Response: Proposed alternative language (see below).
1.035 Trails and trail -related facilities.
Construction of commercial, public and private trails and trail -related facilities, such as
picnic tables, benches, interpretive centers and signs, viewing platforms and campsites may
be authorized within designated resource lands and critical areas, subject to the following
minimum standards:
1. Trail facilities shall, to the extent feasible, be placed on existing road grades, utility
corridors, or any other previously disturbed areas;
2. Trail facilities shall minimize the removal of trees, shrubs, snags and important habitat
features. Vegetation management performed in accordance with best management
practices as part of ongoing maintenance to eliminate a hazard to trail users is considered
consistent with this standard;
3. Viewing platforms, interpretive centers, campsites, picnic areas, benches and their
associated access shall be designed and located to minimize disturbance of wildlife
and/or critical characteristics of the affected conservation area;
4. All facilities shall be constructed with materials complementary to the surrounding
environment;
5. Trail facilities that parallel the shoreline may be located in the outer 25 percent of the
buffer area; and,
a. The width of commercial and public trails shall be consistent with Section
1020.06(l) of the Washington State Department of Transportation Design
Manual, as amended.
b. Private trails shall not exceed 4 feet in width;
6. Except as provided in D.5 above, the width of commercial and public trails shall be
consistent with Section 1020.06(1) of the Washington State Design Manual as in now
exists or may hereafter be amended.
7. Trails that provide direct shoreline access shall not exceed 4 feet in width and shall be
kept to the minimum number necessary to serve the intended purpose; and
Julv 22.2009 Paize 66
Douglas County RSMP Status Document Part 2.4 — Required Changes — East Wenatchee
8. Review and analysis of a proposed trail facility shall demonstrate no net loss of
ecological functions and values in conformance with this chapter.
9. Trail facilities shall not be exempt from special report requirements, as may be required
by this chapter. "
Ecology approves the proposed alternative.
Section 1 B.033(C)
Type I Wetlands. Activities and uses shall be prohibited in Type I wetlands, except as
provided for in the public agency and utility exemptions, reasenable use , and
variances sections of this Chapter.
Persons seeking relief from the bulk and dimensional standards as set forth in the RSMP and
Critical Area Regulations shall seek relief through the Conditional Use or Variance Permit
Process set up in RSMP.
Ecology Rationale: Required for intent and compliance RCW 90.58. 100(5) The SM4 and
corresponding guidelines authorize conditional use and variance permits to ensure that strict
implementation of a given master program will not create unnecessary hardships. The SMA
makes no other specific `reasonable use' related provisions. Compliance with WAC 173-27-160
The -purpose of a conditional use permit is to provide a system within the master program which
allows flexibility in the application of use regulations in a manner consistent with the policies of
RCW 90.58.020. In authorizing a conditional use, special conditions may be attached to the
permit by local government or the department to prevent undesirable effects of the proposed use
and/or to assure consistency of the project with the act and the local master program.
Compliance with WAC 173-27-170 The purpose of a variance permit is strictly limited to
granting relief from specific bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the
applicable master program where there are extraordinary circumstances relating to the physical
character or configuration of property such that the strict implementation of the master program
will impose unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW
90.58.020.
Local Response: Agreed to required change.
T„ixi T) ')M4 Pa Ore 67
Douglas County RSMP Status Document Part 2.4 — Required Changes — East Wenatchee
Section 1 B.050(B)(1)
The width of a wetland buffer, as measured from the wetland edge established in the approved
wetland boundary survey, shall be as follows:
Wetland Type
Low — Moderate Intensity
Dev.
High Intensity
Development*
Wetland Type 1
150 feet.
250 feet
Wetland Type 2
100 feet
200 feet
Wetland Type 3
75 feet
150 feet
Wetland Type 4
50 feet
50 feet
* For the purposes of Section 2.05013 of Appendix H. high intensity uses include:
commercial, urban, industrial, institutional, retail sales, residential (more than 1 unit/acre),
conversion from non-agricultural lands to high-intensit agriculture (dairies, nurseries and
green houses, raising and harvesting of crops requiring annual tilling, raising and maintaining
, animals , and high -intensity recreation (golf courses, ball fields). Low -moderate intensity
development shall consist of development that does not meet the above description of high
intensity development.
Ecology rationale: Changes required to meet WA 173-26-201 (2) (a) using technical documents
from Ecology. While this buffer size is the buffer size of the most currently adopted Critical
Areas Ordinance (CAO), the last update to the City of East Wenatchee's Critical Areas
Ordinance did not use Ecology's published guidance on wetland protection based on the best
available science (Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2: Managing and Protecting
Wetlands, April 2005). This new guidance, along with the revised Washington State Wetland
Rating System for Eastern Washington (August 2004), establishes buffer widths based on the
wetland category, the intensity of the adjacent land use, and the functions provided by the
wetland. This approach, referred to as "Alternative 3, "provides both flexibility for the City and
predictability for applicants.
Tu1v 22. 2009 Page 68
Douglas County RSMP Status Document Part 2.4 — Required Changes — East Wenatchee
The wetland buffers in the current draft are too small to protect many wildlife functions from
high intensity development (HID), based on Ecology's review of the best available science.
While language in this section of the proposed ordinance allows the director the discretion to
increase the buffers to accommodate impacts from HID, it is not mandated, and that is an
unpredictable element for the land developer. Golf courses, ballfields, hobby farms, residential
development at a density of more than one unit per acre, commercial ventures, parking lots, etc.,
are considered high density development. Many shoreline lots have been previously platted and
in effect develop the landscape at a greater density than one residential dwelling per one acre.
Therefore, it is extremely likely that high intensity development will be proposed routinely along
the shorelines and in other locations. If a one -size -fits -all buffer strategy will be used in the
ordinance, the buffer widths must be wide enough to provide certainty that wetland functions will
be protected from high impact uses.
This revision of the wetland buffer sizes ensures that the City is using the most current, accurate,
and complete scientific and technical information available to protect its wetland resources.
Ecology's guidance documents are viewed as "technical assistance materials produced by the
department. " As WAC 173-26-201(2) goes on to state, "When relevant information is available
and unless there is more current or specific information available, those technical assistance
materials shall constitute an element of scientific and technical information as defined in these
guidelines and the use of which is required by the act. " These wetland and wetland buffers and.
mitigation ratios can be found in Washington State Wetland Rating System for Eastern
Washington (August 2004), Appendix 8-C and Appendix 8-D.
Local Proposed Alternative (see below).
Section 1 B.050(B)(1)
The width of a wetland buffer, as measured from the wetland edge established in the approved
wetland boundary survey, shall be as follows:
Category of Wetland
Widths of Buffers
I
.250 feet
II
200 feet
III
150 feet
IV
50 feet
Julv 22. 2009 Nee 69
Douglas County RSMP Status Document Part 2.4 — Required Changes — East Wenatchee
Ecology approves the proposed alternative.
Section 1 B.050(C).
Increased buffer widths. The width of the buffer shall be increased by the review
authority for a development project on a case -by -case basis when a larger buffer is necessary
to protect the designated wetland function and value.
Ecology Rationale: Required change to meet the no net loss standard of SMA and
corresponding guidelines. If functions and values of wetland would be lost due to not increasing
buffer, then the administrator shall increase the buffer.
Local Response: Agreed to required change.
Section 1B.050(C)(3)
Ecology rationale: Required change because high intensity uses are addressed in required
changes of Section 1 B. 050(B) (1).
Local Response: Disagreed with required change. Proposed keeping
original language.
Rationale: This section lists the criteria for increasing buffer widths when certain
criteria are present. Since Ecology is changing the "may" to "shall" in this
section (see above) it also seems appropriate to leave the reference to "high
intensity land uses" since those types of land uses would seem to be the most
appropriate instances when it would be necessary to require an increase in the
buffer width.
Ecology approves of maintaining the original language in Section
1 B.050(C)(3) based on the City's reasoning and that the City accepting a
larger buffer size for all development in Section 1 B.050(B)(1) .
Tuly 22. 2009 Pa ore 70
Douglas County RSMP Status Document Part 2.4 — Required Changes — East Wenatchee
Section 1 B.060
Add Regulation #C: Water dependant uses, as defined by this Program, may be located within
a wetland or wetland buffer when the applicant or property owner can demonstrate
compliance with Section 1.10 A.080 of Appendix H.
Developments authorized within a wetland buffer shall comply with the following minimum
standards:
a. Designated wetlands and their associated buffers shall be delineated and disclosed on final
plats_, maps, documents, etc., as critical area tracts, non buildable lots, buffer areas or common
areas. Ownership and control may be transferred to a homeowner's association or designated as
an easement or covenant encumbering the property.
b. All lots within a major subdivision, short plat or binding site plan shall have the outer edge
of all required buffers clearly marked on site with permanent buffer edge markers. Buffer
markers may be either buffer signs or steel posts painted with a standard color and label, as
approved by the Administrator. The markers shall be field verified by the surveyor or biologist
of record prior to final plat approval. Each lot shall contain a minimum of three buffer area
markers located at the landward edge of the buffer perimeter for each habitat type; one located at
each side property line and one midway between side property lines. Covenants for the
subdivision shall incorporate a requirement stating that buffer area markers shall not be removed,
or relocated, except as a may be gpproved by the Administrator.
Ecology rationale: Required change to clarify that water dependent uses are allowed and
preferred use within shoreline areas as provided for in the SMA, provided the applicant
follows appropriate mitigation sequencing so as to result in not net loss of shoreline
functions and values. RCW 90.58 and WAC 173-26.
Local Response: Accepted the required change to Section 1 B.060
(Add Regulation #C), but noted an incorrect regulatory reference on
Ecology's part (see below).
Section 1B.060 (Add Regulation #C) Water dependant uses, as defined by this Program,
may be located within a wetland or wetland buffer when the applicant or property owner can
demonstrate compliance with Section 1B.035 of Appendix H.
July 22.2009 Page 71
Douglas County RSMP Status Document Part 2.4 — Required Changes — East Wenatchee
Developments authorized within a wetland buffer shall comply with the following minimum
standards:
a. Designated wetlands and their associated buffers shall be delineated and disclosed on final
plats, maps, documents, etc., as critical area tracts, non buildable lots, buffer areas or common
areas. Ownership and control may be transferred to a homeowner's association or designated as
an easement or covenant encumbering the property.
b. All lots within a major subdivision, short plat or binding site plan shall have the outer edge of
all required buffers clearly marked on site with permanent buffer edge markers. Buffer markers
may be either buffer signs or steel posts painted with a standard color and label, as approved by
the Administrator. The markers shall be field verified by the surveyor or biologist of record prior
to final plat approval. Each lot shall contain a minimum of three buffer area markers located at
the landward edge of the buffer perimeter for each habitat type; one located at each side property
line and one midway between side property lines. Covenants for the subdivision shall incorporate
a requirement stating that buffer area markers shall not be removed, or relocated, except as a may
be approved by the Administrator.
Ecology Response: Ecology approves, and appreciates, the correct
regulatory reference insertion.
Section 1 C.037(G)
The onsite mitigation ratio shall be at a minimum ratio of 1:1 (mitigation amount : disturbed
area).
Ecology Rationale: Change for clarity. Required mitigation amount is an "area" based
equation (i.e. I sq. ft: 1 sq. ft�.
Local Response: Agreed to required change.
Section 1 C.050(C)(1)
All buffers shall be measured from the habitat edge, as established by the approved
habitat boundary survey. If no riparian habitat or its edge cannot be located, the buffers
shall be measured from the OHWM.
July 22. 2009 Page 72
Douglas County RSMP Status Document
Part 2.4 — Required Changes — East Wenatchee
Ecology Rationale: Change for clarity. Buffers are to be measured from habitat edge, if no
riparian habitat exists on a site due to site characteristics unique to that site or due to previous
disturbance (not a violation) this provides developers a known spot to measure from.
Local Response: Agreed to required change.
Section 1C.060 (add Regulation #B)
Water dependant uses, as defined by this Program, may be located within a habitat
conservation area or buffer when the applicant or property owner can demonstrate
compliance with Section 1 C.037 of Appendix H.
A. C. Developments authorized within ...
Ecology Rationale: Both are required change to clarify that water dependent uses are
allowed and preferred use within shoreline areas as provided for in the SMA, provided
the applicant follows appropriate mitigation sequencing so as to result in not net loss of
shoreline functions and values. RCW 90.58 and WAC 173-26. Re -letter section for
clarity.
Local Response: Agreed to required change.
Section 1 C.060 (D)
Strike Section , OR Incorporate Edits
Section 1 C.060 (D ) Shoreline Restoration/Enhancement & Shoreline Access. Shoreline
restoration/enhancement of degraded or limited function shoreline areas shall be encouraged
consistent with the Douglas County Shoreline Restoration Plan, ...
The access corridor and restoration/enhancement opportunity provided in this Section applies
only to that portion of the shoreline zone that falls within the riparian buffer. ... Shoreline
restoration/enhancement and access plans must address the following standards and provide
the following application materials:
1) A Fish/Wildlife Habitat Management and Mitigation Plan shall be prepared pursuant to
1 C.037 for the access corridor and restoration/enhancement plan. The mitigation plan
Tnly').?._ 7009 Page 73
Douglas County RSMP Status Document Part 2.4 — Required Changes — East Wenatchee
shall demonstrate that the proposed restoration/enhancement plan shall result in a net
increase in function of the shoreline.
2) Where consistent with the provisions of this Chapter, one single access corridor per lot
within the buffer may be permitted through the implementation of a
restoration/enhancement plan. Multiple access points, whether existing or proposed,
shall not be permitted by this Section. The restoration/enhancement plan wetild shall
provide mitigation for the installation of the access corridor (1av ,., gr-aa es)within the
buffer. .. .
3) The access corridor and restoration/enhancement may only be implemented along
shorelines where the existing function of the shoreline will not be decreased and the
implementation of the restoration/enhancement plan would result in a net increase in
function. This provision is limited to ineludes low functioning disturbed shoreline as
well as low F9ffiget.i.flifig , ,that„ ffbe _sh rol;r,oc, that can be significantly improved by the
implementation of a restoration/enhancement plan consisting of trees, shrubs and
groundcover. ...
4) ... The installation of an access corridor and restoration/enhancement action shall avoid
removing native vegetation, which shall be maintained and incorporated into the
restoration/enhancement planting plan. Developed shoreline restoration/enhancement &
access sites approved pursuant to this EWMC, are not eligible for view corridor
provisions identified in EWMC 18.12C.060F (Correct code reference?). >>1 C.060(C)?.
5) ... no changes made/required
6) Working from the ordingU high water mark (OHWM) toward the landward edgeof the
required buffer(s) found in Section 3.050 the followingshall hall apply:
a. The access corridor width shall be limited to a maximum of four (4) feet within the
first twen -five percent (25%) of the required buffer as measured OHWM, this area
of the access corridor shall consist of native grasses or crushed rock.
b. The use of pesticides and fertilizers shall not be permitted within 50 ft of the OHWM.
The width of the access corridor may be tapered from 4ft up to a width of 10 ft within
the first 25-174onext landward 50% of the r4parian-buffer, ,.,. east , ed !az,,awar-,a of the
er-dinar-y high water mark ef the shoreline of the stfl�eet pr-epeA . The intent is for
the shoreline restoration design to provide for significant blocks of habitat in close
proximity to the shoreline; avoiding areas of existing native vegetation; and tapering
use areas from a narrow access corridor at the OHWM to 4-the widest point located
at the most tie landward edge of the buffer area. Where it is not feasible to avoid
existing vegetation, the access corridor shall be limited to four 4 feet '' in width.
er-e the aeeess path has been ex4eiided +1,, ettgl, exis ngyegetati , the This
portion of the access path shall also consist of native grasses or crushed rock.
c. The most landward twenty-five 25%) percent edge of the require buffer may include
lawn grass, but applicants are encouraged to consider the use of native grass. Where
lawn grass is planted in the access corridor area, measures shall be included to
preclude the spread of the lawn grass into the restoration/enhancement areas or offsite
to ad' o� ining buffer areas.
Insert Illustration
T„lv ?? ?009 Page 74
Douglas County RSMP Status Document Part 2.4 — Required Changes — East Wenatchee
-
-: -
:
: . :- :-
WN
::
.M -.:.
-
ffetus
7) No structures shall be constructed within the access corridor or buffer areas lawn grass.
L Native grasses may extend to within 5 feet of the ordinary high water mark, as
long as it can be installed in such a manner that prevents erosion. . The tise of pest;eides
and feAifizer-s shall net be pei=fnitted within 50 feet of the erdinai=y high water- mark.
8) Mitigation (restoration/enhancement plan) for the access corridor shall be provided
through the planting of native vegetation within the buffer. The area of the buffer that
shall be available for the access corridor and the restoration/enhancement area shall be
that area that is devoid of native vegetation or significant non-native trees or shrubs
which provide habitat functions. Within this area that is devoid of native vegetation, the
ratio of mitigation for installation of native grasses shall be 1.1, the ratio of mitigation to
lawn grass shall be 2:1, the mitigation ratio for those areas where riparian or shrub steppe
vegetation is removed shall be 2:1. In most cases the access corridor and the restoration
plan shall not encompass the entire buffer, as some native riparian and shrub steppe
species occur on most properties....
9) no changes made/required
10) Areas designated for restoration/enhancement shall be cleared and grubbed and
deconsolidated to a depth of at least 10 inches. Clearing and grubbing is defined as the
removal of plant material, including the roots, which entails minimal ground disturbance.
Restoration/enhancement areas soils shall be tested prior to planting to determine if soil
amendments will be required. ...
11) Native planting within the restoration/enhancement area shall be planted with trees
(spaced 10 feet on center), shrubs (spaced 3-5 feet on center based on shrub size) and
groundcover (grasses, forbs, etc). The restoration/enhancement plan must contain all
three layers of vegetation and include both riparian and shrub steppe species.
12) Species composition shall be determined based on the size of the
restoration/enhancement area. For areas less than 500 square feet a minimum of 2
species of trees and 4 species of shrubs shall be installed. ...
13) ... no changes made/required
14) ... no changes made/required.
Ecology rationale: Changes required for compliance with WAC: 173-26-211(5) (b) (ii) (A), 173-
26-211(5) (b) (ii) (D), 173-26-211(5) (b) (ii) (E), 173-26-221(4) (d) (iii) (C) (vi&v), 173-26-221(5) (a),
173-26-221(5) (b), WAC 173-26-241(3) (j), WAC 173-26-241(3) (j) and 173-26-201(2) (a)
incorporation and use of the most current technical and scientific information. Upland habitat
and Riparian areas and their established buffers are used to protect the ecological processes and
functions performed by the habitat conservation area. Large areas of lawn grass fragments the
T„Ax. 11 ')nno PaaP 75
Douglas County RSMP Status Document Part 2.4 — Required Changes — East Wenatchee
vegetative corridor and thereby decreases the functions such as water quality improvement,
riparian growths ability to stabilize banks thereby minimizing erosion, decreases ease of species
movement, decreases nesting & breeding habitat, decrease in the amount of various insects and
other benthic macro -invertebrates. Fragmenting the vegetative corridor decreases the functions
such as water quality improvement, riparian growths ability to stabilize banks thereby
minimizing erosion, increase ease of species movement, nesting & breeding habitat, food web via
providing food in the form of various insects and other benthic macro -invertebrates. Ecology is
thereby reducing the width of the access corridors (10 feet down to 4 feet) from residential
development down to the shoreline in order to decrease fragmentation of shoreline vegetation
thereby protecting the ecological processes and functions these areas offer, while trying to
incorporate the wishes of local citizenry and local government to promote shoreline access yet
still incorporating restoration goals. One of the reasons for this is when joint use docks are
proposed, often home owners combine their currently allowed access paths (4ft.) to create an 8
foot wide path down to the water along the shared lot line. If the proposed ten (10) foot access
plan were left in place a twenty 20 foot wide access path (10 on each side of the shared lot line)
could occur. Which would, thereby increase vegetative fragmentation greater than what is
currently permitted/allowed. Ecology is also limiting the term "Lawn" or "lawn grass"for two.
reasons. First, Lawn/turf grasses native to Europe and Asia require double or triple the amount
of precipitation than occurs in the arid region of Douglas County. The practice of installing
"Kentucky bluegrass" strains puts unnecessary strain on limited water resources. Synthetic
fertilizers and pesticides used to keep the grass green and weed free degrade water quality and
harm non -target animals and plants. Ecology has replaced the term with "Native grasses'.
Ecology has supplied a list of native grasses and sedges with hyperlinks below. The second
reason Ecology has replaced the connotation of "lawn " in the buffer areas is the Ecology
regulatory requirement of RCW 90.44.050, which exempts domestic wells from the permitting
process, but places limits of withdrawal of public groundwaters for stock -watering purposes, or
for the watering of a lawn or of a noncommercial garden not exceeding one-half acre in area, or
for single or group domestic uses in an amount not exceeding five thousand gallons a day.
Placing "lawn" which requires greater amounts of water than the climate of Douglas county
provides taxes the water resources of Washington state. The installation of native grasses which
require less water fits the no net loss requirements of the SMA.
Ecology appreciates the incorporation of access areas, not restricting some uses is one of the
principles granted by WAC 173-26-221(5) (b), and appreciates that restoration opportunities
are providing for a varied plant species composition. Native Grasses and Sedges which seed
can be blended to create a lawn -like planting of indigenous species while eliminating the need
to apply fertilizer regularly, mow every week, and use herbicides. Lawns of nonnative species
interrupt the natural landscape, breaking up the continuum of native habitats and contributing
to the loss of biodiversity. The difference is creating a landscape that is sustainable.
July 22. 2009 Page 76
Douglas County RSMP Status Document Part 2.4 — Required Changes — East Wenatchee
WAC 173-26-221(5)(b) Current scientific evidence indicates that the length, width, and species
composition of a shoreline vegetation community contribute substantively to the aquatic
ecological functions. Likewise, the biota within the aquatic environment is essential to ecological
functions of the adjacent upland vegetation. The ability of vegetated areas to provide critical
ecological functions diminishes as the length and width of the vegetated area along shorelines is
reduced. When shoreline vegetation is removed, the narrower the area of remaining vegetation,
the greater the risk that the functions will not be performed.
Local governments should identify which ecological processes and functions are important to the
local aquatic and terrestrial ecology and conserve sufficient vegetation to maintain them. Such
vegetation conservation areas are not necessarily intended to be closed to use and development
but should provide for management of vegetation in a manner adequate to assure no net loss of
shoreline ecological functions.
Local Response: Accepted required changes, but made a few
corrections to errors, and Ecology made some minor
corrections too. (Both parties' corrections are reflected below.)
Revised and corrected language:
Section 1C.060(D) - Shoreline Restoration/Enhancement & Shoreline Access. Shoreline
restoration/enhancement of degraded or limited function shoreline areas shall be encouraged
consistent with the Douglas County Shoreline Restoration Plan, Appendix B. Where
appropriate, opportunities for enhanced shoreline access, use and enjoyment may be offered
as incentives to shoreline property owners to restore or enhance the functions of shoreline
habitat. Access corridors provide physical access to the shoreline and water.
The access corridor and restoration/enhancement opportunity provided in this Section applies
only to that portion of the shoreline zone that falls within the riparian buffer. The application
of this Section is to limited functioning shorelines and is not appropriate for shorelines with
diverse habitat or functions. Shoreline restoration/enhancement and access plans must
address the following standards and provide the following application materials:
1) A Fish/Wildlife Habitat Management and Mitigation Plan shall be prepared pursuant to
1C.037 for the access corridor and restoration/enhancement plan. The mitigation plan
shall demonstrate that the proposed restoration/enhancement plan shall result in a net
increase in function of the shoreline.
2) Where consistent with the provisions of this Chapter, one single access corridor per lot
within the buffer may be permitted through the implementation of a
restoration/enhancement plan. Multiple access points, whether existing or proposed, shall
not be permitted by this Section. The restoration/enhancement plan shall provide
Tnly 77_ 7009 Page 77
Douglas County RSMP Status Document
Part 2.4 — Required Changes — East Wenatchee
mitigation for the installation of the access corridor within the buffer. The access corridor
shall be installed in such a manner that prevents erosion and results in no net loss of
functions and values of the shoreline.
3) The access corridor and restoration/enhancement may only be implemented along
shorelines where the existing function of the shoreline will not be decreased and the
implementation of the restoration/enhancement plan would result in a net increase in
function. This provision includes disturbed shoreline as well as low -functioning
undisturbed shorelines that can be significantly improved by the implementation of a
restoration/enhancement plan consisting of trees, shrubs and groundcover. This section
El�is not appropriate for high functioning shorelines.
4) The access corridor shall be designed to provide access through the buffer to an area
where an existing use occurs (docks, boatlifts, swim areas, etc). If no existing use is
established, the access corridor shall take into account the existing native vegetation,
shoreline slope, and any proposed uses (dock). The installation of an access corridor and
restoration/enhancement action shall avoid removing native vegetation, which shall be
maintained and incorporated into the restoration/enhancement planting plan. Developed
shoreline restoration/enhancement & access sites approved pursuant to this section
EWE, are not eligible for view corridor provisions identified in Section 1 C.060(C) or
EWMC 18.12C.060F.
5) An access corridor shall be permitted at the same time as other shoreline permits
whenever possible.
6) Working from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) toward the landward edge of the
required buffer(s) found in Section 1 C.050(B)(6) the following shall apply:
a. The access corridor width shall be limited to a maximum of four (4) feet within the
first twenty-five percent (25%) of the required buffer as measured OHWM, this area
of the access corridor shall consist of native grasses or crushed rock.
b. The use of pesticides and fertilizers shall not be permitted within 50 ft of the OHWM.
The width of the access corridor shall be tapered from 4ft up to a width of 10 ft within
the next 50% of the riparian buffer. The intent is for the shoreline restoration design
to provide for significant blocks of habitat in close proximity to the shoreline;
avoiding areas of existing native vegetation; and tapering use areas from a narrow
access corridor at the OHWM to at the widest point located at the most to the
landward edge of the buffer area. Where it is not feasible to avoid existing vegetation,
the access corridor shall be limited to four (4) feet in width. The access path shall
consist of native grasses or crushed rock.
c. The most landward twenty-five (25%) percent edge of the require buffer may include
lawn grass, but applicants are encouraged to consider the use of native grass. Where
lawn grass is planted in the access corridor area, measures shall be included to
preclude the spread of the lawn grass into the restoration/enhancement areas or offsite
to adjoining buffer areas.
7) No structures shall be constructed within the access corridor or buffer areas. Native
grasses may extend to within 5 feet of the ordinary high water mark, as long as it can be
installed in such a manner that prevents erosion.
8) Mitigation (restoration/enhancement plan) for the access corridor shall be provided
through the planting of native vegetation within the buffer. The area of the buffer that
shall be available for the access corridor and the restoration/enhancement area shall be
Julv 22.2009
Paiae 78
Douglas County RSMP Status Document Part 2.4 — Required Changes — East Wenatchee
only that area that is devoid of native vegetation. Within this area that is devoid of native
vegetation the ratio of mitigation to for installation of native grasses shall be 1:1, the ratio
of installation of lawn grass shall be 2:1, the mitigation ratio for those areas where
riparian or shrub steppe vegetation is removed shall be 2:1. In most cases the access
corridor. and the restoration/enhancement plan shall not encompass the entire buffer, as
some native riparian and shrub -steppe species occur on most properties.
9) Prior to work on the property, the biologist of record shall verify that the boundaries of
disturbance have clearly been demarcated by silt fencing straw bales or other approved
temporary erosion and sediment control device. Written verification from the biologist of
record shall be required prior to work commencing.
10) Areas designated for restoration/enhancement shall be cleared and grubbed and
deconsolidated to a depth of at least 10 inches. Clearing and grubbing is defined as the
removal of plant material, including the roots, which entails minimal ground disturbance.
Restoration/enhancement areas soils shall be tested prior to planting to determine if soil
amendments will be required. Soil testing shall be verified by invoices from the installing
contractor. Importing of gravel and/or soil amendments shall also be subject to approval
from the Chelan County PUD, if such importing occurs waterward of the Exhibit G or K
line.
11) Native planting within the restoration/enhancement area shall be planted with trees
(spaced 10 feet on center), shrubs (spaced 3-5 feet on center based on shrub size) and
groundcover (grasses, forbs, etc). The restoration/enhancement plan must contain all
three layers of vegetation and include both riparian and shrub steppe species.
12) Species composition shall be determined based on the size of the
restoration/enhancement area. For areas less than 500 square feet a minimum of 2 species
of trees and 4 species of shrubs shall be installed. For areas between 500 and 2000 sq
feet, a minimum of 3 species of trees and 6 species of shrubs shall be installed. For areas
greater than 2000 square feet, a minimum of 4 species of trees and 8 species of shrubs
shall be installed.
13) This section shall not be applied in the Natural Environment Designation.
14) Sites which had buffer widths reduced or modified, (buffer width averaging or
administrative reduction), or by any prior action administered by the City shall not be
eligible to use the provisions of this section. Sites which utilize this provision are not
eligible for any future buffer width reductions under any provision of this Program,
except as administered under Section 6.8 Variances, of this Program.
Ecology Rationale: Ecology has added the underlined and highlighted words "Section
IC 060C " to Section IC 060(D)(4). East Wenatchee noted in their April 13, 2009 letter in
reference to Section IC 06O(D) (4) that the reference to EWMC 18.12C. 060 is a correct reference
so that an applicant is only able to take advantage of one view corridor provision; one from the
SMP or one from the City's Critical Area Provisions. Ecology's understanding was that that
specific citation was so that only a single View Corridor or the Access corridor could be taken
advantage of. Ecology has added the language "Section 1.C.060(C)" to clam this
understanding.
Julv 22.2009 Page 79
Douglas County RSMP Status Document Part 2.4 — Required Changes — East Wenatchee
East Wenatchee agreed with Ecology's required changes to Section 1 C. 060(D), but made a
reference in their response letter that the Section reference (Section 1 C. 060(D)) was incorrect.
C. Case (ECI) placed a phone call to City planning staff Lori Barnett on 4122109 to ensure that
Ecology had received the correct version of the RSMP Appendix, because in Ecology's version
the section was I C. 060(D). Upon further inquiry Ms. Barnett found the section referenced by
Ecology was correct. East Wenatchee also requested the above strikeout/underlined sections in
IC.060(D)(3) and (D)(4) [EWMC' changed to `section') typographical errors be corrected
from the version submitted to Ecology. The Native Grasses/Sedges list that was included in the
written findings and conclusions was included only as curtsey to assist with the above changes
by Ecology from the reference of "Lawn Grass" to native grass(es).
Ecology needs written confirmation from the City that they accept the change
to Section 1 C.060(D) by Ecology.
Section 1 C.020(D) (Change requested by City)
East Wenatchee requested the following typographical errors in the Appendix H.3
that was submitted to Ecology be corrected:
Section 1C.020(D) - Identification and regulation of ephemeral or intermittent drainages which
do not contain wetland or riparian habitat shall be in accordance with Chapter 1D - Critical
Areas —Geologically Hazardous Areas and Chapter 15.44 15.48 EWMC - Flood Damage
Prevention.
Ecology approves the error correction.
July 22, 2009 Page 80