The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutOrdinances - 2016-16 - Adopting North End Subarea Plan, State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) - 10/12/2016NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN) AND PLANNED ACTION Final Environmental Impact Statement August 2016 Douglas County, SEPA Lead Agency Prepared in collaboration with: City of East Wenatchee and Port of Douglas County NORTH END STUDY AREA - CONCEPTUAL LAND USE PLAN Date: May, 2016Source: BERK, 2016; MAKERS, 2015; Transpo 2016; Douglas County Assessor, 2015 !( !( !# !# !# !#Public orPrivateInstitution Wine Village Resort Hospitality Office/Business BusinessPark Retail/ BusinessPark CommercialRecreation BLUE GRADE RD NW FIR AVE35THST NENEBLUERIDGEDRUS 2 US 2/97 35TH ST NW 34TH ST NWNWEMPIREAVE NW DAVID AVE41STSTNW NW 38TH ST S UNS ET HWY(SR 28)GOLDCREST ST NW 39TH ST 37TH ST N WNWCASCADEAVEBLUEROCK DR NEQUAILRUNTRAILALFRED PLKNOBHILLDR 40TH CIR NEHOLCOMBLNOLDS STATION BRIDGE RD ¯0 500 1,000 Feet Study Area Existing Roads !!Trail !#Proposed Roundabout !(Future Roundabout Proposed Road Extension Future Road Extension Development Areas by Land Use Intensity High-Intensity Land Uses Medium-Intensity Land Uses Low-Intensity Land Uses Park and Trail Areas NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN (SUBAREA PLAN) AND PLANNED ACTION FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT August 2016 Prepared for: Douglas County Department of Transportation and Land Services, SEPA Lead Agency In collaboration with: City of East Wenatchee Port of Douglas County Prepared by: BERK Consulting BergerABAM Cultural Resource Consultants MAKERS Architecture and Urban Design Transpo Group Final | August 2016 II This page intentionally blank 1 August 29, 2016 Subject: North End Master Site Plan (Subarea Plan) and Planned Action, Final Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) Dear Reader: Douglas County, in partnership with the City of East Wenatchee and the Port of Douglas County, is preparing a subarea plan for the North End Study Area in East Wenatchee’s Urban Growth Area (UGA). The 317-acre area has been planned and zoned for commercial and mixed-use development for many years, yet little growth has occurred during that time. The proposal would create a subarea plan for the area to establish a common development design vision, and would include a capital facilities plan to program necessary infrastructure improvements to support development. The subarea plan would be focused on implementation and would establish a conceptual development framework to guide future construction in the study area. The subarea plan is not intended to amend adopted comprehensive plan or zoning designations in the study area; minor comprehensive plan policy amendments may be made. The proposal would also include the designation of a SEPA Planned Action to streamline future environmental review and permitting in the study area. Douglas County published a Draft EIS, containing environmental information, an evaluation of proposed alternatives, and potential mitigation measures to minimize environmental impacts, on June 2, 2016. Douglas County accepted public comment on the Draft EIS from June 2 through July 1, 2016. Per WAC 197-11-560, the Final EIS responds to public comments received on the Draft EIS and provides corrections and clarifications to the environmental analysis contained in the Draft EIS. The Final EIS carries forward the alternatives studied in the Draft EIS with no substantial changes. The Full Intensity Alternative is considered the Preferred Alternative. As described in the Draft EIS, Douglas County is considering designating a planned action for the study area. Designation of a planned action streamlines environmental review for development proposals that are consistent with EIS mitigation measures that are adopted through a planned action ordinance (PAO) pursuant to RCW 43.21c.440 and WAC 197-11-164 to 172. Information about the proposal may be found on the Fact Sheet as well as at the project websites:  Douglas County: http://www.douglascountywa.net/departments/tls/land-services/current- projects/northend-subarea-plan  Port of Douglas County: http://www.portofdouglas.org/index.php/projects/north-end-master- plan-feasibility-study 2 Should you have additional questions, you may also contact Stephen Neuenschwander, Principal Planner using the contact information below. Primary Contact: Stephen Neuenschwander, Principal Planner Department of Transportation & Land Services Douglas County 140 19th Street NW, Suite A East Wenatchee, WA 98802 509-884-7173 stephenn@co.douglas.wa.us Regards, Mark Kulaas, FAICP, SEPA Responsible Official Director, Land Services Division Department of Transportation and Land Services Douglas County Final | August 2016 V FACT SHEET Project Title North End Master Site Plan (Subarea Plan) and Planned Action Proposed Action and Alternatives Douglas County, in partnership with the City of East Wenatchee and the Port of Douglas County, is preparing a subarea plan under the Growth Management Act (GMA) for the North End Study Area in East Wenatchee’s Urban Growth Area (UGA). The Subarea Plan is titled the “North End Master Site Plan”. The North End area has been planned and zoned for commercial and mixed-use development for many years, but little growth has occurred during that time. The proposal would adopt the North End Master Site Plan in order to establish a common development vision, design, and capital facilities plan to facilitate development. The proposed North End Master Site Plan would include minor changes to adopted comprehensive plan policies in the study area that are consistent with the original intent of the comprehensive plan, but which are appropriately mitigated; the Master Site Plan would not include any changes to zoning designations in the study area. The proposal would also include the adoption of a SEPA Planned Action Ordinance to streamline future environmental review and permitting in the study area. The North End Master Site Plan vision is to: Establish a prosperous center for job-creating industry and a tourist and recreation destination at the North End of East Wenatchee. The vision is further defined by the following Guiding Principles: • Facilitate private investment in the study area and create public/private partnerships to guide infrastructure planning and phasing. • Establish a Planned Action for the study area to provide streamlined SEPA review and regulatory certainty for developers. • Spur economic development through job growth. • Explore opportunities for a wide variety of mixed-use waterfront development types. • Take advantage of the study area’s location and create a vibrant, attractive place. Based on the vision and principles, alternatives under consideration in this Planned Action EIS include: • Full Intensity Alternative: The Full Intensity Alternative would extend new roads, including stormwater facilities, along with sewer facilities, and other infrastructure to create a tourist destination and employment center, and to implement the intent of the adopted Waterfront Mixed Use (WMU) and General Commercial (GC) zoning districts. The subarea plan’s infrastructure investments, conceptual master site plan, and design guidelines would catalyze growth of approximately 4.5 million square feet of building space containing 227 dwellings, 544 hotel units, and 7,490 jobs. A planned action ordinance would facilitate environmental review and streamline development permitting. NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS FACT SHEET Final | August 2016 VI • Moderate Intensity Alternative: The Moderate Intensity Alternative assumes that, with the present zoning and partially coordinated growth and investment strategies, half of the development of the Full Intensity Alternative would be realized (i.e. 2.25 million square feet of building space, 113 dwelling units, 272 hotel units, and 3,745 jobs). This is considered a “no action trends” alternative. It would retain current plans and zoning, and assumes a level of intensity more similar to existing commercial areas in the East Wenatchee UGA. No new subarea plan or planned action would be adopted. Location The North End Study Area encompasses approximately 317 gross acres (283 parcel acres and 34 acres of public right-of-way). The study area is located adjacent to the east approach to the Odabashian Bridge, and has 1.24 miles of frontage on the Columbia River in East Wenatchee’s UGA. Proponent The proposal proponent is the Port of Douglas County. Date of Implementation Fall 2016 Lead Agency The lead agency for SEPA review is Douglas County. Responsible SEPA Official Mark Kulaas, FAICP, Director Land Services Division Department of Transportation and Land Services Douglas County 140 19th Street NW, Suite A East Wenatchee, WA 98802 509-884-7173 Contact Person Stephen Neuenschwander, Principal Planner Department of Transportation & Land Services Douglas County 140 19th Street NW, Suite A East Wenatchee, WA 98802 509-884-7173 stephenn@co.douglas.wa.us Required Approvals Adoption of a subarea plan under the Growth Management Act (GMA) and a planned action ordinance under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) by Douglas County and the City of East Wenatchee. The proposal will be considered for recommendations and public hearings by the Douglas County and City of NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS FACT SHEET Final | August 2016 VII East Wenatchee Planning Commissions and considered for adoption by the Douglas County Board of County Commissioners and City of East Wenatchee City Council. Principal EIS Authors and Principal Contributors The EIS has been prepared under the guidance of Douglas County Department of Transportation and Land Services, as well as the Port of Douglas County and City of East Wenatchee by the following firms and agencies: BERK Consulting 2025 First Ave., Suite 800 Seattle, WA 98121 http://berkconsulting.com/ Prime Author, SEPA Compliance, Alternatives, Land and Shoreline Use, Public Services, Planned Action BergerABAM 210 East 13th Street, Suite 300 Vancouver, Washington 98660 http://www.abam.com/ Natural Resources, Utilities Cultural Resource Consultants (CRC) PO Box 10668 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 http://crcwa.com/ Cultural Resources Makers Architecture and Urban Design 1904 3rd Ave #725 Seattle, WA 98101 http://www.makersarch.com/ Alternatives Transpo Group 11730 118th Ave. NE, Suite 600 Kirkland, WA 98034 http://www.transpogroup.com/ Transportation In addition, power, natural gas, and telecommunications analysis from the North End Planning Study Needs Assessment and Facilities Master Plan Report, RH2, January 2013 is included in the EIS. Date of Final Environmental Impact Statement Issuance August 29, 2016 Date of Draft Environmental Impact Statement Issuance June 2, 2016 NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS FACT SHEET Final | August 2016 VIII Type and Timing of Subsequent Environmental Review Future development applications that request designation as planned actions will provide a SEPA checklist and application materials to demonstrate consistency with the planned action ordinance. Location of Background Data See Contact Person address listed above. Final EIS Purchase Price The purchase price of a copy of the Final EIS is based on reproduction costs of printed documents or compact discs (CDs). You may purchase a copy or CD from: Douglas County Department of Transportation and Land Services 140 19th Street NW, Suite A East Wenatchee, WA 98802 Hard copies of the Final EIS are available for review at the following locations: Douglas County Department of Transportation and Land Services 140 19th Street NW, Suite A East Wenatchee, WA 98802 City of East Wenatchee 271 9th St NE East Wenatchee, WA 98802 Port of Douglas County 455 6th St NE #100 East Wenatchee, WA 98802 The document is also posted on the County and Port’s websites: http://www.douglascountywa.net/departments/tls/projects/nemp/ http://www.portofdouglas.org/index.php/projects/north-end-master-plan-feasibility-study Final | August 2016 IX TABLE OF CONTENTS Fact Sheet ...................................................................................................................................................... v Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... ix 1.0 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Study Area .................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Purpose of Proposed Action ...................................................................................................... 1-1 1.3 State Environmental Policy Act Process ..................................................................................... 1-1 1.4 Public Involvement..................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.5 Proposed Action, Alternatives, and Objectives.......................................................................... 1-2 1.5.1. Objectives ........................................................................................................................... 1-2 1.5.2. Proposed Action and Alternatives ..................................................................................... 1-2 1.6 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................................................................... 1-5 1.6.1. Natural Resources .............................................................................................................. 1-5 1.6.2. Land and Shoreline Use and Policies.................................................................................. 1-9 1.6.3. Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 1-11 1.6.4. Transportation ................................................................................................................. 1-14 1.6.5. Public Services .................................................................................................................. 1-16 1.6.6. Utilities ............................................................................................................................. 1-17 1.6.7. Power, Gas and Telecommunications .............................................................................. 1-19 1.7 Major Conclusions, Areas of Controversy or Uncertainty, and Issues to be Resolved ............ 1-21 2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives ................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Draft EIS Alternatives ................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1.1. Land Use and Intensity ....................................................................................................... 2-2 2.1.2. Transportation & Utility Network ...................................................................................... 2-9 2.1.3. Phasing ............................................................................................................................. 2-13 2.1.4. Summary of Alternatives ................................................................................................. 2-13 2.2 Preferred and Future Alternatives ........................................................................................... 2-13 2.2.1. Benefits and Disadvantages of Delaying the Proposed Action ........................................ 2-14 3.0 Clarifications and Corrections to the Draft EIS ............................................................................ 3-15 4.0 Draft EIS Comments and REsponses .............................................................................................. 4-1 4.1 Comments Received .................................................................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Responses to Comments ............................................................................................................ 4-1 5.0 References ..................................................................................................................................... 5-1 6.0 Distribution List .............................................................................................................................. 6-1 NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS TABLE OF CONTENTS Final | August 2016 X Exhibits Exhibit 1.5-1. Land Use Plan ....................................................................................................................... 1-4 Exhibit 1.5-2. Comparison of Alternative Growth Levels ........................................................................... 1-5 Exhibit 1.6-1. Comparison of Peak Hour Trip Generation........................................................................ 1-14 Exhibit 1.6-2. Weekday PM Peak Hour Level of Service by Alternative ................................................... 1-15 Exhibit 1.6-3. Projected Water Use and Sanitary Sewer Discharges ....................................................... 1-18 Exhibit 2.1-1. Future Land Use by Intensity and Category (Full Intensity Alternative) .............................. 2-2 Exhibit 2.1-2. Building Uses and Sizes (Full Intensity Alternative) ............................................................. 2-2 Exhibit 2.1-3. Land Use Plan ....................................................................................................................... 2-3 Exhibit 2.1-4. Full and Moderate Intensity Alternatives ............................................................................ 2-5 Exhibit 2.1-5. Land Use Sub-Options .......................................................................................................... 2-7 Exhibit 2.1-6. Landscape Analysis Overview .............................................................................................. 2-8 Exhibit 2.1-7. Proposed Sewer and Water Plan ....................................................................................... 2-11 Exhibit 2.1-8. Proposed Stormwater Plan ................................................................................................ 2-12 Exhibit 2.1-9. Summary of Alternatives ................................................................................................... 2-13 Exhibit 4.1-1. Comments Received During Comment Period .................................................................... 4-1 Appendices Appendix A: Cultural Resources Inadvertent Discovery Protocol Final | August 2016 1-1 1.0 SUMMARY This chapter summarizes the results of the North End Master Site Plan (Subarea Plan) and Planned Action Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. It summarizes the alternatives detailed in Chapter 2 and the environmental analysis detailed in the Draft EIS, published in June, 2016. Clarifications, corrections, and revisions to the Draft EIS analysis in response to public comments are presented in Chapter 3 and are reflected in the summary of impacts in Chapter 1.6. 1.1 Study Area The North End Study Area is located in unincorporated Douglas County in the East Wenatchee Urban Growth Area (UGA). The North End Study Area encompasses approximately 317 gross acres (283 parcel acres and 34 acres of public right-of-way). The study area is located adjacent to the east approach to the Odabashian Bridge, and has 1.24 miles of frontage on the Columbia River in East Wenatchee’s UGA. While this property has been planned and zoned for commercial and mixed-use development for many years, little growth has occurred. Key challenges for development in the study area include lack of adequate utility infrastructure, lack of an internal circulation network, and problematic connections to adjacent transportation corridors. There is currently no coordinated plan to guide capital improvements and promote growth in the area. 1.2 Purpose of Proposed Action The purpose of the North End Master Site Plan is to create a unified and flexible blueprint for a regional job center and tourist and recreation destination at the North End of East Wenatchee. The plan includes a common development and design concept, a capital improvement program, financing/funding options, and other implementation strategies for the North End. The Master Site Plan serves as a subarea plan under the Growth Management Act (GMA). 1.3 State Environmental Policy Act Process Douglas County published a Draft EIS in June, 2016, containing qualitative and quantitative analysis of environmental impacts associated with the North End Master Site Plan (Subarea Plan). The specific purpose of the EIS was to assist the public and local government decision makers in considering future growth, infrastructure, and mitigation measures appropriate in the North End. This Final EIS collects and responds to all comments received during the Draft EIS comment period. It also documents any changes to the Draft EIS analysis or mitigation measures, as well as any supplemental information added as a result of comments received. The proposal also includes the designation of a SEPA Planned Action to streamline future environmental review and permitting in the study area. A planned action provides more detailed environmental analysis during an area-wide planning stage rather than at the permit review stage. (See RCW 43.21C.440 and WAC 197-11-164 to -172.) Future projects in the proposal study area developing under the designated Planned Action will not require SEPA determinations at the time of permit application if they are consistent with the type of development, traffic assumptions, and mitigation measures studied in the EIS. All such projects would still need to be consistent with all adopted laws and regulations, and would be reviewed pursuant to County and City adopted land use procedures. NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS SUMMARY Final | August 2016 1-2 1.4 Public Involvement As required by SEPA, the County established a 30-day comment period for the Draft EIS, which ended on July 1, 2016. During this period, written comments were accepted from members of the public, government agencies, and concerned tribes. Douglas County and the City of East Wenatchee held a joint Planning Commission workshop on June 8, 2016 to introduce the subarea plan and EIS to the public. The County, City, and the Port of Douglas County also hosted a community meeting on July 11, 2016. Responses to all comments received during the EIS comment period are included in this Final EIS and presented in Chapter 4. In addition, the County has voluntarily included late comments on the Draft EIS regarding cultural resources. 1.5 Proposed Action, Alternatives, and Objectives 1.5.1. Objectives Together, the vision statement and guiding principles meet SEPA’s requirement for stated proposal objectives. The vision of the North End focuses on an employment center and leveraging its natural setting for tourism and recreation. The North End’s vision is to: Establish a prosperous center for job-creating industry and a tourist and recreation destination at the North End of East Wenatchee. The vision is further defined by following Guiding Principles that helped to shape this Master Site Plan: • Facilitate private investment in the study area and create public/private partnerships to guide infrastructure planning and phasing. • Establish a Planned Action for the study area to provide streamlined SEPA review and regulatory certainty for developers. • Spur economic development through job growth. • Explore opportunities for a wide variety of mixed-use waterfront development types. • Take advantage of the study area’s location and create a vibrant, attractive place. 1.5.2. Proposed Action and Alternatives To evaluate the proposal as well as a reasonable alternative that could approximate a proposal's objectives, but at a lower environmental cost, the alternatives under consideration in this EIS include: • Full Intensity Alternative (Preferred Alternative): The Full Intensity Alternative would implement coordinated growth and infrastructure strategies that extend new roads, including stormwater facilities, as well as sewer facilities and other investments resulting in a vital tourist destination and employment center. This alternative would implement the subarea plan vision and master plan, and adopted Waterfront Mixed Use and General Commercial zoning districts. The subarea plan’s infrastructure investments, conceptual master site plan, and design guidelines would catalyze growth of approximately 4.5 million square feet of building space, including 227 housing units, 544 hotel units, and 7,490 jobs. A planned action ordinance would facilitate environmental review and streamline development permitting. NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS SUMMARY Final | August 2016 1-3 • Moderate Intensity Alternative: The Moderate Intensity Alternative assumes that with the present zoning and partially coordinated growth and investment strategies half of the development of the Full Intensity Alternative would be realized (i.e. 2.25 million square feet of building space, 113 dwelling units, 272 hotel units, and 3,745 jobs). This is considered a “no action trends” alternative. It would retain current plans and zoning, and assumes a level of intensity more similar to commercial areas within the East Wenatchee UGA. No new subarea plan or planned action would be adopted. The Land Use Plan shown in Exhibit 1.5-1 would implement the present zoning and as such, illustrates the pattern of growth for both the Full Intensity and Moderate Intensity Alternatives. NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS SUMMARY Final | August 2016 1-4 Exhibit 1.5-1. Land Use Plan Source: Douglas County Assessor, 2015; Makers Architecture and Urban Design 2015; BERK Consulting 2016. NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS SUMMARY Final | August 2016 1-5 A summary comparison of growth levels for both alternatives is shown in Exhibit 1.5-2. Exhibit 1.5-2. Comparison of Alternative Growth Levels Uses Full Intensity Moderate Intensity Dwellings 227 114 Dwelling Square Feet 327,522 163,761 Resort/Hospitality Rooms 544 272 Resort/Hospitality Square Feet 820,012 410,006 Business Park or Winery Square Feet 1,437,600 718,800 Office Square Feet 679,039 339,520 Institutional Square Feet 536,803 268,401 Retail Square Feet 269,782 134,891 Commercial Recreation 87,564 43,782 Under-building Parking 441,292 220,646 Total Square Feet 4,599,614 2,299,807 Source: Makers Architecture and Urban Design, BERK Consulting 2016. 1.6 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 1.6.1. Natural Resources How did we analyze natural resources? This section addresses wetlands and waters of the United States (U.S.); critical areas, including wetlands, plants and animals; and water resources in the North End Study Area. Current inventories of natural resources were collected from federal, state, and county sources, particularly Geographic Information System (GIS) maps. The EIS consultant team’s biologist conducted a field reconnaissance in spring 2015. Available studies addressing the area were examined such as SR 28 Wenatchee Eastside Corridor FEIS, October 2006. Each alternative’s growth was examined in relation to existing natural resources. Since a number of building layouts are possible under the present zoning and the draft land use plan the natural resources analysis assumes conservatively a maximum disturbance footprint similar with each alternative. What impacts did we identify? The impacts analysis considered the effects of alternatives on the following Natural Resources: • Wetlands and Waters of the U.S.: No direct impacts to wetlands or the Columbia River are anticipated from any alternatives. However, the anticipated new interchange, as well as other medium- and high-intensity land uses, may result in construction of structures or conversion of areas on or near the unnamed tributary to the Columbia River to transportation or employment uses. Any impacts to the unnamed tributary will comply with state and federal regulations and requirements. Construction of both alternatives would result in an increased potential for erosion and sedimentation into wetlands, wetland buffers, and waters of the U.S.; however, implementation of a temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan would reduce the potential impacts. NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS SUMMARY Final | August 2016 1-6 • Shorelines: Studied alternatives would maintain current conditions between the existing trail and the Columbia River and do not propose new uses sited within a minimum distance of 200-feet of the ordinary high water mark of the Columbia River. The proposed development would increase trail and shoreline use by affording increased access to the trail system. This can result in an increase in litter, pollutants from pet waste, and disturbance to wildlife. The increased use could cause indirect impacts by increasing foot traffic through sensitive shoreline and critical area environments. However, no trees would be removed along the shoreline for either alternative. • Critical Areas – Geologic Hazards: Development from both alternatives is located in mapped geological hazardous areas under the County Resource Lands/Critical Areas Ordinance. Development in an area that may constitute a geologically hazardous area requires a risk assessment by an engineer or geologist identifying the potential impact the geologic hazard may have on the project; appropriate mitigation measures, if any; and a conclusion as to whether further analysis is necessary [DCC 19.18D.040(D)]. Therefore, proposed alternatives are not anticipated to result in significant adverse impacts to geologically hazardous areas. Possible impacts to critical areas pursuant to proposed development could result from clearing and grading activities. Implementing best management practices (BMPs) during construction should prevent any direct critical area impacts. Any steep slope impacts would need to be evaluated and mitigated in accordance with DCC 19.18D. • Critical Areas – Habitat: Long-term impacts occur over the landscape with higher population densities and increased development activities. Habitat loss and fragmentation impacts, which tend to increase with development, affect the ability of wildlife species to travel and reproduce. The proposed alternatives maintain a habitat corridor adjacent to the Columbia River, which will continue to be the primary habitat corridor within the study area. Therefore, indirect impacts from fragmentation should be minimized. • Plants: Both alternatives are anticipated to result in the same amount of vegetation loss, as each could disturb similar areas proposed for low, medium, and high intensity land uses, because of footprints of new buildings and parking areas. For example, the Moderate Intensity Alternative could have less tall buildings and more expansive low-rise buildings with surface parking, and the Full Intensity Alternative could have taller, more compact building areas that require both under building and greater surface parking areas. Therefore, it is assumed both alternatives could have similar amounts of impervious surfaces. Most of the vegetation includes agricultural orchards and open shrub-steppe/weedy vegetation that will be lost or altered. No riparian vegetation associated with the Columbia River will be impacted. • Animals: Many species of wildlife will avoid areas that have a high degree of human activity, causing them to forage over greater distances. Implementation of both alternatives would result in a substantial increase in human activity and structures on the North End Study Area, thereby potentially reducing the number of breeding and resting sites that are currently available for animals. However, based on the existing habitat types and quality present in the study area, and the current extent of surrounding development in the immediate vicinity, an increase in human activity and structures in the study area would not result in a substantial effect on local populations of wildlife. NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS SUMMARY Final | August 2016 1-7 • Fisheries Resources: There are four special-status fish species that could be affected by both alternatives. The Study Area is directly adjacent to the Columbia River and encompasses a seasonal, Type U, non-fish bearing tributary to the Columbia River. This unnamed tributary is likely inaccessible to fish due to steep gradient down to the Columbia River. The confluence with the Columbia may provide backwater refugia habitat. Any adverse impacts to the onsite stream could result in direct effects to the Columbia River. Stormwater discharge from either alternative pose potential impacts to special status fish species that reside in the Columbia River. Potential impacts from stormwater discharges include increased turbidity and temperature. However, stormwater discharges to the unnamed tributary or to the Columbia River will not be authorized by Douglas County. No adverse impacts on the unnamed stream or the Columbia River would occur from stormwater. • Water Resources – Surface Water: During construction activities, water quality could be affected by surface water runoff from exposed soils that increase turbidity. Construction activities that expose soils to erosion include all physical ground disturbances, such as site preparation, foundations, access roads, and upland ground improvements. Ground disturbing activities may cause an increased delivery of sediment to the Columbia River and increase turbidity in the water column. The potential for an effect on water quality increases the closer the action is to surface waters. Both alternatives would have similar construction-related effects on surface water. The initial phase of construction would include the installation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control devices to reduce the erosion impacts associated with either technology alternative. A detailed construction stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) would be prepared and adhered to during construction as required by the construction stormwater permits granted by the Washington State Department of Ecology. The SWPPP would contain best management practices (BMPs) specific to the proposed project designed to reduce erosion and sediment delivery to surface waters. • Water Resources – Groundwater: The proposed planned action is not anticipated to result in a significant adverse impact on the groundwater under either alternative. Drinking water would come from the Eastbank Aquifer, which is the regional water supply. The aquifer is located ten miles north of the study area and is recharged by the Columbia River. Underground improvements for parking, if constructed under either alternative, can result in localized areas of denser soils where permeability is low, which could result in change to groundwater flow paths. Mitigation measures would minimize impacts to groundwater and the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to groundwater. During construction, the primary cause of impacts (both direct and indirect) to groundwater would be from spills and the release of contaminants that could leach into the groundwater. The project proponent would prepare an SWPPP to establish procedures to prevent and control the impact of spills on natural resources. • Floodplains: There would be no direct project-related impacts to Columbia River floodplains as no development is proposed west of the existing trail, where the floodplain is mapped. Upland construction of the planned action is proposed above the limits of this 100-year flood and would not affect the Columbia River floodplain. The floodplain of the unnamed stream is located near the proposed highway US 2 westbound off ramp and highway underpass. Impacts to the floodplain may result from the proposed north-south road extension, but can be minimized with the use of a spanning structure and would not be significant. Therefore, the construction of the proposed project, with either alternative, would not result in significant adverse impacts to floodplains. NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS SUMMARY Final | August 2016 1-8 What does it mean? What is different between the alternatives? The potential areas of disturbance and impervious areas could be similar among both the Moderate and Full Intensity Alternatives. However, to achieve the Full Intensity Alternative’s greater building space it is likely that development will be multi-story in character with more floors than for the Moderate Intensity Alternative. The Full Intensity Alternative development total includes increased vertical development, with most buildings in the two to three floor range with the tallest building being five floors or 65 feet. The tallest buildings with night lighting have the potential to have a greater impact to migratory bird species than the Moderate Intensity Alternative. Certain lighting types, including pulsating and strobe lights, could attract birds that could be injured or killed upon impact with the building structures. Mitigation measures presented below would reduce this impact; however, there would still be greater immitigable impacts to wildlife from nighttime lighting under the Full Intensity Alternative. What are some solutions or mitigation for the impacts? Current regulations protecting natural resources include: • Douglas County Code (DCC) 19.18, Resource Lands/Critical Areas; • Douglas County Regional Shoreline Master Program; • DCC 19.40, Surface and Stormwater Management Utility Code; • DCC 19.48, Flood Damage Prevention Code; • DCC 20.34, Stormwater Drainage • DCC 20.36, Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater • Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) 401 water quality certification; • Ecology construction stormwater general permit; • Ecology national pollution discharge elimination system (NPDES) permit; • Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) hydraulic project approval (HPA); • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) section 404 of Clean Water Act; and • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries Services consultation for federally permitted actions. Other potential mitigation measures could include: • To further protect the Columbia River and the unnamed tributary and riparian corridor, those areas could be placed in a protective easement or conservation covenant. Once impacts for construction of the arterial streets and other infrastructure (i.e. utilities) are determined, the remaining riparian corridor could be placed in a non-buildable tract to protect the area in perpetuity. • Public landscaped areas, stormwater bio-swales, and other green space areas associated with the development could generally be planted with native grasses, groundcovers, trees, and shrubs wherever possible to maximize wildlife habitat and minimize needed maintenance and excess water use. Excess water from the irrigation district that provides additional flows in the unnamed tributary could be used for on-site irrigation and sprinkler systems to avoid additional water withdrawals. NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS SUMMARY Final | August 2016 1-9 • If feasible, vegetation removal activities should occur outside of the nesting season (approximately March through September) for migratory birds. If vegetation removal activities are to be conducted during the nesting season, a pre-construction survey for active nests within disturbance areas should be conducted by a qualified biologist within one week prior to vegetation removal. No active nests should be disturbed without a permit or other authorization from the USFWS. • Lighting should optimize the use of downward directed low-pressure sodium lighting to minimize lighting effects on migratory birds. No strobe lights should be used except as required by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations. If existing inactive migratory bird nests are removed during construction, future project applicants should contact Douglas County and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to determine if additional perch poles should be installed along the shoreline to replace lost nesting habitat. • An NPDES General Construction permit should be obtained from Ecology, and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) should be prepared according to the requirements in Chapter 20.36 of the Douglas County Code, including descriptions of construction practices, stabilization techniques, and structural BMPs that are to be implemented to prevent erosion and minimize sediment transport. • In accordance with the NPDES General Construction permit, a sampling and monitoring program could be developed and implemented to assess the quality of surface water entering and leaving the study area during construction. At a minimum, sampling sites should include a location above all proposed development and a location downstream of all development. Analysis should include total suspended solids, oils, and greases. With mitigation, what is the ultimate outcome? Both the Full Intensity and Moderate Intensity Alternatives would result in the same impacts to natural resources, including the loss of vegetation. Overall, these actions would cause some avoidable impacts to critical areas and wildlife. These include increased human activities associated with denser urban development, including long-term disturbances to sensitive wildlife species in the vicinity of the Columbia River corridor and an increase in impervious surface area that may impact the quantity and quality of surface water runoff. These impacts would be mitigated by the measures described above. 1.6.2. Land and Shoreline Use and Policies How did we analyze land and shoreline uses and policies? The EIS studies current land and shoreline use patterns in the study area and the effects of the Full and Moderate Intensity alternatives on those patterns, such as the intensity of growth and changes in the mix of uses. The analysis is based on aerial photo review, site reconnaissance, compilation of GIS data such as County Assessor parcel data, and comparison of the current land use to the proposed land use plan. The EIS also addresses the consistency of the alternatives with state and regional growth management plans and policies. What impacts did we identify? Studied alternatives would commit the land to urban uses. Both alternatives are consistent with GMA goals by promoting compact urban growth and promoting clustering development to retain shoreline conditions and vistas. The Full Intensity Alternative would allow for new growth more efficient in footprint and floor area ratio. Under the Full Intensity Alternative, a Planned Action Ordinance would NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS SUMMARY Final | August 2016 1-10 facilitate permitting timeliness and reduce cost, promoting GMA goals on permits. There would be a conversion of existing agricultural activities under all alternatives, though these are not considered of long-term commercial significance. Public services and utilities can serve the alternatives at adopted levels of service. What does it mean? What is different between the alternatives? The Full Intensity Alternative would add over 4.1 million square feet of usable building space to the study area, as well as an additional 440,000 square feet of under-building parking, resulting in a total 4.5 million square feet of space. That level of development would increase the floor area ratio (FAR) of the study area beyond that of other comparable centers in the region (0.46 FAR compared to 0.29 FAR in the Wenatchee Valley Mall area and Downtown Chelan areas, 0.39 FAR in Downtown Wenatchee and 0.12 FAR in Olds Station). Thus, this would be one of the more intense commercial centers in either Chelan or Douglas Counties. Most of the development would consist of employment uses, and particularly business park, mixed-use retail, office, and institutional uses. The Moderate Intensity Alternative would have similar land use pattern impacts as the Full Intensity Alternative, since both rely on the same proposed land use map, but the intensity would be half of the Full Intensity Alternative. The Moderate Intensity Alternative would have a FAR (0.25) that is a little lower than that of the example centers in Chelan and Douglas Counties, but still similar to that of the Wenatchee Valley Mall area and twice that of Olds Station. Under both alternatives, the proposed land uses would be consistent with abutting uses. The entire study area is surrounded by land zoned Low Residential (R-L), with land zoned Commercial Agriculture 5 (AC-5) located north of the study area, just outside the UGA. The level of Resort development allowed north of the bridge is intended to be consistent with pastoral uses north of the UGA boundary by supporting a clustered, well-designed tourist development. The southern and eastern extent of the study area would place medium and high intensity uses next to Low Residential (R-L) zoned areas, and greater setbacks and landscaping would be required by zoning standards. The current Greater East Wenatchee Area Comprehensive Plan requires future development in the study area to provide a 20- acre buffer along the southern edge of the General Commercial designation, located north of 35th Street NE and between NW Empire Avenue and SR 28, to protect adjacent residential uses to the south. What are some solutions or mitigation for the impacts? • The Master Site Plan provides a coordinated employment center and tourism destination concept that will guide land use consistent with the comprehensive plan and zoning code, and subject to area-specific design guidelines. • Douglas County and East Wenatchee have jointly adopted the Greater East Wenatchee Area Comprehensive Plan and associated UGA zoning of Waterfront Mixed Use and General Commercial districts to provide consistent and compatible land use and zoning standards. • The Greater East Wenatchee UGA Design Standards and Guidelines contains site and building design standards for commercial, mixed-use, multi-family, and small lot residential development. • Douglas County and East Wenatchee have jointly adopted a Shoreline Master Program that balances shoreline access, environmental protection, and preferred uses. • Landscape standards (EWMC Chapter 17.72) in the WMU and GC zones require a minimum of 7% of gross site area to be landscaped and Type I screening (creating a visual separation) where G-C and WMU zones abut R-L zones. NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS SUMMARY Final | August 2016 1-11 • The conceptual land use plan calls for public-private institution and commercial recreation uses along the southern boundary of the study area in the portion zoned General Commercial. These use categories are conducive to campus-style development, as well as the incorporation of open spaces. This will facilitate the design of vegetated buffer areas along the southern boundary to meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan’s 20-acre buffering requirement in this area. In addition to existing design standards applicable to the Greater East Wenatchee Urban Growth Area and landscape standards in the Douglas County and East Wenatchee Municipal Code, development in this area would be subject to greater transition standards, such as stepped down building heights, denser landscape screening, clustering buildings and facilities and applying greater setbacks along the southern property boundary to the extent feasible. These standards are established in detail in Chapter 3.2 of the North End Master Site Plan. Policy C20 of the Greater East Wenatchee Comprehensive Plan could be amended regarding the 20-acre transition area to address the transition design standards as adopted in the Master Site Plan. With mitigation, what is the ultimate outcome? The studied alternatives would result in a greater intensity of land use, greater employment, as well as attached residences and hospitality oriented land uses. Land would be used more intensively for urban uses and currently underutilized land would be converted to active use with the development of buildings with greater height and bulk. However, these changes are consistent with adopted County and City plans, and with GMA. Under the studied alternatives the overall land use pattern of the study area would change. Changes to land use have the potential to create land use conflicts in some locations, but impacts can be mitigated with zoning setbacks, landscaping, and design guidelines as identified under mitigation measures above. 1.6.3. Cultural Resources How did we analyze cultural resources? The evaluation of cultural resources included a review of pertinent cultural and environmental background information, and available project plans and related information, as well as a field reconnaissance survey of the study area. Cultural resource staff of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation were also contacted. What impacts did we identify? Development under each of the alternatives would not generate physical impacts to known archaeology that may be potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). If as-yet unrecorded archaeological sites are present within the study area, they may range between surface deposits to deeply buried (up to two meters below surface) and would likely be within the vertical limits of cut and fill or other ground-disturbing work such as trenching or building for utilities, transportation corridor construction, building foundations, stormwater management, grading, grubbing with machines, or planting. Demolition, removal, or other physical alteration of any structures over 50 years old would impact historic resources. Development under each of the alternatives may impact historic structures present in the study area. Approximately one-third of the EIS area has been included in prior cultural resources surveys; however, the majority of these surveys consisted of limited pedestrian reconnaissance and/or archaeological monitoring and minimal subsurface testing via shovel test probes. Three previously recorded precontact NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS SUMMARY Final | August 2016 1-12 archaeological sites are located in the western portion of the study area between the Columbia River and the present recreational trails within the study area. No development plans are currently in place for this area. Field investigations identified one newly recorded precontact lithic isolate in a disturbed context in the study area. Three previously recorded historic structures are present, one of which, the Wenatchee Reclamation Canal, was previously determined eligible for the NRHP. Nine additional structures over 50 years in age are present within the EIS area. These should be inventoried and evaluated for historical significance (i.e. eligibility for the NRHP) prior to specific development actions under the proposal. Evaluation of NRHP eligibility would take into consideration each structure’s integrity (i.e. its ability to convey its significance) (NPS 2002). What does it mean? What is different between the alternatives? Both alternatives would occur according to a similar land use plan and with the same implementing zoning, and a similar footprint of disturbance is possible. Thus the potential for cultural resources impacts is similar among studied alternatives. What are some solutions or mitigation for the impacts? State regulations include the following: • The Archaeological Sites and Resources Act (RCW 27.53) prohibits knowingly disturbing archaeological sites without a permit from the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP). • The Indian Graves and Records Act (RCW 27.44) prohibits knowingly disturbing Native American or historic graves. • Under SEPA, agencies must consider the environmental consequences of a proposal, including impacts to cultural resources, before taking action. The following measures could be implemented to help avoid and manage significant impacts to recorded and as-yet unrecorded cultural resources within the North End Study Area: • Continue coordination of cultural resource avoidance and mitigation programs for future project- level development through formal government-to-government consultation with the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation. • Identify an approach to project specific actions to ensure that recorded and unrecorded cultural resources are not disturbed by the proposed project plans. The preliminary field investigations conducted in this study were based on a conceptual design and provide a general history of the study area and limited insight into the subsurface conditions within tested areas proposed to be developed. • Complete avoidance of archaeological site 45DO173 and the immediate adjacent area is recommended due to the presence of human burials. • Document and evaluate historical significance of structures within the study area that are over 50 years old prior to development actions. • Consider partnering with existing businesses or agencies with a strong interest in history, and which likely maintain good historical records of the project location. NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS SUMMARY Final | August 2016 1-13 The following measures to identify and avoid impacts to cultural resources should be required of North End Planned Actions by Douglas County or the City of East Wenatchee as appropriate, and final language included in the Planned Action Ordinance. 1. During the project permit review process, all project permit applications under the Planned Action shall be forwarded by the permitting jurisdiction to the Colville Confederated Tribes and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation for comment. If either tribe expresses concern regarding a permit application or requests further consultation, the local government shall initiate project-based consultation with the interested tribe to identify an appropriate level of effort to identify and avoid cultural resources. 2. Observers from the Tribe and/or State shall be allowed to monitor development sites during clearing, grubbing, grading, and construction. 3. Should any archaeological resources or human remains be inadvertently discovered during grading/construction, all work that would affect the discovered resources must be stopped until the proper authorities have been notified and appropriate steps taken to protect the resources. The Colville Confederated Tribes and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation shall also be immediately notified of the discovery. Development applicants will comply with inadvertent discovery laws at RCWs 68.50.645, 27.44.055, and 68.60.055. Douglas County has adopted an inadvertent discovery protocol that outlines the measures to be implemented should an unanticipated discovery occur. (See Appendix A) 4. Any archaeological or historic resources identified will be evaluated in consultation with the Colville Confederated Tribe, the Confederate Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, and the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation standards (DAHP 2015 or as thereafter amended). If mitigation to cultural resources is required, specific mitigation steps will be developed through consultation with the aforementioned parties. 5. In addition to the consultation that occurs with the Tribes during project permit review process, prior to any excavation, grading, or construction within the Master Site Plan area below a depth of 40 centimeters below surface in the area between Apple Capital Loop/Rocky Reach Trail and NW Empire, and below a depth of 80 centimeters below surface in the area east of NW Empire Ave, it shall be the responsibility of the developer to notify the Colville Confederated Tribes, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, and the State of Washington by certified mail regarding project based consultation. It is understood that no development is proposed west of the Apple Capital Loop/Rocky Reach Trail under the Planned Action, and the project will not physically impact recorded archaeology. It is also understood that archaeological site 45DO173 and the immediate adjacent area will be completely avoided under the Planned Action. State or Tribal personnel shall be afforded the opportunity to observe clearing and grubbing activities if deemed necessary per #2 above. 6. The above required notifications shall be made 15 days prior to any construction and/or placement of utilities. Said notice shall indicate the type of infrastructure, location, amount of excavation, depth, and documentation on the manner in which consideration is being given to cultural resource discoveries. NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS SUMMARY Final | August 2016 1-14 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any approved operation on a development site, the developer must submit a site plan indicating the location of all utilities, roads, and structures. With mitigation, what is the ultimate outcome? No significant unavoidable adverse impacts to cultural resources are anticipated to be generated by this proposal. With the implementation of a protocol for review of projects, it should be possible to prevent any significant unavoidable impacts. Should any potentially significant archaeological or historic sites be discovered and it is not possible to avoid them, impacts would be generated. Mitigation for such impacts, such as damage assessment and site treatment, would need to be addressed under appropriate state and federal laws through government-to-government consultation with affected tribes. 1.6.4. Transportation How did we analyze transportation? Transportation was analyzed by determining a base network and defining the proposed development in terms of new roadways and potential land use. The analysis utilized the draft land use plan and input growth projections into the regional travel demand model. The regional travel demand model was also used to determine travel patterns and assignments of trips. Analysis of impact was based on traffic intersection operational characteristics defined in the Highway Capacity Manual. As part of the base case analysis background improvements were assumed, including the US 2/97 ramps to and from the west at NW Empire Avenue. What impacts did we identify? Both the Full Intensity and Moderate Intensity Alternatives require access via the planned US 2/97 ramps from NW Empire Avenue to and from the west, and intersection control at the intersections of Sunset Highway at 38th and 35th Streets NW. What does it mean? What is different between the alternatives? The Full Intensity Alternative results in higher traffic generation and worse operations at study area intersections than the Moderate Intensity Alternative. See Exhibit 1.6-1 and Exhibit 1.6-2. Exhibit 1.6-1. Comparison of Peak Hour Trip Generation Alternative Primary Project Trips1 In Out Total Full Intensity 1,748 3,116 4,486 Moderate Intensity 1,038 1,603 2,641 Source: Transpo Group 2016 Notes: 1 Primary Trips include all project trips to the new land uses once pass-by trips have been eliminated. NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS SUMMARY Final | August 2016 1-15 Exhibit 1.6-2. Weekday PM Peak Hour Level of Service by Alternative Location Existing 2015 No Build 2035 Full Intensity 2035 Moderate Intensity 2035 LOS1 Delay2 LOS1 Delay2 LOS1 Delay2 LOS1 Delay2 1. Sunset Highway / 38th Street NW D 42 A 5 A 9 A 9 2. Sunset Highway / US 2/97 C 31 C 35 D 49 D 41 3. Sunset Highway / 35th Street D 30 A 5 B 12 A 9 4. NW 38th Street / NW Empire Ave N/A N/A N/A N/A B 12 A 9 5. US 2/97 WB On Ramp / NW Empire Ave N/A N/A N/A N/A B 13 A 9 6. US 2/97 EB Off Ramp / NW Empire Ave N/A N/A N/A N/A B 14 A 5 7. Wine Village Access / NW Empire N/A N/A N/A N/A B 13 A 8 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2010 1. Level of service (LOS), based on 2010 Highway Capacity Manual methodology. 2. Average delay in seconds per vehicle. Generally, with both alternatives intersections can meet concurrency and level of service thresholds with planned transportation system improvements and intersection control. Under the Full Intensity Alternative, roundabouts provide a better intersection control as compared to traffic signals. What are some solutions or mitigation for the impacts? Under all alternatives, future network improvements would include as a base case: • The extension of NW Empire Avenue underpass (under US 2/97) from Goldcrest Street SW north to the extension of 38th Street. • Improvements at six intersections including 38th Street NW and 35th Street NW within the study area. Improvements would include construction of roundabouts or traffic signals at these intersections. Due to the number of vehicle trips generated by either the Moderate or Full Intensity Alternative it was necessary to include the following improvements in the future network: • A half-interchange would be constructed connecting the study area to US 2/97, east of the Odabashian Bridge to the planned NW Empire Avenue street connection. This interchange would include an off-ramp for eastbound vehicles and an on-ramp for westbound vehicles towards Wenatchee. • The existing slip-ramps from US2/97 to NW Cascade Avenue would be closed. Vehicles on NW Cascade Avenue would use either 35th Street NW, 38th Street NW or the new interchange on NW Empire Avenue to access external roadways. Under the Full Intensity Alternative, roundabouts would provide a better intersection control and are assumed. NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS SUMMARY Final | August 2016 1-16 The Greater East Wenatchee Area Comprehensive Plan requires that “… as specified in the Growth Management Act, new developments will be prohibited unless transportation improvements or strategies to accommodate the impacts of development are made concurrent with the development. Such improvements and strategies must be in place and or financially planned for within 6 years of development use.” The comprehensive plan also states that the level of service threshold was set at LOS D, and that any intersection operating at LOS E or F would be deficient. Therefore, developers are responsible for roadway improvements that bring intersection operations within concurrency if their development would result in enough induced traffic to cause any intersection to operate above LOS D. All intersections analyzed in the study do not fall below a level of service D with noted improvements. Other improvements made to the roadway network within the North End Master Site Plan could be made to improve travel to and from new development. In addition to the major roadway projects listed above, it is recommended that smaller projects be completed to improve traffic operations. Adding sidewalks on roadways, providing signage for bicycles about how to access trails, or other small scale projects can greatly improve multimodal accessibility and encourage users to use alternative forms of transportation. With mitigation, what is the ultimate outcome? There are no significant adverse impacts to the transportation network caused by the development described in the North End Master Site Plan provided that the prescribed upgrades to the transportation system, as described above, are made. 1.6.5. Public Services How did we analyze public services? Police protection, fire protection, parks and recreation, and schools were analyzed by considering the impacts of the Moderate Intensity Alternative and the Full Intensity Alternative on the provision of these services. The residential and employment growth numbers for the proposed alternatives were used to identify what level and types of impacts, if any, development of the North End Study Area would have on the service providers listed. What impacts did we identify? • Residential development will create additional demand for police and fire services, but residential growth is expected to be minimal. • Resort, tourism, and employment center development may create specialized demands for police and fire services • Access to the study area for police and fire responders will be an important consideration during the development process. Added roadway improvements should improve access to the area. • Residential development is not likely to generate very many students due to the anticipated demographic of new households, implying that impacts on schools will be minimal. • If Eastmont Metropolitan Parks and Recreation District is to achieve their goal for level of service, there will be a need for more parks and recreation acreage when the North End Study Area develops. NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS SUMMARY Final | August 2016 1-17 What does it mean? What is different between the alternatives? For all services, the impact is greater for the Full Intensity Alternative than the Moderate Intensity Alternative. The Full Intensity Alternative estimates around twice the amount of new dwellings and around twice the number of new jobs than the Moderate Intensity Alternative. This would imply there would be a greater need for police and fire services, more student generation, and more demand for parks and recreation amenities for the Full Intensity Alternative. What are some solutions or mitigation for the impacts? Mitigation measures include: • Improved transportation networks, allowing for better access to locations in the North End Study Area for fire and police protection. • All development is required to comply with existing provisions of the Douglas County Code, which include fire safety regulations. Upon annexation, the City of East Wenatchee would also apply fire safety codes. • The Eastmont Metropolitan Parks & Recreation District’s Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan and Capital Plan guide development of the parkland in their district and North End Study Area. • The Eastmont School District’s 2015 – 2020 District Strategic Improvement Plan sets a mission and goals for the District and prioritizes actions and improvements through 2020. • School and park district comprehensive and strategic planning efforts will guide future parks and schools projects. • Police and fire providers should monitor growth and its impacts on service standards to ensure that staffing levels and equipment needs align with changing demands. • The Eastmont School District should monitor residential development and track potential generation of new students. • The Eastmont Metropolitan Parks and Recreation District should plan for new parks and recreation space in order to achieve their service goal of providing 6.0 acres per 1,000 people and in order to account for the new population potentially coming to the North End Study Area. • Onsite public or common space is also required in the Greater East Wenatchee UGA Design Guidelines, applicable to commercial, mixed-use and multiple family development. With mitigation, what is the ultimate outcome? There may be a need for more police officers, fire employees, park acres, or classroom capacity, but with proper mitigation these providers will plan for this growth. With mitigation, police, fire, parks, and school services will continue to be provided at existing or greater levels than currently provided. With mitigation, no significant unavoidable adverse impacts on public services are anticipated. 1.6.6. Utilities How did we analyze utilities? The EIS describes existing conditions of public utilities in the study area, including water, sewer, and stormwater. Inventory information is based on adopted plans and recent studies of the North End. Impact analysis is based on use of common sewer generation factors for land use types, water demand NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS SUMMARY Final | August 2016 1-18 based on land use types, and application of adopted stormwater standards. Potential impacts to the public utilities and possible mitigation measures are also discussed. What impacts did we identify? Development in the North End area will require water service and supply for construction and operations. The facilities envisioned for the North End area and associated land uses are not anticipated to require substantial construction for water service. The service and distribution system was recently constructed in this area and provides looping and pressure control to maintain service integrity. The system is capable of providing approximately 4,000 gallons per minute (gpm) of fire flow. Impacts to the system would be limited to construction-related temporary disturbance during connections, testing, and commissioning of system extensions and service lines. There are no anticipated impacts to the irrigation water system. Development in the North End Study Area will require sewer service based upon the anticipated urbanization of the land area. The projected sewer system discharges associated with the studied alternatives are substantially consistent with the existing zoning and planning studies completed to date. The downstream conveyance system has capacity for approximately 720 gpm of peak hour flows with only minor upgrades to a downstream pump station. Both alternatives can be accommodated below the 1,000 gpm capacity. According to the Greater East Wenatchee Comprehensive Plan, the downstream treatment and disposal facilities have capacity sufficient for growth within the UGA, and planned expansions at the treatment plant are sufficient to meet the needs of future growth in the North End Study Area. The DCSD completed initial planning work for the future extension of sanitary sewer into this area and has planned an extension of gravity sewer service with a combination of 18- inch and 15-inch diameter gravity sewer. The Greater East Wenatchee Stormwater Utility does not have developed facilities within the study area that would be impacted by the development planned for the North End. Stormwater from the study area is generally influent to the Columbia River and impacts from stormwater to the water resources is discussed in the Natural Resources water resources section. Stormwater can be adequately mitigated on-site to address flow control and pollution reductions. What does it mean? What is different between the alternatives? Water and sewer utility demands vary depending upon the selected alternatives. The following Exhibit identifies the range of planning criteria for the utilities based upon the selected alternatives. See Exhibit 1.6-3. Despite the wide range of resultant demands and discharges from the site, the utilities have sufficient source and discharging capacities to meet the demands. Exhibit 1.6-3. Projected Water Use and Sanitary Sewer Discharges Moderate Intensity Full Intensity Water Use Average Annual Daily Demand (gpm) 323 504 Sanitary Sewer Discharges Average Annual Flow (gpm) 268 419 Peak Hour Flow (gpm) 612 983 Source: BergerABAM 2016 The reduction in demands for the moderate intensity alternative would result in a reduction of approximately one pipe size during utility installation. A full 50% reduction in demand is not feasible NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS SUMMARY Final | August 2016 1-19 with utility demands due to Ecology’s required calculation methods for determining peak factors and allowance for long-term infiltration and inflow. The sewer peak hour demands would be reduced from approximately 982 to 612 gpm, and the water average day demand would be reduced from 500 to 320 gpm. This reduction would result in smaller diameter sewer and water diameter pipes on-site. However, it is recommended that system improvements to the study area be constructed according to the full intensity alternative to allow for future full-buildout within the UGA. The ultimate source and supply impacts would be temporarily reduced and the timeline for ultimate future expansion of those facilities may be extended due to the Moderate Intensity Alternative. What are some solutions or mitigation for the impacts? • Changes to the study area under any of the alternatives would need to comply with the current utility design and construction standards, stormwater design standards, and County, State, and federal regulations. • An integrated infrastructure plan is proposed in the Draft North End Master Site Plan (Subarea Plan) and clarifies the scope and sizing of anticipated on-site utilities. The infrastructure plan includes phasing alternatives and planning level concept costs to assist stakeholders in identifying appropriate and required infrastructure extensions. See Section 2.4.2, Transportation & Utility Network. • For all development activities, payment of system development charges and connection fees is considered mitigation for use of source/supply and discharge capacities. Ongoing usage rates are intended for the additional maintenance and operations costs associated with the extension of the utility and use of the distribution and conveyance systems. Where possible, connection and use rates should be evaluated to preserve source/supply, wastewater treatment and sufficient staffing maintenance investment levels to preserve and protect the ability to continue growth while maintaining the existing system. With mitigation, what is the ultimate outcome? Studied alternatives would result in minor impacts to utilities including use of existing source/supply, discharge, and conveyance capacities. However, these impacts are minor and within the range of existing planning level assumptions completed by the utilities to serve the North End area. Overall, these actions would be mitigated as described above. 1.6.7. Power, Gas and Telecommunications How did we analyze utilities? Current conditions for power, gas, and telecommunication services in the study area and the potential for impacts to these services as growth occurs were examined. The information is based on analysis in the Port of Douglas County North End Planning Study Needs Assessment and Facilities Master Site Plan Report, RH2 2013. What impacts did we identify? All studied alternatives would increase demand for power and telecommunications. • Sufficient power is available to continue urban growth in the planning area. The Terry substation is a major power and fiber node and is sufficient to handle most any development in the Study Area. (RH2 2013) NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS SUMMARY Final | August 2016 1-20 • The PUD fiber optic system has a node at the nearby Terry substation and is readily available to extend service to the Study Area. • Cascade Natural Gas has identified the Study Area as too expensive to serve. Natural gas is regulated by the Washington State Transportation and Utilities Commission but is privately provided. Service is not required to be extended. What does it mean? What is different between the alternatives? The Full Intensity Alternative would result in 4.5 million square feet of building space that would contain up to 7,490 jobs and 277 residential dwellings. The demand for power and telecommunication services would increase to a greater degree than the Moderate Intensity Alternative which has half the development level of the Full Intensity Alternative. What are some solutions or mitigation for the impacts? • The alternatives, particularly the Full Intensity Alternative, focus growth and concentrate employment densities, allowing for improved efficiency of service for power and telecommunications. • Design guidelines emphasize tree retention and planting, which can moderate temperatures and reduce energy consumption. • Development of future energy and telecommunication resources, transmission facilities and other facilities will be consistent with federal and state laws, WUTC rules, and other agencies that regulate utilities. • Application of Energy Codes will maximize energy conservation. Douglas County has adopted the International Energy Conservation Code (2012), as published by the International Code Council and as set forth in WAC 51-11C. The City of East Wenatchee has adopted the Washington State Energy Code (Chapter 15.28). • Landscape standards will require landscaping that can moderate temperatures and reduce energy consumption. (Douglas County Code Chapter 20.40; East Wenatchee Municipal Code Section 17.72.050) • The North End Master Site Plan could encourage co-location of power and telecommunications facilities and undergrounding of utilities to minimize aesthetic and land use impacts of utility corridors and in rural area to minimize aesthetic and environmental impacts. Subdivisions are required to have utilities underground per East Wenatchee Municipal Code (Chapter 12.16) and Douglas County Code (Section 17.20.040.D). • The North End Master Site Plan could encourage appropriate landscaping and stealth design of telecommunication facilities to minimize their visual impacts on their surroundings. With mitigation, what is the ultimate outcome? Population and employment growth under all alternatives will increase demands for energy and telecommunications that in turn will increase the need for additional facilities. Application of mitigation measures would promote efficient extension of power and telecommunication facilities, promote energy conservation, and would avoid significant adverse impacts. NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS SUMMARY Final | August 2016 1-21 1.7 Major Conclusions, Areas of Controversy or Uncertainty, and Issues to be Resolved The key issues facing decision makers include: • Approval of a Master Site Plan (Subarea Plan) including a vision, guiding principles, land use concept and design principles to further implement the Greater East Wenatchee UGA plan; • Level of growth to be incentivized in a Planned Action; • Type and location of transportation improvements; and • Public and private funding strategies. NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS SUMMARY Final | August 2016 1-22 This page intentionally blank Final | August 2016 2-1 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES This chapter provides a description of the proposal and alternatives compared and evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS). The Final EIS carries forward the alternatives studied in the Draft EIS with no changes. The Full Intensity Alternative serves as the Preferred Alternative for the purposes of SEPA review. For the reader’s convenience, a summary of the Draft EIS Alternatives is presented below. 2.1 Draft EIS Alternatives To evaluate the proposal as well as a reasonable alternative that could approximate a proposal's objectives, but at a lower environmental cost, the alternatives under consideration in this EIS include: • Full Intensity Alternative (Preferred Alternative): The Full Intensity Alternative would implement coordinated growth and infrastructure strategies that extend new roads, including stormwater facilities, along with sewer facilities and other investments resulting in a vital tourist destination and employment center. This alternative would implement the subarea plan vision and master plan, and the adopted Waterfront Mixed Use (WMU) and General Commercial (GC) zoning districts. The subarea plan’s infrastructure investments, conceptual master site plan, and design guidelines would catalyze growth of approximately 4.5 million square feet of building space, including 227 dwelling units, 544 hotel units, and 7,490 jobs. A planned action ordinance would facilitate environmental review and streamline development permitting. • Moderate Intensity Alternative: The Moderate Intensity Alternative assumes that with the present zoning, and partially coordinated growth and investment strategies, half of the development of the Full Intensity Alternative would be realized (i.e. 2.25 million square feet of building space, 113 dwelling units, 272 hotel units, and 3,745 jobs). This is considered a “no action trends” alternative. It would retain current plans and zoning, and assumes a level of intensity more similar to existing commercial areas in the East Wenatchee UGA. No new subarea plan or planned action would be adopted. NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES Final | August 2016 2-2 2.1.1. Land Use and Intensity The proposed land use concept for the North End Study Area includes a mix of tourist, hospitality, and recreation uses anchored by a major public or private institution, such as a hospital, medical research and development facility, or higher education campus. Tourism uses would include a Mixed Use Wine Village, potentially including retail and tasting rooms, in the southern half of the study area and a Resort in the portion of the study area north of the bridge. Commercial recreation, such as a soccer complex or minor league baseball park, would be located at the eastern gateway to the study area. Office uses would also be included to provide stable, high-paying employment. See Exhibit 2.1-3, Exhibit 2.1-1, and Exhibit 2.1-2. Exhibit 2.1-1. Future Land Use by Intensity and Category (Full Intensity Alternative) Category Acres Intensity Public or Private Institution 42.99 High Mixed Use Wine Village 43.58 High Resort 34.16 Low Hospitality 14.91 Medium Office/Business 19.45 Medium Business Park 16.94 Medium Retail/Business Park 11.86 Medium Commercial Recreation 24.33 Medium Total 208.21 Source: Douglas County Assessor, 2015; Makers Architecture and Urban Design 2015; BERK Consulting 2016 Exhibit 2.1-2. Building Uses and Sizes (Full Intensity Alternative) Land Use Acres Approx. Building Footprint (sq. Ft.) Max # Floors per Building Approx. Total Square Feet FAR (Gross) Resort 34.2 126,807 2-3 341,123 0.23 Wine Village 43.6 614,824 1-3 1,291,156 0.68 Office/Business 19.4 314,358 3 943,074 1.11 Hospitality 14.9 77,118 5 385,589 0.33 Public/Private Institution 43.0 178,934 3 536,803 0.29 Retail/Business Park 11.9 154,236 2-3 385,589 0.33 Business Park 16.9 314,358 2 628,716 0.85 Commercial Recreation 24.3 87,564 1 87,564 0.08 Totals 208.2 1,868,199 4,599,614 Note: Wine Village square footage includes 441,292 square feet of below grade parking. Excluding parking, the square footage estimate for non-residential space is 522,342. Residential space is 327,522 square feet. Source: Makers Architecture and Urban Design 2016, BERK Consulting 2016 NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES Final | August 2016 2-3 Exhibit 2.1-3. Land Use Plan Source: Douglas County Assessor, 2015; Makers Architecture and Urban Design 2015; BERK Consulting 2016 NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES Final | August 2016 2-4 The Full Intensity Alternative accommodates 4.5 million square feet of building space, including 227 dwelling units, 544 hotel units, and 7,490 jobs. The floor area ratios vary from 0.23 to 1.11 for sites with typical buildings and less than that for Commercial Recreation, which is intensive in terms of site alteration but not necessarily in terms of building square footage. See Exhibit 2.1-4, Part A. The projected floor area ratio across all parcels including all projected land uses is 0.46, greater than the Wenatchee Valley Mall, Downtown Wenatchee, and Olds Station (see Section 3.2.2). The Moderate Intensity Alternative assumes that under the existing zoning, and with less infrastructure investment, the level of growth in the North End would be similar to other suburban commercial developments. The estimated 2.25 million square feet of building space expected under this alternative assumes a FAR similar to the Wenatchee Valley Mall Area but twice as intense as the Olds Station area (see Section 3.2.2). The Moderate Intensity Alternative would accommodate about 113 dwelling units, 272 hotel units, and 3,745 jobs. See Exhibit 2.1-4, Part B. This Alternative is considered a “no action” alternative. NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES Final | August 2016 2-5 Exhibit 2.1-4. Full and Moderate Intensity Alternatives A. Full Intensity Alternative Full Intensity Land Use Acres Dwellings Dwelling (sq. ft.) Resort / Hospitality Units Business Park or Winery (sq. ft.) Office (sq. ft.) Institutional (sq. ft.) Resort/ Hospitality (sq. ft.) Retail (sq. ft.) Commercial Recreation (sq. ft.) Under- building Parking (sq. ft.) Approx. Jobs Resort 34.2 48 341,123 680 Mixed Use Wine Village 43.6 227 327,522 110 48,155 207,502 93,300 173,385 441,292 1,410 Office/Business 19.4 471,537 471,537 2,360 Hospitality 14.9 386 385,589 770 Public/Private Institution 43.0 536,803 1,070 Retail/Business Park 11.9 289,192 96,397 480 Business Park 16.9 628,716 630 Commercial Recreation 24.3 87,564 90 208.2 227 327,522 544 1,437,600 679,039 536,803 820,012 269,782 87,564 441,292 7,490 Final | August 2016 2-6 B. Moderate Intensity Alternative Moderate Intensity Land Use Acres Dwellings Dwelling (sq. ft.) Resort / Hospitality Units Business Park or Winery (sq. ft.) Office (sq. ft.) Institutional (sq. ft.) Resort/ Hospitality (sq. ft.) Retail (sq. ft.) Commercial Recreation (sq. ft.) Under- building Parking (sq. ft.) Approx. Jobs Resort 34.2 24 170,562 340 Mixed Use Wine Village 43.6 114 163,761 55 24,078 103,751 46,650 86,693 220,646 705 Office/Business 19.4 235,769 235,769 1,180 Hospitality 14.9 193 192,795 385 Public/Private Institution 43.0 268,401 535 Retail/Business Park 11.9 144,596 48,199 240 Business Park 16.9 314,358 315 Commercial Recreation 24.3 43,782 45 208.2 114 163,761 272 718,800 339,520 268,401 410,006 134,891 43,782 220,646 3,745 Source: Makers Architecture and Urban Design and BERK Consulting 2016 Final | August 2016 2-7 Land Use Location The Land Use Plan identifies a desired land use pattern, but economic development trends and property owner preferences may result in a different pattern. To allow flexibility, land use “sub-options” are studied in the Master Site Plan and Planned Action. These sub-options vary the location of Commercial Recreation, Hospitality, and Public/Private Institutional uses. See Exhibit 2.1-5. Land Use Sub-Options. Exhibit 2.1-5. Land Use Sub-Options Source: Douglas County Assessor, 2015; Makers Architecture and Urban Design 2015; BERK Consulting 2016 Final | August 2016 2-8 Design The project area landscape contains benches and steep slopes to the Columbia River, views to the west, extended shoreline natural areas, a continued agricultural context, and heavy and secondary arterial network, with limited local east-west connections. See Exhibit 2.1-6. Exhibit 2.1-6. Landscape Analysis Overview Source: Makers Architecture and Urban Design 2015 Universal urban design principles can be used to ensure development fits the site and advances its opportunities and strengths. The intent of urban design is not to dictate specific form, but to influence development so that it is connected to the site’s natural features and generates an authentic sense of place. The subarea plan contains design principles related to the following topics: • Building Orientation • Coordinating Roads and Topography • Streetscapes • Parking • Open Space Preservation • Iconic Trees at Key Points • Drainage Feature Enhancement • Wind-Break Tree Plantings • Fences • Integration of Site Topography Final | August 2016 2-9 • Roof Forms • Flexible Exterior Building Shells • Building Form • Building Materials 2.1.2. Transportation & Utility Network Transportation The transportation system is shown superimposed on the Draft Land Use Plan in Exhibit 2.1-3. Transportation system improvements intended to support the North End Master Site Plan include the following: • NW Empire Avenue Roadway Extension Phase 1 – Construct a new roadway to extend NW Empire Avenue north from Goldcrest Street NW under US2/97 and connect to 38th Street NW. • 35th Street NW Expansion – Construct new segment of 35th Street NW to connect from NW Cascade Avenue to NW Empire Avenue. • 38th Street NW Expansion – Construct new segment of 38th Street NW to connect from NW Cascade Ave to NW Empire Avenue. • Intersection Upgrades at 35th Street NW / Sunset Highway – Install traffic signal or roundabout. • Intersection Upgrades at 38th Street NW / Sunset Highway – Install traffic signal or roundabout. The improvements listed above were identified in the Chelan-Douglas Transportation Council’s Long Range Transportation Plan for completion during the 2016-2027 period. Rather than a full interchange at NW Empire Avenue and US 2/97, this Planned Action EIS proposes a half interchange with ramps to and from the west. A half interchange would be adequate to meet the demands of the North End under either studied alternative, but would be significantly less expensive than a full interchange. The features of the ramps and interchange would also include a signal or roundabout added at Empire Avenue and US 2 ramps. Based on the transportation analysis conducted for the Planned Action, the following additional improvements or modifications are proposed to serve the North End Study Area: • Roundabout at Sunset Hwy (SR 28) and 35th St (instead of the traffic signal) • Roundabout at Sunset Hwy (US 2) and 38th St (instead of the traffic signal) • Southbound right-turn pocket at Sunset Hwy (US 2) and US 2 Roundabouts on Sunset Highway at 35th and 38th streets would allow the restrictions of left-turn traffic and accommodate u-turns in the segments between the roundabouts. Roundabouts can enhance safety by removing left-turning conflicts and eliminating left-turn accidents. Nonmotorized features will include sidewalks on roads consistent with county and city standards, and requirements that future planned action developments provide east-west connections to the Apple Capital Loop Trail and Rocky Reach trail. SEWER, WATER, AND STORMWATER UTILITIES An integrated infrastructure plan is proposed in the Draft North End Master Site Plan and clarifies the scope and sizing of anticipated on-site utilities. The infrastructure plan includes phasing alternatives and Final | August 2016 2-10 planning level concept costs to assist stakeholders in identifying appropriate and required infrastructure extensions. The locations of the infrastructure elements are general in nature and are intended so that site specific designs can be completed without substantial revision. The preferred sewer and water infrastructure plan is shown in Exhibit 2.1-8 and the stormwater plan in Exhibit 2.1-7. • Drinking Water: Local service distribution lines will be necessary to extend water service to the individual properties. The transmission system is in place for the area and will not require upgrades to serve the proposed North End Master Site Plan. The water system distribution lines will be primarily located within proposed road networks to minimize additional land disturbance and to ease maintenance and operations of the water system. • Irrigation Water: Specific plan features were not identified for extension and service of individual properties from the Irrigation district. However, individual properties would be permitted to coordinate on their individual needs to obtain irrigation water. Specific design criteria for landscape within the North End area favors native plants which would not require much irrigation demand. However, irrigation demand may be high for specific uses such as commercial recreation land uses, especially if they are developed in sports field or stadium type use. • Sanitary Sewer: An extension of sanitary sewer will be required north along Empire as the primary backbone to serve development under the proposed North End Master Site Plan. The lower tier of the study area, including the Wine Village, will need a local pump station with discharge to the sewer main in Empire Avenue. Gravity sewer is capable of serving all of the area on the upper tier, including the institutional, commercial recreation, and hospitality areas. The furthest northeast portions of the study area can also be served by gravity sewer, but will require crossing the US2/97 highway. It is recommended that the crossing occur in one of two of the existing grade separated structures. The Resort area located on the furthest north portion of the study area will require a pump station for sewer service. However, the size and scope of the pump station can be minimized by extending the gravity sewer along Empire Avenue north of US2/97. • Stormwater: Management of stormwater from the developed study area, including water quality treatment and on-site detention and infiltration, will need to occur primarily on each individual parcel. There is an opportunity in the southern portion of the study area to use a system of interconnected stormwater features to complete a more regional system. This system would need to be privately developed and maintained. Stormwater from public rights-of-way will need to be segregated from private stormwater and managed within existing right-of-way. Although the Columbia River is a flow control exempt water body, discharges of treated stormwater to the Columbia will not be considered as part of the Planned Action. Thus, the stormwater plan would require infiltration and/or evaporation of stormwater discharge from the site. Discharges to the existing unnamed tributary south of US2/97 similarly will not be allowed; therefore on-site treatment, detention, and infiltration will be necessary. Final | August 2016 2-11 Exhibit 2.1-7. Proposed Sewer and Water Plan Note: Sewer and stormwater systems may be co-located facilities but final placement and alignments will be based upon actual development plans. Sources: Land Use: Makers Architecture and Urban Design, BERK Consulting 2016; Utility Plan BergerABAM 2016 Final | August 2016 2-12 Exhibit 2.1-8. Proposed Stormwater Plan Note: Sewer and stormwater systems may be co-located facilities but final placement and alignments will be based upon actual development plans. Sources: Land Use: Makers Architecture and Urban Design, BERK Consulting 2016; Utility Plan BergerABAM 2016 Final | August 2016 2-13 2.1.3. Phasing As described in the Master Site Plan, additional transportation and utility infrastructure would be necessary to accommodate growth under the Full Intensity or Moderate Intensity Alternatives. Because some areas of the study area may develop sooner than others, phasing scenarios are examined for each alternative. It is possible that the development on the upper bench (General Commercial zoned property) would occur prior to development on the lower bench (Waterfront Mixed Use zoned property) due to the cost and location of utility infrastructure investments. However, phasing could also potentially proceed from south to north, as utilities could be extended to the lower west bench where the Wine Village is tentatively sited relatively easily, leading to this area developing first. Under all alternatives, the areas north of US 2/97, tentatively programmed for Resort uses, would be most efficiently developed last. The sensitivity of planned improvements and mitigation requirements based on the phasing of development is considered in the EIS, particularly in terms of utility systems. See Section 3.6.2 regarding utility phasing. 2.1.4. Summary of Alternatives To ensure the Master Site Plan and Planned Action are flexible, and that implementation strategies are robust, a range of alternatives is under study. The range of features and growth levels is described in Exhibit 2.1-9. Summary of Alternatives. Exhibit 2.1-9. Summary of Alternatives Feature Moderate Intensity (No Action) Full Intensity (Preferred Alternative) Land Use - Growth About Half of Full Intensity Full Intensity Land Use - Pattern Draft Land Use Plan implements adopted zoning, but would not achieve desired intensity levels. The land use pattern could vary similar to the sub- options at half of full intensity. Draft Land Use Plan. The land use pattern could vary similar to the sub- options at the full intensity growth level. Phasing East to West, lesser infrastructure investment and typical development pattern seen elsewhere in UGA results in lower intensity on lower and upper benches. East to West, with thresholds of investment described in Utilities and Transportation Plans to ensure full intensity potential. Public Spaces Trails, Streetscapes, Viewpoints Trails, Streetscapes, Viewpoints Utilities Phased Plans Full Plans Road Network Planned Improvements Alternative Improvements Master Site Plan Not Adopted. Guided by current plans and zoning. Adopted to provide concept that implements current plans, and more specific infrastructure and funding proposals Planned Action Ordinance The Ordinance would not be adopted. Adopted to facilitate permitting. Source: BERK Consulting, 2016 2.2 Preferred and Future Alternatives As stated in Section 2.1, the Full Intensity Alternative has been identified as the Preferred Alternative for purposes of SEPA review. In terms of the range of growth under study, the EIS and Planned Action do not set a ceiling on the development capacity of the North End. The zoning accomplishes that and is not changing. Final | August 2016 2-14 Rather, the EIS and Planned Action identify a reasonably conservative development level and associated mitigation to allow the agencies and developers to understand clearly the mitigation requirements at the studied growth levels. Provided the Planned Action mitigation requirements can be met and the conclusions of the EIS remain valid, it is possible that greater growth than the Full Intensity Alternative can be accomplished. The Planned Action Ordinance includes flexible thresholds to ensure that development can occur and fit within the environmental review – for example, using a trip bank and concurrency process plus sewer system capacity or other thresholds rather than solely relying on development square footages. The Planned Action allows a facilitated SEPA process. If a developer wishes to go beyond the bounds of the analysis provided in the Planned Action EIS and associated mitigation, the EIS may be partially used and supplemented. 2.2.1. Benefits and Disadvantages of Delaying the Proposed Action Delay of the proposed action would continue present built environment conditions (e.g. undeveloped and low density residential or agricultural uses), delay transition to a resort and employment center character, and delay sewer and transportation improvements. Delay of the proposal would reduce potential for loss of vegetation and redevelopment of existing low density uses. The disadvantages of delaying the proposed action include a lack of economic development and creation of a tourism and employment center, and continuation of a low density condition inside the UGA, contrary to County and City long-range plans and GMA. Final | August 2016 3-15 3.0 CLARIFICATIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT EIS This Chapter provides clarifications, corrections, and supplemental information to the Draft EIS. Changes are grouped by Draft EIS chapter and presented in strikeout/underline format. Clarifications and corrections are based on new information, in response to comments received on the Draft EIS, or to correct errors in the Draft EIS. Supplemental information is provided to expand upon the Draft EIS analysis. Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives 2.4.2. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES, LAND USE Amend the following exhibit to correct footprint square footage, which does not change the total square feet of 4.5 million studied in the Draft EIS: Exhibit 2.4-2. Building Uses and Sizes (Full Intensity Alternative) Land Use Acres Approx. Building Footprint (sq. Ft.) Max # Floors per Building Approx. Total Square Feet FAR (Gross) Resort 34.2 126,807 2-3 341,123 0.23 Wine Village 43.6 614,824 1-3 1,291,156 0.68 Office/Business 19.4 314,358 3 943,074 1.11 Hospitality 14.9 77,118 5 385,589 0.33 Public/Private Institution 43.0 178,934 3 536,803 0.29 Retail/Business Park 11.9 154,236 77,118 2-3 2 385,589 0.33 Business Park 16.9 314,358 2 628,716 0.85 Commercial Recreation 24.3 87,564 1 87,564 0.08 Totals 208.2 1,868,199 1,791,081 4,599,614 Note: Wine Village square footage includes 441,292 square feet of below grade parking. Excluding parking, the square footage estimate for non-residential space is 522,342. Residential space is 327,522 square feet. Source: Makers Architecture and Urban Design 2016, BERK Consulting 2016 Chapter 3: Affected Environment, Significant Impacts, and Mitigation Measures CHAPTER 3.1 NATURAL RESOURCES Amend the discussion of Priority Habitats and Species on page 3-8 to include a supplemental statement about mule deer presence. PRIORITY HABITATS AND SPECIES The WDFW PHS database also documents habitat for a regular concentration of mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus hemionus) associated with the natural drainage found in the eastern portion of the study area. See Exhibit 3.1-5. Anecdotal evidence from local residents indicates mule deer may also be present in the portion of the study area near the Columbia River. Mule deer are recognized as an important game species but are not afforded a special state status. This area is described as a productive mosaic of Douglas fir/ponderosa pine/shrub-steppe, including areas of bitterbrush, riparian zones, and winter wheat that provides habitat for 200 to NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS CLARIFICATIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT EIS Final | August 2016 3-16 300 mule deer (WDFW 2016). Onsite habitat includes some suitable forage for mule deer associated with the drainage, but the area of habitat is limited. Although the property could be accessed by mule deer from the drainage to the east, significant barriers such as existing roads and residential development would greatly limit the chances of mule deer accessing the study area. Amend Chapter 3.1.3 Mitigation Measures (Other Proposed Mitigation Measures on page 3-18) to include additional protections against loss of migratory bird nesting habitat. ANIMALS Mitigation measures include the avoidance of critical areas and buffers to the greatest extent practicable. If feasible, vegetation removal activities should occur outside of the nesting season (approximately March through September) for migratory birds. No active nests should be disturbed without a permit or other authorization from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Lighting should optimize the use of downward directed low-pressure sodium lighting to minimize lighting effects on migratory birds. No strobe lights should be used except as required by Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulation. If existing inactive migratory bird nests are removed during construction, future project applicants should contact Douglas County and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to determine if additional perch poles should be installed along the shoreline to replace lost nesting habitat. CHAPTER 3.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES Amend the section on Ethnographic Context on page 3-38 to include additional information on the Wenatshapam, in response to comment from the Yakama Nation. Ethnographic Context The study area lies within the traditional territory of the Wenatchi or Wenatshapam, Middle Columbia River Salishans, later referred to as the Moses Columbia people, recognized as constituent tribes of, and today represented by the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Miller 1998:Fig. 1; Ray 1936; Relander 1986; Spier 1936; Teit 1928). The Wenatshapam are also currently represented as one of the 14 tribes and bands of the Yakama Nation, as documented in the Yakama Nation Treaty of 1855. Present day individuals with ancestral heritage of the Wenatchi people are afforded the option of residing on the reservation of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation or on the reservation established for the Yakama Nation. This arrangement is similar to that in the past where records show that the Wenatchi people have resided on either reservation (Hodge 1910). In addition, the project vicinity is also the traditional territory of the Yakama people (Hodge 1910). The Yakama and Wenatchi were interconnected by intermarriage to the degree that the language of the Wenatchi contained words derived from both Salish and Sahaptin origin (Curtis 1911; Mooney 1896 in NPS n.d.). Amend Chapter 3.3.3 Mitigation Measures to include additional language to address comments from the Yakama Nation regarding government-to-government consultation and timely notification in the event of an inadvertent discovery of cultural resources. NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS CLARIFICATIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT EIS Final | August 2016 3-17 Other Proposed Mitigation Measures Regarding cultural resources, mitigation refers to the outcome of the consultation process when there is an adverse effect on historic properties. In such situations, mitigation is used to moderate adverse effects to impacted properties. The following mitigation measures could be implemented to help avoid and manage significant impacts to recorded and as-yet unrecorded cultural resources within the North End Study Area: • Continue coordination of cultural resource avoidance and mitigation programs for future project-level development through formal government-to-government consultation with the CCT Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation. As stated above, responses to this proposal were received from representatives of both Tribes. The Confederated Tribes of the Colville ReservationCCT commented that the undertaking was within the traditional territory of the Wenatchi Tribe, one of the twelve tribes of the CCTConfederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, and that a cultural resources survey inclusive of subsurface testing be undertaken and incorporated into the related EIS. The Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation commented that the study area is within lands ceded by the Yakama people and is in proximity to traditional food gathering area, hunting and fishing sites, villages, and burials. They also noted the antiquity of archaeology present in the East Wenatchee area and the presence of known archaeological sites within the development area. It was requested that investigation place emphasis on both archaeological sites and traditional cultural properties. Tribes often are able to provide additional information regarding cultural resources not documented in published literature which can help direct cultural resources investigations and support compliance assessments to ensure that cultural resources are not significantly impacted by development activities. • Identify an approach to project specific cultural resource mitigation measuresactions to ensure that recorded and unrecorded cultural resources are not disturbed by the proposed project plans. The preliminary field investigations conducted in this study were based on a conceptual design and provide a general history of the study area and limited insight into the subsurface conditions within tested areas proposed to be developed. Douglas County as SEPA lead agency has outlined mitigation measures for the protection of cultural resources (see below). • Complete avoidance of archaeological site 45DO173 and the immediate adjacent area is recommended due to the presence of human burials. • Document and evaluate historical significance of structures within the study area that are over 50 years old prior to development actions. • Consider partnering with existing businesses or agencies with a strong interest in history, and which likely maintain good historical records of the project location. According to Douglas County, the following cultural resource mitigation measures were employed in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Pangborn Industrial Services Area. Due to the prior approval of these measures for the aforementioned project by parties involved in the present study and proximity of that project to the study area, Douglas County as SEPA lead agency believes that these measures are appropriate for the North End study area. CRC adapted measure 4 to best meet the cultural resource concerns for the North End study area.The following measures to identify and avoid impacts to cultural resources should be NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS CLARIFICATIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT EIS Final | August 2016 3-18 required of North End Planned Actions by Douglas County or the City of East Wenatchee as appropriate, and final language included in the Planned Action Ordinance. 1. During the project permit review process, all project permit applications under the Planned Action shall be forwarded by the permitting jurisdiction to the Colville Confederated Tribes and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation for comment. If either tribe expresses concern regarding a permit application or requests further consultation, the local government shall initiate project-based consultation with the interested tribe to identify an appropriate level of effort to identify and avoid cultural resources. 12. Observers from the Tribe and/or State shall be allowed to monitor development sites during clearing, grubbing, grading, and construction. 23. Should any archaeological resources or human remains be inadvertently discovered during grading/construction, all work that would affect the discovered resources must be stopped until the proper authorities have been notified and appropriate steps taken to protect the resources. The Colville Confederated Tribes and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation shall also be immediately notified of the discovery. Development applicants will comply with inadvertent discovery laws at RCWs 68.50.645, 27.44.055, and 68.60.055. Douglas County has adopted an inadvertent discovery protocol that outlines the measures to be implemented should an unanticipated discovery occur. (See Appendix A) 34. Any archaeological or historic resources identified will be evaluated in consultation with the Colville Confederated Tribe, the Confederate Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, and the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation standards (DAHP 2015 or as thereafter amended). If mitigation to cultural resources is required, Specific specific mitigation steps required will be developed through consultation with the aforementioned partiesthis review process. 45. In addition to the consultation that occurs with the Tribes during project permit review process, pPrior to any excavation, grading, or construction within the Master Site Plan area below a depth of 40 centimeters below surface in the area between Apple Capital Loop/Rocky Reach Trail and NW Empire, and below a depth of 80 centimeters below surface in the area east of NW Empire Ave, it shall be the responsibility of the developer to notify the Colville Confederated Tribes, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, and the State of Washington by certified mail regarding project based consultation. It is understood that no development is proposed will occur west of the Apple Capital Loop/Rocky Reach Trail under the Planned Action, and the project will not physically impact recorded archaeology. It is also understood that archaeological site 45DO173 and the immediate adjacent area will be completely avoided under the Planned Action. State or Tribal personnel would shall be afforded the opportunity to observe clearing and grubbing activities if deemed necessary per #1 2 above. Planned action notice procedures would occur pursuant to RCW 43.21C.440 (3)(b) and RCW 36.70B and would be reflected in the Planned Action Ordinance and the County and City permit procedures. 5. Also, prior to the placement of any utilities within the Master Site Plan area, it shall be the responsibility of the developer to contact the Colville Confederated Tribes, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, and the State of Washington by certified mail. Utilities would include, but are not limited to water, irrigation, sewer, drainage, power, telephone, roads, etc. NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS CLARIFICATIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT EIS Final | August 2016 3-19 6. The above required notifications shall be made 15 days prior to any construction and/or placement of utilities. Said notice shall indicate the type of infrastructure, location, amount of excavation, depth, and documentation on the manner in which consideration is being given to cultural resource discoveries. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any approved operation on a development site, the developer must submit a site plan indicating the location of all utilities, roads, and structures. Amend Chapter 3.3.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts to clarify that, in the event of inadvertent discovery of cultural resources, additional tribal consultation and actions may be necessary to comply with state and federal laws. 3.3.4 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse impacts to cultural resources are anticipated to be generated by this proposal. With the implementation of a protocol for review of projects, it should be possible to prevent any significant unavoidable impacts. Should any potentially significant archaeological or historic sites be discovered and it is not possible to avoid them, impacts would be generated. Mitigation for such impacts, such as damage assessment and site treatment, would need to be addressed under appropriate state and federal laws through government-to-government consultation with affected tribes. However, it is expected that these impacts could potentially be minimized through development and implementation of mitigation measures appropriate to the nature and extent of discovered sites. CHAPTER 3.4 TRANSPORTATION Amend the discussion of impacts under the No Action Alternative on page 3-59 to correct and clarify statements regarding non-motorized facilities in response to comments from the Chelan-Douglas Transportation Council. NON-MOTORIZED FACILITIES No improvements to non-motorized facilities have been identified in either of two long range plans in the study area. It would be desirable to provide non-motorized connections within the study area to connect bike lanes on Eastmont Avenue east of Sunset Highway to the trail located on the Obadashian Bridge (US2/97). Long-range plans in the study area, including Transportation 2040 and Douglas County’s recently adopted Trail Overlay (Ord. TLS 16-01-19, amending DCC 12.53.030) promote non-motorized transportation improvements in the study area. With the construction of additional roadway facilities, it is possible that sidewalks or bicycle lanes or trails could also be included in the design of these facilities to promote connections between bike lanes on Eastmont Avenue east of Sunset Highway to the trail located on the Obadashian Bridge (US2/97); County and City road standards require sidewalks on all public roads. NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS CLARIFICATIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT EIS Final | August 2016 3-20 Amend the discussion of impacts under the Full Intensity Alternative on page 3-63 to clarify the inclusion of non-motorized facilities in the proposal. NON-MOTORIZED FACILITIES No improvements to non-motorized facilities have been identified within the study area apart from the construction of sidewalks as part of the development. However, In addition to county and city roadway improvement cross sections for urban roads that include sidewalks, and shoulders intended to be shared with bicycles, the Revised Draft Master Site Plan includes requirements that planned actions provide east-west connections to the Apple Capital Loop Trail and Rocky Reach trail. In particular, the Wine Village and Office/Business Areas are along the Apple Capital Recreation Loop Trail and would provide access for people biking and walking. Additionally, the Resort Area is adjacent to the Rocky Reach trail extension towards Lincoln Rock State Park. These trail connections would provide regional, non-motorized access to the North End Study Area development from East Wenatchee, Wenatchee and Chelan County, and State Parks. Additionally, sidewalks would likely be constructed along new internal roadways to facilitate people walking within the study area, and these would provide key connections that would otherwise not exist for pedestrians and bicycles across this large master planned area. CHAPTER 3.6 UTILITIES Amend Chapter 3.6.1 – Affected Environment on page 3-90 to update information related to the descriptions of the sanitary sewer system. Sanitary Sewer Wastewater collection, treatment, and discharge are subject to federal regulation under the Clean Water Act, as enforced by the EPA, and state standards established by Ecology. Title 173 of the WAC includes regulations pertaining to public wastewater systems while Title 246 includes regulations to on-site sewage systems. Currently the study area is not serviced by a wastewater system and the existing properties use on-site sewage treatment systems. The Douglas County Sewer District (DCSD) provides sanitary sewer service within the City of East Wenatchee and adjacent urban areas. While the sewer district does not currently have infrastructure or provide service to the study area, which is outside the district boundary, the district plans for the entire Urban Growth Areaentire study area is within the district’s planning area. The service area of the sewer district includes approximately 5,430 acres, or approximately 63 percent of the East Wenatchee UGA; however, service is only provided to approximately 3,400 acres or approximately 44 percent. The Comprehensive Plan states that the capacity of the existing collection and treatment system is insufficient to meet the needs of the entire UGA. The DCSD’s current collection system terminates at NW Empire Avenue and 29th Street. The sewer district received a pre-construction loan from the Public Works Trust Fund to design an extension of the sewer collection system along NW Empire Avenue from 29th Street to 35th Street. However, construction funding was not secured by the County for the road reconstruction project; the loan was terminated, and the funds are no longer available. The sewer district applied for Public Works Trust Fund dollars to design an extension of the sewer collection system further north and into the Baker Flats area. The conceptual layout of the sewer extensions is shown in Exhibit 3.6-1. NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS CLARIFICATIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT EIS Final | August 2016 3-21 The district operates a wastewater treatment facility that serves the greater East Wenatchee area. The facility is a Class III activated sludge plant with a discharge to the Columbia River as authorized by an NPDES permit. The facility is operating at approximately 3.81.325 million gallons per day (mgd) or 38 51 percent of the current hydraulic capacity of 2.6 mgdmaximum capacity. Based on available land for potential facility expansion, the estimated maximum capacity of the existing facility with upgrades is 5.2 mgd. Based on the development trends at the time of the comprehensive plan, this capacity would be reached in 2033. Amend Chapter 3.6.2 – Impacts on page 3-93 to clarify the improvement thresholds presented in the discussion of impacts associated with the Full Intensity Alternative. Impacts of Full Intensity Alternative The Full Intensity Alternative includes approximately 5 million square feet of development including 208 acres, 227 dwellings, 544 hotel units, and approximately 10 acres of underbuilding parking. The full intensity development total includes increased vertical development, with most buildings in the two to three floor range with the tallest building being five floors or 65 feet. Exhibit 3.6-2 summarizes the anticipated resultant flows from the proposed alternatives. Exhibit 3.6-2. Projected Water Use and Sanitary Sewer Discharges Land Use Moderate Intensity Full Intensity Water Use Sanitary Sewer Discharges Water Use Sanitary Sewer Discharges Average Annual Daily Demand (gpm) Average Annual Flow (gpm) Peak Hour Flow (gpm) Average Annual Daily Demand (gpm) Average Annual Flow (gpm) Peak Hour Flow (gpm) Resort 3 2 5 5 4 11 Wine Village 63 52 183 120 100 350 Office/Business 49 41 82 49 41 82 Hospitality 21 17 61 42 35 122 Public/Private Institution 67-112 55-93 83-140 67-224 55-186 83-280 Retail/Business Park 53 44 87 32 26 53 Business Park 13 11 22 13 11 22 Commercial Recreation 9 8 32 19 16 63 Total 278-323 230-268 555-612 347-504 288-419 786-983 Source: BergerABAM 2016 The Full Intensity Alternative still includes a wide range of possible water use and sewer discharges. Water use would increase and require up to 347-504 gpm average daily demand. In particular the possible ranges of sewer flow from the institutional zoning and commercial recreation are wide ranging. Assuming the worst case with highest resulting demands and discharges have the potential to vary between 786 and 983 gpm during the peak hour. Despite the wide range of resultant demands and discharges from the study area, the utilities have sufficient source and discharging capacities to meet the demands with minor improvements. NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS CLARIFICATIONS AND CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT EIS Final | August 2016 3-22 The threshold of development prior to requiring significant downstream sewer improvements is 1,000 gpm. The Full Intensity Alternative with conservative flow assumptions would lie at 980 gpm, below the threshold. Approximately 30 additional equivalent residential units (ERUs) could be added to the maximum development scenario before requiring downstream sewer improvements. The level of development it would take to reach 1,000 gpm is 30 equivalent residential units (ERUs). Final | August 2016 4-1 4.0 DRAFT EIS COMMENTS AND RESPONSES 4.1 Comments Received During the Draft EIS comment period, the County received written comments from private citizens and interested agencies and tribes, as listed in the table below. Comments received as of the conclusion of the comment period on July 1, 2016 are addressed. Douglas County has voluntarily included responses to comments received July 8, 2016 regarding cultural resources. Exhibit 4.1-1. Comments Received During Comment Period Letter Number Author Date 1 Ronald Balzer June 6, 2016 2 Ken and Judy Bennett June 21, 2016 3 Chelan County PUD #1 July 1, 2016 4 Chelan-Douglas Transportation Council July 1, 2016 5 Douglas County Sewer District July 1, 2016 6 Washington State Department of Transportation July 1, 2016 7 Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation July 8, 2016 Original comment letters and emails are provided at the end this chapter in the order listed above. Unique comments are marked and numbered for reference, and responses to comments are presented in Chapter 4.2 below. 4.2 Responses to Comments Letter 1 – Ronald Balzer COMMENT 1 As described in the Draft EIS, the analysis of impacts to sensitive wildlife is based upon the latest data available from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and it is possible that there are active osprey nests within the project area that have not been mapped. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) makes it illegal for anyone to take, possess, import, export, transport, sell, purchase, barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or barter, any migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such a bird except under the terms of a valid permit. Therefore, any such nest would be protected while it is occupied. Once the nests are unoccupied, the MBTA allows the destruction of nests. The MBTA would apply to all birds nesting in the area and would protect such nests until they are unoccupied. The Draft EIS has been revised to include a mitigation measure for the provision of additional perch poles along the shoreline in the event than an unoccupied osprey nest is removed. See Chapter 3 of this EIS for detailed revisions. Contrary to the commenter’s statement, the MBTA does not contain any provisions requiring roads or buildings to be located a minimum distance from active osprey nests. NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS DRAFT EIS COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Final | August 2016 4-2 COMMENT 2 As described in the Draft EIS, the analysis of impacts to sensitive wildlife is based upon the latest data available from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Draft EIS has been revised per the comment. COMMENT 3 Washington Department of Ecology records currently show one hazardous cleanup site within the Study Area, the Taplett Apple Orchard site. The property is currently classified as awaiting cleanup. As described in the SEPA Checklist, published in July 2015, all properties in the Study Area are subject to the requirements of the Washington Model Toxics Control Act (RCW 70.105D). Further, the proposed Planned Action Ordinance includes the following requirement, standard for Douglas County to apply to subdivisions: The following note shall be placed on the face of plats or binding site plans on planned action properties with a history of agricultural use: “Based on historical agricultural use of this land, there is a possibility the soil contains residual concentrations of pesticides. The Washington State Department of Ecology recommends that the soils be sampled and analyzed for lead and arsenic and for organochlorine pesticides. If these contaminants are found at concentrations above the MTCA cleanup levels, the Washington State Department of Ecology recommends that potential buyers be notified of their occurrence.” This note shall not be required to be placed on the final plat or binding site plan, if the soils are sampled by a professional with adequate credentials to verify that the site does not contain lead and arsenic and organochlorine pesticides at concentrations above the MTCA cleanup levels. COMMENT 4 The transportation analysis distributes traffic from the study area in multiple directions and assumes background traffic growth consistent with the regional transportation model that assumes improvements to the roads similar to the planned roadway network associated with the North End Master Site Plan. See Exhibit 3.4-9. Full Intensity Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Distribution, for example. Planned roads would be designed to meet the county and city road design standards that assume urban cross sections. The cost estimates in the Draft Master Site Plan reflect that. COMMENT 5 Light, glare, and noise pollution were discussed in the SEPA scoping checklist, published by Douglas County on July 23, 2015; see Draft EIS Appendix A. Preliminary review of these environmental topics concluded that existing noise control regulations (Douglas County Code chapters 8.04 and 9.24.020) and design standards would be sufficient to keep noise, light, and glare impacts below significant levels. As such, these topics were not discussed in the Draft EIS. Letter 2 – Ken and Judy Bennett COMMENT 1 Thank you for your comment. The concept plan for the North End Study Area was developed collaboratively with input from local property owners and community representatives. Chapter 3.2 of the Draft EIS contains extensive analysis of the compatibility between the proposed and existing land uses in the study area, as well as compatibility of the proposed development with adopted zoning regulations. As described in the Draft EIS, the study area is zoned for commercial and mixed use development. The Greater East Wenatchee Area Comprehensive Plan establishes policies for protection NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS DRAFT EIS COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Final | August 2016 4-3 of residential areas in the form of buffer areas, which have been incorporated into the design guidelines of the North End Master Site Plan. Letter 3 – Chelan County PUD #1 COMMENT 1 Thank you for your comment. COMMENT 2 Thank you for your comment. COMMENT 3 Thank you for your comment. COMMENT 4 Thank you for your comment. It is the stated intention of the North End Master Site Plan to avoid development waterward of the Apple Capital Loop Trail and Rocky Reach Trail to avoid impacts to shoreline areas. COMMENT 5 Thank you for your comment. The primary purpose of the SEPA environmental process is to identify potential environmental impacts and formulate mitigation measures accordingly. These mitigation measures will be incorporated into the Planned Action Ordinance and will serve to protect environmental resources in the Study Area. In addition, the North End Master Site Plan and EIS identify infrastructure improvements necessary to accomplish development goals without compromising environmental quality. COMMENT 6 Thank you for your comment. COMMENT 7 Thank you for your comment. Projects under the Planned Action would still be subject to all local development regulations, and additional conditions may be imposed during the construction permitting process if necessary to ensure compliance with local codes. If a development is proposed in the Study Area that would have impacts beyond those identified in the North End Master Site Plan EIS, additional SEPA review would be required, potentially including additional mitigation. COMMENT 8 Thank you for your comment. The Master Site Plan includes design principles focused on the promotion of high quality architectural and site design that maintains and is compatible with the unique character of the Study Area’s landscape. Letter 4 – Chelan-Douglas Transportation Council COMMENT 1 All new public roads in the Study Area would be subject to County or City road standards, which include sidewalks – see Subarea Plan Appendix B. The cost estimates presented in the Draft EIS reflect this. NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS DRAFT EIS COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Final | August 2016 4-4 COMMENT 2 Thank you for your comment. The Subarea Plan and Planned Action Ordinance have been updated to include a requirement for the provision of non-motorized connections to the regional trail system. The Draft EIS has also been updated to correct the statement regarding long-range planning for non- motorized improvements. In addition to Transportation 2040, long-range plans for the North End area include the recently adopted Trail Overlay (amendments to DCC 12.53.030, Ord. TLS 16-01-19) that govern connections to the Apple Capital Loop Trail. COMMENT 3 In addition to county and city roadway improvement cross sections for urban roads that include sidewalks, and shoulders intended to be shared with bicycles, the Revised Draft Master Site Plan includes requirements that planned actions provide east-west connections to the Apple Capital Loop Trail and Rocky Reach trail. Letter 5 – Douglas County Sewer District COMMENT 1 Comment 1a: The Summary of impacts has been revised to recognize the need for minor upgrades to the lift station to accommodate future development under the alternatives. See Chapter 1.6.6 of this FEIS. Comment 1b: Peak factors for the Draft EIS analysis were assigned to each specific land use proposed within the study area. The peak factors assigned were estimated from publicly available diurnal curve data for representative land use types. A hydraulic model was used to calculate the peak runoff and resultant pipe sizing. Using land use specific peak factors and/or diurnal curves is an accurate method for estimating peak flows and pipe sizing. Overestimating peak runoff and therefore oversizing pipes and/or pump stations, especially in the furthest extents of a wastewater collection system, can result in hydraulic velocities within the pipe being less than 2 feet per second, which can result in increased maintenance demands. Additionally, oversizing of pump stations or pipes where raw sewage is allowed to build up can result in the production of hydrogen sulfide that causes deterioration of the infrastructure and increases odor production. Based upon our experience, the assumption in Table G2-2 in the Department of Ecology’s Criteria for Sewage Works Design, and the peak factor methods contained therein overestimate the peak factors in basins that are in the upper extents of the sewer collection system. Therefore, this land use specific method was used to optimize the proposed sanitary sewer collection system. NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS DRAFT EIS COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Final | August 2016 4-5 The following table itemizes the peak factor assumed for each land use. Land Use Annual Average Flow (gpd) Annual Average Flow (gpm) Peak Factor Peak Hour Flow (gpm) Full Intensity Resort 6,240 4.33 2.5 10.83 Wine Village 144,054 100.04 3.5 350.13 Office/Business 59,000 40.97 2 81.94 Hospitality 50,180 34.85 3.5 121.97 Public/Private Institution 268,402 186.39 1.5 279.58 Retail/Business Park 37,919 26.33 2 52.67 Business Park 15,750 10.94 2 21.88 Commercial Recreation 22,767 15.81 4 63.24 Totals 604,311 419.66 2.34 982.24 Moderate Intensity Resort 3,120 2.17 2.5 5.42 Wine Village 75,445 52.39 3.5 183.37 Office/Business 59,000 40.97 2 81.94 Hospitality 25,090 17.42 3.5 60.98 Public/Private Institution 134,201 93.19 1.5 139.79 Retail/Business Park 62,981 43.74 2 87.47 Business Park 15,750 10.94 2 21.88 Commercial Recreation 11,383 7.91 4 31.62 Totals 386,970 268.73 2.28 612.48 NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS DRAFT EIS COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Final | August 2016 4-6 The graph below shows the diurnal curves used within the model to estimate peak flows. COMMENT 2 The Draft EIS text has been revised as requested. Detailed revisions are presented in Chapter 3. COMMENT 3 Thank you for comment. This information regarding the loan status has been added to the Draft EIS text. Detailed revisions are presented in Chapter 3. COMMENT 4 The Draft EIS text has been revised to remove the incorrect reference to Baker Flats. Detailed revisions are presented in Chapter 3. COMMENT 5 The Draft EIS text has been revised as requested. Detailed revisions are presented in Chapter 3. NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS DRAFT EIS COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Final | August 2016 4-7 COMMENT 6 Comment 6a: Flow generation for the Draft EIS analysis was based on assumptions for each of the component land use types of the study area, as presented in the table below. With regard to the comment’s specific question regarding the resort land use, that calculation assumed 48 rooms at 130 gpd per room for a total of 6,240 gpd, which equivalent to approximately 2.5 gpm annual average flow. Land Use Type Flow Generation ERU 250 gpd1 Hospitality Unit 130 gpd2 Business Park/Office SF Used job estimates only Institution 500 gpd/1,000 SF3 Retail 300 gpd/1,000 SF4 Commercial Recreation 3.5 gpd /seat5 Jobs 25 gpd/employee6 Notes: 1. Assumed 100 gpcd (Ecology standard) with 2.5 individuals per residential unit 2. Used data from Ecology’s Criteria for Sewage Works Design Table G2-2 for motels 3. Used data from Ecology’s Criteria for Sewage Works Design Table G2-2 for doctor’s office within medical center 4. Used data from Ecology’s Criteria for Sewage Works Design Table G2-2 for shopping centers 5. Used data from ADS Environmental Services Sewer Sociology 2013 for professional and collegiate sports stadiums 6. Used data from Ecology’s Criteria for Sewage Works Design Table G2-2 for factories Comment 6b: Thank you for your comment. Please see the response to comment 1b for an explanation of how the peak factors used in the Draft EIS analysis were developed. Comment 6c: The impact analysis on page 3-93 has been revised to acknowledge that minor lift station improvements would be necessary to achieve sufficient capacity. Detailed revisions are presented in Chapter 3. Comment 6d: The impact analysis on page 3-93 has been revised to recognize the need for minor upgrades to the lift station to accommodate future development under the alternatives. Detailed revisions are presented in Chapter 3. Comment 6e: The Draft EIS text has been revised for clarity. Detailed revisions are presented in Chapter 3. Letter 6 – Washington State Department of Transportation COMMENT 1 Thank you for your comment. NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS DRAFT EIS COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Final | August 2016 4-8 Letter 7 – Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation COMMENT 1 Thank you for your comment concurring with the proposed mitigation measure. COMMENT 2 The referenced mitigation language regarding government-to-government consultation has been revised as requested. Detailed revisions are presented in Chapter 3. COMMENT 3 The Draft EIS text has been revised as requested. Detailed revisions are presented in Chapter 3. COMMENT 4 The mitigation measure has been modified as requested to include a provision for notification of the Yakama Nation and the Confederated Colville Tribes. Detailed revisions are presented in Chapter 3. COMMENT 5 The mitigation measure has been modified as requested to include a provision for notification of the Yakama Nation and the Confederated Colville Tribes by the local government with jurisdiction over the site to initiate project-level consultation. Detailed revisions are presented in Chapter 3. COMMENT 6 The Draft EIS text has been updated as requested. Detailed revisions are presented in Chapter 3. COMMENT 7 Thank you for your comment concurring with the proposed mitigation measure. COMMENT 8 Thank you for your comment. The Draft EIS has been amended to include language regarding the nature of mitigation as it relates to cultural resources. These revisions are presented in Chapter 3. In addition, the Inadvertent Discovery Protocol adopted by Douglas County has been included in this Final EIS as Appendix A for reference. 1 From: Ronald [mailto:ronaldlbalzer@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 6, 2016 3:51 PM To: Stephen Neuenschwander (x6563) <sneuenschwander@co.douglas.wa.us> Subject: North End Master Plan and EIS Stephen, I have reviewed the proposed plan and it's EIS and have found the following items need to be addressed within the Plan and the EIS. 1. There are two active osprey nests within the planned area. Both are on tall poles with one being north of the Odabashian bridge along the water front and the other is in the wine village area. The latter is located between the PUD power lines at approximately where Fir Ave would intersect them if it were extended. The Federal Migratory Bird Act protects those nests and requires no roads or buildings within 300 feet. The current plan layout violates that requirement. In addition to the bald and golden eagles and the osprey, there are red tail and kestrel hawks and owls living within the planned area. 2. There are resident mule deer living between Empire and the Columbia River within the planned area. The EIS only mentions mule deer on the Eastern boundary of the Plan. 3. Much of the land within the Plan has been used for orchards over the years and as such the soil may be contaminated with pesticides. This has not been addressed in the EIS. 4. Traffic: The Plan and EIS only considers traffic entering the area from the West on Highway 2/97 and then onto Empire and from the South from Sunset along 35th and 38th streets. Cascade, Empire and Fir Ave (if extended) would also be streets used by traffic from the south entering the planned area. All of those streets, along with their cross streets, are narrow, residential streets that need to be widened from 19th street northward to have a viable traffic flow. The costs associated with improving those streets needs to be addressed. 5. Light and noise pollution was not addressed in the EIS. Thanks, Ronald Balzer 3320 N W Fir Ave 509-886-3562 Letter 1: Ronald Balzer NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN & PLANNED ACTION EMAIL COMMENTS 2 From: Ken Bennett [mailto:kobjmb@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 2:01 PM To: Stephen Neuenschwander (x6563) <sneuenschwander@co.douglas.wa.us> Subject: Draft EIS North End Master Plan I spoke to someone months ago about this project. It surprises us that anyone would think surrounding a small group of residential property owners with this type of commercial development would not have a drastic effect on our quality of life and property values. I would like to see specific data on assessment values and historic outcomes on properties adjacent to and surrounded by this type of project. I work at Confluence Health/Central Washington Hospital and we frequently get complaints from surrounding residents about parking, traffic, and other types of disturbances. When compared to your plans for this area the hospital is benign activity. Ken Bennett, RN, CRNI, CWO-Eng USCG Retired Judy Bennett 3650 NW Cascade Ave. East Wenatchee, WA 98802 kobjmb@hotmail.com (509) 670-7142 Letter 2: Ken and Judy Bennett PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 of CHELAN COUNTY P.O. Box 1231, Wenatchee, WA 98807-1231 • 327 N. Wenatchee Ave., Wenatchee, WA 98801 (509)663-8121 • Toll free 1-888-663-8121 • www.chelanpud.org July 1, 2016 Stephen Neuenschwander, Principle Planner Department of Transportation & Land Services Douglas County 140 19th Street NW, Suite A East Wenatchee, WA 98802 RE: Chelan PUD's comments on the Planned Action Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the North End Study Area Subarea Plan Dear Mr. N euenschwander: As an adjacent landowner and owner/operator of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensed Rock Island Hydroelectric Project (RI Project), the Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County (PUD) wishes to thank Douglas County, the City of East Wenatchee, and the Port of Douglas County for the opportunity to review and comment on the Planned Action Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS). The Draft EIS offers a qualitative and quantitative analysis of environmental impacts and potential mitigation measures to minimize environmental impacts to proposed actions within the North End Study Area Subarea Plan (Subarea Plan). The Subarea Plan is intended to create a capital facilities plan to guide necessary infrastructure improvements to facilities development, and would focus on establishing a conceptual development framework to guide future construction and implementation of proposed actions within the Subarea Plan action area. The Subarea Plan encompasses approximately 31 7 acres adjacent to the east approach to the Odabashian Bridge and includes 1.24 miles of frontage on the Columbia River. The geographical area of Subarea Plan encompasses both District owned property and a segment of the RI Project operating boundary upstream and downstream of the Odabashian Bridge. The PUD is currently pursuing the option to acquire approximately 25.4 acres from Washington Department of Transportation immediately downstream of the Odabashian Bridge for conservation and passive recreation purposes. Additionally, the PUD is anticipating submitting a request to FERC to modify the current RI Project operating boundary; adjusting project boundary area downstream of the bridge to encompass land from the Apple Capital Loop Trail to river's edge and removing project boundary land upstream of the bridge to be consistent with the contiguous Exhibit G line for right-to-flood reservoir operating purposes (see attached map for detail). For these reasons, the District has an interest in the proposed action and potential impact to the environment and compatibility with FERC operating requirements under either proposed alternative (Full Intensity, Moderate Intensity). Matters of interest include but are not limited to; shorelines, recreation, cultural resources, plants and animals, wetlands and waters of the U.S., fisheries resources, surface and groundwater and critical habitat. coMM1ss10NERS. Garry Arseneault, Carnan Bergren, Dennis S Bolz, Ann Congdon, Randy Smith GENERAL MANAGER Steve Wright Letter 3: Chelan County PUD #1 Mr. Stephen Neuenschwander, Principle Planner Douglas County Department of Transportation & Land Services The PUD offers the following comments to the Draft EIS: 1)The PUD understands and agrees that with either Alternative, the Master Site Plan would not include any changes to zoning designation within the study area.2)Current zoning in the study area is a combination of General Commercial and Waterfront MixedUse. The Shoreline Designations are Natural and Urban Conservancy. These zoning and shorelinedesignations support the application of planned actions within the Subarea Plan that would beconsistent with the modified RI Project boundary operating requirements. 3)The proposal would also include the adoption of a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) PlannedAction Ordinance (PAO) to streamline future environmental review and permitting in the studyarea. 4)Both Alternatives appear to avoid formal development or activity in the shoreline area (waterwardof the Apple Capital Loop Trail and Rocky Reach Trail). The PUD supports this vision and encourages the Final EIS to reflect the same. 5)The Full Intensity Alternative offers the greatest opportunity for economic growth and benefit basedon the current under-developed state of the study area. Economic benefit should not come at a costto protecting the environment and preserving valued quality of life attributes. Full implementationof required environmental controls for stormwater, sewer, and transportation improvements is necessary to minimize negative effects on the environment.6)The PUD appreciates and supports the Draft EIS analysis of Cultural Resources including thecommitment to implement and satisfy appropriate regulations and proposed mitigation measures. The Subarea Plan focuses growth outside the shoreline jurisdiction and away from known and morelikely encountered locations of archaeological resources but due diligence in consultation andcoordination with the Colville Confederated Tribes and Yakama Nation will help assure culturalresource concerns are addressed for the study area.7)Implementing a Planned Action SEPA option will require careful evaluation of on-going development proposals to assure mandatory mitigation actions are employed. In some instances(groundwater and surface water protections for example), additional mitigation measures could benecessary and appropriately requested to qualify as a planned action project. The PUD encouragesthe Douglas County and City of East Wenatchee SEPA responsible officials to consider mitigationmeasures with a goal of long-term protection of environmental resources.8)The Subarea Plan represents very unique upland and shoreline habitat with valued public access andextraordinary views of the foothills and Cascade Mountain range. Well-planned growth should take into consideration the character of the landscape when evaluating planned actions. The PUD looks forward to successful implementation of the Subarea Plan including the full complement of actions described in a future Final Environmental Impact Statement. BestR2� Keith Truscott Director Natural Resources keith.truscott@chelanpud.org Enclosures: Map of Exhibit R proposed changes Letter 3: Chelan County PUD #1 Letter 3: Chelan County PUD #1 NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN & PLANNED ACTION EMAIL COMMENTS 3 From: Jeff Wilkens [mailto:jeff@chelan-douglas.org] Sent: Friday, July 1, 2016 4:31 PM To: stephenn@co.douglas.wa.us Cc: Doug Bramlette <dbramlette@co.douglas.wa.us>; Lisa Parks <Lisa@portofdouglas.org> Subject: North End Master Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Mr. Neuenschwander, This email is sent to transmit the following comments on the Draft EIS for the North End Master Plan: p. 1-15, second paragraph Based on my assumption that the roadway infrastructure project costs identified in the Plan are inclusive of sidewalks (and other roadway features that are required by existing street standards for urban collector and arterial streets), the text in the second paragraph appears to be unnecessary and contradictory. That section describes “other improvements to the roadway network … could be made” and goes on to identify sidewalks as an example. It appears that sidewalks should be removed from this section as an example of “other improvements.” p. 3-59 Non-Motorized Facilities The first sentence of this section states: “No improvements to non-motorized facilities have been identified in either of two long range plans in the study area.” Please clarify which plans are being referenced. If Transportation 2040 is one of those referenced plans, and if sidewalks and on-street bikeways are considered “non-motorized facilities” (as they are described throughout the document), then this statement would be inaccurate. By application of regional LOS standards in Transportation 2040, the long-range transportation plan would anticipate sidewalks on all federally classified collector and arterial streets in the study area, and would also anticipate a “Type 2” bikeway along Empire Avenue (including both of the identified extensions of Empire Avenue). p. 3-63 Non-Motorized Facilities Please clarify the first and last sentences in this paragraph: “No improvements to non-motorized facilities have been identified within the study area apart from the construction of sidewalks as part of the development.” And: “Additionally, sidewalks would likely be constructed along new internal roadways … these would provide key connections that would not otherwise exist for pedestrians and bicycles across this larger master planned area.” These statements appear to assume that sidewalks will not be included in the construction of the new and extended roadways identified in the Plan. My understanding is that the Draft Plan presents roadway improvement cost estimates that do include sidewalks (although I did not find any documentation). Assuming this is correct, the language on p.3-63 appears to be inconsistent with the Plan and unnecessary. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIS. Please let me know if you need additional information or clarification of my remarks. - Jeff Wilkens, Executive Director CHELAN-DOUGLAS TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL www.chelan-douglas.org (509) 663-9059 Letter 4: Chelan-Douglas Transportation Council North End Master Site Plan -EIS Comments Due 7 /1/16 Douglas County Sewer District Comments Pg 1-17 Utilities -What Impacts Did We Identify? 2nd paragraph Also see Pg 3-92 for similar verbiage. a)See attached page 1-17 with comments Pg 3-90 Sanitary Sewer a)Paragraph 2: Please revise to the following: 'While the sewer district does not currently have infrastructure or provide service to the study area, which is outside of the district boundary, the district plans for the entire Urban Growth Area.' b)Paragraph 4: The district was unable to utilize the PWTF preconstruction loan for Empire Avenue due to the fact that the County was unable to secure funding for the road reconstruction project during which the sewer extension would occur. The loan was terminated and the funds are no longer available. Regarding the PWTF preconstruction loan the district secured for N. Baker Avenue, the EIS document incorrectly states that this loan was for the Baker Flats area when it is for sewer improvements as part of the County's N Baker Avenue project from 19th to 23'd. c)Paragraph 5: Correct operational data: The facility is operating at approximately l.325mgd or 51% of current hydraulic capacity of 2.6mgd. WWTP maximum hydraulic capacity is 2.6mgd. 5.2mgd would require an upgrade and is the WWTP maximum build out capacity. The WWTP maximum organic capacity is 3.8mgd. Pg 3-93 Projected Water Use/Sewer Discharge Exhibit and 2nd paragraph below exhibit a)See attached page 3-93 with comments $:Projects/Port N End Study/N End Master Site Plan Comments List BL Letter 5: Douglas County Sewer District NORTH END MASTER PLAN I PLANNED ACTION EIS SUMMARY based on land use types, and application of adopted stormwater standards. Potential impacts to the public utilities and possible mitigation measures are also discussed. What impacts did we identify? Development in the North End area will require water service and supply for construction and operations. The facilities envisioned for the North End area and associated land uses are not anticipated to require substantial construction for water service. The service and \/'{th · . recently constructed in this area and provides looping and pressure control to 1 �lnO� th y. The system is capable of providing approximately 4,000 gallons per mi ut �r�a res i° e acts to the system would be l1m1ted to construction rela e emporary 1s u an I Sa ion agree. '"==s=in=g=--,----=a-c:-n-,,,--------- commissioning of system extension and service lines. There are o anticipated impacts to the irrigation water system. Development in the North End Study Area will require sewe service based upon the anticipated urbanization of the land area. The projected sewer system ischarges associated with the studied date. lilii -� ....... . According the Greater East Wenatchee Comprehensive Plan the downstream treatment and disposal facilities have capacity and plans for expansion sufficient for growth within the UGA. Planned expansions at the treatment plant are sufficient to meet the needs to grow within the UGA including the North End Study Area. TheiTh. I h I d . . . I I . k f h f . f . . h. d I IS on y s ows a comp ete 1n1t1a p anning wor or t e uture extension o sanitary sewer into t 1s area an k" f t f. f . . . h b. . f 18 . h d 15 . h d. 1pea ing ac or o an extension o gravity sewer service wit a com inat1on o -inc an -inc 1ameter gr 2 2 W d . . . e es1gn The Greater East Wenatchee -Stormwater Utility does not have any developed facilities wit for 4. Not surestudy area that would be impacted by the development planned for the North End. Stormwa how they arethe study area is generally influent to the Columbia River and impacts from stormwater t th calculating theirresources is discussed in the Natural Resources water resources section. Stormwater c be peaking factor.mitigated on-site to address flow control and pollution reductions. What does it mean? What is different between the alternatives? Water and sewer utility demands vary depending upon the selected alternatives he following Exhibit identifies the range of planning criteria for the utilities based upon the selecte alternatives. See Exhibit 1.6-3. Despite the wide range of resultant demands and discharges from the sufficient source and discharging capacities to meet the demands. Average Annual Daily Demand (gpm) Sanitary Sewer Discharges ! Average Annual Flow (gpm) Peak Hour Flow (gpm) Source: BergerABAM 2016 Full Intensity . 323 . 504 -.... ---------1----------- 268 612 419 983 The reduction in demands for the moderate intensity alternative would result in a reduction of approximately one pipe size during utility installation. A full 50% reduction in demand is not feasible with utility demands due to Ecology's required calculation methods for determining peak factors and Draft I June 2016 Letter 5: Douglas County Sewer District I was not going to comment or dive into this table, but not sure how some of these numbers were developed? Maybe they have some background info? 2 GPM for a resort -that's like 13 houses? Maybe that's what they assumed? NORTH END MASTER PLAN I PLANNED ACTION EIS AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES These peak hours are calculated all over the I \M: e....lliU --------i--->1 ,oun ·�'-----+---_....,_--+ _ _,,,,<-------W,.J---f------J�--+---'-•..,__-+---.. ; Office/Business 49 !Hospitalfy------1----21--+---1-7 ---+--6-1-·-1--4-2--+------+--12-2---iI ��i�/Priva�e lns�itution 67-112 55-93 _ 83-14� _ __ -�7-2�� _____ 5�186 _ _ ___ 8�� !Retail/Business Park 53 44 87 32 26 53 ·Business Park ___ +-�3 11 22 __ 1_3 _ 1_1 _______ 22---1 [ Comm ercial Recreation : 9 8 32 19 Have or could!Total I 278-323 L.E..o_-268 1--5�5-612 ·--347To,t 28 easily obtain Source: BergerABAM 2016 Sufficient CapacityThe Full Intensity Alternative still includes a wide range of possible water us nd se �it�. minor liftWater use would increase and require up to 347-504 gpm average dail emand. In p � a ,on t "bl f fl f h . t·t t· I . d . I . ,mprovemen s. poss1 e ranges o sewer ow rom t ems I u 1ona zoning an c merc1a recreat1or.,............, ......... ..,....,........,.,,,.,..,,..,...---J Assuming the worst case with highest resulting demands an 1scharges have the potential to vary between 786 and 983 gpm during the peak hour. Despi he wide range of resultant demands and discharges from the study area, the utilities have s icient source and discharging capacities to meet the demands. MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT � This sentence makes no drense.L Currently we assume T approximatley 85 gpm peak d_ flow (22 gpm average flow) insi the Cascade Basin -140e ERU's are assumed currently.T T We have capacity for In approximately 635 gpm peak3 currently with no modifications·or 1058 ERU's assuming aP peaking factor of 4 ... Currently tested ection 2.6.3 would have the same impacts as disc ssed in by DCSD staff at ernatives. Cascade Lift flexibility in development that may result from econo ions do not impact the resulting pipe diameters or chan of the wastewater and water systems such that the tilities is impacted. Station as 720 GPM. Again with minor modifications the lift station could be equiped to handle 1000 gpm twork proposals are included in Section 2.4.2. The Full infrastructure is implemented. Based on the analysis in Section would be necessary to realize the full growth planned. B (224/24/60 = .15 gpm/eru)(e limited to the eastern portion of the planned action and the cj._\ _ � _ � _5 g _ i _ pm_m _ / _ : 1 _ � _ = _ g _ p 1 m - 6 - �e _ � _ � _ � _ ) _ 1 _ 0 _ 6 _ 0 �1s, the Phasing Option explores the possibility that the lerus.) Letter 5: Douglas County Sewer District NORTH END MASTER SITE PLAN & PLANNED ACTION EMAIL COMMENTS 4 From: McGlothern, Cynthia [mailto:McGlotC@wsdot.wa.gov] Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 4:39 PM To: stephenn@co.douglas.wa.us Cc: Sarles, Dan (NCR) <SarlesD@wsdot.wa.gov>; Bierschbach, David <BierscD@wsdot.wa.gov>; Mattson, Terry <MattsoT@wsdot.wa.gov>; Manzaro, Nicholas <ManzarN@wsdot.wa.gov>; Belmont, Claton <BelmonC@wsdot.wa.gov> Subject: North End MSP and Planned Action Draft EIS Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above referenced document. Sections in the document that reference the State Highway impacts and mitigation are reasonable, but will require further vetting as the site development begins to take shape. At this time WSDOT has no issues with the Draft EIS as written, please advise if you need further clarification. Thanks again, Cynthia McGlothern WSDOT NC Region Transportation Planner (509)667-2910 Letter 6: Washington State Department of Transportation Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yal<ama Nation Established by the Treaty of June 9, 1855 Steven Neuenschwander Post Office Box 151 Toppenish Washington 98948 Douglas County Transportation and Land Services 140 19th St. NW Ste. A East Wenatchee, WA 98802 Subject: Draft North End Master Site Plan Dear Mr. Neuenschwander, July 8, 2016 Thank you for contacting the Yakama Nation Cultural Resource Program (CRP) regarding the East Wenatchee Draft North End Master Site Plan. The project is located within the Ceded Lands of the Yakama Nation, the legal rights to which were established by the Treaty of 1855, between the Yakama Nation and the United States Government. The Treaty set forth that the Yakama Nation shall retain the rights to resources upon these lands and, therefore, it is with the assistance and backing of the United States Federal Government that Y akama Nation claims authority to protect traditional resources. We provided initial comment of the UGA North End Master Site Plan Scoping Notice in a letter dated September 15, 2015. We have reviewed the Draft North End Master Site Plan and have the following comments: •We concur with the recommendation that cultural resource investigations are conducted for any specific actions under the proposal (pg. 1-11 ). The Yakama Nation CRP has conducted archaeological investigations and Traditional Cultural Property studies in the project area. Tribal consultation and input from Cultural Specialists can aid the agency in avoiding impacts to sensitive resources. •Under the Mitigation Measures (pg. 1-11) to be "implemented to help avoid and manage significant impacts", it states "continue formal government-government consultation" with the tribes. It should be clarified that consultation is not mitigation, but may be defined during government-government consultation. •Under the Solutions or Mitigations to Cultural Resources (pg. 1-12 and pg. 3-51 ), it states "any archaeological or historic resources identified will be evaluated in consultation with the Colville Confederated Tribe and the Washington State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation standards". This statement should be corrected to include the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, as we have indicated in previous correspondence to both the agency and the archaeological consultant this project is within the Ceded Lands of the Yakama Nation. Traditional foods, hunting areas, fishing sites, villages, and burials of the Yakama are within proximity to the project area. Archaeological sites are the physical witnesses of the ancestral use of these areas, and are a component ofYakama Traditional Cultural Properties. Letter 7: Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation •Under Solutions or Mitigations to Cultural Resources (pg. 1-12) regarding treatment of human remains, we request immediate notification occur with the Yakama Nation. There are specific cultural practices associated with the treatment and ceremonial reburial of ancestors. •Under Solutions or Mitigations to Cultural Resources (pg. 1-13), it states "Prior to any excavation, grading, or construction within the Master Site Plan area ... it shall be the responsibility of the developer to notify the Colville Confederated Tribes, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, and the State of Washington by certified maiI". In addition to notification by the developer, we would request notification by the agency/county official for project-based consultation. This is due to the sensitive nature of information shared regarding cultural resources. •Under the Ethnographic Context of Cultural Resources (pg. 3-38), the first paragraph states "The study area lies within the traditional territory of the Wenatchi or Wenatshapam ... recognized as constituent tribes of, and today represented by the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation". This should be amended to include the Wenatshapam are represented by the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation. This is how the tribe identified themselves when they signed the Treaty in 1855, and are currently represented as one of the 14 tribes and bands of the Yakama Nation. •Under Other Proposed Mitigation Measures (pg. 3-52), we concur with avoidance of archaeological site 45DO 173 which contains burials. The term mitigation used for EIS purposes is confusing when applied to cultural resources. Please clarify in text that while measures may be intended to mitigate an overall environmental impact, mitigation for inadvertent impacts to cultural resources will need to be addressed under appropriate state and federal statues in government-government consultation. Protocols outlined as mitigation for environmental impact do not constitute mitigation for cultural resources but are rather standard professional practice in archaeology. This standard practice includes government-government consultation, inadvertent discoveries, monitoring/participation by the tribe, documentation of historic properties prior to project implementation, etc. The county should adopt into its plan a post-review discovery protocol. Specifically, if an archaeological resource is damaged/impacted after the acceptance and implementation of this plan, it will require government-government consultation partnered with professional damage assessment and site treatment plans. Please forward these comments onto the archaeological contractor which prepared the cultural resources context of this plan. We would appreciate a revised copy of the plan which addresses our comments above. Please contact me at 509-865-5121 ext. 4737 or CRP Archaeologist Corrine Camuso at ext. 4776 or ccamuso@yakama.com if you have any questions regarding the above. Sincerely, CC: Gretchen Kaehler, Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 2 Letter 7: Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation Final | August 2016 5-1 5.0 REFERENCES Bureau of Land Management. (2016). Land Patent Search - BLM GLO Records. Retrieved February 23, 2016, from http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/search/default.aspx Camp, P. and J. G. Gamon. 2011. Field Guide to the Rare Plants of Washington. Seattle, WA. University of Washington Press. 404p. Chelan County PUD. (n.d.). Parks and Recreation: Apple Capital Loop Trail. Retrieved from Chelan County PUD: http://chelanpud.org/apple-capital-loop-trail.html City of East Wenatchee. (2010). City of East Wenatchee Capital Facilities Plan. East Wenatchee. City of East Wenatchee. (2015). Greater East Wenatchee Area Comprehensive Plan. East Wenatchee, WA. City of East Wenatchee. (2014, December 9). East Wenatchee Municipal Code. Retrieved April 15, 2015, from City of East Wenatchee: http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/eastwenatchee/ Douglas County Fire District No.2. (n.d.). Douglas County Firefighter Services. Retrieved from Douglas County Fire District No.2: http://www.douglasfire2.org/firefighter-services.html Douglas County Sheriff's Office. (n.d.). Douglas County Sheriff's Office. Retrieved from Douglas County Sheriff's Office Douglas County. (2009a). Countywide Comprehensive Plan. Douglas County. Douglas County. (2009b). Regional Shoreline Master Program. Retrieved April 15, 2015, from Regional Shoreline Master Program: http://www.douglascountywa.net/departments/tls/projects/smp/ Douglas County. (2009b). Regional Shoreline Master Program. Retrieved April 15, 2015, from Regional Shoreline Master Program: http://www.douglascountywa.net/departments/tls/projects/smp/ Douglas County. (2013). Capital Facilities Plan 2013. Douglas County. (2013, October 29). Douglas County Zoning for the Greater East Wenatchee & Rock Island Areas. Retrieved April 15, 2015, from Douglas County, WA: http://www.douglascountywa.net/departments/tls/gis/pdf/GEWAZoning28x25.pdf Douglas County. 2009. Douglas County Countywide Comprehensive Plan. Adopted May 19, 2009. Ordinance No. TLS 09-03-22D. Douglas County. 2015. Interactive Web Map. Accessed April 28, 2015. http://gis.douglascountywa.net/flexviewers/Interactive_Web_Map/ Eastmont Metropolitan Parks District. (2014). Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan. Eastmont School District. (2015). About Eastmont. Retrieved from Eastmont School District: http://www.eastmont206.org/District/1111-Untitled.html Geo A. Ogle & Co. (1915). Page 23 - Township 22 N., Range 21 E., Township 23 N., Range 20E, Columbia River. Atlas of Douglas County 1915. Gilbert, M., Thomas, P., Jenkins, D. L., Gotherstrom, A., Naveran, N., Sanchez, J. J., . . . Willerslev, E. (2008, May 9). DNA from Pre-Clovis Human Coprolites in Oregon, North America. Science, 320(5877), 786 - 789. NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS REFERENCES Final | August 2016 5-2 Hicks, B. A., & Stump, S. A. (1996). Archaeological Investigations for the Proposed Rocky Reach Trailway. BOAS Research Report No. 9511. Seattle: BOAS, Inc. Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE). 2012. Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE). 2014. Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition. Kappler, C. J. (1904). Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, Vol. II, Treaties. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. Kirk, R., & Alexander, C. (1990). Exploring Washington's Past, A Road Guide to History. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Masten, R., & Galm, J. (1985). Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form, 45DO172. Olympia: DAHP. Masten, R., & Galm, J. (1985). Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form, 45DO173. Olympia: DAHP. Masten, R., & Galm, J. (1985). Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form, 45DO177. Olympia: DAHP. Metzger Map Co. (1932). Page 004 - Township 23 N., Range 20 E., Wenatchee, Columbia River, Fancher Field. Atlas of Douglas County 1932. Miller, J. (1998). Middle Columbia River Salishans. (D. E. Walker, Jr., Ed.) Handbook of North American Indians, 12: Plateau, 253-270. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2015. Status of ESA Listings and Critical Habitat Designations for West Coast Salmon & Steelhead. Accessed on April 28, 2015. http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/protected_species/salmon_steelhead/st atus_of_esa_salmon_listings_and_ch_designations_map.pdf NETR. (2016). Nationalwide Environmental Title Research, LLC. Northwest Archaeological Associates, Inc. (2005). Cultural Resources Discipline Report SR 28 (Sunset Highway) Eastside Corridor Project, East Wenatchee, Washington. Submitted to Federal Highway Administration and Washington State Department of Transportation. NPS. (2002). How to Apply the National Register Criteriea or Evaluation. National Register Bulletin No. 15. National Park Service. Retrieved February 23, 2016, from http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15 Parvey, M., & Juell, K. (2003). State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form, 45DO684. Olympia: DAHP. Parvey, M., & Juell, K. (2004). State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form, 45DO688. Olympia: DAHP. Scheuerman, R. D. (1982). The Wenatchi Indians: Guardians of the Valley. Fairfield, Washington: Ye Galleon Press. Shong, M. (2008). State of Washington Archaeological Site Inventory Form, 45DO751. Olympia: DAHP. TrailLink. (2015). Apple Capital Recreation Loop Trail. Retrieved from TrailLink: http://www.traillink.com/trail/apple-capital-recreation-loop-trail.aspx NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS REFERENCES Final | August 2016 5-3 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015a. Wetland Mapper. Accessed April 28, 2015. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.HTML U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015b. IPaC – Information, Planning, and Conservation System. Accessed April 28, 2015. http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/wizard/chooseLocation!prepare.action U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016a. Wetland Mapper. Accessed March 4, 2016. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.HTML U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016b. IPaC – Information, Planning, and Conservation System. Accessed March 4, 2016. http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/wizard/chooseLocation!prepare.action United States Department Agriculture NRCS. (2016). Web Soil Survey. Retrieved from http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2015. PHS on the Web. Accessed April 28, 2015. http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/phsontheweb/ Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2016. PHS on the Web. Accessed March 4, 2016. http://apps.wdfw.wa.gov/phsontheweb/ Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2015. Forest Practices Water Typing System – FPARS Mapping Website. Accessed April 28, 2015. http://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/app1/fpars/viewer.htm Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2016. Forest Practices Water Typing System – FPARS Mapping Website. March 4, 2016. http://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/app1/fpars/viewer.htm Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP). 2015. Reference Desk of the Washington Natural Heritage Program. Accessed April 28, 2015. http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/index.html Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP). 2016. Reference Desk of the Washington Natural Heritage Program. Accessed March 4, 2016. http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/index.html Washington State Department of Natural Resources. (2016). Washington Interactive Geologic Map. Retrieved from Division of Geology and Earth Resources - Washington's Geologic Survey: https://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/geology/. Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) 2013. Traffic Volume Map Accessed: http: //www.wsdot.wa.gov/mapsdata/tools/traffictrends/. Accessed: May 29, 2015. Included data from 2013. WSDOT. 2006. SR 28 Eastside Corridor Project Final Environmental Impact Statement. Adopted June 2006. WISAARD. (2016). Washington Information System fo rArchitectural and Archaeological Records Data database. Retrieved February 22, 2016, from https://secureaccess.wa.gov/dahp/wisaard/ NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS REFERENCES Final | August 2016 5-4 This page intentionally blank Final | August 2016 6-1 6.0 DISTRIBUTION LIST The following agencies have been provided a notice of availability of this Final EIS. Those with an asterisk received a copy either in print or compact disk. Chelan County Fire District 1 Chelan County Planning *Chelan County PUD *Chelan-Douglas Health District *Chelan-Douglas Transportation Council *City of East Wenatchee City of Wenatchee *Colville Confederated Tribes *Douglas County Fire District 2 *Douglas County PUD *Douglas County Sewer District *Douglas County Sheriff's Office *Douglas County Transportation and Land Services *East Wenatchee Water District *Eastmont Metro Parks District *Eastmont School District *LINK Transit *Washington State Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation *Washington State Department of Commerce *Washington State Department of Ecology *Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife *Washington State Department of Transportation *Washington State Parks *Wenatchee Reclamation District *Yakama Indian Nation In addition, property owners and persons who have participated in the scoping process, the Draft EIS comment period, North End Master Site Plan charrette process or Community Meeting, have been sent a copy of the notice of availability. Notice has been published as required in Douglas County Code Section 19.04.200. NORTH END MASTER PLAN | PLANNED ACTION EIS DISTRIBUTION LIST Final | August 2016 6-2 This page intentionally blank Appendix A: Cultural Resources Inadvertent Discovery Protocol Cultural Resources Inadvertent Discovery Protocol Description Protocol Cultural Resources Inadvertent Discovery Protocol Douglas County or the City of East Wenatchee shall condition planned actions to be compliant with the following inadvertent discovery protocols. In the event of the inadvertent discovery of any resource covered by the following protocols, the developer shall immediately notify the city or county with jurisdiction over the site, who shall then notify the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation as soon as possible. If non-human archaeological materials are discovered:  Construction activities that may further disturb the discovered material shall cease, and the area of the find will be secured.  The discovery shall be reported to the city or county with jurisdiction over the site and to the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) in the most expeditious manner possible. DAHP will then coordinate consultation with affected tribes regarding future preservation and excavation of the discovered materials. If human skeletal remains are discovered:  If ground disturbing activities encounter human skeletal remains during the course of construction, then all activity will cease that may cause further disturbance to those remains. The area of the find will be secured and protected from further disturbance.  The finding of human skeletal remains will be reported to the county medical examiner/coroner and local law enforcement in the most expeditious manner possible. The remains will not be touched, moved, or further disturbed.  The county medical examiner/coroner will assume jurisdiction over the human skeletal remains and make a determination of whether those remains are forensic or non-forensic.  If the county medical examiner/coroner determines the remains are non-forensic, then they will report that finding to the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) who will then take jurisdiction over the remains. The DAHP will notify any appropriate cemeteries and all affected tribes of the find. The State Physical Anthropologist will make a determination of whether the remains are Indian or Non-Indian and report that finding to any appropriate cemeteries and the affected tribes. The DAHP will then handle all consultation with the affected parties as to the future preservation, excavation, and disposition of the remains. Contacts Steven M. Clem, Douglas County Prosecuting Attorney/Coroner Phone: (509) 745-8535 Fax: (509) 745-8670 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 360 Waterville, WA 98858 Physical Address: 203 S. Rainier Street Waterville, WA 98858 sclem@co.douglas.wa.us Douglas County Sheriff's Office 110 N.E. 2nd Street Suite 200 East Wenatchee, WA 98802 (509) 884-0941 East Wenatchee Police Department 271 9th St. N.E. East Wenatchee, WA 98802 (509) 884-9511 Guy Tasa, State Physical Anthropologist, DAHP (360) 586-3534 Guy.Tasa@dahp.wa.gov